Measuring the Unmeasurable: Pre/Post Experimentation for Brand Visibility in LLMs
When a customer changes their site content, they've always been able to measure the impact on human visitors — cookies, cohorts, clicks, conversions. Now imagine running the same measurement against ChatGPT. Or Perplexity. Or Gemini. You immediately hit a wall: you cannot cookie a bot. The cohort-assignment foundation that every classical A/B testing framework is built on collapses the moment your "user" is an LLM crawler that arrives, scrapes, and vanishes with no persistent identity between visits.
This talk is about what you build when that foundation is gone.
The LLMO Experimentation Engine inside Adobe LLM Optimizer gives enterprise brands a repeatable way to measure whether their AI-search optimizations — improving readability, restructuring pages, fixing crawler-facing rendering gaps — actually translate into more citations, better sentiment, or higher mention frequency on platforms like ChatGPT and Perplexity. The methodology is temporal pre/post: capture a baseline of how your brand is cited across LLM platforms over a time window, ship the change through Optimize at Edge (our edge content-optimization service), capture a matching post-deployment window, compute the delta. No cohorts, no cookies, no randomization — prompts are replicated many times per window to absorb the non-determinism of LLM outputs, and the deltas are surfaced with clear signal-vs-noise framing.
Pre/post comes with a known confound: ambient drift in LLM behavior — platform model updates, training-data refreshes, provider-side product changes — between the baseline window and the post window. We'll cover how we think about that honestly, what the engine measures, what it deliberately does not claim to measure, and when the signal is strong enough to attribute to the customer's change versus the background.
The first concrete application targets a problem every JavaScript-heavy brand site has: the origin serves near-empty HTML to AI crawlers, and whatever optimization the content team writes never reaches the LLMs. Using Optimize at Edge as the edge-rendering middleware that intercepts AI user-agent traffic and serves fully structured content, the hypothesis is a 15–30% lift in ChatGPT citation rates, validable within roughly four weeks.
What you'll take away:
- The end-to-end workflow — how edit → optimize → deploy → measure plays out across three systems (SpaceCat, DRS, and Optimize at Edge) and why each boundary is where it is.
- The experimentation layer in depth — deferred baseline collection (no LLM spend on opportunities that never deploy), prompt replication to bound variance, per-experiment data isolation, and the concurrency primitives that keep cron-driven execution honest.
Tad Reeves
Super-curious on whether Optimize-at-Edge needs to change what it's doing based on this experimentation cycle? Is it just on/off or does it have permutations for different content types & signals?
wolf
How are you measuring (and determining) „competitors”?
KatieP
How did you determine the prompts you were measuring?
Ben Zahler
Is there some calculator based on traffic you need , base conversion etc do calculate how long experiment is expected to run ? What are approaches for pages with not so much traffic?
Nitin
Currently the experiment durations are fixed irrespective of the agentic traffic. They can be extended based on the results. In case of too low agentic traffic, the fix may reside elsewhere- eg: page authority. we have a video to serve as a guide for such cases: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r4-RAQ5VzaE
alexandereggers
I sometimes worry that we are putting the cart before the horse by trying to make content made for humans be agent-readable. Might this sort of benchmarking mean a step backwards for creating the best possible product for humans?
Nitin
There are some differences that we are noticing in how the agents are interacting and consuming the content compared to the humans (eg: rendering the page)- and this may make a case for a different experience for the agents as compared to humans. Having said that , in general yes, if the experiences are the best possible for humans, it goes a long way in ensuring the compatibility with agents.
wolf
How do you avoid the problem of the prompts you are optimising for not being the ones that are being sought in the LLMs?