Marketing Asset Ownership Audit
Establishes which of your marketing accounts you actually own, and which your agency would keep if you left tomorrow.
The spec — copy this
Set up a new bot for me I can trigger once, then re-run twice a year and before any agency change. Walk me through connecting my ad platforms, analytics, and Google Business Profile, then configure it: build an ownership and access register covering every marketing asset my firm depends on — ad accounts and the Business Manager or MCC that owns them, pixels and conversion tags, the analytics property, Search Console, Google Business Profile ownership and its primary owner, the domain registrar and DNS, call tracking numbers and their porting status, landing page hosting, the website CMS, review platform logins, and the creative and content produced under the engagement. For each one record who is the owner of record, who holds admin, what my access level actually is, and the single question that matters: if this relationship ended on Friday, do I keep it, and what would it take to get it back. Flag every asset where an agency or an individual outside my firm is the owner of record rather than an assigned user, and every call tracking number that cannot be ported. It changes no permission and removes no one's access. Ask me which agencies and platforms are in scope and who at my firm should hold owner, run it once and show me the register before I act on any of it, then save it.
Connect first
The spec asks for these as it goes — however you normally connect them works. Nothing needs to be set up in advance, and a system named here is usually an example rather than a requirement. If yours has an API or an export, the spec generally adapts.
- Change, revoke, or grant any permission or access
- Contact an agency or platform support on your behalf
- Interpret what your agreement says about who owns an asset — it records who holds it today
These specs are written to establish facts, not to build a case. Every one reports observed gaps and the mechanism behind them, and none concludes that a vendor or agency acted in bad faith — because the most common answer is a definitional mismatch or a gap in your own intake, and the second most common is something a contract already addresses. Before you put a finding in writing to a counterparty, read your agreement and have counsel look at it.
Removing an agency's access mid-engagement can breach your agreement and can orphan a live campaign or a verified profile. Establish the picture first, read the contract, and change nothing until counsel and whoever runs the account have both looked at it.
- Category
- Agency & Vendor Oversight
- Contributed by
- Jacob Malherbe Mass Tort Ad Agency↗
- Approval gate
- A named human approves before anything sends, files, or publishes.
- Last verified
- 2026-08-19
More in Agency & Vendor Oversight
-
PB-001
AEO Vendor Effectiveness Check◆
Tests whether your AI visibility vendor is actually moving citations, or whether the market moved without them.WSWeb SearchGSGoogle Sheets
-
PB-004
Agency Contract Terms Map◆
Pulls the notice periods, renewal dates, ownership clauses, and exit terms out of every marketing agreement you have signed.GDGoogle DriveDDropboxBBox
-
PB-005
Agency Reporting Reconciliation◆
Reconciles what your agency reports against what your case management system actually recorded.FFilevineLDLead DocketMAMeta Ads Manager+2
-
PB-015
GBP Management Audit◆
Tells you whether whoever manages your Google Business Profile is actually doing anything measurable.GBGoogle Business ProfileGSGoogle Sheets