Advertise Purple review

Strong — 4 of 5 on this rubric’s scale, from Poor (1) to Excellent (5). This dimension carries 25% of the total score.

Benchmark — across the 14 other agencies evaluated in this discipline, this dimension runs Excellent 5 · Strong 7 · Adequate 1 · Weak 1. The typical agency here scores Strong, and 5 of them score higher than this one.

What this dimension measures: Attributable programs at a stated scale: named brands, described program size, publisher counts, revenue managed. Treat headline revenue figures as vendor-stated unless a client is named. Where a firm names the networks its programs run on, that is checkable detail and should be credited.

Scores high — Named clients with described program work score 4-5.

Scores low — Anonymised case studies score 2-3.

What we found — Named brands are published on the homepage and agency page (Whirlpool, KitchenAid, Oracle, OnePlus, Upstart, 1stDibs, AbeBooks, Dun & Bradstreet, ESET, Essilor, RadPowerBikes, Society6, M&M's), and the FAQ names the networks programs run on (ShareASale, CJ Affiliate, Rakuten, Impact), which the rubric treats as checkable detail. Program size is described per vertical rather than per client: the beauty page states 65,645 affiliates and $225,394,452.43 in revenue, apparel states 32,354 affiliates and $448,473,958.06. One named partner case study exists (Honey, COVID-19 recovery, $27M new sales April-July 2020). Held below Excellent because no individual named client is tied to described program work or a result: the logo wall and the revenue figures are separate artifacts, and the per-vertical dollar totals are self-reported. That is the high band above, which is why it scored Strong.

On the record — “Named client logos are published on the homepage and agency page: Whirlpool, 1stDibs, AbeBooks, Dun & Bradstreet, ESET, Essilor, KitchenAid, M&M's, OnePlus, Oracle, RadPowerBikes, Society6, Upstart.” advertisepurple.com ↗

On the record — “A named partner case study exists with Honey, the loyalty and coupon browser extension, claiming $27M in new sales for clients across April-July 2020 using Honey Gold, vanity codes, Offers and Smart Coupons.” advertisepurple.com ↗

Evidence: partly checkable — corroborated in part against the sources below; the remainder rests on the agency’s own account.

Strong — 4 of 5 on this rubric’s scale, from Poor (1) to Excellent (5). This dimension carries 20% of the total score.

Benchmark — across the 14 other agencies evaluated in this discipline, this dimension runs Excellent 2 · Strong 5 · Adequate 5 · Weak 2. The typical agency here scores Strong, and 2 of them score higher than this one.

What this dimension measures: The dimension that separates a managed channel from a paid-for coupon leak. Look for a stated position on incrementality — how the firm distinguishes affiliate-driven demand from demand that would have converted anyway — and on policing: coupon and loyalty extension monitoring, trademark bidding enforcement, cookie-stuffing and attribution-hijack detection, publisher vetting. Policing only, with no incrementality position, scores 3.

Scores high — A named policy on BOTH scores 4-5.

Scores low — Silence on both scores 1-2 and should be named plainly: an unpoliced program reliably pays commission on traffic the brand already owned.

What we found — Both halves are stated, which is rare in this category. Incrementality has its own FAQ entry: 'Incrementality measures whether an affiliate contributed to a sale that would not have happened without their involvement... some affiliate touchpoints, particularly coupon or loyalty sites, may capture customers who were already going to purchase.' Policing is specific: fraud detection naming fake clicks, cookie stuffing, loyalty program abuse and bot traffic, technology that 'indexes over 100 classifications of promotional methods', brand compliance scanning for 'unauthorized paid search use on branded keywords, misleading claims, and improper discount code distribution', and an enforcement ladder from warning to 'commission reversal and removal from the program' for trademark bidding, coupon abuse and fraudulent traffic. Held below Excellent for three reasons read on the site: brand compliance monitoring is qualified as opt-in ('Upon request, we have global brand compliance monitoring'); an older FAQ answer assigns the work elsewhere ('The network compliance departments are responsible for monitoring publisher authenticity and brand promotion'); and no incrementality method is published - no holdout test, no incrementality read named as a client deliverable, only 'we analyze publisher behavior and traffic patterns'. That is the high band above, which is why it scored Strong.

