See what your ad spend actually caused, not what the platforms claim it did

Your dashboards report each platform grading its own work, and they count sales that happened near an ad as sales the ad caused, including ones the customer had already decided to make. That is why adding the platforms' claimed returns together often exceeds the revenue your books actually took in. This program measures incrementality instead: we hold back a control group, geographic or audience, from the campaign, then compare it against the group that was shown it, so the reported lift is the revenue the ad genuinely caused. It is a higher measurement bar, and the numbers come out lower and closer to what the campaign actually caused.

No, and this is a firm line. Your advertising budget is paid straight to Google, Meta and the other platforms from your own account. We never mark it up, never touch it, and it is never our revenue. Your payment covers the measurement work, the experiment design, execution and the reviewed read, and nothing else. That separation is deliberate: because we make no money from your spend, our reporting has no reason to flatter it.

No. A return figure depends on your budget, offer, market and a live auction outside any firm's control, so it cannot be promised in advance. We design the experiment properly, run it cleanly, and report the true incremental result with its confidence band and the dates it was measured on. Often the first true read is lower than the dashboard claimed, and that is the point: it is the number you can actually make decisions on.

Large enough to change decisions. Measurement vendors reporting in 2026 find platform-reported ROAS routinely overstates true incremental return, with retargeting and branded search among the most over-credited because they reach people who were already in market. One widely cited analysis, from Haus across 640 incrementality experiments reported in 2026, found retargeting's incremental return running well below its platform-reported figure. We do not assume your account's gap matches another's. We measure your account specifically, and any outside benchmark is attributed to its named, dated source.

It depends on your account's volume and the question being asked. The most common is a geo-lift test, holding back whole regions as a control and comparing them against regions that keep running the campaign, which needs no user-level tracking and is privacy-safe. For some accounts a holdout audience, deliberately not shown a campaign, is the better fit, and for others a scaled spend test. Whichever method we use, we agree the control group, test window and the lift worth detecting before anything goes live, so the result is a genuine read rather than a story assembled afterward.

No. The experiment design, the analysis and the written read are the work of a technical specialist who understands the causal method behind them, not a synthetic report generated and shipped unseen. Every engagement is directed by a technical specialist and reviewed before delivery. The value is judgment: choosing the right test, reading a noisy result without spin, and refusing to report a number without the baseline behind it. That is exactly the part a person has to own.

Because the right measurement plan depends on your account. A single-channel business that needs one clear read each quarter is a very different job from a multi-location firm testing three platforms at once, and a fixed price would either overcharge the simple case or under-serve the complex one. We publish exactly what the retainer measures and the cadence it runs on here, and agree the figure directly after a short scoping call. The retainer runs month to month with no lock-in.

No. This is the measurement layer, and it works whether your campaigns are run by an in-house team, another agency, or Raveneye Global. We measure the truth of your spend regardless of who is buying the media. Many businesses bring us in precisely because they want an independent read on paid work someone else manages, and the separation, measurement here, spending elsewhere, is a feature, not a problem.