One thing I’ve seen come up again and again in marketing teams — especially when the pressure is on to prove performance — is this idea that you have to pick between incrementality testing and MMM.
But here’s the truth: they’re not competitors. They’re different tools built for different jobs. And when you use them together, you get way more value out of both.
Let me break it down.
So What’s the Difference?
MMM (Marketing Mix Modeling) is your big-picture view. It shows how different marketing channels (and non-marketing factors) contribute to outcomes over time. Think long-term trends, full-funnel impact, and strategic planning.
Incrementality testing, on the other hand, is all about proving causality in the short term. You’re running experiments — usually geo-based or audience holdouts — to isolate whether a particular campaign, tactic, or channel actually drove lift.
Here’s how I like to explain the difference:
MMM:
– Shows how channels perform over time
– Timeframe: Months and years
– Data: Aggregated (e.g. weekly sales + spend)
– Best for: Budgeting, planning, channel mix
– Speed: Slower (but broader)
Incrementality Testing:
– Shows what actually caused lift in the moment
– Timeframe: Days or weeks
– Data: User or geo-level
– Best for: Testing, optimizing, creative/audience strategy
– Speed: Faster (but more focused)
Why You Shouldn’t Pick One Over the Other
Here’s where it gets interesting: MMM and incrementality make each other stronger.
– If you’re only running MMM without calibrating it with real-world test results, you’re building a model based on assumptions. Good ones, maybe — but still assumptions.
– And if you’re only running tests without zooming out to the bigger picture, you might be optimizing in a vacuum — missing how channels work together or how your market’s evolving over time.
MMM gives you historical context. Incrementality gives you causal proof. You need both.
When It Makes Sense to Use Them Separately
There are definitely times when one method makes more sense than the other:
Use MMM on its own when:
• You’re planning budgets across all channels for the next 6–12 months.
• You need to justify brand spend that doesn’t show immediate lift.
• You’re working with limited tracking — MMM is great in cookie-constrained environments.
Use incrementality testing on its own when:
• You want to test a new tactic (like YouTube Shorts or a new audience segment).
• You’re looking to validate a media partner’s claims.
• You need fast feedback to make decisions on in-flight campaigns.
From Analysis to Action: Where Real Intelligence Begins
At Brainlabs, we don’t believe in guessing what works—we prove it before you spend a single dollar. That’s the power of our Real Intelligence approach: combining MMM with incrementality testing before strategy creation, not after.
Most agencies build campaigns first, then scramble to measure what worked. We flip that model completely. Our process starts with analysis—not assumptions—so strategy is built on truth, not retroactive validation.
MMM uncovers strategic patterns. Incrementality testing verifies what truly drives results. Your first-party data tells us what happened, but together, these tools tell us why. When used upfront, they shape strategy, not just measure it. That’s the difference.
This means when we learn that video completion rate is more predictive of purchases than CTR, or that reallocating budget from direct mail to paid search improves ROI—these insights aren’t post-campaign reflections. They’re foundational inputs before a single creative is developed or media plan is built.The Real Intelligence approach fuses machine learning, statistical modeling, and human decision-making to drive smarter action, faster. It’s how we transform your data into competitive advantage from day one.
