CreativeYield

Attribution and performance analytics platform showing media buyers which AI-generated video ad variants drive lower CAC and higher ROAS across ad platforms. · Video Ad Analytics

DEAD SLOW · CAUTIOUS

6.4 ShipScore / 10

Scalable productized SaaS; weakest is control — ad-platform API dependency, unproven attribution wedge.

Condition: Prove media buyers pay for AI-variant-level attribution, not just the creative generator's built-in stats.

Part I — The Verdict what the instruments read

01 — The ShipScore breakdown

Control

C5 — lives on Meta/TikTok/Google ad APIs for all data

Entry barriers

E5 — no tracked attribution leader; Bannerbear/Speel are generators, lane open

Need

N6 — verified MRR is creative-gen spend, not attribution; category established

Time-freedom

T8 — self-serve dashboards, automated ingestion, no per-client labor

Scale

S8 — global media buyers, every ecom/SaaS advertiser, high ACV

What the five commandments measure

C — Control	Do you own the customer, or does a gatekeeper stand between you and revenue?
E — Entry	How hard is this to copy once it works? A rival's existence isn't the question — the durability of their advantage is.
N — Need	Is demand proven with money rather than vibes?
T — Time	Can income detach from your hours, or did you buy yourself a job?
S — Scale	How far does it reach without linear cost?

Scored on the evidence below, against CENTS as we've adapted it plus a Buffett-style moat reading of every rival — the same referee for every idea, including the ones we generate ourselves. The verdict follows the arithmetic: we never relabel a score to make it read better, and the weakest commandment is always named. The exact rubric stays in-house so the scale can't be written for.

02 — The pace test — $1M/yr

At $199/mo (assumed category price), you need 419 subscribers for a $1M/yr pace.

Nearest tracked rivals on that curve:

Bannerbear

$83k 100%

X · active

Speel.co

$66k 79%

→ moat stableX · active

Dailyglowup: Maximize Looks

$13k 16%

→ moat stable

A rival's moat trend is its verified-revenue trajectory, not its rating — a 4.9★ incumbent with eroding revenue is a different opponent than a widening one. How it's computed →

Part II — The Evidence the receipts, good and bad

03 — Rival scan — corpus tracks 3 similar

Bannerbear	reported MRR $83k · founder-reported · X-chatter: some (anchor)	X · active
Speel.co	verified MRR $66k · revenue trend: stable · X-chatter: some (trustmrr)	→ moat stable X · active
Dailyglowup: Maximize Looks	verified MRR $13k · CENTS 5.8 · revenue trend: stable (trustmrr)	→ moat stable

Bannerbear — $83k MRR creative-gen incumbent could bolt on performance reporting for free
Speel.co — Verified $66k stable MRR; owns the creative workflow buyers already live in
videotok (product lab for sale, $70k ask) — AI ad generation asset an acquirer can pair with analytics cheaply

04 — Demand evidence

Speel.co verified $66k MRR, stable — real recurring spend in AI ad creative
Bannerbear founder-reported $83k MRR anchors category monetization
Dailyglowup verified $13k MRR shows small players still sustain revenue
Zero Reddit signals and little X chatter on pure video attribution — wedge demand unproven

Similar businesses for sale

Product lab with 3 products, the main one videotok, ai ads generation — ask $70k (×1.1 profit)

05 — Risks

Creative generators ship native performance dashboards and absorb this layer
Attribution accuracy disputes: iOS privacy, walled gardens, modeled conversions erode trust
Buyers already pay Triple Whale/Northbeam-type tools; budget is occupied
Corpus shows spend in generation, not analytics — may be a feature, not product

06 — Kill switches — what kills this with one decision

Meta Marketing API / ad-platform data access policy — Restricting creative-level or conversion data guts the core metric instantly
Platform privacy changes (ATT-style) and signal loss — Variant-level CAC/ROAS becomes unmeasurable, product's claim collapses
An incumbent creative tool adding free variant reporting — Removes reason to pay a separate analytics subscription

Part III — The Plan if you insist on proceeding

07 — What this scan can't tell you

Cannot tell whether media buyers pay separately for variant-level attribution
No visibility into existing attribution incumbents' pricing or churn in corpus
Unknown how reliably ad APIs expose per-variant creative IDs at scale

Scores judge the market and business model — not your ability to execute. Verified MRR = independently tracked revenue; reviews/upvotes = platform-reported. Judged 2026-09-29.

08 — The wedge & the next step

Variant-level creative scorecard for AI-generated video, priced under agency attribution suites.

Cheapest next step: Pitch 15 ecom media buyers a mock variant-CAC report; ask for a paid pilot commitment.

Not quite it? Spin the model

Business-model variations of this idea, engineered to beat 6.4 — different vertical, audience, model, or wedge. Same harsh scale. Pro feature.

One evidence-backed gap a day, free

Close — but conditional. Every morning the engine files one mined gap, scored on the same harsh scale as this one. Free at 7am AEST, unedited.

Free forever · one email a day · unsubscribe in one click.