Designity review

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

Benchmark — across the 12 other agencies evaluated in this discipline, this dimension runs Strong 3 · Adequate 4 · Weak 5. The typical agency here scores Adequate, and none scores higher than this one.

What this dimension measures: The single most important and most obscured fact in this category. 'Unlimited requests' describes submissions, not output — score the actual constraint: how many items are ACTIVE at once, and what is the daily or monthly cap?

Scores high — A published concurrency figure or a daily-hours allocation scores 4-5 even when the number is modest, because the buyer can forecast.

Scores low — A serial queue (one active item) scores 1-2 regardless of per-item turnaround, since fast delivery of one thing at a time is still one thing at a time. 'Unlimited' with no stated concurrency anywhere scores 2 — the omission is the finding.

What we found — Active concurrency published per tier — 2 simultaneous projects on Plus, 3 on Premium — with 24-hour and 12-hour turnaround on minor requests respectively. The only record in this category to state the constraint the whole rubric is built around. That is the high band above, which is why it scored Excellent.

On the record — “Turnaround for minor requests is 24 hours on Plus and 12 hours on Premium.” designity.com ↗

On the record — “Concurrency is published per tier: "2 active creatives/projects simultaneously" on Plus, "3 active creatives/projects simultaneously" on Premium.” designity.com ↗

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

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 12 other agencies evaluated in this discipline, this dimension runs Excellent 1 · Strong 4 · Adequate 5 · Weak 1 · Poor 1. The typical agency here scores Adequate, and 1 of them score higher than this one.

What this dimension measures: Client reports of different designers across work for the same product are a verified Poor, not an inference. Check employee-side signals too: sustained turnover at the vendor is upstream of designer rotation at the client, and Glassdoor volume is checkable where review platforms are thin.

Scores high — The same named person or persistent team month to month scores 4-5, because a designer who has already learned the brand does not relearn it every request.

Scores low — A rotating pool with no continuity guarantee scores 1-2.

What we found — A designated Creative Director who specialises in the client's industry, plus a project manager and marketing strategist, persists across the engagement. Held below Excellent because the executing creatives are drawn from a pool; the leadership persists, the individual designer is not guaranteed to. That is the high band above, which is why it scored Strong.

On the record — “Each client gets "a designated Creative Director who specializes in your industry", plus a project manager and marketing strategist; the Creative Director's role includes quality control.” designity.com ↗

On the record — “Concurrency is published per tier: "2 active creatives/projects simultaneously" on Plus, "3 active creatives/projects simultaneously" on Premium.” designity.com ↗

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

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 12 other agencies evaluated in this discipline, this dimension runs Excellent 2 · Strong 10. The typical agency here scores Strong, and none scores higher than this one.

What this dimension measures: What disciplines are covered at each tier — static design, motion, video, presentation, web, copy. Subscriptions are bought as a general-purpose resource, so range is a substantial part of the value: a team replacing one vendor with three has not saved anything. Note where breadth is gated behind a higher tier, and note that very broad catalogues imply more specialists touching the account, which trades against continuity.

Scores low — Broad published service catalogues score 4-5, single-discipline offers score 2-3.

What we found — Social and digital advertising, email, motion graphics and video, website design and coding, graphic design and illustration, copy and content writing, branding, and presentation. The broadest scope in this category, and copy plus coding are both genuinely unusual inclusions.

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

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 12 other agencies evaluated in this discipline, this dimension runs Strong 3 · Adequate 3 · Weak 6. The typical agency here scores Adequate, and none scores higher than this one.

What this dimension measures: Is there a brand-guideline intake, a stored brand profile, or a check step before delivery? A brand-assets feature with no review step scores 3.

Scores high — A described intake plus a named review step scores 4-5.

Scores low — Nothing at all scores 2 — output drifts by default across many requests and many hands, and a vendor that has not addressed it has not solved it. Where client reviews report inconsistency across deliveries for the same brand, score 1-2 on verified evidence.

What we found — A described intake, a stored brand profile holding voice, style and guidelines, and a named human review step — the Creative Director owns quality control. The only record here with both an intake and a named reviewer, which is what this dimension asks for. That is the high band above, which is why it scored Excellent.

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

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 12 other agencies evaluated in this discipline, this dimension runs Strong 1 · Adequate 4 · Weak 7. The typical agency here scores Weak, and 1 of them score higher than this one.

What this dimension measures: How many revision rounds are included, what happens when work comes back wrong, and critically whether a rejected or reworked item consumes the active slot or the daily allocation. Unlimited revisions that each re-enter the queue score 3 — that is where the real cost hides in a concurrency-limited model. This dimension is almost never addressed publicly and is worth asking about before signing.

Scores high — Unlimited in-scope revisions with rework outside the queue scores 4-5.

Scores low — Silence scores 2.

What we found — "Unlimited requests, revisions & storage" is published, but whether a revision consumes one of the 2-3 active slots is not stated. On a slot-limited model that is the consequential question and it is unanswered. That is between the two bands, which is why it scored Adequate.

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

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

Benchmark — across the 12 other agencies evaluated in this discipline, this dimension runs Excellent 4 · Strong 5 · Adequate 1 · Weak 1 · Poor 1. The typical agency here scores Strong, and none scores higher than this one.

What this dimension measures: Month-to-month scores higher than annual lock-in, since volume needs fluctuate. Score the annual-versus-monthly spread explicitly: a large penalty for monthly billing is lock-in presented as a discount. Whether the subscription can be PAUSED matters disproportionately — seasonal advertisers stop and restart, and a vendor that forbids pausing is charging for months of nothing.

Scores low — Published flat monthly pricing scores 4-5; consultation-only quoting scores 1-2, and withdrawing previously published pricing is a regression worth naming.

What we found — Flat monthly pricing published at $5,995 and $8,995, month-to-month with no long-term commitment, cancellation on seven days' notice, and a specifically defined pause — two weeks per quarter at $995 — rather than an undefined "pause anytime".

On the record — “Month-to-month with no long-term commitment, cancel with 7-day notice, and pause for 2 weeks per quarter at $995.” designity.com ↗

On the record — “Published pricing: Plus $5,995/mo, Premium $8,995/mo, Custom from $6k/mo, with quarterly and annual discounts stated.” designity.com ↗

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

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

Benchmark — across the 12 other agencies evaluated in this discipline, this dimension runs Excellent 1 · Strong 1 · Weak 10. The typical agency here scores Weak, and none scores higher than this one.

What this dimension measures: Does the buyer receive working files — layered source, project files, fonts and licensing — or only flattened finals?

Scores high — Explicit transfer of source files scores 4-5.

Scores low — Finals only scores 2. Silence scores 2: at this price point an unstated position usually resolves against the buyer, and the practical consequence is that leaving the subscription means rebuilding rather than moving.

What we found — "You receive complete copyright ownership of all creative assets" with "full access to source files via your dashboard". Explicit transfer of both rights and working files. That is the high band above, which is why it scored Excellent.

On the record — “"You receive complete copyright ownership of all creative assets" and "full access to source files via your dashboard".” designity.com ↗

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