This paper studies how the adoption of experimentation as a selection method shapes the direction of innovation. The spread of A/B testing, or digital randomized experiments, has made experimentation one of the most common methods organizations use to evaluate and select internally generated ideas. The strength of experimental evidence can be a force for radical innovation. By providing seemingly irrefutable evidence, well-designed and well- executed experiments can disabuse people of their false beliefs and generate breakthrough discoveries. However, I argue that the adoption of experimentation can also result in incre- mentalism, whereby firms focus on minuscule yet reliable improvements. These divergent outcomes can be explained by the incentives driving the people who design and implement experiments. The incentives of managers in established firms may lead them to use exper- iments in a way that undermines the pursuit of novelty while encouraging the search for incremental improvements. I investigate the relationship between experimentation and in- novation in the context of US newspaper websites and their adoption of A/B testing. Using a historical archive of US newspaper websites and a novel computational method, I find that the adoption of A/B testing decreases the likelihood of radical change and makes websites more likely to change incrementally.