Maslansky + Partners 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 Strong 6 · Adequate 9 · Weak 1. The typical agency here scores Adequate, and 6 of them score higher than this one.

What this dimension measures: Unlike most categories, the deliverable here is public: if a firm wrote a client's homepage or sales page, a buyer can go read it.

Scores high — Named clients with pages a reader can actually find and judge score 4-5.

Scores low — Screenshots of copy with no attribution score 2-3 — a screenshot cannot be checked and may be spec work. A portfolio that shows only results claims and no actual writing scores 1-2, because the one thing this category can always show is the writing.

What we found — Eight named-client case studies are published and each names a real, identifiable company (AT&T, Bank of America, Chubb, Duke Energy, Goldman Sachs, Hershey, MetLife, NHSA Head Start). But the deliverable itself is almost never shown. Read first-hand, the AT&T, Goldman Sachs and Chubb studies describe the strategic reframe in prose and quote only fragments -- 'contrast without conflict', 'a logical evolution to the next generation ETF', 'Instead of better coverage for affluent customers we look for ways to say yes'. No page, script, tagline set or messaging document is reproduced or linked, and no client asset is pointed to that a buyer could go read and judge. Named and checkable at the client level, unreadable at the work level; capped at Adequate because the portfolio cannot actually be viewed. That is between the two bands, which is why it scored Adequate.

On the record — “Eight named-client case studies are published (AT&T, Bank of America, Chubb, Duke Energy, Goldman Sachs, Hershey, MetLife, NHSA Head Start); read first-hand, the AT&T, Goldman Sachs and Chubb studies describe strategy and quote only fragments of language, and reproduce no client-facing copy.” maslansky.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.

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 20% of the total score.

Benchmark — across the 16 other agencies evaluated in this discipline, this dimension runs Excellent 2 · Strong 8 · Adequate 5 · Weak 1. The typical agency here scores Strong, and none scores higher than this one.

What this dimension measures: Where the message comes from. Look for a described research step: customer interviews, review mining, sales-call analysis, survey or message testing with real respondents.

Scores high — A named research method with a described process scores 4-5.

Scores low — 'We get to know your brand' with no method scores 2-3. Copy generated from a brief alone, with no customer input, scores 2 — it may still be good writing, but the buyer is purchasing the writer's intuition rather than their customer's language, and the verdict should say so.

What we found — This is the firm's strongest checkable dimension. /how-we-help/ enumerates named instruments rather than sentiment: qualitative (focus groups, in-depth interviews, instant response testing, social listening) and quantitative (message surveys, positioning surveys, corpus analysis, implicit testing), feeding a stated four-phase sequence of Research, Strategy, Activation, Content. Crucially the research infrastructure is directly observable, not just claimed: the firm runs its own respondent recruitment at /join-our-research-panel/, which describes in-person focus groups run nationally and internationally, online groups, surveys and one-on-one interviews, with participants paid and told the incentive before opting in ('some research pays $200 or more'). A firm that maintains a paid human panel and publishes the recruitment mechanics is demonstrably testing messages against real respondents, not writing from a brief. Separately, CHORUS (/chorus-synthetic-research) is a synthetic-audience layer built on what the firm calls 'receptographics', offered in Solo, Hybrid and Community models. Note that CHORUS respondents are explicitly AI, not people -- a buyer should ask which of the two is being sold on their project. That is the high band above, which is why it scored Excellent.

On the record — “Named research instruments are published: qualitative (focus groups, in-depth interviews, instant response testing, social listening) and quantitative (message surveys, positioning surveys, corpus analysis, implicit testing), organised into a four-phase Research / Strategy / Activation / Content sequence.” maslansky.com ↗

On the record — “The firm operates its own paid respondent panel, recruiting for in-person focus groups run nationally and internationally, online focus groups, surveys and one-on-one interviews, with incentives disclosed up front ('some research pays $200 or more').” maslansky.com ↗

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 Strong 4 · Adequate 10 · Weak 2. The typical agency here scores Adequate, and 4 of them score higher than this one.

What this dimension measures: This category runs on conversion-lift claims and almost none are checkable. Absence of any outcome claims is not a defect; overclaiming is.

Scores high — A firm that states results WITH the test conditions — sample size, duration, what was compared — scores 4-5.

Scores low — Bare percentage claims ('increased conversions 312%') with no baseline, no timeframe and no named client score 1-2 and should be flagged: an uncontrolled before/after on a page that also changed traffic mix is not a measured lift.

What we found — Restrained by category standards -- no percentage lift claims anywhere -- but the conditions are never given. Goldman Sachs: 'Language optimized to the target audience helped the ActiveBeta ETF amass $3 billion in 18 months', a magnitude and a timeframe attached to a named client, but AUM inflows are not a message test and nothing isolates the language from distribution, market and sales effort. Chubb: 'double digit growth' with no base, period or figure. AT&T: 'helped AT&T keep market prices stable, retain existing customers, and attract new ones', which is unfalsifiable. Several case studies claim no outcome at all, which the rubric treats correctly as no defect. The one claim carrying a stated design is CHORUS's '80-100% accuracy in predicting actual audience response, validated across 50+ test/control studies' against '30-50%' for standard LLMs -- the study count and the test/control framing are stated, but no study, sample or scoring definition is published, and a 20-point-wide accuracy band is a marketing range, not a measurement. Held at Adequate: named clients and some conditions, but nothing a buyer could reproduce. That is between the two bands, which is why it scored Adequate.

