PurePlay AI
This competitive report is password-protected.
← Both Iowa markets
RSH Legal · Competitive Analysis — Des Moines DMA · YTD

Des Moines Market Competitive Analysis

RSH Legal and 17 competitors make up the relevant legal-advertising field in Des Moines-Ames, IA year-to-date, running roughly 52% Broadcast / 32% vMVPD / 15% CTV. This view measures delivered viewing volume — eyeballs on screen.

Firms Tracked
18
Des Moines · YTD
Streaming Share
58%
of full-market delivery
RSH Legal — Market Rank
#8
2% share of voice · of 18 firms
Competitive Landscape

Who's running — and where

Across Des Moines-Ames, IA, 363+ legal advertisers were detected in market year-to-date. RSH Legal's competitive set of 18 firms runs roughly 52% Broadcast / 32% vMVPD / 15% CTV/Streaming. The bars below contrast the full detected market with that set, by share.

Full Des Moines Market (363+ Firms) · Impressions
Broadcast 27%
vMVPD 15%
CTV 58%
Des Moines Competitive Set (18 firms) · Impressions
Broadcast 52%
vMVPD 32%
CTV 15%
Broadcast — local stations & cable
vMVPD — live-TV streaming bundles
CTV / Streaming — true OTT apps
Share of Competitive Set by Channel (% · YTD)
#FirmShare of VoiceChannel MixStreaming %
Majors
1Hope Law Firm43.3%
8%
2Hupy and Abraham, S.C.28.4%
17%
3LaMarca Law Group10.0%
26%
4Beattie Law Firm4.4%
15%
5Schott Mauss & Associates4.1%
9%
Mid-Pack
6Mark R Hinshaw3.8%
8%
7Nicolet Law Accident & Injury Lawyers1.6%
31%
8RSH Legal RSH1.6%
87%
9Postman Law0.6%
91%
10Kreamer Law Firm0.5%
13%
11Slater Law0.4%
5%
12Ball, Kirk & Holm, PC0.3%
95%
13Black & Jones Attorney At Law0.3%
82%
14Guy R Cook0.2%
1%
15Kingree Law0.2%
96%
Challengers
16Gourley Rehkemper & Lindholm Law0.2%
97%
17Pitman Kalkhoff Sicula & Dentice0.1%
92%
18Eells & Tronvold Law Offices0.1%
13%

Share of Voice is each firm's share of the 18-firm competitive set's impressions — not the full market.

Publisher Intelligence

Share of voice — who owns what

Share of voice across the competitive set — the 18 firms competing in Des Moines year-to-date, by publisher.

Publisher Share — % of Competitive Set
Competitor Share of Voice by Publisher Each firm's share of the competitive set's impressions on that publisher. Bars sum to 100%.

“Other competitors” covers the 3 smaller firms in the set beyond the top 15, each under 1% of impressions on any publisher shown above.

Firms: HopeHupy and Abraham, S.C.LaMarca Law GroupBeattieSchott Mauss & AssociatesMark R HinshawNicolet Law Accident &RSH LegalPostman LawKreamerSlater LawBall, Kirk & Holm, PCBlack & Jones Attorney At LawGuy R CookKingree Law Other competitors

Ranked competitor detail by publisher

Each card is one publisher. Top 5 advertisers ranked by SOV on that publisher. Click Show all to expand to every competitor in the set with measurable impressions.

