As performance marketers, we are conditioned to want to test everything. From the impact of stream titles to the incrementality of each channel, we want to be sure we're making the Industry Email List right choice before committing all of our resources to something. This also goes for deciding which tools/agencies to use. Moving your performance marketing activities from Industry Email List one tool/agency to another (or picking one to start with) is a big commitment, not one to be taken lightly. Most tools/agencies (probably all) claim to do the same basic thing: improve your campaign performance. The way they do it or the methods they use will differ, but with so many to choose from, how do you know which one will actually deliver?

To help them make the right decision, many companies will request a side-by-side comparison test between two tools/agencies. We were recently Industry Email List asked to participate in a split comparison test with another product ad technology for Industry Email List a multinational sports retailer. Using this last test as an example, I want to provide you with some tips and recommendations for performing an accurate side-by-side test and getting the best results. Have a clear test objective Whatever type of test you perform, you need to make sure you have a clear objective in mind, that is, a question that can be answered in a definitive and measurable way. In this case,

The retailer wanted to know if replacing their Industry Email List existing tools with our Google Shopping solution would impact their bottom line. To measure the result, they set a fixed ROAS target for each tool to be achieved and measured the resulting revenue figures. Distribute test groups evenly As always, a good test setup is essential if you want accurate results. I've written about different testing methods before, but the easiest way to approach this type of testing is to Industry Email List think of it like any other A/B test. The key is to divide your campaigns as evenly as possible so that there are no extenuating circumstances that could explain the