Silverbean review

Excellent — 5 of 5 on this rubric’s scale, from Poor (1) to Excellent (5). This dimension carries 25% of the total score.

Benchmark — across the 14 other agencies evaluated in this discipline, this dimension runs Excellent 4 · Strong 8 · Adequate 1 · Weak 1. The typical agency here scores Strong, and none scores higher than this one.

What this dimension measures: Attributable programs at a stated scale: named brands, described program size, publisher counts, revenue managed. Treat headline revenue figures as vendor-stated unless a client is named. Where a firm names the networks its programs run on, that is checkable detail and should be credited.

Scores high — Named clients with described program work score 4-5.

Scores low — Anonymised case studies score 2-3.

What we found — Named clients with described program work, not just logos. The Under Armour case describes the starting problem (revenue concentrated in a small legacy publisher pool, uniform commission rates across partner types), the intervention (commission restructuring by partner type and ROAS, EMEA publisher diversification) and outcomes (76% EMEA revenue, +21% ROAS, +86% clicks, +7% AOV), with an on-record quote from Patrick Kliphuis. The ATG Tickets work is described as auditing out non-compliant publishers and moving off gross commission to net tracking, with an on-record quote from Peter Monks, Commercial Director. Sage Appliances is described down to the named partners used (TopCashback, Blue Light Card) and the timing (Prime Day). Twelve case studies are published, roughly half named (Under Armour, Morphy Richards, Waitrose, AG1, The Whisky Exchange, OKA Direct) and half anonymised by sector. Separately, impact.com's own service-partner directory lists Silverbean's clients as John Lewis, IG, HelloFresh, New Balance, Tesco, Merlin Entertainments, The Body Shop and Ralph Lauren, with a named testimonial from IG's Global Head of Partnerships - a client roster carried on a third party's site rather than only their own. Networks operated on are named (Impact, Awin, Partnerize, CJ, Rakuten, Commission Factory), which is checkable detail. Headline aggregate claims (40% growth in 100 days, $6.77M commission savings) remain vendor-stated and are not attributed to a named client. That is the high band above, which is why it scored Excellent.

On the record — “Named client program with described intervention and outcome: Under Armour EMEA, commission restructured by partner type and ROAS plus EMEA publisher diversification, producing 76% EMEA revenue growth, 21% ROAS improvement, 86% click growth and 7% AOV growth, with an attributed quote from Patrick Kliphuis.” silverbean.com ↗

On the record — “ATG Tickets program described as audited for non-compliant publishers with 'margin-heavy gross commission models' removed 'in favor of net tracking', with an attributed quote from Peter Monks, Commercial Director, Ambassador Theatre Group.” silverbean.com ↗

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

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 14 other agencies evaluated in this discipline, this dimension runs Excellent 2 · Strong 5 · Adequate 5 · Weak 2. The typical agency here scores Strong, and 2 of them score higher than this one.

What this dimension measures: The dimension that separates a managed channel from a paid-for coupon leak. Look for a stated position on incrementality — how the firm distinguishes affiliate-driven demand from demand that would have converted anyway — and on policing: coupon and loyalty extension monitoring, trademark bidding enforcement, cookie-stuffing and attribution-hijack detection, publisher vetting. Policing only, with no incrementality position, scores 3.

Scores high — A named policy on BOTH scores 4-5.

Scores low — Silence on both scores 1-2 and should be named plainly: an unpoliced program reliably pays commission on traffic the brand already owned.

What we found — A stated position on both, which is uncommon in this category. Policing is explicit: 'We carry out daily monitoring and automated weekly checks to detect non-compliant brand bidding, cross-device fraud, or predatory cookies,' and an FAQ headed 'How do you address the risk of coupon site fraud or non-incremental traffic?' answers that they 'enforce strict guidelines to suppress unauthorised brand bidding, filter out non-compliant toolbar extensions.' On incrementality the mechanism named is commercial rather than measurement: 'advanced data setups to dynamically adjust commissions based on whether a partner introduces a brand-new customer or an existing user,' plus moving programs off 'margin-heavy gross commission models in favor of net tracking' (stated as done on ATG Tickets, 'to drive high volumes of incremental sales'). Held back from Excellent for two reasons. First, new-versus-returning commission tiering is a proxy for incrementality, not a test of it - no holdout, geo-split, matched-market or PSA methodology is described anywhere, so nothing published shows how they would prove a partner's revenue would not have arrived anyway. Second, the published 'Quarterly Live Results' page skews to exactly the tier the incrementality argument is aimed at: the wins highlighted are Blue Light Card, Reward Gateway, Next Jump, TopCashback, student discount codes and CSS feeds. That is not a contradiction, but a buyer should notice the stated policy and the showcased results point in different directions. That is the high band above, which is why it scored Strong.

