Andy Raskin review

Adequate — 3 of 5 on this rubric’s scale, from Poor (1) to Excellent (5). This dimension carries 25% of the total score.

Benchmark — across the 16 other agencies evaluated in this discipline, this dimension runs Strong 6 · Adequate 9 · Weak 1. The typical agency here scores Adequate, and 6 of them score higher than this one.

What this dimension measures: Unlike most categories, the deliverable here is public: if a firm wrote a client's homepage or sales page, a buyer can go read it.

Scores high — Named clients with pages a reader can actually find and judge score 4-5.

Scores low — Screenshots of copy with no attribution score 2-3 — a screenshot cannot be checked and may be spec work. A portfolio that shows only results claims and no actual writing scores 1-2, because the one thing this category can always show is the writing.

What we found — The site names 21 clients and attributes every testimonial to a named person with a title and photo: Spenser Skates (CEO, Amplitude), Alex MacCaw (CEO, Clearbit), Zack Rosen (CEO, Pantheon), Andy Wilson (CEO, Logikcull), Marc Morin (CEO, Auvik Networks), Alexander Garcia-Tobar (CEO, ValiMail), Nate Skinner (VP Product Marketing, Salesforce), Randi Stipes (CMO, IBM Watson Media and Weather), and thirteen more. Named, identity-checkable attribution is well above the anonymous-screenshot floor. But there is no readable work of any kind: no sales deck, no client homepage or landing page pointed to, no before/after copy, no case study, not even a screenshot. The deliverable he describes elsewhere is an internal sales deck, which is by nature not public, so a buyer can verify who he worked with but cannot read a single line he wrote for a client. Capped at Adequate under the corroboration rule because no portfolio could be viewed. His own published essays are a large public writing sample but sit on Medium, which bot-blocked every fetch attempt, so they are not scored either way. That is between the two bands, which is why it scored Adequate.

On the record — “The homepage names 21 clients and attributes each testimonial to a named individual with title and company, including Spenser Skates (CEO and Founder, Amplitude), Alex MacCaw (CEO, Clearbit), Zack Rosen (CEO, Pantheon), Andy Wilson (CEO, Logikcull), Marc Morin (CEO, Auvik Networks), Alexander Garcia-Tobar (CEO and Co-founder, ValiMail), Nate Skinner (VP Product Marketing, Salesforce) and Randi Stipes (CMO, IBM Watson Media and Weather).” andyraskin.com ↗

On the record — “His published essays on Medium could not be read first-hand: medium.com returned HTTP 403 (Cloudflare bot block) to every attempt, including the profile and the individual article. No conclusion is drawn from this either way.” medium.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.

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

Adequate — 3 of 5 on this rubric’s scale, from Poor (1) to Excellent (5). This dimension carries 20% of the total score.

Benchmark — across the 16 other agencies evaluated in this discipline, this dimension runs Excellent 3 · Strong 8 · Adequate 4 · Weak 1. The typical agency here scores Strong, and 11 of them score higher than this one.

What this dimension measures: Where the message comes from. Look for a described research step: customer interviews, review mining, sales-call analysis, survey or message testing with real respondents.

Scores high — A named research method with a described process scores 4-5.

Scores low — 'We get to know your brand' with no method scores 2-3. Copy generated from a brief alone, with no customer input, scores 2 — it may still be good writing, but the buyer is purchasing the writer's intuition rather than their customer's language, and the verdict should say so.

What we found — Neither page on the site describes a method. The homepage says only that he helps CEOs 'align around a high-level story'; the only process language on the whole site is inside client quotes ('Andy's process is agile and iterative', 'through dialog and questioning'). Off-site, in interviews I read first-hand, the method is named and specific: a five-part strategic-narrative framework (name the change in the world / the stakes / the promised land / the obstacles / how you overcome them), and he states he uses customer interviews to settle competing theories among executives by letting customer language decide. That is a real, described method, but it is published in podcast write-ups rather than on the buying surface, and there is no evidence of message testing with respondents, A/B tests, review mining or sales-call analysis. A buyer landing on andyraskin.com cannot answer where the message comes from. That is between the two bands, which is why it scored Adequate.

