Ebiquity 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 16 other agencies evaluated in this discipline, this dimension runs Excellent 1 · Strong 3 · Adequate 12. The typical agency here scores Adequate, and 1 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 — The MMM page describes the actual modelling approach rather than gesturing at one: established econometric techniques modelling media alongside pricing, promotions, distribution, competitors, seasonality and external factors, with variable selection shaped by media knowledge. It names its own limits - the first-time-MMM article states feasibility constraints of total media budget, nature of the KPI and data quality, and calls data the main limitation on building a robust model. It states a triangulation position: MMM outputs are designed to sit alongside attribution, brand tracking and incrementality testing 'rather than competing with other methods', and the MMM page explicitly warns against 'mistaking correlation for causation'. It also names open-source alternatives (Google Meridian, Meta Robyn) instead of pretending none exist, which is unusual candour for a paid modelling practice. Externally corroborated: thinkbox.tv publishes the Profit Ability 2 methodology naming Ebiquity as a contributing firm, with stated dataset scope (141 brands, GBP 1.8bn of spend, 2021-2023) and an acknowledged scope limitation. Held below Excellent because no client-engagement validation protocol is published anywhere - no holdout period, no backtesting, no described reconciliation of a delivered model against a live TestMatch result. The insight platform and the TestMatch matching algorithm are both described as proprietary. That is the high band above, which is why it scored Strong.

On the record — “The MMM page states models are built with established econometric techniques covering pricing, promotions, distribution, competitors, seasonality and external factors, warns that organisations otherwise 'risk optimising in silos or mistaking correlation for causation', and states MMM outputs 'are designed to sit alongside attribution, brand tracking, and incrementality testing'. No holdout, backtest or validation protocol is described.” ebiquity.com ↗

On the record — “Ebiquity names its own feasibility limits in published writing: MMM constraints are 'total media budget, nature of the KPI and data quality', data is 'the main limitation to building a robust MMM', and refresh cadence is bespoke - 'Some brands run monthly updates, for others once a year is sufficient.' The same article names Google Meridian and Meta Robyn as open-source alternatives.” ebiquity.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.

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 16 other agencies evaluated in this discipline, this dimension runs Excellent 1 · Strong 6 · Adequate 5 · Weak 4. The typical agency here scores Adequate, and 1 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 — TestMatch is a named, separately documented incrementality product, not a bullet on a services menu. The design is stated: 'precisely matching test and control groups', channel-agnostic and working 'wherever media can be bought geographically' - a matched-market/geo holdout design covering TV, audio, digital and social. Described reads include creative length, buying objective and campaign frequency, plus direct and halo effects across brands and sales channels, delivered in weeks. The firm draws the attribution/incrementality distinction correctly in its own writing: 'you don't want to drive customers who would come to you anyway (attribution), you want to drive customers who otherwise wouldn't (incrementality)'. No overclaim was found - modelled results are never presented as proven causality. Capped at Strong because the matching methodology is proprietary and no test-design detail is published: no power analysis, minimum detectable effect, control-group sizing, test duration or evidence that the matching itself has been validated. That is the high band above, which is why it scored Strong.

On the record — “TestMatch is documented as a matched-market incrementality product: 'By precisely matching test and control groups, TestMatch delivers decision-grade results in weeks', is channel-agnostic across TV, audio, digital and social, and 'works wherever media can be bought geographically'. The matching methodology is described only as proprietary advanced algorithms.” ebiquity.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.

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 16 other agencies evaluated in this discipline, this dimension runs Strong 9 · Adequate 6 · Weak 1. The typical agency here scores Strong, and none scores 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 — Multiple named blue-chip clients with described engagements, two carrying named and titled client executives. KFC: a Digital Governance Programme over USD 135m+ of digital spend across 15 named markets, dual-lens analysis of 55 billion impressions, quoted by Suzanne Perry, Global Media Director at KFC. Virgin Media O2: a suite of econometric models measuring the incremental value of each investment lever post-merger, quoted by Ruth Pignal-Jacquard, Head of Planning, Insight & Effectiveness. JLR: a 10+ year engagement covering pitch management, governance, advanced analytics and contract compliance. The case study index additionally names Nestle, Audi and Shell alongside anonymised CPG/FMCG/financial-institution studies. The scale and specificity here are at the top of this category. The outcome figures themselves (26% ROI improvement at VMO2, USD 8.3m identified at KFC, GBP 300M+ at JLR) remain vendor-stated - the client quotes endorse the working relationship and the clarity of the insight, not the specific numbers - and are not credited as verified. That is the high band above, which is why it scored Excellent.

On the record — “Named client work with named, titled client executives quoted: KFC (Suzanne Perry, Global Media Director) across 15 named markets covering USD 135m+ of digital spend and 55 billion impressions; Virgin Media O2 (Ruth Pignal-Jacquard, Head of Planning, Insight & Effectiveness) with a suite of econometric models measuring incremental value per investment lever. Nestle, Audi, Shell and JLR are also named.” ebiquity.com ↗

On the record — “Independent corroboration of method work: thinkbox.tv publishes the Profit Ability 2 study naming Ebiquity as a contributing econometrics firm alongside EssenceMediacom, Gain Theory, Mindshare and Wavemaker, describing it as a meta-analysis of 141 brands and GBP 1.8 billion of media spend over 2021-2023, and acknowledging its scope limitation as a benchmark of advertisers with the means to model econometrically.” thinkbox.tv ↗

