Non-Google channels don’t act like…Google
I was in a meeting with a founder recently where the message was:
Google Ads isn't moving fast enough.
CAC hasn't held steady at $90.
We're not innovating on new channels.
Fair critiques.
But here's where the hypocrisy crept in: in the same breath, I was told we need to continue using the conservative Google Ads bidding strategy, run expensive experiments that get killed the moment it doesn't show immediate profit, try Facebook and SnapChat and TikTok and "something else," and spend more on non-core offerings that have a higher CAC to begin with. Oh, and do this during the off-season when the market contracts.
You can't demand both stable efficiency AND increased volume. A conservative Google Ads system is designed to preserve efficiency, not unlock new volume. Running a tight manual CPC bidding strategy on exact match keywords doesn't scream "growth." Taking all ML elements out of Google (i.e. smart bidding and broad match) is not a recipe for increasing volume. And testing new channels is designed to lose money at first, not instantly replicate the economics of a mature channel.
Speaking of new channel testing, it's always important to remember that your first growth channel is your first channel for a reason: it naturally defaulted to your business' strengths. Thinking that the next channel will deliver repeatable growth on an accelerated schedule (i.e. Google Ads got us X monthly volume at Y first purchase CAC in 2 years, but Facebook needs to do that in 3 months' time) and at a low CAC is a recipe for disappointment.
The failure here is leadership volatility that wants more volume but yells at you when it's not efficient. Or they want more efficiency but yell at you for not delivering volume. Or they want to crack Facebook but yell at you when it's not profitable on day one.
If you want to crack a new channel then you have to understand that:
It will most likely be inefficient for a period of time while you experiment and learn what works and what doesn't.
New channels tend to lack scale and can at best add 5-10 points to growth, typically not what founders are looking for.
The real growth unlock is usually found in increased LTV that can unlock a testing budget for these new marketing channels.
So what is a marketer to do? How do we respond to this?
You set expectations and make trade-offs explicit.
You say: “We can have stable efficiency or we can have new channel experimentation. Pick one.”
You say: “If you want Facebook to work, we need to bleed money for six months before we even sniff a playbook. Otherwise, stop pretending we’re testing.”
You say: “If you want volume, we either loosen the reins on Google or accept higher CAC. There is no magic lever where we keep conservative efficiency and suddenly double our scale.”
Real growth comes from making trade-offs explicit and sticking with them long enough to see results. Conservative bidding protects efficiency. Experimentation fuels learning. They are both valid, but they cannot coexist under the same timeline. Leaders who pick one and commit will eventually win. Leaders who chase both will keep having the same conversation every quarter.
Until next week,
P.S. Found this helpful? Forward it to another marketer who might benefit. We're all in this together.
P.P.S. Don't forget to download the Growth Marketing OS by clicking the button below.
P.P.P.S. What marketing challenges are you facing in your startup journey? Reply directly to this email with your questions or topics you'd like to see covered in future issues.