Misleading
UPDATE: This review refers to Launch Byte, the CASS platform at LaunchByte.co.uk.
After I posted this yesterday, Launch Byte immediately changed their name on this platform from “LAUNCH BYTE” to “LB”, removed their bio, and altered their title to “advertising agency.” This appears to be an attempt to reduce the visibility of my review and create confusion about whether this is their Trustpilot profile.
Ironically, this only reinforces the point of my original review: they operate on a lack of transparency and a pattern of misleading presentation.
Original review continues below:
Really wanted this to work. Super slow response time, and even longer turnaround. Assets continuously delivered with errors, no consistent quality control. Average asset probably takes closer to 5 days, rather than the 2 they advertise. We lost a client, time and money waiting for them. Non transparent on delivery, and communication in general.
We got the package with 2 requests at a time, but they didn’t mention they only had one video editor onboard, even though they knew (because we told them) that most of our requests would be videos.
So they were actually doing our 2 requests concurrently, as opposed to consecutively. We were paying for the latter. They were not transparent about this, and honestly when we found that out we felt a bit scammed.
They say things like “it’s with our creative director” or “it’s going through quality control” and then hand in work with obvious cosmetic errors. At times it felt insulting.
We tried to make it work for 3 weeks, but because of the above, we cancelled effective immediately with a week left.
We asked for a full refund since we had actually lost, not gained, money by employing them. We mentioned it not being fair that they only had one video editor, but sold us 2 consecutive requests, knowing they couldn’t honestly facilitate that. They said no.
We pushed several times which was exhausting, and eventually they offered us a 25% refund, which only covered the unused week. It felt like the bare minimum.
They may perhaps respond saying they have expanded their team, or improved their processes, and I won’t lie some of the work they produced was good, but the issue really lies with their comfortability with lack of transparency, and the founders propensity to mislead. I can assure you, you, and your company, will not be valued.
Overall a good idea, but there are far better, more experienced options out there! Worth having a look around.
Reply from LB - dissolved
We normally wouldn’t respond to a review posted this long after a working relationship ended, but given how much of this rewrites what actually happened, it’s important to put some facts on record.
This engagement ended in May 2025. The service referenced here no longer exists, and the company itself has since been dissolved. Posting a review almost a year later, after the matter was already discussed, partially refunded, and closed, is an unusual way to revisit a resolved issue.
Clarifications:
At the outset, Ruled by Mars requested a subscription tier above their stated budget. At their request, a substantial discount was applied as a goodwill accommodation to allow the engagement to proceed. That discount did not alter the service model, capacity, or terms, and it is not something we would offer ever again.
Work was delivered throughout the active subscription period. Requests were managed through our platform on a first in, first out basis, with multiple active requests handled in line with the selected plan. Turnaround times were discussed as estimates, not guarantees, and were dependent on brief quality, feedback speed, and request complexity, all of which are clearly set out in the accepted terms.
It’s also important to be clear on approvals. Deliverables were reviewed and signed off in real time. Responsibility for checking spelling, formatting, colour consistency, and brand accuracy sat with the client prior to approval. Signing off work under time pressure does not retrospectively shift that responsibility back to the supplier.
During the subscription period, the service was also paused at the client’s request, further reducing the available delivery window. That context is notably absent from this review.
No commitments were ever made regarding dedicated personnel, specific editor headcount, or internal staffing structure. The service sold access to a workflow and delivery model, not named individuals. Suggestions to the contrary are simply inaccurate.
The subscription was cancelled mid cycle in May. Under the agreed terms, refunds are not provided for partial months or mid-cycle cancellations. Despite this, a partial refund was issued purely as a goodwill gesture to bring the matter to a close. That refund was discretionary, not an entitlement, and not an admission that work had not been delivered.
Claims made in this review about “lost money” or “lost clients” are being raised for the first time here, almost a year after the engagement ended. Those claims were not raised during the dispute itself, nor at any point during discussions around cancellation or refund. No evidence has ever been provided to support them, despite multiple opportunities to do so at the time.
In fact, subsequent review of publicly available material showed client content continuing to be published using creative assets produced during the engagement. That does not align with the suggestion that the work caused commercial loss.
What has since come to light is that creative assets produced under this engagement, and not licensed following termination, later appeared publicly via third parties. As clearly set out in the agreed terms, ownership of unapproved or refunded work does not transfer. We therefore will be contacting the relevant parties directly to request removal soon.
This review also overlooks the fact that the engagement included additional steps taken by our team to improve alignment, including the creation of dedicated communication channels and offers to formalise workflow calls. Those efforts were made in good faith and are part of why the subsequent characterisation of “lack of transparency” is difficult to reconcile with the record.
The listing was updated solely to reflect the factual dissolution of the business and discontinuation of the service, and this short lived, discounted engagement ended in May 2025, was resolved at the time through delivered work and a goodwill refund.
