Y'all 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 — Client outcomes are stated as multiples rather than absolutes — a 10x increase in creative output and testing velocity for FlavCity, creative output expanded over 3x for Save Trees. A multiple of an unknown baseline is not a capacity figure. Live check 2026-08-11: 5 of 6 named clients are running active advertiser-scoped programmes (see verified findings). Client scale is corroborated; attribution of those ads to this agency is not, so the label is unchanged. That is between the two bands, which is why it scored Adequate.

On the record — “Stated client outcomes include a 10x increase in creative output and testing velocity (FlavCity) and creative output expanded by over 3x (Save Trees).” yall.co ↗

On the record — “Meta Ad Library batch, advertiser-scoped, US, active, measured 2026-08-11: 5 of 6 named clients confirmed running live programmes — Shop FlavCity 322 active ads (2026-06-30..07-31); Sono Bello 233 active ads (2026-08-03..08-07); DERMAFLASH 72 active ads (2025-12..2026-05); Sijo 48 active ads (2026-07-01..08-06); Vivrelle 46 active ads (2026-06-03..08-11). INCONCLUSIVE (no advertiser surfaced; not evidence of absence): Loverboy. These counts are the CLIENT's total active US ads, not proof the agency produced them — an agency's named client running a large programme corroborates that the client operates at real scale and keeps buying, which is what a client list is meant to imply. It does not establish attribution, so it has not been used to raise any score.” facebook.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.

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 — Nothing described about brand-guideline intake or a review step before client delivery. That is what the low band describes, which is why it scored Weak.

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 — Strategy, UGC, measurement, media buying and creative production across Meta, TikTok and Google — genuinely broad format and placement coverage for a DTC-focused shop. That is the high band above, which is why it scored Strong.

On the record — “Describes itself as a 'performance creative and marketing agency for direct-to-consumer brands' offering strategy, UGC, measurement, media buying and creative production across Meta, TikTok and Google.” yall.co ↗

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

DTC — direct-to-consumer: brands selling on their own site rather than through retailers.

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

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 — Media buying, measurement and creative production sit in one agency, and the stated wins are framed around testing velocity rather than impressions, which is the right frame. That is the high band above, which is why it scored Strong.

On the record — “Describes itself as a 'performance creative and marketing agency for direct-to-consumer brands' offering strategy, UGC, measurement, media buying and creative production across Meta, TikTok and Google.” yall.co ↗

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

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 11 · Adequate 20 · Weak 11. The typical agency here scores Adequate, and 31 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 public on disclaimers, claim substantiation or creator content rights. That is what the low band describes, which is why it scored Weak.

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

Stronger here: Nest Commerce 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 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 team size, no named individuals, no continuity statement, and no source-file or UGC usage-rights terms. That is what the low band describes, which is why it scored Weak.

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 — Explicitly declines to publish: 'Our pricing varies based on the scope of services required. We offer flexible packages to accommodate different budgets. Contact us for a tailored quote.' That is what the low band describes, which is why it scored Weak.

On the record — “Pricing withheld: 'Our pricing varies based on the scope of services required. We offer flexible packages to accommodate different budgets. Contact us for a tailored quote.'” yall.co ↗

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

Stronger here: Shuttlerock scores Excellent on the same dimension.