On the record — “Independently published interviews describe a named five-part narrative framework (name the change in the world, the stakes, the promised land, the obstacles, how you overcome them) and state that he uses customer interviews to resolve competing theories among executives, and that the deliverable is built into a sales deck rather than a messaging document.” foundercoho.substack.com ↗

On the record — “Neither page describes a research method, a process, a stage sequence, a revision count or a handoff format. The only process language on the site appears inside client testimonials.” andyraskin.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 15% of the total score.

Benchmark — across the 16 other agencies evaluated in this discipline, this dimension runs Strong 3 · Adequate 11 · Weak 2. The typical agency here scores Adequate, and none scores higher than this one.

What this dimension measures: This category runs on conversion-lift claims and almost none are checkable. Absence of any outcome claims is not a defect; overclaiming is.

Scores high — A firm that states results WITH the test conditions — sample size, duration, what was compared — scores 4-5.

Scores low — Bare percentage claims ('increased conversions 312%') with no baseline, no timeframe and no named client score 1-2 and should be flagged: an uncontrolled before/after on a page that also changed traffic mix is not a measured lift.

What we found — I read the full text of both pages. There is not a single percentage, multiple, dollar figure or conversion-lift claim anywhere on the site. In a category that runs on uncontrolled before/after numbers, that abstention is unusual and is directly observable. The closest thing to an outcome claim is a named CEO's own words ('immediately increased our win rate' - Spenser Skates, Amplitude), which is directional, on the record, and attributed to the client rather than asserted by the vendor. Not Excellent, because no result is stated with test conditions - sample, duration, or what was compared - so nothing here is measured. But the rubric treats absence of outcome claims as no defect and overclaiming as the defect, and there is no overclaiming to find. That is the high band above, which is why it scored Strong.

On the record — “The full text of both pages contains no percentage, multiple, dollar figure or conversion-lift claim. The site publishes no quantified outcome claim of any kind.” andyraskin.com ↗

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

Weak — 2 of 5 on this rubric’s scale, from Poor (1) to Excellent (5). This dimension carries 15% of the total score.

Benchmark — across the 16 other agencies evaluated in this discipline, this dimension runs Excellent 3 · Strong 5 · Adequate 3 · Weak 5. The typical agency here scores Strong, and 11 of them score higher than this one.

What this dimension measures: Score scope clarity alongside price: a firm that states plainly what a project covers (how many pages, how many revision rounds, whether research is included) is more useful than one implying open-ended collaboration.

Scores high — Published prices, per-asset rates, or defined packages with stated inclusions score 4-5.

Scores low — Ranges on request score 2-3; bespoke-only with no anchor scores 1-2.

What we found — No price, no range, no package, no anchor of any kind on either page - bespoke-only, contact by email. Scope is thin too: the CEO engagement is described in a single paragraph that lists the functions a narrative helps with, not what the buyer receives, how many sessions it takes, or how many revision rounds are included. The team-training page is better on scope - it states the format (on-site), the duration (usually 1.5 to 3 hours), the audience (leadership, sales, marketing, product executives) and a five-item takeaways list - but still carries no price. Pricing sits in the 1-2 band; partial scope clarity on the secondary line holds this at Weak rather than Poor. That is what the low band describes, which is why it scored Weak.

On the record — “The team-training page states a format and duration for that service: on-site training, 'usually 1.5 to 3 hours', for executives from leadership, sales, marketing and product, with a five-item takeaways list. It states no price. No duration, lead time or availability is published for the flagship CEO engagement.” andyraskin.com ↗

On the record — “No price, price range, package or pricing anchor appears on either page. The only stated contact routes are an email address (andyraskin@gmail.com) and a Drift chat widget.” andyraskin.com ↗

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

Stronger here: Fletch PMM scores Excellent on the same dimension.

Adequate — 3 of 5 on this rubric’s scale, from Poor (1) to Excellent (5). This dimension carries 10% of the total score.