OTA
Broadcast
18% of set delivery · 13 of 18 active
  1. 1
    Hope
    39.2%
  2. 2
    Hupy and Abraham, S.C.
    27.2%
  3. 3
    Beattie
    12.1%
  4. 4
    LaMarca Law Group
    10.1%
  5. 5
    Schott Mauss & Associates
    5.2%
Show all 13 analyzed competitors
  1. 6
    Mark R Hinshaw
    4.0%
  2. 7
    Kreamer
    1.5%
  3. 8
    Slater Law
    0.6%
  4. 9
    Nicolet Law Accident &
    0.1%
  5. 10
    Gourley Rehkemper & Lindholm Law
    0.0%
  6. 11
    Guy R Cook
    0.0%
  7. 12
    Postman Law
    0.0%
  8. 13
    Black & Jones Attorney At Law
    0.0%
YouTube TV App
vMVPD
16% of set delivery · 17 of 18 active
  1. 1
    Hope
    43.7%
  2. 2
    Hupy and Abraham, S.C.
    38.0%
  3. 3
    LaMarca Law Group
    7.5%
  4. 4
    Mark R Hinshaw
    6.1%
  5. 5
    Schott Mauss & Associates
    3.1%
Show all 17 analyzed competitors
  1. 6
    RSH Legal
    0.4%
  2. 7
    Beattie
    0.3%
  3. 8
    Eells & Tronvold Law Offices
    0.3%
  4. 9
    Nicolet Law Accident &
    0.1%
  5. 10
    Kreamer
    0.1%
  6. 11
    Black & Jones Attorney At Law
    0.1%
  7. 12
    Postman Law
    0.1%
  8. 13
    Pitman Kalkhoff Sicula & Dentice
    0.0%
  9. 14
    Guy R Cook
    0.0%
  10. 15
    Ball, Kirk & Holm, PC
    0.0%
  11. 16
    Kingree Law
    0.0%
  12. 17
    Slater Law
    0.0%
WHO
Broadcast
12% of set delivery · 11 of 18 active
  1. 1
    Hope
    52.0%
  2. 2
    Hupy and Abraham, S.C.
    16.2%
  3. 3
    LaMarca Law Group
    10.7%
  4. 4
    Mark R Hinshaw
    8.5%
  5. 5
    Nicolet Law Accident &
    5.9%
Show all 11 analyzed competitors
  1. 6
    Schott Mauss & Associates
    3.7%
  2. 7
    Guy R Cook
    1.7%
  3. 8
    Slater Law
    1.1%
  4. 9
    RSH Legal
    0.2%
  5. 10
    Black & Jones Attorney At Law
    0.1%
  6. 11
    Postman Law
    0.0%
KCCI
Broadcast
10% of set delivery · 11 of 18 active
  1. 1
    Hope
    65.3%
  2. 2
    Hupy and Abraham, S.C.
    19.9%
  3. 3
    Schott Mauss & Associates
    7.8%
  4. 4
    LaMarca Law Group
    6.3%
  5. 5
    Beattie
    0.6%
Show all 11 analyzed competitors
  1. 6
    Black & Jones Attorney At Law
    0.1%
  2. 7
    Nicolet Law Accident &
    0.0%
  3. 8
    RSH Legal
    0.0%
  4. 9
    Postman Law
    0.0%
  5. 10
    Mark R Hinshaw
    0.0%
  6. 11
    Guy R Cook
    0.0%
Dish Streaming
vMVPD
8% of set delivery · 18 of 18 active
  1. 1
    Hope
    38.0%
  2. 2
    Hupy and Abraham, S.C.
    30.9%
  3. 3
    LaMarca Law Group
    10.6%
  4. 4
    Beattie
    9.5%
  5. 5
    Schott Mauss & Associates
    4.8%
Show all 18 analyzed competitors
  1. 6
    Mark R Hinshaw
    3.4%
  2. 7
    Kreamer
    1.1%
  3. 8
    RSH Legal
    0.6%
  4. 9
    Eells & Tronvold Law Offices
    0.4%
  5. 10
    Slater Law
    0.2%
  6. 11
    Nicolet Law Accident &
    0.1%
  7. 12
    Ball, Kirk & Holm, PC
    0.1%
  8. 13
    Black & Jones Attorney At Law
    0.1%
  9. 14
    Postman Law
    0.1%
  10. 15
    Kingree Law
    0.0%
  11. 16
    Pitman Kalkhoff Sicula & Dentice
    0.0%
  12. 17
    Guy R Cook
    0.0%
  13. 18
    Gourley Rehkemper & Lindholm Law
    0.0%
DirecTV Streaming
vMVPD
7% of set delivery · 17 of 18 active
  1. 1
    Hope
    38.9%
  2. 2
