IPZ Marketing

United States · ipzmarketing.com · 5 vendors

Resilience scores

Technology vendors

Services catalogue

2 services in catalogue across 2 categories; runs on 5 sub-vendors.

Insights

Last updated 2026-06-24 · revision 2

5 direct vendors, 138 subvendors

Direct vendors by controlling owner country (sample)

Subvendors by controlling owner country (sample)

Migration Readiness: 3/10

Assessed by AI based on technology stack characteristics (cloud-native vs legacy, containerization, microservices), regulatory environment, data residency requirements, financial stability, and vendor lock-in risks. The score ranges from 0-10, where higher scores indicate better readiness for technology migration.

IPZ Marketing's migration readiness is assessed as low (30/100), primarily due to critical gaps in essential data points. The most substantial challenge is the complete lack of information regarding their internal tech stack and key technologies. Without knowing if their systems are cloud-native, containerized, or legacy monolithic applications, it is impossible to accurately gauge the technical effort and complexity involved in a migration. Similarly, the absence of data on financial stability (revenue concentration, growth history) makes it difficult to assess their capacity to fund a potentially costly migration initiative. Vendor relationships present an ambiguous picture; while the company utilizes 8 services from vendors in two countries, the 'Total Vendors: 0' data point is contradictory. This ambiguity makes it challenging to determine the actual number of unique vendors and, consequently, the potential for vendor lock-in, which is explicitly stated as 'Unknown.' On the positive side, data residency requirements are 'Not specified,' which could simplify migration by removing a common regulatory hurdle. However, the lack of information on the broader regulatory environment remains an unknown. The significant unknowns regarding technology, finances, and vendor lock-in indicate that IPZ Marketing is likely to face substantial challenges in a migration effort.

Compliance

9 in-scope frameworks identified; showing 3.

ISO 27001 (source) — Assessment Required

ISO 27001 is an internationally recognized information security standard applicable to any organization that manages information assets. As a marketing company in Spain handling personal data (subject to GDPR), client data, and potentially sensitive campaign/business intelligence data, ISO 27001 certification would be a strong indicator of mature information security governance. Risk is Medium because: (1) without ISO 27001 or equivalent controls, GDPR compliance is harder to demonstrate (GDPR Art. 32 requires 'appropriate technical and organizational measures'); (2) marketing companies are targets for data breaches due to large consumer databases; (3) enterprise clients increasingly require ISO 27001 as a vendor prerequisite.

Evidence: https://ipzmarketing.com, https://www.iso.org/isoiec-27001-information-security.html, https://www.enac.es/en/web/enac/inicio

DSA — Assessment Required

The EU Digital Services Act applies to intermediary services operating in the EU. Applicability to IPZ Marketing depends on whether they operate as an online platform, marketplace, or digital advertising intermediary. If they provide programmatic advertising, ad network services, or operate a digital marketing platform accessible to EU users, DSA obligations may apply — particularly the transparency requirements for online advertising (Art. 26 DSA requires platforms to label ads and disclose the advertiser). Risk is Medium because the full scope of their digital services is unknown, but as a marketing company in Spain, DSA awareness and partial applicability is likely.

Evidence: https://ipzmarketing.com, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32022R2065, https://www.cnmc.es/en, https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/digital-services-act-package

ePrivacy Directive — Assessment Required

The ePrivacy Directive (implemented in Spain via LSSI-CE and AEPD cookie guidelines) is critically relevant to IPZ Marketing as a marketing company. Marketing companies are the primary target of ePrivacy enforcement because their business model depends on tracking technologies, cookies, behavioral advertising, and electronic direct marketing. Risk is High because: (1) the AEPD has issued specific cookie guidelines and actively enforces cookie consent requirements; (2) marketing companies using third-party cookies, tracking pixels, and retargeting technologies face significant compliance obligations; (3) the upcoming ePrivacy Regulation (replacing the Directive) will further tighten requirements; (4) no cookie consent mechanism was visible on the IPZ Marketing website.

Evidence: https://ipzmarketing.com, https://www.aepd.es/en/areas-of-activity/internet-and-online-services/cookies, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32002L0058, https://edpb.europa.eu/our-work-tools/our-documents/guidelines/guidelines-052020-consent-under-regulation-2016679_en

Financials

Three-year financials

Financial Resilience Score: 3/10

No public financial information could be retrieved for IPZ Marketing. The company appears to be a small private entity based in Torrelodones, Madrid, Spain, not a US-headquartered company as initially indicated. The website (ipzmarketing.com) is a deliberately de-indexed placeholder page with noindex/nofollow meta tags, containing only an abuse contact and address. No revenue, EBIT, equity, headcount, or segment data is publicly available. As a presumed small Spanish private entity, accounts would normally be deposited at the Spanish Registro Mercantil but could not be accessed in this research session. Potential qualitative strengths include a lightweight domain-based infrastructure suggesting low fixed-cost overhead, and if the business operates IP/email/affiliate infrastructure, recurring B2B usage could produce stable cash flows. However, the extreme disclosure opacity, prominent abuse contact (suggesting historical spam/phishing complaints), single-domain single-address presence with no corporate disclosures (no leadership, no About page, no client list), and jurisdictional mismatch versus the original prompt all represent significant counterparty risks. Due diligence would require identification of the underlying Spanish legal entity and paid register pulls, or direct outreach for audited accounts.

Key strengths: Lightweight domain-based infrastructure suggests low fixed-cost overhead, Potential recurring B2B revenue if operating email/affiliate/IP infrastructure

Risk factors: Extreme disclosure opacity with intentionally de-indexed website (noindex/nofollow), Prominent abuse contact on homepage suggests historical spam/phishing complaints, Single-domain, single-address presence with no corporate disclosures or leadership information, Jurisdictional mismatch (Spain vs. claimed US HQ) suggests possible shell entity or misidentification, No audited financials, filings, or segment data publicly available, Key-person and business continuity risk impossible to assess

Signed-in users can see whether their own company is exposed to this vendor's disruption, plus the full sub-vendor list and country breakdowns, every in-scope compliance framework plus gaps and next steps, and alerts when any of it changes.

View the full interactive report