Google Ads

Incrementality Testing with Ghost Bids

Build true control groups with ghost bidding instead of PSA holdouts. Design clean experiments that isolate causal lift and avoid contamination.

What distinguishes ghost bidding from PSA holdouts in incrementality tests?

Ghost bidding marks would‑have‑won impressions to form control without serving ads

Ghost bidding serves charity PSAs to the control group

Ghost bidding disables all other media channels

Ghost bidding requires only open‑auction supply

Ghost bidding logs counterfactual wins and withholds delivery to build a no‑serve control, avoiding PSA impression costs.

Which capability makes ghost bidding feasible on a platform or DSP?

Owning the publisher ad server

Post‑auction logging to identify would‑have‑won events

First‑party purchase data for every user

Blocking competitors from the auction

Platforms need visibility into auctions to flag impressions that would have been won and then suppress delivery for control.

Which risk can bias ghost‑bid lift toward zero if unmanaged?

Cross‑channel contamination of the control group

Excess frequency in treatment only

Cookie de‑duplication

Higher CTR on PSAs

If control users get exposed via other channels, treatment and control converge and measured lift shrinks.

In causal measurement, incremental lift is best defined as ______.

the MMM‑predicted sales delta

a change in CTR versus baseline

the difference in outcomes between exposed and a valid randomized control

a higher ROAS than last month

Lift compares outcomes for exposed users against a randomized control, attributing differences to the ads.

What’s a financial advantage of ghost bidding over PSA holdouts?

It guarantees positive lift

It works without auction data

It avoids paying for control impressions while preserving randomization

It removes the need for a control group

Ghost bids construct control without buying impressions, keeping budgets focused on treatment delivery.

Which Google product offers a built‑in framework for randomized conversion lift?

MMM exports in GA4

Attribution reports with last‑click

Performance Planner forecasts

Google Ads Conversion Lift experiments

Conversion Lift separates test and control to estimate causal impact on conversions or visits.

Which practice improves statistical power without p‑hacking?

Lower confidence after seeing results

Pre‑specify MDE, run to completion, and avoid optional stopping

Change control composition mid‑test

Peek daily and stop on significance

Discipline around sample size and stopping rules prevents biased estimates and under‑powered tests.

What’s true about billing in ghost‑bid designs?

Control CPMs are billed at a discount

Control users are served skippable PSAs

Control is charged only on viewable impressions

Control impressions aren’t bought; wins are recorded for eligibility

Ghost bidding records would‑have‑won events and withholds ad serving, so no control delivery is billed.

Before launch, what QA step helps validate a ghost‑bid setup?

Exclude all high‑value audiences

Set frequency caps only on control

Skip QA to avoid delays

Dry run to verify randomization and eligibility logs

A dry run confirms unbiased assignment and correct logging to support analysis.

Which outcome metric most directly answers whether ads created results that wouldn’t have happened otherwise?

CTR by line item

Incremental conversions versus control

Viewable impressions

Average CPM

Incremental outcomes quantify causal effect; engagement alone doesn’t establish causality.

Starter

Review ghost vs. PSA controls and the basics of power and contamination.

Solid

Tighten assignment QA and logging; confirm clean analysis windows.

Expert!

Your experiments cleanly separate causality from correlation at scale.

What's your reaction?

Related Quizzes

1 of 10

Leave A Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *