NEW! Listen to article

The holiday dust has settled, and you’re reviewing last quarter’s performance in your marketing attribution dashboard. Meta claims $20 million in Q4 revenue, Google added $18 million, while TikTok drove another $9 million. The only problem is that your business only made $40 million in total for the quarter.

Math like this appears constantly when companies try measuring marketing’s true impact. It reflects a growing and justified skepticism from CMOs: measurement tools show great channel-level performance, even when total revenue is flat or down.

These inconsistencies erode trust and make confident marketing planning nearly impossible, especially when trying to secure future budget.

If this sounds familiar, it’s time to audit your measurement stack.

There are three practical ways to test whether your tools are actually capturing causal relationships between marketing activities and business outcomes. None require onboarding a new vendor—only a willingness to demand that your existing tools make claims that can be verified.

Make Your Tools Forecast, Then Hold Them Accountable

The simplest pressure test for any measurement tool is to ask it to predict the future.

If your measurement tool or platform has a built-in forecasting feature, use it. If it doesn’t, you can still run this test manually by taking the outputs from your measurement tool—channel-level ROIs, CPAs, or incrementality estimates—combining them with planned spend, and then building a simple revenue forecast in Excel.

Either approach works, but the key is to write down the forecast before actual results come in, and then compare your predictions vs. actuals.

The results of this exercise are often self-evident. Trustworthy measurement tools might consistently land within 10 percent of actual results, while untrustworthy ones will make bad forecasts that miss by significant margins.

The important thing to keep in mind is that forward-looking accuracy is a far stronger test of a measurement tool’s efficacy than backward-looking reports that explain what already happened. Any tool can tell a convincing story about the past; the question is whether it’s capable of measuring causality well enough to predict what comes next.

If your forecasts are consistently off, or if accuracy doesn’t improve over time, this means your measurement tool is missing the actual marketing drivers of business performance.

Run Experiments to Verify Your Biggest Assumptions

Structured experiments are a great means of validating the output of measurement tools as long as you’re aware of their inherent limitations.

A simple way to get started is by identifying a high-budget media channel—especially one whose performance metrics seem inflated in your measurement tooling—and then running one of two tests.

• Go-dark test: Pause spend on a channel for two to four weeks. If the channel is as performant as your measurement tooling claims it to be, you should see a meaningful dip in revenue. If the drop is marginal, performance has been overstated and you’re likely wasting marketing dollars high on the channel’s saturation curve.
• Geographic holdout test: Increase or decrease channel spend in selected geographies and compare the results with the outcome in geographies where spend was held constant. By comparing the changes in the test and control groups, you can find the incremental change in revenue driven exclusively by ad spend.

Once you have experiment results, use them to pressure-test your other measurement tooling. If your media mix model (MMM) or multi-touch attribution (MTA) tool is highly certain that Snapchat Prospecting drives a 4.2x ROI but a well-run geo holdout shows 1.5x, that should be a red flag.

That said, experiments aren’t perfect. They’re time-bound snapshots, are often expensive to run, and come with their own uncertainty, especially when run with smaller sample sizes or shorter test durations. They also can’t measure cross-channel effects or provide the always-on read that other tools offer.

Think of experiments as a powerful tool for validating assumptions in specific channels, not as a replacement for your full measurement stack.

Demand a Blind Holdout Test

For marketers who have advanced statistical models like an MMM in your stack, it’s worth remembering that these models are trivially easy to run and exceptionally hard to get right.

To make sure you’re not being guided by a flawed MMM, there’s a specific validation technique that separates rigorous modeling from expensive guesswork: a blind holdout test or "bakeoff."

Here’s how it works: Take your historical marketing spend and KPI data, but remove actual results from the most recent 60–90 days. Ask your vendor (or internal team) to build a model using the truncated dataset, then provide them the actual spend for the holdout period and ask them to forecast results—without seeing what actually happened.

Then, compare those forecasts to reality. A good model should land within 10–15 percent accuracy. A vendor that’s consistently 20 percent or more off, refuses to run the test, or makes excuses about "needing complete data" is likely relying on backward-looking curve fits rather than genuine predictive power.

From Audit to Action

If your measurement tools can forecast reliably, are validated with experimentation, and pass blind holdout tests, you have a reliable foundation for marketing planning. If they fail any of these checks, it might be time to recalibrate or replace them.

Remember, you don’t need perfect measurement to make better marketing decisions. But you do need tools that can prove themselves under pressure.

Audit now, and you’ll have real answers when your executive team starts asking hard questions.

More Resources on Marketing Measurement

Beyond Last-Click: Attribution Models That Actually Reflect Modern Customer Journeys

Data-Driven Marketing: What It Is, Why It’s Crucial Now, and How to Get Started

The Missing Piece in Experiential Marketing: Measuring Impact in the Moments That Matter

The New Playbook for Measurement: Lessons From Mobile, Where It All Started