How much time should I budget?

About 3 hours total, a working session and a review call. We do the heavy lifting.

What if I only want the roadmap, not the build?

That's the Campaign Repositioning Sprint. Ship it yourself, or upgrade to Done-For-You later.

Do you interview my customers?

Optional. We can mine your call recordings, reviews, and won/lost notes instead.

B2B teams spending $20K+/mo on ads whose demos aren't converting.

Book a 30-minute call. We'll tell you straight if it's a fit.

Where Accelevents's ads lose the buyer

Accelevents is running 15 live ads on LinkedIn and Google. Their average fit to their own ideal buyer is 6.5 out of 10, and 0 ads need fixing. Each ad below is one of Accelevents’s real live creatives, read straight from the ad libraries.

Accelevents’s live ads, scored against their buyer

Connect Your Event Data to Claude, scored 7/10 against Accelevents’s ideal buyer. Specific pain hooks land hard but the Claude integration angle narrows appeal to tech-forward buyers only.
Connect Accelevents to Claude, scored 8/10 against Accelevents’s ideal buyer. Session attendance gap is a visceral ICP pain and the data visual proves the insight instantly.
Introducing Accelevents' MCP Connector, scored 7/10 against Accelevents’s ideal buyer. Dashboard frustration resonates with the ICP but MCP connector framing in the headline loses non-technical buyers.
Momentus Alternative Search Ad, scored 7/10 against Accelevents’s ideal buyer. Captures high-intent competitor switchers cleanly but body copy offers no specific reason to prefer Accelevents.
Zuddl Alternative Demo CTA, scored 7/10 against Accelevents’s ideal buyer. Tight query match and a clear demo CTA, but no differentiating claim beyond social proof assertion.
Accelevents vs Competitors Generic, scored 5/10 against Accelevents’s ideal buyer. Generic feature list and no named competitor makes this forgettable against more specific comparison ads.
Aventri vs Accelevents Simplified, scored 8/10 against Accelevents’s ideal buyer. Named competitor, specific switching reasons, and sitelinks covering core ICP workflows make this a strong switcher capture.
Better Alternative to Stova, scored 5/10 against Accelevents’s ideal buyer. Ease of use and support are table-stakes claims that give a Stova searcher no concrete reason to switch.
Event Management No Hidden Fees, scored 6/10 against Accelevents’s ideal buyer. Lists the right features but 'no hidden fees' hook is generic and misses the consolidation pain.
Event Software CRM Sync, scored 7/10 against Accelevents’s ideal buyer. Naming HubSpot, Marketo, and Salesforce directly hits the post-event data fragmentation pain this ICP feels.
Registration and Check-In Tools, scored 6/10 against Accelevents’s ideal buyer. Single-platform lifecycle message is on-point but body copy stops at check-in and never reaches multi-track complexity.
Rainfocus Alternative Ad, scored 6/10 against Accelevents’s ideal buyer. Competitor targeting catches high-intent switchers but 'attendee engagement' reason-to-switch is too vague to close.
Best All-In-One Event Platform, scored 5/10 against Accelevents’s ideal buyer. 'All sizes' positioning dilutes appeal to complex multi-track event directors who need specificity.
Explore Bizzabo Alternatives, scored 7/10 against Accelevents’s ideal buyer. Demo CTA and 'event pros prefer' social signal make this a solid high-intent competitor intercept.
Zuddl Alternative Pricing, scored 7/10 against Accelevents’s ideal buyer. Calling out bundling tricks and transparent pricing lands a specific, credible reason to switch for cost-conscious buyers.

See Accelevents’s full live-ad board on AdRoast. Every creative scored against their ICP, with the exact fix for each.

Learn the method behind these scores: the AdRoast guides cover how to audit your ads against your ICP and why clicks do not turn into pipeline.