On the record — “A separate, older FAQ answer assigns publisher policing to the networks: 'The network compliance departments are responsible for monitoring publisher authenticity and brand promotion.'” advertisepurple.com ↗

On the record — “A standalone incrementality position is published: incrementality measures whether an affiliate contributed to a sale that would not have happened without them, and coupon or loyalty sites may capture customers who were already going to purchase.” advertisepurple.com ↗

attribution — working out which marketing touch actually caused a sale. Good practice names its model and its blind spots; bad practice quotes each ad platform’s self-graded numbers, which overlap and overclaim.

deliverability — deliverability: whether cold email actually lands in the inbox rather than spam. The tell is infrastructure talk — warmed sending domains kept separate from your main domain — because a burned domain outlasts the engagement.

Evidence: vendor stated — the agency’s own claim, recorded as theirs rather than ours.

Strong — 4 of 5 on this rubric’s scale, from Poor (1) to Excellent (5). This dimension carries 15% of the total score.

Benchmark — across the 14 other agencies evaluated in this discipline, this dimension runs Excellent 2 · Strong 10 · Adequate 2. The typical agency here scores Strong, and 2 of them score higher than this one.

What this dimension measures: Who the firm can actually bring: named publisher types and any evidenced relationships beyond the obvious coupon and cashback tier — content publishers, review sites, newsletters, comparison shopping, B2B referral partners.

Scores high — Evidence of recruiting beyond coupon/loyalty scores 4-5.

Scores low — A roster that is entirely coupon and cashback scores 2-3; that is the easiest tier to recruit and the least incremental, and the verdict should say so.

What we found — The vertical pages publish an actual named roster by partner type with revenue attached, which is more than most firms in this category disclose. Beauty names Meredith Corporation (Content, Blog and Multimedia), Skimlinks and VigLink/Sovrn and FlexOffers (Sub-Affiliate), LTK (Influencer Network), Capital One Shopping (Loyalty/Rewards) and UpSellIt (Tech). Apparel names ShopStyle and Lyst (Content), ModeSens (Shopping/Deal), Rakuten Rewards and Capital One Shopping (Loyalty/Rewards), Wickfire (TM+). That is evidenced recruitment well beyond the coupon and cashback tier, so not a 2-3. The publishers named are real, independently checkable firms whose categories match the labels. But the same disclosure shows where the money sits: in apparel, Rakuten Rewards at $53.4M plus Capital One Shopping at $21.1M outweigh the two content publishers shown (Lyst $11.0M, ShopStyle $13.9M), and in beauty the largest single line is the sub-affiliate aggregator Skimlinks at $16.3M. The mix is real; the revenue concentration is in the tiers the firm's own incrementality answer flags as least incremental. That is the high band above, which is why it scored Strong.

On the record — “The beauty vertical page publishes the same disclosure: Skimlinks $16,325,974.36 (Sub-Affiliate), LTK $11,278,570.88 (Influencer Network), Capital One Shopping $5,773,756.63 (Loyalty/Rewards), VigLink/Sovrn $5,655,159.38 (Sub-Affiliate), UpSellIt $4,502,690.38 (Tech), FlexOffers $871,664.79 (Sub-Affiliate), Meredith Corporation $552,292.85 (Content).” advertisepurple.com ↗

On the record — “The apparel and fashion vertical page publishes named publishers with revenue driven: Rakuten Rewards $53,363,497.34 (Loyalty/Rewards), Skimlinks $30,128,415.21 (Sub-Affiliate), Capital One Shopping $21,139,052.34 (Loyalty/Rewards), ShopStyle US $13,923,158.49 (Content), Lyst $11,000,314.38 (Content), UpSellIt $8,440,958.15 (Tech), Wickfire $8,357,284.15 (TM+), ModeSens $3,657,963.35 (Shopping/Deal).” advertisepurple.com ↗

B2B — business-to-business: selling to companies rather than consumers — longer deals, more decision-makers.