On the record — “Outcome claims lack test conditions: Goldman Sachs states '$3 billion in 18 months' for the ActiveBeta ETF with no control or attribution method; Chubb states 'double digit growth' with no base or period.” maslansky.com ↗

On the record — “CHORUS respondents are AI-generated rather than human, built on a proprietary 'receptographics' framework, and the site claims '80-100% accuracy in predicting actual audience response, validated across 50+ test/control studies' versus '30-50%' for standard LLMs. No underlying study is published.” maslansky.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 15% of the total score.

Benchmark — across the 16 other agencies evaluated in this discipline, this dimension runs Excellent 3 · Strong 5 · Adequate 3 · Weak 5. The typical agency here scores Strong, and 11 of them score higher than this one.

What this dimension measures: Score scope clarity alongside price: a firm that states plainly what a project covers (how many pages, how many revision rounds, whether research is included) is more useful than one implying open-ended collaboration.

Scores high — Published prices, per-asset rates, or defined packages with stated inclusions score 4-5.

Scores low — Ranges on request score 2-3; bespoke-only with no anchor scores 1-2.

What we found — Measured absence across every page read. No prices, no rate card, no ranges, no minimum engagement, no example project size on the homepage, /how-we-help/, /chorus-synthetic-research or /connect/. The Connect page carries three office addresses and an invitation to get in touch and nothing about how an engagement is sized or bought. The only structural anchor found is CHORUS's three engagement shapes -- Solo (one-time), Hybrid (with traditional research), Community (ongoing access) -- and none of the three states what is included, how many messages get tested, or what it costs. Scope is likewise undefined: the service menu lists deliverables (communication manuals, verbal brand standards, taglines, website copy, speeches) without saying how many of anything a project contains. That is what the low band describes, which is why it scored Weak.

On the record — “No pricing, engagement minimum, scope definition, revision count or delivery timeline is published on any page read; the Connect page gives three office locations (New York HQ at 220 E 42nd Street, plus Boston and Washington) and an invitation to get in touch.” maslansky.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: inferred — our reading of indirect evidence, not a documented fact.

Stronger here: Fletch PMM scores Excellent on the same dimension.

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 2 · Strong 4 · Adequate 10. The typical agency here scores Adequate, and 6 of them score higher than this one.

What this dimension measures: How a project runs: discovery, draft, revision rounds, handoff format, and who implements. Note whether the firm hands over a document or implements in the client's CMS, since that determines who carries the last mile.

Scores high — Defined stages with a stated revision count score 4-5.

Scores low — No described process scores 2-3.

What we found — A real, named process is published: Research, then Strategy (positioning strategy, messaging architectures, brand voice definition, language landscape analysis), then Activation (communication manuals, verbal brand standards, sales training, social media playbooks, custom training), then Content (taglines, marketing collateral, website copy, speeches, employee and crisis communications). That is more stage definition than most firms in this category publish, and the Chubb study shows the Activation phase is real -- live training, reference guides, custom videos and marketing materials shipped. What is missing is everything that governs the client's side of the engagement: no revision count, no draft cycle, no approval gates, and no statement of who carries the last mile. The menu spans both document handoff (manuals, standards) and finished content (website copy, speeches), so which one a buyer is getting is a negotiation, not a published term. That is between the two bands, which is why it scored Adequate.

On the record — “Named research instruments are published: qualitative (focus groups, in-depth interviews, instant response testing, social listening) and quantitative (message surveys, positioning surveys, corpus analysis, implicit testing), organised into a four-phase Research / Strategy / Activation / Content sequence.” maslansky.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 16 other agencies evaluated in this discipline, this dimension runs Excellent 3 · Strong 6 · Adequate 2 · Weak 5. The typical agency here scores Strong, and 11 of them score higher than this one.

What this dimension measures: Stated timelines per deliverable and how far out the firm books. Small studios and solo-principal firms are common here; a stated booking lead time is a mark of honesty rather than a limitation, and should be scored as such.

Scores high — Published timelines score 4-5.

Scores low — Undisclosed scheduling scores 2.

What we found — No timeline is published for any deliverable and no booking lead time is stated. /how-we-help/ offers only responsiveness as a posture: 'Do you have a deadline looming? We've got our fingers on the keyboard.' The single quantitative-adjacent statement is CHORUS returning results in 'days' where traditional research takes 'weeks' -- a directional comparison between two of the firm's own methods, not a committed turnaround. A firm with three offices and a standing research panel is not capacity-constrained in the way a solo studio is, but a buyer cannot learn from the site when work would start or how long a project runs. That is what the low band describes, which is why it scored Weak.

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

Stronger here: Fletch PMM scores Excellent on the same dimension.

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 Strong 1 · Adequate 2 · Weak 13. The typical agency here scores Weak, and 3 of them score higher than this one.

What this dimension measures: Independent, verified reviews. Low weight deliberately, because in this category the published writing is stronger evidence than a review count.

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

What we found — No independent client review base located. Searched for Clutch, G2 and Google listings and found none; the only review platforms returning results were Glassdoor, Indeed and Comparably, all of which are employee reviews and not client evidence. No rating or count is cited here because none was read first-hand. Third-party corroboration of the firm's existence and standing is easy to find (Wikipedia, PRWeek, MRWeb trade coverage of the 2005 sale) but none of it is a client assessment of the work.

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

Stronger here: Olivine scores Strong on the same dimension.