Channel Selection
Core Argument: Wrong channel at wrong stage guarantees waste. Channel selection must be driven by economics, stage, and ICP presence. The Channel-Stage Fit Matrix prevents misallocation.
The Channel Illusion
Every B2B company runs the same playbook:
"We need to be on LinkedIn."
"Our competitors are doing Google Ads."
"Everyone says content marketing is essential."
"We should try ABM."
These are not channel strategies. These are channel assumptions.
The assumption is that channels are interchangeable. That if a channel works for one company, it will work for another. That presence on a channel is better than absence.
These assumptions are wrong.
Channels are not interchangeable. They have different economics, different audiences, different minimum viable investments, and different time horizons. A channel that is optimal for a $50M ARR company with a $100k ACV is likely wrong for a $5M ARR company with a $15k ACV.
Channel selection is not about where your competitors are. It is about where your economics work, where your ICP is reachable, and where your stage permits.
Channel Economics
Every channel has an economic profile that determines whether it can work for your business.
The Channel Economics Formula
Channel Viability = (Expected Conversion × ACV) > (Minimum Spend + CAC Threshold)
Each channel has:
- Minimum Viable Spend: The floor below which you get noise, not signal
- Typical CPL Range: What leads cost on this channel
- Conversion Rate Range: How leads from this channel typically convert
- Time to Signal: How long until you know if it is working
LinkedIn Ads Economics
| Metric | Typical Range |
|---|---|
| Minimum Viable Spend | $10,000-15,000/month |
| CPM | $30-100 |
| CPL | $75-250 |
| Lead-to-Opportunity | 5-15% |
| Time to Signal | 6-8 weeks |
Implied Math: At $150 CPL and 10% lead-to-opportunity conversion, cost per opportunity is $1,500. If your ACV is $15,000 and you close 25% of opportunities, CAC is $6,000.
Viable if: CAC under $6,000 is acceptable for your business.
Meta Ads Economics
| Metric | Typical Range |
|---|---|
| Minimum Viable Spend | $5,000-10,000/month |
| CPM | $8-25 |
| CPL | $30-100 |
| Lead-to-Opportunity | 2-8% |
| Time to Signal | 4-6 weeks |
Note: Lower CPL but lower conversion. B2B audiences on Meta are less intent-driven.
Google Search Economics
| Metric | Typical Range |
|---|---|
| Minimum Viable Spend | $5,000-10,000/month |
| CPC | $5-50 (varies wildly by keyword) |
| CPL | $50-300 |
| Lead-to-Opportunity | 10-25% |
| Time to Signal | 4-6 weeks |
Note: Higher conversion rates because searchers have intent. But keyword competition determines cost.
Content/SEO Economics
| Metric | Typical Range |
|---|---|
| Minimum Viable Spend | $3,000-8,000/month |
| CPL (once working) | $20-80 |
| Lead-to-Opportunity | 8-20% |
| Time to Signal | 12-18 months |
Note: Best economics but worst timeline. Not viable if you need results this quarter.
The Channel-Stage Fit Matrix
Channel effectiveness is stage-dependent. The Channel-Stage Fit Matrix maps channels to company stages.
Stage Definitions
Pre-PMF ($0-$500k ARR):
- Limited budget
- No brand recognition
- ICP not fully defined
- Need learning over volume
Early Scale ($500k-$3M ARR):
- Growing budget
- Some case studies
- ICP becoming clear
- Need repeatable acquisition
Growth ($3M-$15M ARR):
- Meaningful budget
- Established positioning
- Clear ICP
- Need scalable acquisition
Scale ($15M+ ARR):
- Significant budget
- Strong brand
- Multiple segments
- Need diversified acquisition
The Matrix
| Channel | Pre-PMF | Early Scale | Growth | Scale |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Founder Sales | Optimal | Viable | Limit | Avoid |
| LinkedIn Ads | Avoid | Limit | Viable | Optimal |
| Meta Ads | Avoid | Avoid | Viable | Optimal |
| Google Search | Limit | Viable | Optimal | Optimal |
| Content/SEO | Limit | Start | Viable | Optimal |
| Events | Avoid | Limit | Viable | Optimal |
| ABM | Avoid | Avoid | Viable | Optimal |
| Outbound | Viable | Optimal | Optimal | Viable |
Matrix Logic
Pre-PMF: Paid channels are typically wrong because economics are unproven and budgets are limited. Founder sales and targeted outbound provide learning with low cost. Content investment is limited because the timeline does not match the urgency.
Early Scale: Outbound is optimal because it is controllable and economics are clear. Google Search is viable because it captures existing demand. LinkedIn is limited because minimum spend thresholds may be too high for the stage.
Growth: Most channels become viable. Google Search is optimal because capturing demand is efficient. LinkedIn becomes viable with proper execution. Content investment begins compounding.
Scale: Full portfolio is viable. LinkedIn and Meta are optimal because scale requires reach. ABM is optimal for enterprise targeting. Events become viable for brand and relationship.
