Blast Analytics 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 Excellent 1 · Strong 4 · Adequate 11. The typical agency here scores Adequate, and 5 of them score higher than this one.

What this dimension measures: The heaviest weight, because an unvalidated model is an opinion with decimal places. Look for a described methodology, stated assumptions, and above all how the model is VALIDATED: holdout periods, backtesting, or reconciliation against a real experiment. A described method with no validation story scores 3.

Scores high — A firm that publishes its validation approach and names its limits scores 4-5.

Scores low — 'Proprietary algorithm' with no methodology at all scores 1-2 — proprietary is not a method, and in this category it is the single least checkable claim a vendor can make.

What we found — A consulting method is published and named: the SIOT framework (Strategy, Implementation, Optimization, Training) on the homepage, and a Discovery / Analysis / Recommendations sequence on the data-analysis page. The Adobe case study describes concrete artifacts (an Adobe Analytics audit per property, a Solution Design Document, per-team implementation guides). Nothing anywhere describes how a measurement claim is validated: a site search for 'incrementality holdout geo experiment' returns 'Sorry, no results were found.' Marketing Mix Modeling and Attribution Modeling appear only as bullet items on the marketing-analytics services list, with no stated assumptions, model form, or limits. The published attribution writing is about configuring the models built into Adobe Analytics and Google Attribution 360 rather than building and testing one. To their credit they do not hide behind a 'proprietary algorithm' claim, which is why this lands at a described method with no validation story rather than lower. That is between the two bands, which is why it scored Adequate.

On the record — “An on-site search for 'incrementality holdout geo experiment' returns 'Sorry, no results were found.' No geo holdout, matched-market, PSA/ghost-ad or switchback experiment design is published anywhere on the site.” blastanalytics.com ↗

On the record — “Marketing Mix Modeling (MMM) and Attribution Modeling are listed as line items under 'Marketing Analytics Services' with no methodology, assumptions, model form or validation approach described anywhere on the page.” blastanalytics.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: 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 1 · Strong 7 · Adequate 4 · Weak 4. The typical agency here scores Strong, and 8 of them score higher than this one.

What this dimension measures: Whether the firm can establish causality rather than only correlation: geo holdout tests, matched-market design, PSA/ghost-ad tests, switchback designs, or reconciliation of modelled results against live experiments.

Scores high — Named experiment designs with described execution score 4-5.

Scores low — Correlation-only modelling with no experimental capability scores 2-3 — legitimate and common, but the buyer should know they are buying a correlational estimate. A firm that presents modelled attribution as proven causality scores 1-2, and the overclaim should be named in the verdict.

What we found — Real controlled-experiment capability exists but it is on-site conversion optimization, not media incrementality. The testing-personalization page names the tools (Adobe Target, Optimizely, Optimizely Personalization), describes an iterative hypothesis-and-learning process, and is backed by nine testing case studies plus a named Quicken engagement and a reference to Healthcare.gov. None of the media-side experiment designs this dimension asks about are present: no geo holdout, matched-market, PSA/ghost-ad, or switchback design appears anywhere on the site, and the site search for those terms is empty. They do not present modelled attribution as proven causality, which would score lower; the published attribution piece explicitly discusses the advantages and disadvantages of different models. A buyer should read this as strong A/B testing on owned properties and no demonstrated ability to establish media incrementality. That is between the two bands, which is why it scored Adequate.

On the record — “Experimentation capability is on-site conversion optimization, named to specific tools (Adobe Target, Optimizely, Optimizely Personalization), with an iterative testing process described and a named Quicken case study plus a reference to Healthcare.gov.” blastanalytics.com ↗

On the record — “An on-site search for 'incrementality holdout geo experiment' returns 'Sorry, no results were found.' No geo holdout, matched-market, PSA/ghost-ad or switchback experiment design is published anywhere on the site.” blastanalytics.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: 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 15% of the total score.

Benchmark — across the 16 other agencies evaluated in this discipline, this dimension runs Excellent 1 · Strong 9 · Adequate 5 · Weak 1. The typical agency here scores Strong, and 10 of them score higher than this one.

