Kubbco review

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 42 other agencies evaluated in this discipline, this dimension runs Strong 7 · Adequate 29 · Weak 6. The typical agency here scores Adequate, and 7 of them score higher than this one.

What this dimension measures: How many assets does this vendor actually ship per client per month, and how fast is a variant round? A stated, specific throughput (e.g. Where the vendor names a client, check the client's live ads in the Meta Ad Library — POSITIVE EVIDENCE ONLY, and scope it properly. Correct procedure: run the keyword search, harvest the advertiser's page_id from the rendered HTML, then re-query with view_all_page_id=<id>. Scoped counts are 100% brand-attributed; keyword counts are not scoped to the advertiser and overstated by 41% in one measured case (HexClad, 410 keyword vs 290 scoped), while a search for a generically-named client returned 1,400 results consisting of Viator, Klook and Tripadvisor. A high-volume, recent, scoped result confirms a real programme and may raise this score. A low or absent result is INCONCLUSIVE and must never lower it. Critically: NEVER record an absence from a page ID you did not harvest from a live ad — the userID shown on a logged-out Facebook page is not the Ad Library page_id, and querying it returns a clean, convincing zero. That was proven by control on 2026-08-11 against a brand known to be running 290 ads. Absence of ads is never scored against an agency. See library/_notes/meta_ad_library_method_2026-08-11.json.

Scores high — 'X assets/month', published turnaround of 24-72h per round) with corroboration scores 4-5.

Scores low — Vague 'unlimited requests' claims with a one-at-a-time queue score 2-3 — unlimited requests with a single concurrent slot is a throughput of one. No stated volume anywhere scores 2.

What we found — A per-client volume is published in one case: the Matas case page states an always-on TikTok programme of over 130 videos across a 6-month period (about 22 a month), alongside site-wide counters of 1200+ projects and 12+ billion views. Nothing else states throughput: no assets-per-month figure attached to any package, no turnaround time per round or per revision anywhere on the services, content or vertical-video pages. The three package names (Essentials, Growth, Rockstar) appear only as options in a contact-form dropdown, with no published contents or volume ceiling. A Meta Ad Library check on a named client was attempted and the endpoint returned HTTP 403, so no scoped ad count could be read first-hand; that is inconclusive and is not counted against them. That is between the two bands, which is why it scored Adequate.

On the record — “The three package names a buyer encounters (Essentials, Growth, Rockstar) appear only as choices in a contact-form dropdown; no page publishes their contents, asset volumes or prices.” kubbco.com ↗

On the record — “The Matas case states an always-on TikTok content programme of over 130 videos across six months, with 26 million views, 50,000+ new followers and 8.5x return on ad spend.” kubbco.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 20% of the total score.

Benchmark — across the 42 other agencies evaluated in this discipline, this dimension runs Strong 5 · Adequate 20 · Weak 17. The typical agency here scores Adequate, and 25 of them score higher than this one.

What this dimension measures: Does the vendor work from the client's brand system — logo lockups and clear space, exact colour and type, tone of voice — or from a mood board and taste? Look for an explicit intake of brand guidelines, a named check step before client review, and any statement about who catches an off-brand asset.

Scores high — A documented preflight or QC step scores 4-5.

Scores low — 'We'll learn your brand over the first month' scores 2-3. Rotating contractor pools with no guideline intake score 1-2. Silence on the question scores 2: at volume, brand drift is the default outcome and a vendor that has not thought about it has not solved it.

What we found — Across the homepage, /services, /services/content, /services/vertical-video-for-social, /services/mixed-format-content-for-social-media, /services/social-media-management and /services/media there is no mention of brand-guideline intake, a logo/colour/type check, tone-of-voice documentation, or any named preflight or QC step before client review. The only approval language is client-side: mixed-format copy says the service eases 'the burden on you when it comes to approvals and input.' They clearly operate inside strict brand systems for enterprise clients (NIVEA, Novo Nordisk, Matas), and the /services/content page describes an in-house team plus a global 'network of creators, producers,' which is exactly the configuration where drift appears. Silence on the question, per the rubric, scores here. That is what the low band describes, which is why it scored Weak.

On the record — “The Novo Nordisk case describes one concept versioned into a hero film with cut-downs, social imagery and outdoor media, launched globally; it contains no mention of medical, legal or regulatory review.” kubbco.com ↗

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

Stronger here: New Engen scores Strong on the same dimension.

