Rocketship HQ 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 — Throughput is stated in specific numbers in several places: the homepage promises '50+ new creatives hit your ad account every month', the Creative Strategy page claims clients can 'test 100+ creatives per month' and that the first batch is '10 to 20 creatives' in week 2, and the mobile UA page publishes a spend-tiered production guide (under $50k: 4-6 new concepts plus variants; $50k-$100k: 6-8; $100k+: 6-8 plus 2 more per $200k of spend). Per-client counts appear in case studies: ~80 variants from 20 concepts in 2 months (Wonster Words), 125+ creatives in 6 months (religious app), 300+ tested (meditation app). Velocity is described only qualitatively - iteration cycles cut 'from weeks to days' - with no published per-round turnaround. Two figures sit in tension: 4-6 concepts per month at the entry tier versus '50+ creatives every month', reconcilable only if variants carry most of the count, which the site never spells out. All of this is self-published; a Meta Ad Library check on a named client could not be completed (the request failed), which is inconclusive and is not scored either way. Capped at Adequate because this dimension's top band requires corroboration and none was obtained. That is between the two bands, which is why it scored Adequate.

On the record — “Creative production volume is published on a spend tier schedule: under $50k spend, 4-6 new concepts plus variants; $50k-$100k, 6-8; $100k+, 6-8 plus 2 more per additional $200k.” rocketshiphq.com ↗

On the record — “19 case studies are published with named clients and metrics, but no page displays actual ad creative samples - only thumbnail banners.” rocketshiphq.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 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, the Creative Strategy page, the mobile UA page and the advisory page, the only brand-side input described is an 'Intake questionnaire' to understand 'your brand, your customers' plus an onboarding call. There is a concept-approval gate before production, which is a real alignment step, but nothing anywhere addresses the brand system itself: no intake of brand guidelines, no logo/clear-space/colour/type check, no named preflight or QC step before client review, and no statement about who catches an off-brand asset. The pitch is explicitly performance-first ('AI-powered ad creatives', hook rates, thumbstop ratios), and brand fidelity is simply not a subject the site discusses. Measured absence on a question that matters at 50-100 assets a month. That is what the low band describes, which is why it scored Weak.

On the record — “19 case studies are published with named clients and metrics, but no page displays actual ad creative samples - only thumbnail banners.” rocketshiphq.com ↗

On the record — “The page at /ugc-production-services/ serves the Creative Strategy page content (H1 'Creative Strategy'), not UGC-specific content; UGC terms could not be read first-hand.” rocketshiphq.com ↗

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

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

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 42 other agencies evaluated in this discipline, this dimension runs Strong 13 · Adequate 29. The typical agency here scores Adequate, and 13 of them score 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 — Variant expansion is real and documented as their operating model - production is described as 'concepts plus variants', and the Wonster Words case study reports roughly 80 ad variants built from 20 distinct concepts, a 4x expansion. Coverage spans multiple ad platforms (Meta, TikTok, Google, AppLovin and, per the homepage, 10+ channels), and the site names testing across 'different angles, hooks, visual cues and formats'. What is entirely absent is localization: no page read mentions languages, markets, transcreation, or multi-locale delivery, and no case study names a non-English market. Scores at the rubric's 'resizing/variants only, single language' band. That is between the two bands, which is why it scored Adequate.

On the record — “Wonster Words case study reports roughly 80 ad variants built from 20 distinct concepts over 2 months, with a 66% thumbstop ratio lift and 32% lower cost per trial.” rocketshiphq.com ↗

On the record — “The ASL Bloom case study reports 12-month results (75% lower cost per paying user) but names no creative count, channel, format or market.” rocketshiphq.com ↗

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 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 — This is the strongest checkable dimension, and it is structural rather than aspirational: Rocketship HQ runs the media buying itself, so it reads the ad account directly rather than waiting for client-relayed feedback. The cadence is named and specific on the mobile UA and Creative Strategy pages - daily health checks, a weekly report covering creative/channels/campaigns, bi- or tri-weekly deep dives at campaign granularity, and creative reviews analysing upfunnel and downfunnel metrics that feed the next ideation round. The Creative Strategy page states plainly that 'Week 1's metrics inform week 2'. Case studies report platform-native creative metrics that only come from account access (66% thumbstop ratio lift, 35% hook rate improvement), and a named client CEO (Andrew Kao, 77SPARX) is quoted on beating a previously 'untouchable' top ad through a repeatable testing system. Not Excellent: no independent verification of the loop was obtainable. That is the high band above, which is why it scored Strong.

