Channel test brief

When this is useful

You are about to run this process and need one reusable working document.

What the workbook covers

Blank brief

Results log

Completed fictional example

Review checklist

Candidate comparison before the pilot

Use with real evidence

Download the full Markdown resource, replace placeholders with your situation and retain sources beside claims. Keep unanswered questions visible rather than filling them with plausible guesses.

Put it to work

1. Read the full worksheet and define the decision it supports.
2. Fill the relevant tables using dated observations and explicit assumptions.
3. Review the output with its owner and record the next decision.

Limits and tradeoffs

The worksheet structures work; it does not supply missing customer evidence or guarantee a business result. Adapt examples and assign a responsible owner.

Worksheet preview

# Marketing channel test brief

Copy this file into your preferred editor. Fill unknowns explicitly instead of inventing evidence. Set your resource cap and decision rules before starting. A pilot supplies directional evidence; it is not automatically a controlled experiment.

## Blank brief

- Product and stage:
- Customer, user, and buyer:
- Problem and current workaround:
- Supplied evidence and source:
- Assumptions to check:
- Where and how we will reach people:
- Offer and next action:
- Path to a meaningful product result:
- Required assets:
- Tasks and owner:
- Time available:
- Spending cap, including what it covers:
- Outcome measures, units and observation windows:
- Customer-quality and reliability checks:
- Early execution check:
- Later outcome review:
- Stop condition:
- Revise condition:
- Continue condition:
- Unanswered questions:

## Results log

| Date | Work attempted | Observation / count | Evidence source | Quality or measurement concerns | Decision and owner |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| | | | | | |

## Completed fictional example

- Product/stage: API monitoring tool; initial users, no repeatable channel established.
- Customer: Small platform teams investigating failed webhook deliveries. Buyer and purchase approval route need research.
- Problem: Connecting a failed delivery with the downstream support request.
- Evidence: Two fictional interview notes describe manual log matching. This is illustrative evidence, not actual customer research.
- Approach: Produce a reproducible debugging example; share through one relevant community after verifying its rules and audience discussions.
- Offer: Useful example without purchase; monitoring quickstart for readers who want to explore further.
- Assets/owner: Founder validates sample code, writes guide, checks quickstart, participates in discussion and records feedback.
- Capacity: Four hours per week; $300 maximum total pilot spend. These are example constraints, not recommended minima.
- Measurement: Relevant conversations, setup completions, useful investigations and return use. Record denominators, dates, identity limitations and fit.
- Early check: After the example is ready, verify links, tracking, technical correctness and participation eligibility before distribution.
- Outcome review: Select a date after estimating the distribution and product-use cycle. Extend only with a written reason and a new cap.
- Stop: Unable to contribute within the rules, technical example fails, or cap reached without interpretable evidence.
- Revise: Relevant people engage but the example or setup prevents a useful result.
- Continue: Repeated fit-relevant conversations and completed useful workflows justify another bounded test; do not infer precise long-term CAC from a small sample.

## Review checklist

- Can a reader identify the audience, offer and mechanism?
- Are important assumptions separate from observed facts?
- Is the next action something the product can support now?
- Does the owner have enough time for the full workflow?
- Are outcome definitions and review rules clear?
- Is customer quality considered beyond visits or signups?

## Candidate comparison before the pilot

| Candidate approach | Audience evidence | Existing asset | Missing prerequisite | Full-workflow owner and effort | Investigate, test, or defer |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| | | | | | |

Select one feasible next step and record why the alternatives are deferred. A convenient channel is not automatically a relevant one.


---
Original resource by Jon Bishop. CC BY 4.0. Illustrative examples are not customer results.