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 42 other agencies evaluated in this discipline, this dimension runs Strong 12 · Adequate 30. The typical agency here scores Adequate, and none scores higher than this one.

What this dimension measures: Can one approved concept become 100+ assets across aspect ratios, placements, languages and markets? Resizing only, single language, scores 3. Distinguish genuine transcreation (copy reworked for a market) from machine translation dropped into a template; the latter is not localization capacity and should be scored as resizing.

Scores high — Named format/placement coverage plus real multi-market or multi-language delivery scores 4-5.

Scores low — 'We make ten great ads' scores 2 — excellent and out of category.

What we found — Real multi-format versioning is shown, not just resizing: the Novo Nordisk 'Break the Weight Cycle' case lists a hero film with cut-down versions, social imagery and outdoor media from one concept, launched globally around New Year and World Obesity Day. Multi-market and multi-language delivery is checkable on their own infrastructure: the sitemap carries en-US, en-GB and Danish (/dk, /dk/ydelser/..., /dk/vores-arbejde) locale trees with hreflang, offices are listed in Copenhagen, Miami and Riga, and client work is genuinely local-language rather than translated - the Matas programme is built on the Danish line 'Kon som du er' and MobilePay targets 16-24 year-olds in Denmark. Not awarded the top band: no published aspect-ratio or placement matrix, and no stated count of variants produced from a single approved concept. That is the high band above, which is why it scored Strong.

On the record — “The site publishes separate en-US, en-GB and Danish locale trees with hreflang alternates (e.g. /dk/ydelser/community-management, /dk/vores-arbejde), and Danish client work is native-language rather than translated.” kubbco.com ↗

On the record — “The Novo Nordisk case describes one concept versioned into a hero film with cut-downs, social imagery and outdoor media, launched globally; it contains no mention of medical, legal or regulatory review.” kubbco.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 42 other agencies evaluated in this discipline, this dimension runs Excellent 2 · Strong 32 · Adequate 7 · Weak 1. The typical agency here scores Strong, and 2 of them score higher than this one.

What this dimension measures: Does anyone on this vendor's team read the ad account? Look for a stated feedback loop: winners scaled, losers cut, next round briefed off results. Iteration on client-relayed feedback only scores 3.

Scores high — Access to platform performance data plus a named cadence scores 4-5.

Scores low — Ship-and-stop production, where the vendor delivers files and never learns what happened, scores 1-2 — this is the most common failure in the design-subscription tier and it is what separates production from performance creative.

What we found — The Paid Media page states the creative and paid teams are combined - 'creative testing + innovative media buying, all rolled into one' - with the explicit purpose of getting 'to the winners quicker,' then scaling them. Because they buy the media themselves, ad-account performance data is structurally in their hands rather than relayed by the client, and a reporting cadence is named: real-time dashboards plus monthly paid media reports that 'outline improvements and new strategies.' A worked example is published (BUXOM Cosmetics: 13.3x ROAS against a prior 1.49x, three middle-funnel Facebook ads, 53.5% reduction in media spend). Held below Excellent because no test cadence or iteration round length is stated - how often a round is briefed off results is not published, and all of this is their own account of it. That is the high band above, which is why it scored Strong.

On the record — “Paid media is delivered as combined creative testing plus media buying by one team, with real-time dashboards and monthly paid media reports; a published case cites 13.3x ROAS for BUXOM Cosmetics against a prior 1.49x and a 53.5% reduction in media spend.” kubbco.com ↗

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

funnel — the path from stranger to customer — awareness at the top, purchase at the bottom. “Full-funnel” means owning the whole path, not one stage.

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

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 42 other agencies evaluated in this discipline, this dimension runs Strong 10 · Adequate 20 · Weak 12. The typical agency here scores Adequate, and none scores higher than this one.

What this dimension measures: Legal disclaimers, claim substantiation, platform specs and safe zones, accessibility contrast, rights and licensing on music/footage/creator content. Platform-spec competence only scores 3. Do not fail a small shop for lacking pharma review workflows it was never asked for.

Scores high — Explicit process, or regulated-category experience (health, finance, alcohol, children's), scores 4-5.

Scores low — No evidence either way scores 2 with LOW confidence rather than a penalty — most SMB-facing shops never discuss this publicly, and absence here is weaker evidence than absence on volume or ownership.

