The Bullseye Framework for Channel Selection: How I Prioritise What to Scale and What to Kill
Channel selection is one of the highest leverage decisions in early and growth stage companies. Yet most teams pick channels based on founder instinct or copying what worked for someone else. I use the Bullseye Framework as a systematic way to explore, test and prioritise marketing channels. In this article, I walk through exactly how I apply it to find the one or two channels worth scaling, with real examples from SaaS and eCommerce projects.
Introduction: Why Channel Selection Matters More Than You Think
In most businesses I work with, growth struggles are not due to poor product quality or weak offers. They come from betting on the wrong traction channels for their stage and capacity. Running Google Ads when the CAC payback horizon is twelve months. Investing in organic search when sales need to happen this quarter. Chasing virality in a product that people do not talk about naturally.
All these mistakes are common, and avoidable.
This is why I use the Bullseye Framework. It is a systematic way to explore and prioritise marketing channels without relying on founder instinct or copying what worked for someone else in a different context.
What Is the Bullseye Framework?
The Bullseye Framework was popularised in "Traction" by Gabriel Weinberg and Justin Mares. It divides the channel selection process into three concentric circles:
- The outer ring is all possible channels
- The middle ring is the shortlist of channels you will test
- The bullseye is the one or two that actually work and should be scaled
It encourages wide thinking early, fast validation, and sharp focus later. I have adapted the original idea to include key metrics and business context. Here is how I actually use it in projects.
Step One: Define the Constraints
Before even listing channels, I define what success would look like and what boundaries I am working within.
- Target CAC: Based on contribution margin and payback expectations
- Payback period: Especially for cash constrained startups, this matters more than LTV
- Stage of the business: Early stage companies need fast feedback. Later stage businesses can afford longer term plays
- Team bandwidth and skills: A great channel is useless if no one can run it properly
For example, if the target CAC is under £50 and the payback window must be under two months, then channels like outbound sales or display advertising may be ruled out immediately. The framework begins with reality.
Practical Example: SaaS Payback Calculation
Say you have a SaaS product with £30 monthly subscription and 70% gross margin. Your contribution per month is:
If your target payback is 3 months, your maximum CAC is:
This immediately tells you which channels are viable. Google Ads with a £120 CAC? Not unless you can extend payback or improve conversion.
Step Two: Map the Universe of Channels
I list all nineteen traction channels, but I do not treat them as a buffet. I look at them through the lens of the current product, offer and audience. The list includes:
- Search engine optimisation
- Paid search
- Paid social
- Influencer outreach
- Sales
- PR
- Community building
- Offline events
- Business development
- Engineering as marketing
- Viral referral
- Partnerships
- Targeted blogs and newsletters
- Content marketing
- Direct mail
- Podcast sponsorships
- Affiliate programmes
- Display ads
- App store optimisation
But I never assume they are equally viable. For example, an eCommerce brand with low margins and mid ticket items will not survive long on paid social unless LTV is high. A SaaS platform solving a niche B2B problem probably should not try to grow through PR.
I evaluate each one with quick, directional data: CPMs, CPCs, channel saturation, audience intent, prior brand lift in similar companies.
Practical Example: eCommerce Channel Fit
For a premium outdoor gear retailer with 40% margins and £150 average order value, I mapped channel viability:
| Channel | Estimated CPA | Payback | Fit Score |
|---|---|---|---|
| Paid Social | £45 | 1 order | High |
| Google Shopping | £38 | 1 order | High |
| Influencer | £25 | 1 order | Medium |
| SEO | £15 | 6 months | Medium |
| PR | £80+ | Unknown | Low |
This quick scoring eliminated PR and deprioritised SEO for the short term launch phase.
Step Three: Run Focused Tests
From the universe of channels, I pick three to six to test aggressively but efficiently. Each test must:
- Be set up to isolate the channel's contribution
- Have a clear success metric: lead volume, CAC, trial activation rate
- Be time boxed, usually two to four weeks
- Be affordable. I never bet large on unvalidated channels
This is where many founders go wrong. They run a small test, get weak results, and either scale too early or write off the channel entirely. I frame these tests like experiments, not growth initiatives. The goal is information, not performance.
Practical Example: Influencer Test Design
For a DTC skincare brand, I tested influencer outreach by:
- Identifying 25 micro influencers (10k to 50k followers) in the clean beauty niche
- Sending personalised outreach with free product and unique affiliate codes
- Running the test for 3 weeks with £500 total budget
Results:
- 8 influencers responded (32% response rate)
- 5 published content
- 2 drove converting traffic
- Total revenue: £1,850 from £500 spend
ROAS of 3.7x on a small test. That is signal worth scaling.
Step Four: Select the Bullseye
After the tests, I compare:
- Actual CAC vs target
- Lead quality and downstream conversion
- Operational ease and repeatability
- Payback dynamics
I choose one or two channels that show the best fit. Not necessarily the highest top of funnel metrics, but the ones that match business constraints and can scale. This becomes the bullseye.
This focus does not mean ignoring other channels entirely. But I avoid spreading resources too thin. I structure my growth around the best performing loop and add supporting elements later.
The 80/20 Resource Rule
Once I have a bullseye channel, I recommend:
The remaining 20% goes to secondary channels and experimentation. This prevents the common trap of spreading budget across five "promising" channels and mastering none.
Real Example: Marketplace Channel Focus
A two sided marketplace client had tried five channels: SEO, PR, influencer outreach, paid search and events. None had scaled.
I ran a fit analysis:
- SEO had long ramp time and required more content than their team could support
- PR drove traffic but no conversion
- Events were costly and only worked in London
- Paid search was expensive due to competitive CPCs (£8+ per click)
- Influencer outreach had small tests but one campaign broke even quickly
We doubled down on micro influencer outreach with structured referral links, testimonials, and niche segmenting. Within eight weeks, cost per acquisition dropped by 38% and lead quality improved sharply.
It was not magic. It was just a structured test followed by disciplined focus.
Why This Framework Works
It removes ego from the process. It focuses attention. It puts structure behind a decision that is usually reactive.
Channel selection is a multiplier. The right choice lets you scale with efficiency and confidence. The wrong one burns cash and time.
That is why I do not just test channels. I evaluate them using this process. And I only scale what earns its place in the bullseye.
Final Thought: Focus Beats Spray and Pray
If your marketing feels scattered, or if your paid campaigns are working but margin is tight, this is where I can help. I will audit your channel spread, test what matters, and help you build growth from the inside out. With a bullseye, not a guess.