The Uncomfortable Truth About Incrementality

Attribution Feels Good. Incrementality Feels True.

Incrementality asks the question that attribution avoids:

“Would this have happened if we didn’t spend the money?”

Attribution says, “Look, we got the sale.” Incrementality says, “Yeah, but would we have gotten it anyway?”

It’s the difference between taking credit and proving causality.

And that’s where a lot of marketers are sweating. Because when you test incrementality, you might learn that your star performer — brand search, remarketing, affiliates — isn’t actually driving much new demand at all.

Imagine finding out your $2M channel is really delivering $200K in incremental lift. Ouch.

The Incentive Problem

The biggest obstacle to incrementality isn’t data. It’s incentives.

Leaders say they want incrementality. But they still bonus teams on attribution. Marketers are told to “find truth,” but rewarded for inflated metrics that look great on a slide deck.

So what happens?

Everyone plays along:

• Leadership gets the story they want.

• Channels get credit for everything that moves.

• And the people closest to the data quietly know the numbers don’t really add up.

It’s not deception, but it is survival. Because who’s going to raise their hand to look worse on paper?

The Testing Paradox

Let’s say you’re brave enough to test it. You run a geo experiment or a holdout test to prove true lift.

Congrats! You’re now the most unpopular person in the marketing org.

Because even when you win (you are incremental), you still lose. Geo tests have opportunity cost baked in. You turn off spend in some regions to measure lift in others. You trade short-term performance for long-term clarity.

It’s the marketing version of turning on the lights after a house party. Everything looks worse, but at least you can see it.

That’s why most teams flirt with incrementality but never commit. It’s slower, humbler, and way less flattering than attribution.

The Reckoning

The real shift happening isn’t technical. It’s cultural.

Attribution made marketers look smart. Incrementality asks if they actually are.

It forces leadership to confront uncomfortable questions:

• Are we funding growth or recycling it?

• Are our incentives aligned with truth or optics?

• Do we have the courage to see what’s really working?

Most orgs aren’t built for that. They say they want truth,  but reward illusion. Until that changes, we’ll keep mistaking “credited” for “caused.”

The Takeaway

Attribution made us comfortable. Incrementality makes us honest.

And maybe that’s the real opportunity here.  Not just to measure differently, but to market differently.

Because the next era of great marketers won’t be the ones who can explain their ROAS. It’ll be the ones who can prove their impact.