    Hupy and Abraham, S.C.
    31.2%
  3. 3
    LaMarca Law Group
    10.1%
  4. 4
    Beattie
    9.2%
  5. 5
    Schott Mauss & Associates
    4.6%
Show all 17 analyzed competitors
  1. 6
    Mark R Hinshaw
    3.4%
  2. 7
    Kreamer
    1.0%
  3. 8
    RSH Legal
    0.6%
  4. 9
    Postman Law
    0.4%
  5. 10
    Slater Law
    0.2%
  6. 11
    Eells & Tronvold Law Offices
    0.2%
  7. 12
    Nicolet Law Accident &
    0.1%
  8. 13
    Black & Jones Attorney At Law
    0.1%
  9. 14
    Pitman Kalkhoff Sicula & Dentice
    0.0%
  10. 15
    Ball, Kirk & Holm, PC
    0.0%
  11. 16
    Guy R Cook
    0.0%
  12. 17
    Kingree Law
    0.0%
KDSM
Broadcast
6% of set delivery · 8 of 18 active
  1. 1
    Hope
    52.3%
  2. 2
    Hupy and Abraham, S.C.
    36.9%
  3. 3
    LaMarca Law Group
    4.9%
  4. 4
    Schott Mauss & Associates
    3.9%
  5. 5
    Slater Law
    1.8%
Show all 8 analyzed competitors
  1. 6
    Nicolet Law Accident &
    0.1%
  2. 7
    Postman Law
    0.0%
  3. 8
    RSH Legal
    0.0%
WOI
Broadcast
4% of set delivery · 8 of 18 active
  1. 1
    Hope
    73.2%
  2. 2
    Hupy and Abraham, S.C.
    19.2%
  3. 3
    LaMarca Law Group
    7.2%
  4. 4
    RSH Legal
    0.2%
  5. 5
    Eells & Tronvold Law Offices
    0.1%
Show all 8 analyzed competitors
  1. 6
    Ball, Kirk & Holm, PC
    0.0%
  2. 7
    Schott Mauss & Associates
    0.0%
  3. 8
    Postman Law
    0.0%
Roku
Device
4% of set delivery · 18 of 18 active
  1. 1
    Hope
    34.2%
  2. 2
    Hupy and Abraham, S.C.
    31.2%
  3. 3
    LaMarca Law Group
    13.2%
  4. 4
    Beattie
    8.9%
  5. 5
    Schott Mauss & Associates
    4.1%
Show all 18 analyzed competitors
  1. 6
    Mark R Hinshaw
    2.6%
  2. 7
    RSH Legal
    1.8%
  3. 8
    Postman Law
    0.9%
  4. 9
    Nicolet Law Accident &
    0.8%
  5. 10
    Kreamer
    0.8%
  6. 11
    Slater Law
    0.3%
  7. 12
    Pitman Kalkhoff Sicula & Dentice
    0.2%
  8. 13
    Gourley Rehkemper & Lindholm Law
    0.2%
  9. 14
    Black & Jones Attorney At Law
    0.2%
  10. 15
    Ball, Kirk & Holm, PC
    0.2%
  11. 16
    Eells & Tronvold Law Offices
    0.2%
  12. 17
    Kingree Law
    0.1%
  13. 18
    Guy R Cook
    0.0%
Amazon Fire
Device
3% of set delivery · 18 of 18 active
  1. 1
    Hope
    36.7%
  2. 2
    Hupy and Abraham, S.C.
    32.3%
  3. 3
    LaMarca Law Group
    11.4%
  4. 4
    Beattie
    7.1%
  5. 5
    Schott Mauss & Associates
    4.2%
Show all 18 analyzed competitors
  1. 6
    Mark R Hinshaw
    3.7%
  2. 7
    Postman Law
    1.1%
  3. 8
    Nicolet Law Accident &
    0.9%
  4. 9
    Kreamer
    0.7%
  5. 10
    RSH Legal
    0.7%
  6. 11
    Black & Jones Attorney At Law
    0.3%
  7. 12
    Kingree Law
    0.2%
  8. 13
    Slater Law
    0.2%
  9. 14
    Pitman Kalkhoff Sicula & Dentice
    0.2%
  10. 15
    Ball, Kirk & Holm, PC
    0.2%
  11. 16
    Eells & Tronvold Law Offices
    0.1%
  12. 17
    Guy R Cook
    0.0%
  13. 18
    Gourley Rehkemper & Lindholm Law
    0.0%
Other App
Streaming App
2% of set delivery · 18 of 18 active
  1. 1
    LaMarca Law Group
    42.3%
  2. 2
    RSH Legal
    20.7%
  3. 3
    Hupy and Abraham, S.C.
    10.9%
  4. 4
    Hope
    10.6%
  5. 5
