06 GTM & Market Presence
Channels That Actually Matter
Not every channel deserves attention.
Audience → behaviour → channel → leverage
Audience
Who specifically
Behaviour
How they decide
Channel
Where they are
Leverage
What compounds
Why this matters
Channel selection is a strategic decision — not a tactical one.
The pressure to be present on every platform, in every community, and across every content format is one of the most effective ways to produce exhaustion and low returns simultaneously. Channel proliferation is the enemy of channel depth — and depth is where trust and compounding visibility actually form.
The right channel is not the most popular one, the one a competitor uses, or the one the team finds easiest to produce for. It's the channel where your specific audience is present, making decisions, and in the right mental state to receive your message. That channel may be a small technical community, a specific Slack group, or a niche publication — and it will consistently outperform broad, shallow presence on major platforms.
Channel strategy is ultimately audience strategy. Understanding how your specific buyers discover, evaluate and trust companies in your category determines which channels to invest in — and which to abandon.
Founder reality
Channel clarity questions that expose strategic gaps:
Are we present in the channels where our buyers make decisions?
Which channel is actually producing trust — not just reach?
Are we on LinkedIn because our buyers are there or because it feels safe?
Which channel would our ICP say they'd be most likely to discover a product like ours through?
Are we distributing or performing?
Answering these questions with honesty almost always produces a shorter, better channel list.
The channel leverage system
Four principles of channel selection that produce leverage
Channel leverage comes from matching audience behaviour to channel depth. These four principles guide better selection.
01
Audience specificity determines channel selection
Start with the specific person who benefits most from your product. Where do they go to learn? Where do they discuss vendor decisions? Where do they ask for recommendations? The answer to these questions — not industry convention — should determine your primary channels.
02
Decision context determines channel depth
People in different mental states are different audiences. A buyer actively evaluating is different from a buyer passively maintaining awareness. Channels that reach buyers in evaluation mode (specific communities, reference checks, technical comparisons) produce higher leverage than channels that only reach passive awareness.
03
Trust formation determines channel priority
Not all channels build trust equally. Channels where your ICP sees peer behaviour — recommendations, usage discussions, technical evaluations — build more trust than channels where they see company-produced content. Prioritise channels where trust forms through peer signal, not just company signal.
04
Compounding potential determines long-term investment
Some channels compound — content created today continues to produce visibility months later. Others are ephemeral — visibility exists only while investment is active. Prioritise compounding channels (content, communities, technical reputation) over ephemeral ones (paid, events) for long-term visibility builds.
Common mistakes
01
Choosing channels based on comfort
The channel the team finds easiest to produce for is rarely the channel the ICP uses most. Channel selection should follow audience behaviour — not team capability.
02
Measuring channel success by follower count
Follower counts measure audience size, not audience quality. A community of 500 highly relevant practitioners outperforms a following of 50,000 unqualified viewers for almost every B2B use case.
03
Adding channels before mastering existing ones
Channel depth produces trust. Channel breadth produces noise. Master one or two channels before expanding — the compounding effect of depth takes time to activate and is destroyed by premature diversification.
04
Treating all channels as content distribution
Some channels are primarily trust-building (communities, events). Others are primarily signal-delivery (content, email). Treating them as interchangeable produces poor results in both.
Example scenario
A developer tools company splits marketing effort across LinkedIn, Twitter, YouTube, a podcast, and two newsletters.
The channel spread problem
The team produces content for all channels simultaneously. Quality suffers across all of them. No channel reaches sufficient depth to build real familiarity. The audience — senior engineers at growth-stage companies — barely notices the company in any of these channels.
The audience behaviour audit
Customer interviews reveal that their ICP discovers products primarily through specific Slack communities (three identified), HackerNews technical discussions, and trusted peer recommendations. None of these are in the current channel mix.
The channel redesign
Exit YouTube, podcast, and general Twitter presence.
Focus entirely on three specific Slack communities with genuine technical content.
Systematically engage with HackerNews technical discussions related to the product category.
Build a formal peer reference program for existing customers.
The outcome
Within four months, inbound from community channels exceeded the previous total inbound from all six channels combined. The team was doing less — and producing more — because channel selection finally matched audience behaviour.
Takeaway
Channel selection is one of the highest-leverage GTM decisions a founder makes.
The right channel — where your specific audience is present, making decisions, and building trust — outperforms broad channel presence by orders of magnitude. Choose fewer channels. Go deeper. Measure trust, not reach.
Continue reading
The Problem With More Content