Disruptive Advertising 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 37 other agencies evaluated in this discipline, this dimension runs Excellent 14 · Strong 6 · Adequate 14 · Weak 3. The typical agency here scores Strong, and 20 of them score higher than this one.

What this dimension measures: Does the agency have named clients in the buyer's vertical at the buyer's stage? Tangential vertical or adjacent stage scores 3. Mismatched (e.g.

Scores high — Direct sector + stage match scores 5.

Scores low — lifestyle B2C agency pitched for B2B SaaS) scores 1-2. Generic 'we serve everyone' positioning scores 2.

What we found — Serves broad mid-market to enterprise across many verticals; not specialized. That is between the two bands, which is why it scored Adequate.

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

SaaS — software as a service: subscription software; as a client type it brings recurring revenue and metrics like churn and lifetime value.

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 37 other agencies evaluated in this discipline, this dimension runs Excellent 13 · Strong 5 · Adequate 15 · Weak 4. The typical agency here scores Adequate, and 33 of them score higher than this one.

What this dimension measures: Best agencies are deep on 2-3 named channels, not jacks-of-all-trades.

Scores high — A single-channel specialist or 2-3 channel specialist matching the buyer's needed channels scores 4-5.

Scores low — An agency claiming Google + Meta + LinkedIn + TikTok + programmatic + CTV + Reddit usually scores 1-2 (spread thin). If the agency's deep channels don't match the buyer's need, score 2-3.

What we found — Full-service across many channels (PPC, paid social, lifecycle, CRO), spread wide. That is what the low band describes, which is why it scored Weak.

programmatic — automated auction-buying of ad space across the web, rather than direct placements.

lifecycle — lifecycle marketing: the automated email and SMS journey across a customer’s relationship — welcome, abandoned cart, post-purchase, win-back.

CRO — conversion-rate optimization: raising the share of visitors who buy or sign up through structured testing, not redesign by taste.

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

Stronger here: AdVenture Media Group scores Excellent on the same dimension.

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 37 other agencies evaluated in this discipline, this dimension runs Excellent 13 · Strong 13 · Adequate 6 · Weak 5. The typical agency here scores Strong, and 26 of them score higher than this one.

What this dimension measures: Does the agency use server-side tracking, MMM, incrementality testing, or proper multi-touch attribution?

Scores high — Sophisticated measurement (server-side tracking, GA4 + warehouse, incrementality lifts) scores 4-5.

Scores low — In 2026 platform-reported ROAS (in-platform Meta/Google numbers) is increasingly broken — reliance on it as primary measure scores 1-2. Silence on attribution scores 2.

What we found — Results cited, but measurement rigor not clearly beyond in-platform. That is between the two bands, which is why it scored Adequate.

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.

ROAS — return on ad spend: revenue per dollar of advertising. Platform-reported ROAS overstates; independently measured ROAS is the honest version.

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

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 37 other agencies evaluated in this discipline, this dimension runs Excellent 3 · Strong 15 · Adequate 12 · Weak 7. The typical agency here scores Adequate, and 18 of them score higher than this one.

What this dimension measures: In 2026 creative is the lever, not bidding. Look for video creative capability specifically — most B2B agencies are weak here.

Scores high — In-house creative team that ships and iterates ads weekly scores 4-5.

Scores low — Agencies that hand creative back to the client or rely on stock template variations score 1-2.

What we found — Creative capable within a full-service model. That is between the two bands, which is why it scored Adequate.

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

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

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 37 other agencies evaluated in this discipline, this dimension runs Excellent 6 · Strong 9 · Adequate 13 · Weak 8 · Poor 1. The typical agency here scores Adequate, and 28 of them score higher than this one.

What this dimension measures: Who actually runs the buyer's account day-to-day? Look for who would be on the kickoff call vs. who would be in the trenches.

Scores high — Named senior strategist with 5+ years on the account scores 4-5.

Scores low — Account-manager-only with a strategist behind the scenes scores 2-3. Unnamed pool / no clear owner scores 1.

What we found — Seniors sell, juniors execute; account-manager turnover repeatedly reported. That is what the low band describes, which is why it scored Weak.

On the record — “Most-repeated complaints: account-manager turnover, junior teams after senior sale, templated strategies, and difficulty exiting contracts.” g2.com ↗

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

Stronger here: AdVenture Media Group scores Excellent on the same dimension.

Strong — 4 of 5 on this rubric’s scale, from Poor (1) to Excellent (5). This dimension carries 10% of the total score.

Benchmark — across the 37 other agencies evaluated in this discipline, this dimension runs Excellent 12 · Strong 14 · Adequate 7 · Weak 4. The typical agency here scores Strong, and 12 of them score higher than this one.

What this dimension measures: Check if named clients still publicly use the agency (LinkedIn employer connections, recent campaigns).

Scores high — Named clients with concrete dated results (CAC delta, ROAS, attributable revenue, cohort metrics) score 4-5.

Scores low — Testimonials without numbers score 1-2. Case studies dated 2024 or earlier used as primary evidence score 1-2 — the agency probably peaked.

What we found — 367 Clutch reviews with concrete client results. That is the high band above, which is why it scored Strong.

On the record — “Disruptive Advertising (founded 2012, Utah) has 367 Clutch reviews and manages tens of millions in ad spend.” clutch.co ↗

CAC — customer acquisition cost: total sales and marketing spend divided by customers won — the number that says whether growth is affordable.

ROAS — return on ad spend: revenue per dollar of advertising. Platform-reported ROAS overstates; independently measured ROAS is the honest version.

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 5% of the total score.

Benchmark — across the 37 other agencies evaluated in this discipline, this dimension runs Excellent 3 · Strong 8 · Adequate 15 · Weak 11. The typical agency here scores Adequate, and 26 of them score higher than this one.

Scores high — Month-to-month or 3-month terms with published retainer or % of spend pricing score 4-5.

Scores low — 12-month lock-ins score 2 (yellow flag). Bespoke-only quoting with no published anchor scores 1-2 — usually correlates with extracting more from less-savvy buyers.

What we found — No public pricing; clients report difficulty exiting contracts early. That is what the low band describes, which is why it scored Weak.

On the record — “Most-repeated complaints: account-manager turnover, junior teams after senior sale, templated strategies, and difficulty exiting contracts.” g2.com ↗

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

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

Stronger here: Digital Position scores Excellent on the same dimension.