On the record — “A named cadence is published: daily health checks, weekly performance report, bi/triweekly campaign deep dives, and creative reviews on upfunnel/downfunnel metrics feeding next-round ideation.” rocketshiphq.com ↗

On the record — “19 case studies are published with named clients and metrics, but no page displays actual ad creative samples - only thumbnail banners.” rocketshiphq.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 10% of the total score.

Benchmark — across the 42 other agencies evaluated in this discipline, this dimension runs Strong 11 · Adequate 19 · Weak 12. The typical agency here scores Adequate, and 11 of them score 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 — Nothing on any page read discusses claim substantiation, legal disclaimers, accessibility contrast, or music/footage/creator licensing. What is present is platform-spec competence: the site claims Meta Business Partner, Google Premier Partner and TikTok Creative Exchange status, and the named client roster includes categories that carry platform restrictions - children's education apps (Lingokids, Wonster Words), health and wellness (Amwell, meditation apps), and casino-style or real-money-adjacent gaming (Double Down Casino, Papaya Gaming, Players' Lounge). Operating in those categories on Meta and TikTok implies working familiarity with restricted-category rules, but nothing published shows a review process. Scored at the 'platform-spec competence only' band, with low confidence - this is a mobile-app performance shop, not a regulated-claims reviewer, and absence here is weaker evidence than absence on volume or ownership. That is between the two bands, which is why it scored Adequate.

On the record — “19 case studies are published with named clients and metrics, but no page displays actual ad creative samples - only thumbnail banners.” rocketshiphq.com ↗

On the record — “30+ testimonials are published with named individuals, titles and companies; several are anonymized by request. No link to any independent review platform appears.” rocketshiphq.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 — Silence on both halves. No page read - homepage, creative production, mobile UA, advisory - states who owns final files, source or working files, raw footage, or the usage rights to creator-produced content. That last gap matters because UGC production is sold as a standalone line and creator usage rights are the central commercial term of any UGC buy; the page at /ugc-production-services/ served the Creative Strategy page's content instead of its own, so UGC-specific terms could not be read first-hand and no UGC claim is scored here. Ad account ownership is likewise not addressed, which is a live question when the agency both buys the media and makes the creative. On continuity, the team is described only as 'performance marketers, creative strategists, and designers'; no named designer or strategist is assigned to an account in any published description, and there is no continuity guarantee. No independent reviews were readable, so no verified discontinuity finding either way. That is what the low band describes, which is why it scored Weak.

On the record — “The page at /ugc-production-services/ serves the Creative Strategy page content (H1 'Creative Strategy'), not UGC-specific content; UGC terms could not be read first-hand.” rocketshiphq.com ↗

On the record — “Homepage states a $50,000+/month ad spend minimum for managed services, while the Creative Strategy page states $20k+/month and the advisory page states $10k/month - three different published minimums.” rocketshiphq.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 is published anywhere. The mobile UA page describes the billing basis - a flat fee set by 'engagement complexity, creative volume, and channel count', with 'discounts for asynchronous-only engagements' - but attaches no figures, and the advisory page shows '3 levels of support' as an image with no numbers. What is published are qualification gates rather than price anchors, and they are inconsistent across pages: the homepage states a $50,000+/month ad spend minimum for managed services, the Creative Strategy page states $20k+/month, and the advisory page states $10k/month trending to $100k+. Contract length is not published for the managed or creative engagements (advisory is described as pay-as-you-go over 6-12 months), and there is no stated pause or seasonality policy. Bespoke-only quoting with no public anchor. That is what the low band describes, which is why it scored Weak.

On the record — “Billing is a flat fee based on engagement complexity, creative volume and channel count, with discounts for asynchronous-only engagements; no fee figures are published.” rocketshiphq.com ↗

On the record — “Homepage states a $50,000+/month ad spend minimum for managed services, while the Creative Strategy page states $20k+/month and the advisory page states $10k/month - three different published minimums.” rocketshiphq.com ↗

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

Stronger here: Shuttlerock scores Excellent on the same dimension.