The three statistical traps that sabotage conclusive results—and how to avoid them.
Authored by Lalit Jain · lalit.7.jain@gmail.com · LinkedIn
Nothing is more frustrating in marketing than running a test for weeks, seeing a hopeful lift, and ending up with an "Inconclusive" readout. A non-significant result means you have to abandon your test or spend more budget without a guaranteed payoff.
The core problem is almost always insufficient **sample size** relative to your **Minimum Detectable Effect (MDE)**. Here are the top three reasons your tests are failing to reach statistical significance and actionable ways to fix them.
If you try to prove a $1\%$ relative lift, the statistical sample required is exponentially larger than proving a $10\%$ lift. The smaller the difference you want to detect, the more certain you have to be—and certainty costs data (and therefore money/time).
Stopping a test the moment you see a $p$-value below $0.05$ is known as **"peeking"** or **"peeing the bed."** The $p$-value fluctuates wildly early in the test. If you stop early, you dramatically increase the risk of a **False Positive** (believing you have a winner when the result is just random chance).
A low CVR (e.g., $0.5\%$) means that most of your traffic is non-converting noise. Proving that the difference between $0.5\%$ and $0.55\%$ is real is extremely difficult and requires massive traffic volumes to overcome that noise.
Use our **Statistical Significance Calculator** to input your current CVR and desired MDE. The tool will instantly tell you if your budget is **NOT Sufficient** and recommend the exact budget increase needed to avoid an inconclusive result.
Conclusive testing is not about luck; it's about preparation. By addressing these three statistical traps, you ensure every test you run yields an unambiguous, actionable result.
[Sept, 2025]
This tool is actively maintained and improved.