What this dimension measures: Attributable client work at a stated scale and category. Treat any 'we found X% waste' claim as a vendor-stated number unless a client is named and corroborates it.

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

Scores low — Anonymised case studies score 2-3 — common here for genuine confidentiality reasons, so do not penalise beyond the band, but do not credit unverifiable lift figures either.

What we found — A large client logo wall is published on the clients and quick-start pages, with logo assets identifying NBA, Wall Street Journal, Dow Jones, Weight Watchers, Ulta Beauty, The North Face, State Farm, Tommy Bahama, CommonSpirit, CMS, Autodesk, Intuit, Duke Energy, Spectrum Reach, Brooks Sports, Ancestry, Fitbit, Traeger Grills, Agilent, Quicken and Equinix. That is a claim of relationship only; no client corroborates it and per the corroboration cap it cannot lift this dimension on its own. The engagements themselves are almost all anonymized: 'a multi-brand news organization', 'Appliance Retailer', 'Beauty Retailer', 'Healthcare Organization', 'National Transportation Client'. One case study names its client with a described engagement (Quicken, product comparison chart testing). Testimonials carry real names and job titles but usually no company. Notably the Adobe case study reports its results qualitatively rather than attaching an unverifiable lift percentage, which is more honest than the category norm. That is between the two bands, which is why it scored Adequate.

On the record — “Case study titles are predominantly anonymized by client type: 'Appliance Retailer', 'Beauty Retailer', 'Healthcare Organization', 'a multi-brand news organization', 'National Transportation Client'.” blastanalytics.com ↗

On the record — “The clients page publishes a logo wall naming NBA, Wall Street Journal, Dow Jones, Weight Watchers, Ulta Beauty, The North Face, State Farm, Tommy Bahama, CommonSpirit, CMS, Autodesk, Intuit, Duke Energy, Spectrum Reach, Brooks Sports, Ancestry, Fitbit, Traeger Grills, Agilent, Quicken and Equinix, while the testimonials beside them name individuals and titles but generally not their company.” blastanalytics.com ↗

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

Adequate — 3 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 11 · Adequate 3 · Weak 2. The typical agency here scores Strong, and 11 of them score higher than this one.

What this dimension measures: What the engagement needs from the buyer (spend, conversion, and channel data at what granularity) and — critically — whether the firm also buys the media it is measuring. A firm that measures media it does not sell is structurally more credible; where the same firm buys and grades its own work, that conflict must be disclosed and should be named in the verdict whether or not the firm names it.

Scores high — Clear data requirements plus independence from media buying scores 4-5.

Scores low — Undisclosed conflict scores 1-2.

What we found — Independence from media buying looks genuine: across the full service navigation, the solutions pages and the case study index there is no paid media, media planning or media buying line, and the case-studies search-marketing sub-page now 404s. This firm does not appear to buy the media it would be measuring, which is the structurally credible position. A different conflict is present and should be named: it is a paid certified partner of the platforms it audits and recommends (Adobe, Google Marketing Platform including Display and Video 360 and Search Ads 360, Tealium, Optimizely), so its audit and recommendation work sits upstream of implementation revenue on those same platforms. This is disclosed to the extent that a partners page and a code-of-ethics page are published. The other half of the dimension is missing: no page states what data a buyer must supply, at what granularity, or over what history, for a marketing analytics or attribution engagement. That is between the two bands, which is why it scored Adequate.

On the record — “The firm is a certified consulting partner of Adobe, Google Marketing Platform (including Display and Video 360 and Search Ads 360), Tealium and Optimizely - the same platforms its audit and recommendation services assess. No paid media planning or buying service line appears anywhere in the navigation or case study index.” blastanalytics.com ↗

On the record — “The firm's published attribution content addresses configuring the attribution models built into Adobe Analytics, Google Attribution 360 and Google Analytics Multi-Channel Funnels, rather than constructing or validating a causal model of its own.” blastanalytics.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: 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 10% of the total score.