Benchmark — across the 16 other agencies evaluated in this discipline, this dimension runs Excellent 2 · Strong 4 · Adequate 10. The typical agency here scores Adequate, and 6 of them score higher than this one.

What this dimension measures: How a project runs: discovery, draft, revision rounds, handoff format, and who implements. Note whether the firm hands over a document or implements in the client's CMS, since that determines who carries the last mile.

Scores high — Defined stages with a stated revision count score 4-5.

Scores low — No described process scores 2-3.

What we found — The site describes no stages, no revision count and no handoff format. Two interviews I read first-hand do describe the working shape: the CEO is the person in the room and cannot delegate it ('The CEO has to be the decider'), a small feedback group of the heads of marketing, product and sales reviews the versions, the work iterates through drafts, and the artifact is built directly into a sales deck rather than a messaging document, on his stated reasoning that 'no one would come back to that thing.' That answers the last-mile question - he hands over a deck the team uses, not a document - but it is knowable only off-site. On-site there is no described process at all, which is the rubric's 2-3 band. That is between the two bands, which is why it scored Adequate.

On the record — “Neither page describes a research method, a process, a stage sequence, a revision count or a handoff format. The only process language on the site appears inside client testimonials.” andyraskin.com ↗

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

Weak — 2 of 5 on this rubric’s scale, from Poor (1) to Excellent (5). This dimension carries 10% of the total score.

Benchmark — across the 16 other agencies evaluated in this discipline, this dimension runs Excellent 3 · Strong 6 · Adequate 2 · Weak 5. The typical agency here scores Strong, and 11 of them score higher than this one.

What this dimension measures: Stated timelines per deliverable and how far out the firm books. Small studios and solo-principal firms are common here; a stated booking lead time is a mark of honesty rather than a limitation, and should be scored as such.

Scores high — Published timelines score 4-5.

Scores low — Undisclosed scheduling scores 2.

What we found — The rubric treats a stated booking lead time from a solo principal as honesty rather than a limitation - but there is none to credit here. For the flagship CEO engagement the site publishes no duration, no start date, no availability and no waitlist; the instruction is simply to email him. The only published timeline anywhere is the team-training format at 'usually 1.5 to 3 hours', which is the secondary line. One client quote mentions 'in just one month' (Mark Chung, Verdigris), but that is a client recollection of one project, not a published turnaround. Undisclosed scheduling on the main service is the rubric's 2. That is what the low band describes, which is why it scored Weak.

On the record — “The team-training page states a format and duration for that service: on-site training, 'usually 1.5 to 3 hours', for executives from leadership, sales, marketing and product, with a five-item takeaways list. It states no price. No duration, lead time or availability is published for the flagship CEO engagement.” andyraskin.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: verified — checked against a named source you can open; the links under Sources below are where to check it yourself.

Stronger here: Fletch PMM scores Excellent on the same dimension.

Weak — 2 of 5 on this rubric’s scale, from Poor (1) to Excellent (5). This dimension carries 5% of the total score.

Benchmark — across the 16 other agencies evaluated in this discipline, this dimension runs Strong 1 · Adequate 2 · Weak 13. The typical agency here scores Weak, and 3 of them score higher than this one.

What this dimension measures: Independent, verified reviews. Low weight deliberately, because in this category the published writing is stronger evidence than a review count.

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

What we found — No Clutch, G2, Trustpilot or Google Business listing was located by search, and none was readable first-hand, so no rating or count is cited here. What exists instead is a 21-strong roster of named, titled, photographed executive testimonials whose identities a buyer can check independently, plus third-party interviews with him published by Lenny's Newsletter, Founder Coho and Dylan Tweney that I read first-hand. Those are journalism and self-description, not client reviews. No independent review base located scores 2 by the rubric, and this dimension carries only 5 percent weight precisely because published writing outranks review counts in this category.

Evidence: inferred — our reading of indirect evidence, not a documented fact.

Stronger here: Olivine scores Strong on the same dimension.