    Ball, Kirk & Holm, PC
    5.7%
Show all 18 analyzed competitors
  1. 6
    Postman Law
    2.8%
  2. 7
    Nicolet Law Accident &
    2.2%
  3. 8
    Beattie
    2.1%
  4. 9
    Schott Mauss & Associates
    1.1%
  5. 10
    Mark R Hinshaw
    0.6%
  6. 11
    Kreamer
    0.4%
  7. 12
    Black & Jones Attorney At Law
    0.2%
  8. 13
    Kingree Law
    0.2%
  9. 14
    Pitman Kalkhoff Sicula & Dentice
    0.2%
  10. 15
    Slater Law
    0.1%
  11. 16
    Gourley Rehkemper & Lindholm Law
    0.0%
  12. 17
    Eells & Tronvold Law Offices
    0.0%
  13. 18
    Guy R Cook
    0.0%
YouTube App
Streaming App
2% of set delivery · 16 of 18 active
  1. 1
    Hupy and Abraham, S.C.
    38.6%
  2. 2
    Nicolet Law Accident &
    15.6%
  3. 3
    Hope
    11.6%
  4. 4
    Ball, Kirk & Holm, PC
    8.3%
  5. 5
    RSH Legal
    7.5%
Show all 16 analyzed competitors
  1. 6
    Black & Jones Attorney At Law
    5.3%
  2. 7
    Kingree Law
    4.9%
  3. 8
    Pitman Kalkhoff Sicula & Dentice
    3.0%
  4. 9
    LaMarca Law Group
    1.9%
  5. 10
    Postman Law
    1.4%
  6. 11
    Mark R Hinshaw
    1.1%
  7. 12
    Schott Mauss & Associates
    0.5%
  8. 13
    Beattie
    0.1%
  9. 14
    Eells & Tronvold Law Offices
    0.1%
  10. 15
    Guy R Cook
    0.0%
  11. 16
    Kreamer
    0.0%
Tubi TV App
Streaming App
1% of set delivery · 14 of 18 active
  1. 1
    LaMarca Law Group
    31.3%
  2. 2
    RSH Legal
    24.0%
  3. 3
    Postman Law
    21.7%
  4. 4
    Hupy and Abraham, S.C.
    19.5%
  5. 5
    Nicolet Law Accident &
    1.1%
Show all 14 analyzed competitors
  1. 6
    Black & Jones Attorney At Law
    0.6%
  2. 7
    Pitman Kalkhoff Sicula & Dentice
    0.6%
  3. 8
    Kingree Law
    0.6%
  4. 9
    Hope
    0.4%
  5. 10
    Ball, Kirk & Holm, PC
    0.1%
  6. 11
    Beattie
    0.0%
  7. 12
    Kreamer
    0.0%
  8. 13
    Schott Mauss & Associates
    0.0%
  9. 14
    Mark R Hinshaw
    0.0%
PlayStation 5
Device
1% of set delivery · 17 of 18 active
  1. 1
    Hupy and Abraham, S.C.
    50.9%
  2. 2
    Hope
    11.4%
  3. 3
    Black & Jones Attorney At Law
    6.7%
  4. 4
    LaMarca Law Group
    5.7%
  5. 5
    Nicolet Law Accident &
    5.6%
Show all 17 analyzed competitors
  1. 6
    Postman Law
    4.1%
  2. 7
    Kingree Law
    3.9%
  3. 8
    Pitman Kalkhoff Sicula & Dentice
    3.1%
  4. 9
    Beattie
    3.0%
  5. 10
    Ball, Kirk & Holm, PC
    1.9%
  6. 11
    RSH Legal
    1.4%
  7. 12
    Schott Mauss & Associates
    1.1%
  8. 13
    Mark R Hinshaw
    0.8%
  9. 14
    Kreamer
    0.2%
  10. 15
    Eells & Tronvold Law Offices
    0.1%
  11. 16
    Slater Law
    0.1%
  12. 17
    Guy R Cook
    0.0%
Pluto TV App
Streaming App
1% of set delivery · 11 of 18 active
  1. 1
    RSH Legal
    38.9%
  2. 2
    Hupy and Abraham, S.C.
    38.0%
  3. 3
    LaMarca Law Group
    18.3%
  4. 4
    Postman Law
    2.0%
  5. 5
    Nicolet Law Accident &
    1.0%
Show all 11 analyzed competitors
  1. 6
    Black & Jones Attorney At Law
    0.7%
  2. 7
    Kingree Law
    0.5%
  3. 8
    Hope
    0.3%
  4. 9
    Pitman Kalkhoff Sicula & Dentice
    0.2%
  5. 10
    Ball, Kirk & Holm, PC
    0.1%
  6. 11
    Beattie
    0.0%
Competitor Creative

