Audience research
Part of Audience research for creative software teams, from the decision to be made to defensible personas
Advertising creative tools competitor research: a checklist
Advertising creative tools competitor research checklist: separate identity, capability, customer evidence and market context; end with validation questions.
For advertising creative tools competitor research, separate four layers: legal identity, stated product capability, observable customer evidence and market context. Never allow one layer to stand in for another. A registered company is not necessarily an active product, a polished feature page is not a performance test, and trade-body membership is not a quality award.
What to take away
- Research competitors in four separate layerslegal identity, stated capability, customer evidence and market context.
- A registered company is not necessarily an active product, and trade-body membership is not a quality award.
- Mark functions not documented when the public record is silent, rather than claiming the product lacks them.
- Record not found in a voluntary directory on a given date, not unaccredited or unsafe.
- End with a shortlist of questions for validation, not a fabricated ranking of competitors.
Identify the entity
- Record the legal name, company number, status, registered office and filing date from Companies House information.
- Match the entity to the product website through a first-party legal notice, terms page or privacy notice. Do not infer ownership from a similar trading name.
- Note whether the target customer, product edition or service coverage is actually stated for the UK. Availability to an English buyer does not make a supplier England-specific.
- Save the access date and the exact page, not a search-results snippet.
Companies House warns that it does not verify the accuracy of filed information. Treat the record as a corporate-identity lead and check material facts elsewhere.
Verify the company entity
- Legal name, company number, status
- Registered office and filing date
- Match entity to product website
- Check UK customer and coverage
- Save access date and exact page
Test each capability claim
- Write the workflow question firstasset creation, variant production, collaboration, approval, export or archive.
- Link each claimed function to the supplier's own current product or help page.
- Mark functions "not documented" when the public record is silent. Do not turn absence into a claim that the product lacks the feature.
- Separate supplier documentation from an observed test. If no account was used, say so.
- Capture plan, edition, account and geography conditions beside the capability.
Screenshots can preserve what the researcher saw, but the live URL remains necessary for a publication-day recheck.
Test each capability claim
- Write the workflow question first
- Link function to supplier help page
- Mark undocumented functions as not documented
- Separate documentation from observed test
- Capture plan, edition, account, geography
Examine market presence without inventing quality
- Search the IPA member-agency directory only when assessing an agency supplier. Membership can confirm a listed relationship, not effectiveness.
- Use the DMA member directory on the same limited basis for relevant organisations.
- Check regulator records only for a defined question and read the underlying decision. A search hit is not a verdict on every service the organisation provides.
- Keep national advertising spend separate from competitor revenue, customer count and English penetration.
A firm missing from a voluntary trade directory may still operate legitimately. Record "not found in this directory on this date", not "unaccredited" or "unsafe".
Check market presence carefully
- Search IPA directory only for agency suppliers
- Use DMA directory on same limited basis
- Check regulator records for defined question
- Keep ad spend separate from revenue
- Record not found in this directory
Protect customer and commercial information
- Use public product pages, public filings and permissioned interviews. Do not ask a client to disclose another supplier's confidential proposal, roadmap or security response.
- Remove customer names and campaign details from notes unless they are essential, permitted and protected.
- Do not upload a competitor's copyrighted creative or a client's unreleased assets into an analysis service without a clear rights and data route.
- Store contact details separately from research observations and set a retention period.
The ICO storage-limitation guidance says personal data should not be kept longer than needed and retention should be justifiable.
End with a decision, not a league table
For each competitor, record which buyer job is served, what evidence supports that conclusion, what remains unverified and what would change the product decision. Compare only common criteria. If the work has not included hands-on testing or customer research, do not score usability, reliability or support. The useful output is a shortlist of questions for validation, not a fabricated ranking.
Add an expiry date to every conclusion. Corporate status, membership and product documentation can change independently, so schedule rechecks according to the decision's risk. A procurement shortlist needs fresher records than an early market sketch. Where two sources disagree, retain both and send the discrepancy to an accountable reviewer rather than choosing the more convenient version.
Before you act
- Record the legal name, company number, status and filing date from Companies House.
- Match the entity to the product website through a first-party legal notice or terms page.
- Link each claimed function to the supplier's own current product or help page.
- Keep national advertising spend separate from competitor revenue and customer count.
- Store contact details separately from research observations and set a retention period.
- Add an expiry date to every conclusion and schedule rechecks according to risk.
Common questions
Why should competitor research use four separate layers?
The article says research should cover legal identity, stated product capability, observable customer evidence and market context. One layer must never stand in for another. A registered company is not necessarily an active product, and a polished feature page is not a performance test.
How should a researcher handle a capability that is not publicly documented?
Mark it as not documented rather than claiming the product lacks it. Absence from the public record should not be turned into a claim about the feature.
What should the final output of competitor research contain?
For each competitor, record which buyer job is served, what evidence supports that conclusion, what remains unverified and what would change the product decision. The useful output is a shortlist of questions for validation, not a fabricated ranking or league table.
