Skip to content

Comprehensive A/B Testing Analysis for Marketing Campaigns

Notifications You must be signed in to change notification settings

Illias-b/A-B-Testing

Folders and files

NameName
Last commit message
Last commit date

Latest commit

 

History

9 Commits
 
 

Repository files navigation

A/B Testing Report: Control vs. Test Marketing Campaign

View the Jupyter Notebook

Background and Insight

The primary objective of this A/B testing was to determine the most effective marketing strategy between two campaigns: the Control Campaign and the Test Campaign. The opportunity identified was to improve marketing ROI, increase conversion rates, and optimise the overall cost-efficiency of marketing efforts. The decision to conduct this test stemmed from a need to identify which campaign variables (e.g., ad creatives, targeting criteria, spending allocation) contribute most significantly to campaign success.

Hypothesis

The hypothesis was that the Test Campaign, with adjusted targeting criteria and ad creative strategies, would outperform the Control Campaign in terms of Conversion Rate, CTR, CPA, and ROAS.

Primary and Guardrail Metrics

  • Primary Metrics: Conversion Rate, ROAS
  • Guardrail Metrics: CTR, CPA

Test Variant and Implementation Details

  • Control Campaign: Utilised original ad creative and targeting criteria.
  • Test Campaign: Implemented adjusted ad creative and refined targeting criteria based on preliminary data insights.
  • Audience Targeting: Both campaigns were deployed across similar audience segments to ensure a fair comparison.

Findings and Conclusions

Conclusiveness

The test concluded with significant findings, providing clear insights into the effectiveness of both campaigns.

Winner/Loser

The Control Campaign emerged as the more cost-effective strategy, disproving the initial hypothesis.

Hypothesis Assessment

The hypothesis was disproven; the Test Campaign did not outperform the Control Campaign in terms of the primary metrics.

Performance of Variants and Effect

  • Conversion Rate: No significant difference was found between the campaigns.
  • CTR: The Test Campaign achieved a higher CTR, suggesting better engagement but not necessarily higher conversion efficiency.
  • CPA: The Control Campaign demonstrated higher cost-efficiency with a lower CPA.
  • ROAS: The Control Campaign had a significantly higher ROAS, affirming its superior cost-effectiveness.

image

Insights and Next Steps

The results suggest that the Test Campaign's adjustments did not resonate as expected, despite higher initial engagement. The Control Campaign's strategies proved to be more effective in driving revenue relative to spend.

Why the Result?

The discrepancy in performance could be attributed to various factors, including the effectiveness of ad creatives and targeting criteria.

Click here to

Next Steps

It's recommended to further analyze aspects of the Test Campaign's strategy to understand the lack of conversion efficiency. A hybrid strategy that combines elements from both campaigns could be explored.

This report provides a narrative from hypothesis through testing, analysis, and strategic recommendations, offering actionable insights based on quantitative data.

About

Comprehensive A/B Testing Analysis for Marketing Campaigns

Resources

Stars

Watchers

Forks

Releases

No releases published

Packages

No packages published