Evidence: partly checkable — corroborated in part against the sources below; the remainder rests on the agency’s own account.

Excellent — 5 of 5 on this rubric’s scale, from Poor (1) to Excellent (5). This dimension carries 15% of the total score.

Benchmark — across the 14 other agencies evaluated in this discipline, this dimension runs Excellent 1 · Strong 8 · Adequate 5. The typical agency here scores Strong, and none scores higher than this one.

What this dimension measures: Which networks and platforms the firm operates on (Impact, PartnerStack, CJ, Awin, Rakuten, ShareASale, Everflow and the rest), whether it can migrate a program between them, and whether it works in the client's own account. Note whether the client owns the network account, since that determines whether the program is portable.

Scores high — Named multi-network capability plus migration experience scores 4-5.

Scores low — A single network with no migration path scores 2-3.

What we found — The best-documented dimension. Networks are named and differentiated: 'Major networks like ShareASale, CJ Affiliate, Rakuten, and Impact each have distinct publisher bases, fee structures, and tracking capabilities.' Multi-network operation is addressed directly ('I currently have one affiliate network I partner with. Is it beneficial to plug my program into another?'). Migration is answered as a named capability with a described process and its risks: 'switching networks is possible... You will need to communicate the change to all active affiliates, update tracking links, and ensure no commission data or attribution is lost... We have guided clients through network transitions many times and have a structured process.' The client works in and retains their own account: onboarding 'typically need[s] access to your affiliate network account or help setting one up', and during management 'you can also continue to login to your network account to see sale patterns.' A Rakuten Advertising Golden Link Award badge appears on the site, consistent with the network relationships claimed. Migration volume is unquantified and no migration case study is published. That is the high band above, which is why it scored Excellent.

On the record — “Four major networks are named and differentiated (ShareASale, CJ Affiliate, Rakuten, Impact), and network migration is described as an established capability with a structured process covering affiliate communication, tracking link updates and attribution continuity.” advertisepurple.com ↗

On the record — “Client ownership is explicit: asked whether the merchant retains ownership of the affiliate program and the affiliates after partnering, the answer is 'Yes.' The client also keeps their own network login during management, and onboarding uses the client's own network account.” advertisepurple.com ↗

attribution — working out which marketing touch actually caused a sale. Good practice names its model and its blind spots; bad practice quotes each ad platform’s self-graded numbers, which overlap and overclaim.

Evidence: vendor stated — the agency’s own claim, recorded as theirs rather than ours.

Strong — 4 of 5 on this rubric’s scale, from Poor (1) to Excellent (5). This dimension carries 15% of the total score.

Benchmark — across the 14 other agencies evaluated in this discipline, this dimension runs Adequate 4 · Weak 10. The typical agency here scores Weak, and none scores higher than this one.

What this dimension measures: How the firm is paid — flat retainer, percentage of affiliate revenue, hybrid — and who owns the program, the publisher relationships and the account at exit. A percentage-of-revenue model is not a defect but carries an obvious incentive to grow attributed revenue whether or not it is incremental, and where a firm charges that way AND is silent on incrementality, the combination should be named.

Scores high — A published fee model plus explicit client ownership scores 4-5.

Scores low — Silence on ownership scores 2.

What we found — Ownership is explicit and unambiguous, which is the rarer half: 'Once I partner with Advertise Purple to manage my affiliate program, do I still retain ownership of my affiliate program and affiliates?' - 'Yes.' The client also keeps the network account login. The fee model type is disclosed - 'A percentage based on performance', in place 'since 2014' - and adjacent costs are itemised (network setup fees, monthly minimums, network percentage of commissions, affiliate commissions, creative production). No rate or range is published, and contract term is not answered ('That can vary depending on a few factors'). Clutch partly corroborates the price level, reporting a most-common project size of $10,000-$49,999 and one client-reported ~$2,000/month. The rubric's named combination - percentage-of-revenue billing plus silence on incrementality - does NOT apply here: the firm bills on a percentage and does publish an incrementality position, so the pairing that would warrant calling out is absent. The incentive itself still exists and is worth a buyer's attention, because percentage-of-affiliate-revenue billing pays the agency on attributed revenue whether or not it is incremental, and the firm's own vertical pages show that revenue concentrating in loyalty and sub-affiliate partners. That is the high band above, which is why it scored Strong.

