Two in three published pieces fail their own brand's rules
538 of 826 scored pieces of published marketing came in under 70 out of 100 against rules the brand itself had written. That is 65 percent. These were not drafts. They were live, professional, signed-off work. The figures are counts from the Dasho production database, not a survey.
1,414
Published marketing put through the checker.
826
The denominator for everything below.
538
65 percent of scored pieces. Roughly two in three.
How to read these numbers
The failure rate is 538 of 826, not 538 of 1,414. 1,414 pieces went through the checker; 826 of them produced a completed score. The percentage is calculated against the pieces that were actually scored, which is the smaller and more honest denominator.
Under 70 out of 100 is not a judgement of writing quality. The Content Scorecard measures fit against the rules a brand supplied: voice, regulated claims, required disclosures. A score under 70 means at least one of those fell below the threshold that brand set for itself.
Nobody was surveyed. These are counts from a production database, covering content that real brands submitted and real people published.
Method
Every piece in the dataset was scored automatically against brand rules supplied by the brand that owned it. The denominator is every scorecard run since April 2025. The figures were first presented publicly at Echelon Philippines 2026 on 26 August 2026.
The dataset skews toward multi-brand marketing teams and agencies in beauty, CPG and retail, because that is who uses Dasho. It is not a random sample of all marketing everywhere, and it should not be read as one.
Why published work breaks rules the brand wrote itself
The obvious explanation is carelessness, and it is the wrong one. The teams in this dataset are professionals working to standards they helped write.
What changed is the review load. Producing a piece of content used to be the expensive part and checking it was cheap, tucked into somebody's afternoon. Generative tools inverted that. Making is now close to free and effectively unlimited; reviewing costs exactly what it always did, because a person still has to read the thing and decide. The queue grows on the making side and stays the same width on the checking side.
That gap is what brand governance exists to close, and it is why a content approval workflow that depends on one reviewer stops working at volume.
The regulatory edge of the same problem
Brand drift is embarrassing. Claim drift is expensive. In regulated categories a piece can be perfectly on-brand and still carry a claim a regulator would act on, which is why content governance is the wider frame around brand governance.
Between 8 July and 7 September 2026 the Philippine FDA published 502 advisories, an average of eight a day, and 373 of those name a specific unregistered or unauthorised product. Counted from the FDA's own advisories list on 7 September 2026.
The rules themselves move far more slowly. Over the same period the FDA issued no administrative order, the most recent dating to December 2025, and only 2 circulars in the whole of 2026. So two separate things move at two separate speeds: the list of products a brand may not name changes daily, and the rules about how a brand may speak change a handful of times a year. A rulebook has to follow both, and the daily one is where the work is.
When the regulator moves, the rulebook has to move the same week, or the check is telling the customer something untrue.
Citing this benchmark
These figures are free to cite with attribution. Please cite them as: Dasho Brand Governance Benchmark, 538 of 826 scored pieces under 70 of 100, dasho.ai/brand-governance-benchmark. If you want the method in more detail, or a cut for a specific category, ask us.
Want your own number instead of ours? Put a piece you have already published through the Content Scorecard. It is free and needs no signup.
Questions about the benchmark
What share of published marketing fails its own brand rules?
In the Dasho production dataset, 538 of 826 scored pieces came in under 70 out of 100 against rules the brand itself had written. That is 65 percent, or roughly two in three. The pieces were already published, not drafts.
What does a score under 70 mean?
The Content Scorecard rates a piece against the brand rules that brand supplied, across dimensions including voice, regulated claims and required disclosures. Under 70 out of 100 means at least one dimension fell below the threshold the brand set. It is a measure of fit against a brand’s own standard, not a judgement of whether the writing is good.
How many pieces are in the dataset?
1,414 pieces of published marketing have been through the checker. 826 of those produced a completed score, and the failure rate is calculated against that 826, not against the full 1,414.
Is this a survey?
No. Nobody was asked their opinion. These are counts from a production database of content that real brands submitted and real people published.
Why does published work break rules the brand wrote itself?
Not carelessness. The review load changed. Producing content became close to free while reviewing it costs what it always did, because a person still has to read it and decide. So the volume grows on the making side and the checking side stays the same width.