Growth Marketing
Growth Marketing That Finds the Actual Constraint, Not Just Another Channel.
Most growth problems don't live in the channel getting the most attention — they live wherever the real bottleneck sits, which shifts over time and isn't always obvious from inside the business. I run a cross-channel audit to find where growth is actually capped, then build a prioritized experimentation roadmap around that constraint instead of applying uniform tactics across every channel at once.
How I Approach It
Three Pillars of Growth Marketing.
Cross-Channel Growth Audit
A system-level audit across acquisition, conversion, and retention to find where growth is actually capped, instead of optimizing the channel that happens to be getting the most attention.
Prioritized Experimentation Roadmap
A sequence of tests ranked by expected impact and effort against the actual constraint, reviewed and reprioritized as results come in — not a fixed tactic list executed regardless of what the data shows.
Retention & Expansion Systems
Growth work that extends past acquisition into the retention and expansion metrics that determine whether growth actually compounds or just refills a leaking funnel.
Who This Is For
Built for Teams Who Aren't Sure Which Channel Actually Needs Attention.
This is for founders and marketing leads who've tried optimizing individual channels without a clear system-level view of where the actual bottleneck sits — acquisition, conversion, or retention — and want a prioritized plan instead of another isolated channel specialist.
I work with startups and B2B SaaS companies past initial product-market fit who need a full-funnel view connecting acquisition spend to the retention and expansion numbers that determine whether growth actually compounds.
What's Included
- ✔ Cross-channel acquisition, conversion, and retention audit
- ✔ Prioritized experimentation roadmap ranked by impact and effort
- ✔ Direct execution oversight of channels and any agencies involved
- ✔ Bi-weekly performance reviews and roadmap reprioritization
- ✔ Retention and expansion metrics tracked alongside acquisition
- ✔ Monthly reporting tied to pipeline, not vanity metrics
The Proprietary Methodology
The Growth Systems Framework.
A 4-stage system for turning scattered growth experiments into a compounding, repeatable engine — not a list of one-off tactics.
| Stage | Core Actionable Playbook | Target Output Metric |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Channel & Funnel Diagnostic | Full-funnel audit across acquisition, activation, retention, and referral, plus a check on whether tracking and instrumentation can actually be trusted before any experiment is designed around it. | Funnel drop-off points mapped, tracking integrity confirmed, leverage points ranked. |
| 2. Experiment Backlog & Prioritization | Every growth idea scored against impact, confidence, and effort, so the backlog is ranked by expected leverage instead of whoever argues loudest for their pet idea. | Scored backlog size, top-10 experiment queue locked for the sprint. |
| 3. Rapid Test Execution & Iteration | Experiments shipped in tight weekly or biweekly sprints with a pre-registered success threshold, so results get read honestly instead of rationalized after the fact. | Experiments shipped per sprint, win rate, statistically valid read rate. |
| 4. Systemization & Scale | Validated experiments turned into standing playbooks and automated systems instead of one-time wins that quietly decay once nobody's watching them anymore. | Playbooks documented, systemized channels as % of total pipeline. |
Most growth work stalls at stage three — a team runs tests but never systemizes what wins, so every quarter starts from scratch with a fresh batch of ideas instead of compounding on what already proved out. The Growth Systems Framework treats systemization as its own stage with its own deliverable, not an afterthought, which is the actual difference between a growth function that compounds quarter over quarter and one that just stays busy.
Inside the Engine
The Deep Experimentation Architecture.
Experiment Velocity vs. Experiment Quality: Why Most Growth Teams Get the Tradeoff Wrong
The common failure mode isn't running too few experiments — it's running experiments too fast to read the results honestly, then calling every ambiguous result a "win" to keep the shipped-experiments count looking good. A test stopped the moment it shows a favorable trend, before it reaches the sample size the effect actually requires, produces a false-positive rate far higher than the reported confidence level suggests, which is how growth teams end up with a graveyard of "proven" tactics that quietly stopped working the moment anyone tried to scale them. The fix isn't slowing down — it's pre-registering the sample size and success threshold before a test launches, so velocity and rigor aren't actually in tension; a team can ship a high volume of tests per quarter as long as each one has a predetermined bar for what counts as a real result, instead of a post-hoc story about why the numbers moved.