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 10 · Adequate 4 · Weak 2. The typical agency here scores Strong, and none scores 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 — The independence claim is real and is the strongest part of this record. Ebiquity publishes a standalone Statement of Independence PDF with six itemised principles, including 'We do not offer media execution and trading services' and 'We do not engage in media buying or conduct any negotiations with media owners or publishers on behalf of our clients', and 'we are independent of the media supply chain and do not pitch for media work'. It self-qualifies rather than absolutising: it discloses that the firm 'occasionally work[s] with clients on test & learn projects that involve some media buying, almost always conducted by their media agencies'. This is consistent with what the rest of the site actually sells - the three solution lines (Transform, Govern, Grow) contain agency selection, remuneration, contract compliance, media performance audit, MMM, incrementality testing and brand equity, and no media trading line anywhere. The firm is an AIM-listed plc (EBQ) whose entire public identity is media investment analysis, so the structural claim is checkable beyond its own marketing. Held below Excellent on the other half of this dimension: data requirements are not specified. No page states what spend, conversion or channel data a buyer must supply, at what granularity, or over what minimum history - the closest is advice to 'audit what you have'. That is the high band above, which is why it scored Strong.

On the record — “Ebiquity publishes a standalone Statement of Independence PDF stating: 'We do not offer media execution and trading services' and 'We do not engage in media buying or conduct any negotiations with media owners or publishers on behalf of our clients'. It discloses a narrow exception: 'We occasionally work with clients on test & learn projects that involve some media buying, almost always conducted by their media agencies, where we focus entirely on measurement.' The document is dated February 2019.” ebiquity.com ↗

On the record — “The firm sells agency selection and operating-model design under Transform ('We lead agency selection for a third of global media billings reviewed each year') while separately auditing media performance and modelling effectiveness for advertisers, and states 'We only work for advertisers, ensuring no conflicts of interest.'” ebiquity.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 10% of the total score.

Benchmark — across the 16 other agencies evaluated in this discipline, this dimension runs Excellent 1 · Strong 5 · Adequate 10. The typical agency here scores Adequate, and 1 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 enumerated per solution rather than left abstract. MMM: channel and portfolio-level ROI grounded in econometric evidence, separation of short-term sales response from longer-term brand effect, scenario planning and budget optimisation reflecting real-world constraints, and senior interpretation, delivered through a proprietary interactive platform for exploration. TestMatch: decision-grade results 'in weeks, not months' with granular variable-level reads. Refresh cadence is addressed directly and honestly - 'Frequency is entirely bespoke. Some brands run monthly updates, for others once a year is sufficient' - and the firm argues against the one-off model, noting MMM outputs 'can inform in-flight decisions, not just the next annual planning round'. Not Excellent because no default refresh cadence, engagement length or contract term is published; a buyer learns that cadence is negotiable but not what a standard programme looks like. That is the high band above, which is why it scored Strong.

On the record — “Ebiquity names its own feasibility limits in published writing: MMM constraints are 'total media budget, nature of the KPI and data quality', data is 'the main limitation to building a robust MMM', and refresh cadence is bespoke - 'Some brands run monthly updates, for others once a year is sufficient.' The same article names Google Meridian and Meta Robyn as open-source alternatives.” ebiquity.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.

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 Strong 2 · Adequate 3 · Weak 11. The typical agency here scores Weak, and 5 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 — No fees, ranges, engagement structure with numbers, or minimum spend threshold appear anywhere on the site. Every commercial CTA resolves to 'Speak to an expert' or 'Say hello', and the contact page carries only a London address, a PR email and a switchboard number. An on-site search for pricing, fees and cost returned only thought-leadership articles about agency cost reductions, media rebates and agency remuneration models - that is content about what buyers pay their media agencies, not about what Ebiquity charges, and is treated as marketing rather than pricing transparency. Nothing states whether the model, the scenario-planning platform access, or the underlying code remains available to the client after an engagement ends. The MMM article concedes total media budget is a feasibility constraint but publishes no threshold, so a buyer cannot even self-qualify. That is what the low band describes, which is why it scored Weak.

On the record — “No pricing of any kind is published. An on-site search for 'pricing fees cost' returned only articles about agency cost reductions, media rebates and agency remuneration; the contact page carries only a London address, a PR email and a switchboard number.” ebiquity.com ↗

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

Stronger here: Nepa scores Strong on the same dimension.

Adequate — 3 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 5 · Weak 11. The typical agency here scores Weak, and none scores 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 — No Clutch or G2 profile for Ebiquity was located by search, and none could be read first-hand, so no rating or review count is cited. Glassdoor and Indeed listings exist but are employee reviews and are not client evidence. What is checkable: two named, titled client references published with attribution (Global Media Director at KFC; Head of Planning, Insight & Effectiveness at Virgin Media O2), and independent third-party corroboration of the firm's research work on thinkbox.tv, which names Ebiquity as a contributing econometrics house on Profit Ability 2. That is a handful of checkable references rather than a verified review base. A thin public review footprint is normal for enterprise measurement work sold through procurement, and this dimension carries the lowest weight in the rubric for that reason.

On the record — “Named client work with named, titled client executives quoted: KFC (Suzanne Perry, Global Media Director) across 15 named markets covering USD 135m+ of digital spend and 55 billion impressions; Virgin Media O2 (Ruth Pignal-Jacquard, Head of Planning, Insight & Effectiveness) with a suite of econometric models measuring incremental value per investment lever. Nestle, Audi, Shell and JLR are also named.” ebiquity.com ↗

On the record — “Independent corroboration of method work: thinkbox.tv publishes the Profit Ability 2 study naming Ebiquity as a contributing econometrics firm alongside EssenceMediacom, Gain Theory, Mindshare and Wavemaker, describing it as a meta-analysis of 141 brands and GBP 1.8 billion of media spend over 2021-2023, and acknowledging its scope limitation as a benchmark of advertisers with the means to model econometrically.” thinkbox.tv ↗

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.