On the record — “The fee model is disclosed as type but not as rate: asked how much it charges to manage a program, the answer is 'A percentage based on performance.' Contract term is not answered - 'That can vary depending on a few factors.'” advertisepurple.com ↗

On the record — “Client ownership is explicit: asked whether the merchant retains ownership of the affiliate program and the affiliates after partnering, the answer is 'Yes.' The client also keeps their own network login during management, and onboarding uses the client's own network account.” advertisepurple.com ↗

retainer — a fixed monthly fee regardless of hours or output — predictable, but worth tying to a defined scope.

Evidence: vendor stated — the agency’s own claim, recorded as theirs rather than ours.

Strong — 4 of 5 on this rubric’s scale, from Poor (1) to Excellent (5). This dimension carries 5% of the total score.

Benchmark — across the 14 other agencies evaluated in this discipline, this dimension runs Strong 3 · Adequate 8 · Weak 3. The typical agency here scores Adequate, and none scores higher than this one.

What this dimension measures: What the client receives and how often: partner-level reporting, incrementality reads, payout reconciliation, a stated review cadence.

Scores high — Defined reporting with a named cadence scores 4-5.

Scores low — Undefined scores 2.

What we found — Reporting is defined and a cadence is named. Bloom is a real-time client dashboard showing 'over thirteen data points per affiliate' and work detail 'down to the hour'; the FAQ states monthly reporting supplemented by strategic reviews; two dedicated project managers are named as reachable 9-5 PST; the tracking page describes 'custom, dashboard-style reports' delivered 'on a regular schedule' plus review calls. Metrics named are top-performing affiliates, promotional method, average order value and ROI. Held below Excellent because payout reconciliation and an incrementality read are not named as reporting deliverables, and the written cadence on the tracking page is left as 'a regular schedule'. That is the high band above, which is why it scored Strong.

On the record — “Reporting is defined with a named cadence: real-time visibility through the Bloom dashboard covering over thirteen data points per affiliate, monthly reporting supplemented by strategic reviews, and two dedicated project managers reachable 9-5 PST.” advertisepurple.com ↗

deliverability — deliverability: whether cold email actually lands in the inbox rather than spam. The tell is infrastructure talk — warmed sending domains kept separate from your main domain — because a burned domain outlasts the engagement.

Evidence: vendor stated — the agency’s own claim, recorded as theirs rather than ours.

Strong — 4 of 5 on this rubric’s scale, from Poor (1) to Excellent (5). This dimension carries 5% of the total score.

Benchmark — across the 14 other agencies evaluated in this discipline, this dimension runs Strong 3 · Adequate 9 · Weak 2. The typical agency here scores Adequate, and none scores higher than this one.

What this dimension measures: Independent, verified reviews or industry recognition that can be read first-hand.

Scores low — A substantial verified base scores 4-5; a handful scores 2-3; none located scores 2.

What we found — Two independent bases were read first-hand. Clutch shows 4.3/5 across 18 reviews under Clutch's human-led verification, with a most-common project size of $10,000-$49,999. Trustpilot shows 4.8/5 across 167 reviews, 91% five-star and 4% one-star. Trustpilot itself carries the caveat that the company 'hasn't invited customers recently, so reviews may not be representative', and only 3 reviews landed in the last 12 months, so the volume is real but aging. Held below Excellent on that staleness and on the modest size of the verified Clutch base.

On the record — “Clutch shows 4.3/5 across 18 reviews under its human-led verification, with a most-common project size of $10,000-$49,999.” clutch.co ↗

On the record — “Trustpilot shows 4.8/5 across 167 reviews (91% five-star, 4% one-star) and carries Trustpilot's own caveat that the company has not invited customers recently so reviews may not be representative; only 3 arrived in the last 12 months.” trustpilot.com ↗

Evidence: verified — checked against a named source you can open; the links under Sources below are where to check it yourself.