Good virality versus bad virality for SaaS companies

When Rob Kaminski, co-founder of Fletch PMM, hears that a B2B company is running GTM aggressively across paid ads, weekly video launches, social content, and outbound simultaneously, his first reaction is a diagnostic question, not encouragement.

"The fact that they're running this multi-channel campaign instantly creates a question for me," Rob said on Youroast Ep1. "Are you running multiple channels and tactics because nothing's truly working? Where it's more really experimenting to see what works?" [Ep1, 2:30]

The two situations look identical from the outside - both produce activity, content, and spend. But they require completely different responses:

• Experimenting: measure channel fit, not campaign performance. The goal is finding which channel resonates, not scaling the one that seems to be working.
• Executing: double down on the channel that is producing signal. Do not diversify while an advantage exists.

Running the execution playbook during the experimental phase produces expensive noise. Running the experimental playbook after signal exists wastes a channel advantage.

The question to ask before opening any new channel: are we adding this because the current channel is working and we have the resources to serve two - or because the current channel is not working and we are hoping something else will?

Honest answers to that question determine the entire GTM strategy.

Rob's definition of virality in B2B is specific and different from how most founders use the word.

"When I think virality, I start to think closer to word of mouth. Is any of their stuff getting shared or spoken about?" [Ep1, 2:00]

Word of mouth in B2B is structural. It happens when:

• A specific buyer solves a specific problem with your product
• The solution is specific enough to describe in one sentence to a colleague with the same problem
• That colleague evaluates on the right criteria because the referral was accurate

"We use X for Y because it does Z better than anything else we tried" is word of mouth. "We use X" is not.

The specificity is the mechanism. Vague positioning produces vague referrals. A buyer who cannot precisely describe what your product does and for whom cannot refer it accurately. The referred company evaluates on the wrong criteria. The deal does not close, or closes and churns.

Genuine virality requires positioning specific enough that the buyer who tells a colleague tells them the right thing. That starts with positioning, not distribution.

The most successful B2B software companies are not multi-channel marketers. They are single-channel dominators with secondary channels that support the primary.

"When we look across especially the most successful companies, in general they have one channel that far outperforms the other channels," Rob said on Youroast Ep1. "In the case of our business, it's LinkedIn organic content with an inbound tight motion. For some organizations, it's more outbound led. For some it's events. You look at some of the behemoths and they're almost like revenue share by channel - it's insanely asynchronous where one of them is gonna outweigh the rest." [Ep1, 3:00]

Multi-channel at early stage is usually a symptom of no channel working - not a sign of sophisticated marketing. Companies that look like they are everywhere usually have one channel producing ninety percent of the value. The others get credited by association.

Finding the primary channel is a positioning problem before it is a marketing problem. The channel where your ICP is most active and your message resonates most specifically is the right primary channel. You find it by running experiments with a clear ICP hypothesis - not by running all channels simultaneously and hoping one wins.

Before allocating budget to any channel, ask one question and answer it honestly:

Are we adding this channel because the channel we are currently on is working and we have the ICP alignment and resources to serve two - or because the current channel is not working and we are hoping this one will?

If the honest answer is the second one:

• Adding the channel will not fix the problem
• The problem is positioning - the message is not specific enough to resonate
• Adding more channels distributes a vague message more expensively

The sequence that works: fix the positioning; find the channel where your specific ICP is most active; run one message, one channel, one ICP, until you have clear signal; then expand.

Reversing the sequence produces the multi-channel trap at higher and higher cost.

Every channel you run eventually sends traffic back to the website. If the website cannot explain what you do in five to ten seconds for the specific ICP your channel targets, the channel spend is subsidizing a poorly converting page rather than a well-converting one.

The homepage is the visible test of whether positioning is specific enough to produce genuine word of mouth:

• A visitor who arrives from a LinkedIn post, reads the hero, and can describe what the product does and who it is for to a colleague is a word-of-mouth multiplier
• A visitor who arrives, reads a vague hero, and cannot describe it precisely enough to refer accurately is a dead end

Fix the positioning. Build the website around the specific ICP and the specific claim. Then allocate channel spend.

Read website redesign prerequisites for the litmus tests that confirm whether positioning is specific enough to build channels on.

Run the multi-channel diagnostic before your next budget allocation. List every active channel. For each one, write one sentence describing the qualified pipeline signal it has produced in the last ninety days. Any channel with no honest answer is experimental. Any channel with a clear answer is primary.

Run the stranger test on your homepage. Hand it to someone unfamiliar with your company, logo covered, thirty seconds to read. Ask them to describe what you sell and who buys it. If they cannot, the positioning is not specific enough to produce genuine word of mouth regardless of which channels you run.

Watch the full episode: Youroast Ep1 with Rob Kaminski.

Read fix positioning before you redesign for the full framework on what to do when the test fails.