The Channel Selection Protocol
Step 1: Calculate Your CAC Ceiling
What is the maximum CAC your business can sustain?
CAC Ceiling = ACV × (LTV/CAC Target Ratio)
For most B2B SaaS targeting 3:1 LTV/CAC:
- $10k ACV → $3,333 max CAC
- $30k ACV → $10,000 max CAC
- $100k ACV → $33,333 max CAC
Channels with implied CAC above your ceiling are not viable.
Step 2: Assess Stage Fit
Reference the Channel-Stage Fit Matrix. Eliminate channels marked "Avoid" for your stage. Prioritize channels marked "Optimal."
Step 3: Verify ICP Presence
Is your ICP reachable on this channel?
- LinkedIn: Most B2B ICPs present; targeting capabilities strong
- Meta: Consumer mindset; B2B reachable via retargeting and custom audiences
- Google: Only reachable if they are searching; depends on category maturity
- Content: Depends on search behavior of your ICP
If your ICP is not present or targetable, the channel cannot work.
Step 4: Confirm Minimum Spend
Can you meet the minimum viable spend for 6+ months?
Underfunding a channel produces noise. You cannot evaluate channel viability from a $2,000 LinkedIn test. Either commit minimum viable spend or do not enter the channel.
Step 5: Establish Evaluation Criteria
Before launching, define:
- What metrics will determine success?
- What timeline for evaluation?
- What is the kill threshold?
Channels should be evaluated on contribution to DER, not on channel-specific metrics alone.
Channel Portfolio Strategy
Mature demand generation requires channel diversification.
The Concentration Risk
Companies that depend on a single channel face:
- Platform risk (algorithm changes, pricing increases)
- Saturation risk (audience exhaustion)
- Competition risk (competitors crowd the channel)
When LinkedIn raises prices or changes targeting, single-channel companies suffer immediately.
The Diversification Imperative
As you scale, build a portfolio:
Primary Channel (50-60% of spend): The channel with best proven economics for your business.
Secondary Channel (25-35% of spend): A viable channel being scaled for diversification.
Experimental Channel (10-15% of spend): Testing new channels for future potential.
Portfolio Evolution
| Stage | Recommended Portfolio |
|---|---|
| Early Scale | 1 primary channel (typically outbound or search) |
| Growth | 2 channels (add paid social or content) |
| Scale | 3-4 channels (full portfolio approach) |
Do not diversify prematurely. Achieve efficiency on one channel before expanding.
Case Study: The Channel Mismatch
A Remotir client (Series A SaaS, $2.5M ARR, $8k ACV) was spending $15,000/month on LinkedIn Ads based on competitor benchmarking.
The Problem:
After 6 months:
- CPL: $185
- Lead-to-opportunity: 7%
- Cost per opportunity: $2,643
- Close rate: 20%
- CAC: $13,215
With an $8k ACV, the LTV/CAC ratio was under 1.0. The channel was destroying value.
The Diagnosis:
Using the Channel Selection Protocol:
- CAC Ceiling: $8k ACV × 3 target = $2,667 max CAC
- Stage Fit: Early Scale; LinkedIn marked "Limit"
- ICP Presence: Present but expensive to reach
- Minimum Spend: Met but CAC exceeds ceiling
The channel economics did not work at this ACV and stage.
The Intervention:
Shifted budget allocation:
| Channel | Before | After |
|---|---|---|
| LinkedIn Ads | $15,000 | $3,000 (retargeting only) |
| Google Search | $0 | $8,000 |
| Content/SEO | $2,000 | $5,000 |
| Outbound Tools | $3,000 | $4,000 |
The Results (6 months later):
| Metric | Before | After |
|---|---|---|
| Total spend | $20,000/mo | $20,000/mo |
| Leads | 81 | 145 |
| Opportunities | 6 | 22 |
| Blended CAC | $13,215 | $4,545 |
Same budget. Different channel allocation. 3x improvement in CAC.
The insight: The company was forcing a channel that did not fit their economics. Matching channels to stage and ACV transformed results.
Conclusion: Economics Dictate Channels
Channel selection is not a creative decision. It is an economic decision.
Every channel has an economic profile. Your business has economic constraints. The intersection determines which channels can work.
LinkedIn works for high-ACV businesses with budget for premium targeting. It fails for low-ACV businesses that cannot sustain the CPL.
Google works for businesses where buyers search. It fails for new categories where no search volume exists.
Content works for businesses with 12+ month time horizons. It fails for businesses that need pipeline this quarter.
The Channel-Stage Fit Matrix is not optional guidance. It is economic reality. Violating the matrix burns money on channels that cannot work given your constraints.
Select channels based on economics, not assumptions. Evaluate rigorously. Kill what does not work. Double down on what does.
The right channel at the right stage produces efficient acquisition. The wrong channel at the wrong stage produces expensive education.