Competitor Ad Intelligence from Public EU Ad Libraries

What is knowable, and what is being invented: Public ad libraries show creative, first-seen dates, placements, and whether something is still live. They do not show spend. Any report handing you a euro figure per competitor per month has estimated it, and most decline to say how. We state the method and the uncertainty on every number we give, and where a source publishes only an impressions band, you receive the band rather than a midpoint dressed as a fact. The findings that survive scrutiny were never spend estimates anyway. What we read instead: Creative rotation cadence is the closest public proxy for what is working, because nobody keeps a losing creative live for eleven weeks. We count new creatives shipped per week and how long each survives, and the distribution of those lifespans tells you more about a competitor's testing discipline than any spend estimate would. Then: the offer ladder and its terms, including how bonus or discount conditions have tightened or loosened over time; the landing pages behind each creative and how their price display has changed; which audiences and placements appear in the DSA-mandated targeting disclosures; and, most usefully, the markets where a competitor has quietly stopped spending, and the week they stopped. Sources, named: Meta Ad Library and its API, Google Ads Transparency Center, the TikTok Commercial Content Library published under the Digital Services Act, the LinkedIn Ad Library, app store creative where mobile matters, and dated SERP capture for the layer none of these cover. Each finding in the report cites which source it came from, because the sources disagree about coverage and you should be able to see where. The affiliate layer, for igaming: In German igaming the ad libraries show you the smaller half of the picture. Acquisition runs through comparison sites, tipster and streamer partners, and SEO properties that appear in no transparency database. We map who carries which operator, at what position, on which query set, and where partnership terms are publicly disclosed we include the deal shape. Reading only the ad libraries in this category produces a report that is accurate about a third of the market and silent about the rest. What you receive: A written report, and a dated evidence file: creative identifiers, capture timestamps and screenshots, so that anyone in your organisation can re-verify a finding without asking us. A rotation timeline per competitor. An offer and price-display comparison. A gap list — what nobody in the set is currently saying, with a note on whether that is an opportunity or a place others already learned not to go. What we will not do: Scrape behind logins or paywalls, or take data from any source whose terms forbid it. Resell panel-derived spend estimates as though they were observed. Fill silence with inference; where a source shows nothing, the report says the source shows nothing. And we decline to report on competitors running fewer than about fifteen active creatives, because there is nothing to read, and we will say that before invoicing rather than after. Not the right purchase if: You want a document that justifies copying a competitor's creative approach, which is a strategy for arriving second. You need a number for a board slide and do not care how it was derived. Or your competitive set is largely offline in Germany, where television and out-of-home are not covered by these sources and this report would be reading the wrong third of the market.