What we found — Regulated-category experience is substantial and specific: a long-term Novo Nordisk relationship across multiple departments including an obesity-patient campaign, the Diabetes Besties health series, and a pharma-industry webinar hosted by the CEO which states they have made content, campaigns and strategies for Novo Nordisk, Merck and Coloplast. The rubric awards the top band for regulated-category experience. What is entirely absent is process: neither the Novo Nordisk case nor the pharma webinar page mentions medical or legal review, claim substantiation, disclaimers, platform safe zones or accessibility contrast, and no page states how music, footage or creator content is licensed - notable given the OLAFLEX campaign ran on content from over 100 everyday creators. That is the high band above, which is why it scored Strong.

On the record — “Regulated-category experience is stated on a CEO-hosted pharma webinar page naming Novo Nordisk, Merck and Coloplast, but the page describes no compliance, medical-legal review or claim-substantiation process.” kubbco.com ↗

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 42 other agencies evaluated in this discipline, this dimension runs Strong 3 · Adequate 24 · Weak 14 · Poor 1. The typical agency here scores Adequate, and 27 of them score higher than this one.

What this dimension measures: Who owns the output — final files, source/working files, raw footage, and the rights to creator content? Documented designer discontinuity in independent reviews is a verified Poor, not an inference.

Scores high — Explicit transfer of source files and full usage rights scores 4-5.

Scores low — Finals only, working files withheld, scores 2. Silence scores 2; at this price point silence usually resolves against the buyer. Separately, continuity: the same named designers month to month scores 4-5, a rotating pool with no continuity guarantee scores 1-2.

What we found — No page read states who owns the output. There is no terms page in the sitemap (only a privacy and cookie policy), and no statement anywhere about final files versus source or working files, raw footage, or the usage rights secured on creator and UGC content - which they produce at volume. On continuity, the About page describes an 'in-house' agency with a 'diverse global team' across three offices, and the content page adds a worldwide 'network of creators, producers'; no named designers, no same-team guarantee, and no account-team structure is published. Clutch lists the firm at 10-49 staff, founded 2016. Silence on ownership, per the rubric, resolves against the buyer. That is what the low band describes, which is why it scored Weak.

On the record — “The three package names a buyer encounters (Essentials, Growth, Rockstar) appear only as choices in a contact-form dropdown; no page publishes their contents, asset volumes or prices.” kubbco.com ↗

UGC — user-generated-content style ads: creative shot to look like a customer’s own phone video rather than a produced commercial.

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

Stronger here: Structured scores Strong on the same dimension.

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 42 other agencies evaluated in this discipline, this dimension runs Excellent 1 · Strong 9 · Adequate 7 · Weak 25. The typical agency here scores Weak, and 17 of them score higher than this one.

What this dimension measures: Published tiers with an unstated volume ceiling score 3. Note any minimum spend, and note whether pausing is permitted, since seasonal advertisers pause.

Scores high — Published per-asset, per-month or per-round pricing scores 4-5. Month-to-month or per-project scores 4-5.

Scores low — Bespoke-only quoting with no public anchor scores 1-2. Twelve-month lock-in on a production service scores 2 — production is inherently variable in volume and a long lock is a transfer of that risk to the buyer.

What we found — No price appears on any page of the site; every service page routes to 'Book a Call' or a contact form. The three tier names (Essentials, Growth, Rockstar) are form dropdown options, not published packages - no contents, no volume, no price attached, so this is not the rubric's 'published tiers with an unstated volume ceiling.' The only public anchors are outside the site and vendor-supplied: the Clutch profile lists a $5,000+ minimum project size and a $100-$149 hourly range, and a 2023 contest landing page values a social-media audit at 35,000 DKK. No contract length, minimum term, notice period or pause policy is published anywhere, which matters for the seasonal advertiser. That is what the low band describes, which is why it scored Weak.

On the record — “The three package names a buyer encounters (Essentials, Growth, Rockstar) appear only as choices in a contact-form dropdown; no page publishes their contents, asset volumes or prices.” kubbco.com ↗

On the record — “The Clutch profile carries zero reviews and a 0.0 rating, with vendor-supplied firmographics: $5,000+ minimum project size, $100-$149 hourly rate, 10-49 employees, founded 2016, headquartered in Copenhagen.” clutch.co ↗

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

Stronger here: Shuttlerock scores Excellent on the same dimension.