On the record — “Stated incrementality mechanism, in an FAQ headed 'How do you address the risk of coupon site fraud or non-incremental traffic?': they 'enforce strict guidelines to suppress unauthorised brand bidding, filter out non-compliant toolbar extensions, and utilise advanced data setups to dynamically adjust commissions based on whether a partner introduces a brand-new customer or an existing user.'” silverbean.com ↗

On the record — “Stated compliance routine with a cadence: 'We carry out daily monitoring and automated weekly checks to detect non-compliant brand bidding, cross-device fraud, or predatory cookies.'” silverbean.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.

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 14 other agencies evaluated in this discipline, this dimension runs Excellent 2 · Strong 10 · Adequate 2. The typical agency here scores Strong, and 2 of them score higher than this one.

What this dimension measures: Who the firm can actually bring: named publisher types and any evidenced relationships beyond the obvious coupon and cashback tier — content publishers, review sites, newsletters, comparison shopping, B2B referral partners.

Scores high — Evidence of recruiting beyond coupon/loyalty scores 4-5.

Scores low — A roster that is entirely coupon and cashback scores 2-3; that is the easiest tier to recruit and the least incremental, and the verdict should say so.

What we found — Recruitment beyond the coupon and cashback tier is specifically evidenced, not just claimed. Named content and editorial placements: SheerLuxe and ShopStyle on the OKA Direct case, The Telegraph, House and Garden and The Independent on an anonymised retail launch. Named CSS partners: Adstrong, Genie Shopping, Redbrain, ShopForward. Named closed user groups: Blue Light Card, Reward Gateway, Next Jump. There is a published five-type publisher taxonomy (Rising Stars, Game Changers, Problem Solvers, Attention Seekers, Cash Cows) and separate service lines for strategic content partnerships, app partnerships, brand-to-brand and influencer. Recruitment is productised with numeric deliverables: a Launch package targeting the top 100 publishers with 25% onboarded in the project window, a Growth package with a 50-publisher target list and the same 25% onboarding target, plus an in-house partner database and a dedicated publisher-side 'Partner Performance' team that runs partner showcases and planning days. Recruitment is stated to be preceded by brand-reputation vetting. Not Excellent because the quantified outcomes they choose to publish still lean on cashback, closed-group and discount-code activations; the content and comparison tier is described in more detail than it is evidenced with results. That is the high band above, which is why it scored Strong.

On the record — “Recruitment is productised with numeric deliverables: a Launch package with a recruitment strategy targeting the top 100 publishers and 25% onboarded within the project duration, and a Growth package with an affiliate mix audit, a 50-publisher target list and the same 25% onboarding target.” silverbean.com ↗

On the record — “Published quarterly portfolio results name the specific partners driving the wins - Blue Light Card, Reward Gateway, Next Jump, TopCashback, ShopForward, Adstrong, Genie Shopping - but anonymise the brands by sector ('Outdoor Apparel Brand', 'Kitchen Technology Brand').” silverbean.com ↗

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

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.

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 14 other agencies evaluated in this discipline, this dimension runs Excellent 2 · Strong 7 · Adequate 5. The typical agency here scores Strong, and 2 of them score higher than this one.

What this dimension measures: Which networks and platforms the firm operates on (Impact, PartnerStack, CJ, Awin, Rakuten, ShareASale, Everflow and the rest), whether it can migrate a program between them, and whether it works in the client's own account. Note whether the client owns the network account, since that determines whether the program is portable.

Scores high — Named multi-network capability plus migration experience scores 4-5.

Scores low — A single network with no migration path scores 2-3.

What we found — Multi-network capability is named and partly corroborated. Their own service page lists AWIN, Impact, Commission Factory, Rakuten, Partnerize and CJ; the FAQ states 'We manage programs across all leading platforms (Impact, Awin, Partnerize, etc.)' and that a brand with no existing tracking will have a stack recommended and stood up by a launch team. impact.com's own partner directory, read first-hand, lists Silverbean at Diamond tier with regions NAM, EMEA, APAC/SEA and LATAM - a badge issued by the platform, not self-asserted. Migration between networks is the gap: no page describes moving a program from one network to another, and the only migration evidenced is 108 influencers moved in 30 days on a supplements client, which is a partner migration rather than a network replatform. Crucially, no page anywhere states whether the network account is held in the client's name or the agency's, so portability at exit cannot be established from published material. That is the high band above, which is why it scored Strong.

On the record — “Multi-network capability named on their own site: programs managed across Impact, Awin, Partnerize, Commission Factory, Rakuten and CJ, with a launch team that will recommend and stand up a tracking stack for brands with no existing network.” silverbean.com ↗

On the record — “impact.com lists Silverbean at Diamond partner tier in its service-partner directory, covering NAM, EMEA, APAC/SEA and LATAM, with services listed as Affiliate Marketing / OPM, Influencer Marketing, Full Program Management, Partner Recruitment, Program Launch and Program Strategy.” impact.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 15% of the total score.

Benchmark — across the 14 other agencies evaluated in this discipline, this dimension runs Strong 1 · Adequate 4 · Weak 9. The typical agency here scores Weak, and 5 of them score higher than this one.

