Marketing Experiments vs Tests: Why Marketers Need to Know The Difference
Both tests and experiments are critical for growth. But knowing the difference between these two approaches can help you advance your organization’s learning of what works to drive revenue. There’s a science to both approaches.
There is a stark difference between a marketing experiment and a test. In the past three months, I’ve talked to more than 100 digital marketers representing more than 75 leading brands about their approach to learning about new, new things. Across these conversations, where marketers tend to interchange the words “test” and “experiment,” I’ve discovered a surprising divergence of those who test and those who experiment with their marketing dollars.
Let me explain.
A marketing test typically includes the following elements:
- A previous winner;
- A challenger;
- A set budget and timeframe;
- An expectation that there will be a winner.
A marketing experiment includes the following elements:
- A hypothesis;
- Two or more challengers;
- An unknown outcome;
- A set budget, but an unknown timeframe;
- An expectation of success, and a fear of failure.
Testers are typically found when the marketer is tied to a specific outcome and the mentality of, “we do experiments, as long as the experiments work.” Experimenters are found where there’s a company culture, directive, team, or budget that demonstrates the maxim “there are no failed experiments” mentality.
Both tests and experiments are critical for growth. But knowing the difference between these two approaches can help you advance your organization’s learning of what works to drive revenue. There’s a science to both approaches.
I recently discussed this on a podcast with chemist and professor Dr. Bill Scott, who heads the Distributed Drug Discovery (D3) project at IUPUI in Indianapolis, other universities in the United States, and globally. D3 seeks to educate undergraduate students in chemistry and biology while they apply their learned skills and understanding to helping solve a serious humanitarian challenge — discovering drugs for neglected diseases.
Dr. Scott’s initiative helps students truly innovate and experiment. A major part of a chemistry student’s curriculum consists of running tests with a known outcome, like creating a specific molecule, or testing a known method against a competing method. In the marketing world, think of this as an A/B Test — for example with subject lines: A subject line that previously generated “x” amount of opens and clicks is tested against a competing subject line.
Dr. Scott wanted to interject more organic experimentation in his students' curriculum, and he uses his D3 project to do so. Students in the program are encouraged to experiment by developing new molecules, used as research to develop drugs for underserved and underfunded diseases. Pretty awesome, right? Listen to the full podcast for more details.
As marketers, we struggle with similar challenges when it comes to experimentation: Where do we start? What new outcome do we need to aim for? What platforms should we use? How much money should we be investing? A true marketing experiment begins with a hypothesis backed by intelligent data. The hard parts are the expectations we set and the fear of failure. Without these experiments and ongoing innovation, our marketing remains at the risk of producing stagnant results.