Growth Loops vs. Linear Funnels: Building Compounding Acquisition
A linear funnel spends to acquire a user, and that spend has to be repeated for the next user — the funnel doesn't get cheaper or faster on its own. A growth loop is structured so that each user who comes through it generates the input for the next cycle: referrals, user-generated content, or data that improves targeting and conversion for the next cohort, so acquisition compounds instead of resetting to zero every month. Most companies default to funnel thinking because it's simpler to model and report on, but the highest-leverage growth work is identifying which part of an existing funnel can be re-architected into a loop — a referral mechanic tied to genuine product value, a content loop where users create the assets that acquire the next users, or a data loop where usage improves targeting for lookalike acquisition. Not every business has an obvious loop available, but most under-audited ones have at least one linear step that's a loop candidate nobody's tried to close yet.
North Star Metric Selection and the Metrics That Actually Predict It
A North Star metric only earns its name if moving it reliably predicts revenue outcomes months later — not because it sounds like the kind of number a growth team should track. Choosing one starts by working backward from actual revenue or retention data to find which upstream behavior most consistently preceded it historically, then building the experiment backlog and reporting cadence entirely around moving that one number, so every team member can answer "does this experiment move the North Star" without needing a five-metric dashboard to decide. The mistake worth avoiding is picking a metric that's easy to move but weakly correlated with revenue — a vanity North Star produces a team that hits its number every quarter while the business underneath it doesn't actually grow, which defeats the entire purpose of having one metric everyone rallies around in the first place.
Consulting Investment
Simple, Transparent Pricing.
Every growth engagement starts with a cross-channel audit — no retainer commitment until we both know exactly where the constraint actually sits.
Strategy Session
- ✔ Cross-Channel Growth Audit
- ✔ Constraint & Bottleneck Mapping
- ✔ Strategic Advisory (Monthly)
Growth Partner
- ✔ Full Experimentation Execution
- ✔ Retention & Expansion Systems
- ✔ Dedicated Marketing Consultant
- ✔ Bi-Weekly Performance Sprints
Enterprise
- ✔ Bespoke Growth Infrastructure
- ✔ Multi-Market Campaign Management
- ✔ Strategic Workshops
- ✔ Priority Access
Common Questions
FAQ.
A channel specialist optimizes within one lever — SEO, paid media, or email. A growth marketing consultant works across the full acquisition-to-retention system, deciding which lever to prioritize at all based on where the actual constraint sits, which is often not the channel a business assumes needs attention.
Growth marketing focuses on cross-channel strategy and experimentation. A fractional CMO engagement adds leadership responsibilities on top of that — team and agency management, board reporting, and hiring decisions — making it a broader, more senior scope. See my fractional CMO page if that's closer to what's needed.
A cross-channel audit identifying the actual constraint on growth, followed by a prioritized experimentation roadmap ranked by expected impact and effort — before any new channel or tactic gets added.
Both. The engagement includes direct execution oversight of whoever is running channel work, not strategy handed off with no involvement in whether it actually gets implemented correctly.
By impact and effort against the specific constraint the audit identifies. A test addressing the actual bottleneck is prioritized ahead of a higher-effort test on a channel that isn't currently the limiting factor, regardless of which one seems more exciting.
From the Blog
Further Reading.
Growth Strategy
Growth Loops vs. Funnels: What's the Difference
Growth loops vs. funnels explained — why loops compound and funnels don't, and why most businesses still need both rather than picking one model.
Growth Strategy
North Star Metric: How to Choose One That Actually Guides Decisions
A framework for choosing a North Star metric that actually guides prioritization — the criteria that separate a real one from a vanity number.
Hiring Guide
When Should a B2B SaaS Startup Hire a Growth Marketing Consultant?
An ARR-stage readiness framework for when a B2B SaaS startup should bring in a growth marketing consultant.