What this dimension measures: How the firm is paid — flat retainer, percentage of affiliate revenue, hybrid — and who owns the program, the publisher relationships and the account at exit. A percentage-of-revenue model is not a defect but carries an obvious incentive to grow attributed revenue whether or not it is incremental, and where a firm charges that way AND is silent on incrementality, the combination should be named.

Scores high — A published fee model plus explicit client ownership scores 4-5.

Scores low — Silence on ownership scores 2.

What we found — Nothing about how Silverbean is paid appears anywhere on silverbean.com - not on the service pages, not on the contact page, not in the FAQ. The only disclosure located is on impact.com's partner directory, where the fee structure is listed as Retainer, Performance Incentive, or Retainer + Performance, with monthly retainer bands of under $3,000, $3,000-$5,000, $5,000-$10,000 and $10,000+. That is a real disclosure of shape and rough magnitude, and it means the performance-incentive concern in this rubric is at least partly answered: they do offer a performance-linked model, but unlike most firms in this category they are not silent on incrementality, so the worst combination does not apply. Ownership is the failure. No published page states who owns the program, the network account, the publisher relationships, the negotiated commercial terms or the partner contact data when the engagement ends, and no notice period or contract term is published. On a channel where the account and the relationships are the asset, a buyer cannot tell from anything Silverbean publishes whether they would keep them. That is what the low band describes, which is why it scored Weak.

On the record — “The only located fee disclosure is on impact.com's directory: fee structure listed as Retainer, Performance Incentive, and Retainer + Performance, with monthly retainer bands of <$3,000, $3,000-$5,000, $5,000-$10,000 and $10,000+. Silverbean's own site publishes no pricing on any page.” impact.com ↗

On the record — “Soft-404 control passed: https://silverbean.com/this-page-cannot-possibly-exist-9f3k2 returns HTTP 404, so the site does not answer 200 to arbitrary paths.” silverbean.com ↗

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

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

Stronger here: Advertise Purple 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 14 other agencies evaluated in this discipline, this dimension runs Strong 4 · Adequate 7 · Weak 3. The typical agency here scores Adequate, and 4 of them score higher than this one.

What this dimension measures: What the client receives and how often: partner-level reporting, incrementality reads, payout reconciliation, a stated review cadence.

Scores high — Defined reporting with a named cadence scores 4-5.

Scores low — Undefined scores 2.

What we found — Partly defined. A compliance cadence is stated precisely - daily monitoring plus automated weekly checks for brand bidding, cross-device fraud and predatory cookies. Client-facing rhythm is described as 'Partner Performance Reviews', 'frequent check-ins' and a dedicated agency point of contact, which is not a named cadence. The free program audit has a defined output: a written summary with recommendations at 6, 12 and 18 months plus a 30-minute walkthrough call, delivered within 5 working days. A 'Quarterly Live Results' page publishes a rolling three-month portfolio snapshot, which implies a quarterly reporting rhythm internally. What is not published: what the standard client reporting pack contains, how often it lands, whether partner-level reporting is included as standard, whether any incrementality read is reported back, and how payout reconciliation and commission disputes are handled. That is between the two bands, which is why it scored Adequate.

On the record — “A free program audit is offered with a defined scope (commission structure, partner mix, tracking, T&Cs, brand alignment) and defined outputs: a written summary with 6, 12 and 18 month recommendations plus a 30-minute call, delivered within 5 working days.” silverbean.com ↗

On the record — “Stated compliance routine with a cadence: 'We carry out daily monitoring and automated weekly checks to detect non-compliant brand bidding, cross-device fraud, or predatory cookies.'” silverbean.com ↗

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

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 14 other agencies evaluated in this discipline, this dimension runs Strong 4 · Adequate 8 · Weak 2. The typical agency here scores Adequate, and 4 of them score higher than this one.

What this dimension measures: Independent, verified reviews or industry recognition that can be read first-hand.

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

What we found — No client review base exists. Their Clutch profile was read first-hand and carries 0 reviews and a 0.0 rating; no G2 or comparable buyer-review presence was located. Glassdoor carries a 4.6 rating across 18 reviews but that is employee sentiment and not client evidence. What does exist is verifiable third-party recognition read first-hand: impact.com lists them at Diamond partner tier in its service-partner directory; the APMA (Affiliate and Partner Marketing Association) lists them as a Gold and Founding member; and hellopartner's write-up of the Global Performance Marketing Awards records them winning Best Affiliate and Partner Marketing Agency in 2024, with the judges citing client retention. A Certified B Corporation claim recurs across their materials and third-party profiles, but the B Lab directory returned a Cloudflare 403 and could not be read, so that claim is unconfirmed here. Recognition without a readable client review base caps this at Adequate.

On the record — “Clutch profile carries 0 client reviews and a 0.0 rating.” clutch.co ↗

On the record — “Global Performance Marketing Awards 2024 win for Best Affiliate and Partner Marketing Agency, awarded for an internal performance-standards programme, with judges citing a high client retention rate.” hellopartner.com ↗

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