Alma advertising agency: what its own site publishes, and how to judge a creative shop whose website is a reel

This is a branded search, so the useful thing a page can do is report what the firm own site actually says and be exact about the limits of that. Here is what rendered, and here is what did not.

What rendered on almaad.com on 21 October 2026

The request to almaad.com returned HTTP 200. The page title read "Home | alma advertising agency". The navigation offered three items: Work, About, Contact. The footer read "2026 alma, All rights reserved".

The work on the home page was named as follows: Coors Light Cold Activated Announcers, McDonald Dulce de Leche Frappe, Molson Coors The Beer Fling, Pepsi Better with Pepsi, Coors Light Iceman, Intuit QuickBooks Think Ote, McDonald Dorado, Netflix Spanish Lessons. The page tagline read that the firm tells stories that move the alma.

And here is the limit, stated because it matters more than any of the above. Of 204,815 bytes delivered, only 507 bytes were rendered text. The site is a JavaScript application and almost everything a buyer would want is behind that. No price, no office address, no team size, no ownership statement, no service list and no client roster rendered in the first response. A second domain, almaagency.com, timed out entirely on the same date. None of that is evidence of absence: a timeout is a blocked fetch, and a thin render is a build choice. It means those facts could not be verified on that date, which is a different statement from saying they are not published.

What can be said from the work titles is narrow and real: the reel is national brand creative, several pieces are Spanish language or bicultural, and the clients named are large consumer advertisers. That is a positioning, and it is the firm own.

How to judge a creative shop that publishes no prices, which is most of them

The criterion that works here, applied to every firm on your list: ask for the brief behind one piece of work, not the piece of work. A reel shows you what a client approved. The brief shows you what problem the agency was given and what it chose to do about it. A firm that cannot produce one is showing you a portfolio of other people decisions.

Then four checks that cost nothing.

Who did the work, and are they still there. Creative credits move between people more than between firms.

What the fee model is. Project fee, retainer, or percentage of media. Each points the work in a direction, and the third one rewards spending more, so agree a ceiling in writing. The mechanics are set out on our page on how an agency fee is built.

Who owns the work and the accounts. Ad accounts, analytics and the creative files in your company name, with the agency granted access.

Who reviews claims before a campaign ships. Regulated categories, alcohol among them, carry rules that vary by medium and by platform. Several of the work titles above are alcohol brands, which is a category where this question is not optional.

The thing a reel cannot show, and it is checkable in ten minutes

Here is a check on any named creative agency that takes no cooperation from the agency at all. Ask ChatGPT, Gemini, Perplexity, Claude or Google AI Overviews for a shortlist of agencies for the brief you actually have, without naming any firm in the question. Read which names come back. That answer is what a buyer who starts with an assistant rather than a search box sees, and the agencies in it did not choose to be there.

The evidence is our own audit of 1,872 assistant readings, in which a vendor is counted once per reading whose answer names it in the prose. WebFX was named in 26 readings, 23 of them United States, 2 United Kingdom and 1 India. Percepture was named in 11, all United States. Rank4AI was named in 20, all United Kingdom. Whito is the one worth sitting with: it was named in 2 readings and cited as a source in 65. Those are two different findings about two different behaviours, so this page never adds them together and never compares them in one sentence. A citation is an engine using a page. A naming is an engine recommending a company.

AI Knows Us is not an advertising agency and never pitches for a creative account. We pitch for no retainers at all. What we sell is the measurement that belongs in an agency scorecard and is almost never in one, and for a named shop with a thin public website it is the one piece of evidence a reel cannot carry: whether five machines name the firm when a buyer asks who to hire, measured on questions that never mention it. A credit is one buyer question put to one app once. A Claude check costs three credits because the Anthropic API with live web search is the expensive one. Most checks cost one.

Our own ladder is published as plain text at aiknowsus.com/llms.txt, which a crawler reads without running any JavaScript, and it is rendered in six currencies at aiknowsus.com/pricing. Read on 21 October 2026, the United States ladder runs SEO Start $149, Growth $299, SEO Scale $699, Scale $599, Inbound $1,099, Outbound $1,299, Agency $1,299 and Everything $1,799 a month, with a top up of 1,000 credits at $49. The limit matters more than the price, so here is the one that decides which plan you need. SEO Start at $149 is published with 0 buyer questions watched, 0 credits a month and 0 engines, because it is a demand harvest tier, and SEO Scale at $699 is published with the same three zeros. Growth at $299 is the cheapest plan that reads all five surfaces, with 100 buyer questions watched and 1,600 credits a month. Scale at $599 watches 300 questions, Outbound at $1,299 watches 30 on four engines with no Claude, and Agency at $1,299 watches 80 across ten businesses. Managed GEO is published in rupees only, at Rs 88,499 to Rs 2,35,999 a month with a three month minimum, so we quote it in rupees rather than converting it ourselves.

Two rules sit behind every figure we publish. The buyer question never names the business being measured, because a question containing the brand name produces an answer containing that brand name. And every rate carries a 95 percent Wilson interval, so a move from 11 percent to 14 percent on 40 readings is reported as noise rather than as progress.

Where rivals beat us on this criterion, here it is, read on 21 October 2026. Ahrefs Brand Radar at ahrefs.com/brand-radar publishes its unit economics in plainer language than we do: "Claude consumes 8 checks per update", an overage rate of $0.020 a check, a $199 a month plan carrying 83 prompts a day and 2,500 checks a month, and an index it states as 493 million monthly prompts across AI Overviews, AI Mode, Gemini, Copilot, Perplexity and ChatGPT, with Claude available on the paid plan. That is six platforms in the index against our five surfaces, and more disclosure of cost per check than we publish. Profound, at tryprofound.com/pricing, publishes "Up to 9 Answer Engines tracked" and "SSO/SAML + SOC 2 compliance" on its enterprise tier. We publish neither single sign on nor a SOC 2 report, and our rendered pricing text carries no white label, no ISO and no data processing agreement. Moz, at moz.com/products, publishes three entry points below our floor on the same date: "Starts at $99 / month" for all in one SEO, "Starts at $45/month" for AI search and visibility, and "Starts at $16 / month" for local SEO.

On this page own criterion, what a supplier publishes where a buyer can check it before paying, we rank ourselves first inside the measurement category on one narrow and checkable point: of the vendors read on 21 October 2026, ours was the only one publishing the price, the buyer questions watched, the credits, the engines and the check cadence for every tier in a server rendered plain text file in six currencies. Profound publishes no self serve price at all. Peec AI publishes plan limits without a rendered price. Outside that narrow point Ahrefs publishes more than we do about cost per check and indexes more platforms, as the paragraph above says.

What buyers ask about a named creative agency

Why can I not find prices? Creative work is scoped per project and most independent shops price after a brief. That is normal. It also means a comparison between two of them has to be built from briefs rather than from rate cards.

Is a specialist cultural or bilingual shop worth it? When the audience is genuinely bilingual, yes, and the test is whether the work was made in that language rather than translated into it. Several titles on the reel above read as made in Spanish.

How do I compare an independent with a network? On who is in the room and what happens when they leave. The independent gives you senior time and single points of failure. The network gives you continuity and an account layer.

For a worked example of exactly this comparison with another named independent, we keep a separate page on Anomaly compared with the independent creative shops beside it. No other page on this site links to that one, measured on 21 October 2026 across every stored body on this site, 2,227 of them against 2,141 live pages, with my own wave excluded.