Benchmark — across the 16 other agencies evaluated in this discipline, this dimension runs Excellent 1 · Strong 6 · Adequate 9. The typical agency here scores Adequate, and 7 of them score higher than this one.

What this dimension measures: What arrives and how often: a one-off model, a refreshed quarterly model, a live dashboard, a decision workshop. A model delivered once and never refreshed is a snapshot of a market that has moved, and should be scored as the ceiling it is.

Scores high — Stated deliverables with a stated refresh cadence score 4-5.

Scores low — Undefined deliverables score 2.

What we found — Deliverables are better defined than most in the category. Fourteen productized 'Quick Start Solutions' are named and scoped in one line each (Experimentation Acceleration, CX Audit, Voice of Customer, Testing Roadmap, Personalization, CDP, Customer Segmentation, Social Listening, Data Visualization, Privacy Consent Management, Data Integration, Analytics Maturity Framework, Tag Management, Data Quality Audit, CCPA Audit), and specific artifacts are named in the case study. Cadence is entirely absent: no page states a duration, a delivery timeline, or a refresh frequency for any model, dashboard or audit, and nothing says whether a measurement deliverable is refreshed or delivered once. That is between the two bands, which is why it scored Adequate.

On the record — “Fourteen productized 'Quick Start Solutions' are named and scoped in a line each, but no price, duration, timeline or refresh cadence is stated for any of them.” blastanalytics.com ↗

On the record — “Experimentation capability is on-site conversion optimization, named to specific tools (Adobe Target, Optimizely, Optimizely Personalization), with an iterative testing process described and a named Quicken case study plus a reference to Healthcare.gov.” blastanalytics.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.

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 Strong 2 · Adequate 2 · Weak 12. The typical agency here scores Weak, and 2 of them score higher than this one.

What this dimension measures: Note any minimum spend and whether the model licence continues after the engagement ends.

Scores high — Published fees, ranges, or a stated engagement structure with numbers score 4-5.

Scores low — A described structure without numbers scores 2-3. Bespoke-only with no anchor scores 1-2.

What we found — The firm's own site publishes no pricing at all on any page read: every commercial path ends at a phone number and a 'Request a Consultation' form. A numeric anchor does exist off-site and was read first-hand on the Clutch directory profile for Blast Analytics and Marketing: $200-$300 per hour and a $10,000+ minimum project size. Those figures are supplied by the vendor to the directory rather than independently audited, and the newer BlastX Consulting profile carries no rate at all. Nothing on either surface states whether a model, dashboard or data layer built during an engagement continues to be licensed or usable after it ends. That is between the two bands, which is why it scored Adequate.

On the record — “The Clutch profile for Blast Analytics & Marketing lists an hourly rate of $200-$300 and a $10,000+ minimum project size, with 0 client reviews and a 0.0 rating. The firm's own website publishes no pricing on any page.” clutch.co ↗

On the record — “The Clutch profile for BlastX Consulting shows 0 client reviews and a 0.0 overall rating, with no hourly rate stated and project minimum listed as confidential.” clutch.co ↗

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 5% of the total score.

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

What this dimension measures: Independent, verified reviews or checkable references. Low weight deliberately: measurement work sells through procurement and referral, so a thin public review footprint is normal and the method evidence above matters far more.

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

What we found — A measured absence, not a retrieval failure. Both Clutch profiles were read first-hand and both show 0 client reviews and a 0.0 overall rating: the Blast Analytics and Marketing profile and the BlastX Consulting profile. No G2 or Google client review base was located. The 3.3-from-68 Glassdoor rating is employee feedback and is not client evidence. The site carries roughly a dozen self-published testimonials, most attributed to a person and title without a company, so they cannot be checked.

On the record — “The Clutch profile for BlastX Consulting shows 0 client reviews and a 0.0 overall rating, with no hourly rate stated and project minimum listed as confidential.” clutch.co ↗

On the record — “The Clutch profile for Blast Analytics & Marketing lists an hourly rate of $200-$300 and a $10,000+ minimum project size, with 0 client reviews and a 0.0 rating. The firm's own website publishes no pricing on any page.” clutch.co ↗

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