The creative landscape

Active spots running in the Des Moines market this period.

HLF
Million Settlement
Hope Law Firm
Personal Injury
HLF
Get Help
Hope Law Firm
Personal Injury
HAAS
Call Us
Hupy and Abraham, S.C.
Personal Injury
HAAS
Fighting For The Compensation
Hupy and Abraham, S.C.
Personal Injury
LLG
Call Now
LaMarca Law Group
Personal Injury
LLG
Let Us Help You
LaMarca Law Group
Personal Injury
BLF
Call Now
Beattie Law Firm
Personal Injury
SMA
Call Now (:15)
Schott Mauss & Associates
Personal Injury
SMA
Call Now (:30)
Schott Mauss & Associates
Personal Injury

Methodology and Definitions

1. Data Sourcing & Collection

Our platform uses Automatic Content Recognition (ACR) to capture real-time viewing data from the "glass" of over 23 million opted-in U.S. households, across a diverse panel of devices (Vizio, LG) and peripheral inputs. Each captured ad is fingerprinted and matched against a comprehensive ad library to verify when and where it aired.

2. Competitive Set & Scope

This report covers the legal advertisers competing for clients in the market — firms based here or in a neighboring state with a genuine local presence and dedicated local advertising. Non-law advertisers and national advertisers whose impressions are incidental spillover from national campaigns are excluded, so the field reflects real local competition.

Because the underlying data shows where impressions were detected — not how the inventory was purchased — we use a firm's share of local-broadcast delivery as the signal of whether it is buying locally. National advertisers running connected-TV into the market at scale (for example Morgan & Morgan and Dimopoulos) register only 1–2% local-broadcast delivery here, versus 40–60%+ for the local firms, so they read as national spillover and are set aside. Share of voice and all channel splits are measured across the local competitive set.

3. Channel Categorization

Each advertiser's activity is split across three mutually exclusive channels.

Broadcast
Local station-originated linear & cable inventory
Local OTA broadcast affiliates (ABC/NBC/CBS/FOX), national broadcast networks, syndicated broadcast, and traditional linear cable + satellite (Xfinity, Spectrum, Cox, Charter, DirecTV dish, Dish Network) — viewed via antenna or linear MVPD carriage.
vMVPD
Streaming delivery of linear feeds
YouTube TV, Hulu Live, Sling, fuboTV, Philo, DirecTV Stream, Cox Streaming, XFINITY Streaming, Spectrum Streaming, Dish Streaming, Uverse Streaming. Streaming delivery, but content includes broadcast-originated station feeds — kept as a separate line for clarity.
CTV / Streaming
True streaming, app-based CTV
Ad-supported streaming apps (Peacock, Pluto, Tubi, Paramount+), peripheral devices (Roku, Fire TV, Apple TV, Xbox, PlayStation), FAST channels, and digital video / app-based CTV inventory.

Publisher definitions

4. Key Attribution Information

Why vMVPD is its own line. When a viewer watches a local broadcast affiliate through a streaming bundle (YouTube TV, DirecTV Stream, Cox Streaming, Hulu Live, etc.), the delivery is internet-based but the content is broadcast-originated linear. Buyers and sellers treat vMVPD distinctly from both pure broadcast and true OTT — so we report it as a separate line rather than rolling it into either.

Satellite vs. streaming MVPDs. DirecTV satellite dish is reported as Cable. DirecTV Stream (the internet-delivered linear app) is reported as vMVPD.

OTA (Over-the-Air). Free broadcast signals received via antenna from local ABC/NBC/CBS/FOX affiliates. Reported under Broadcast.

A predominantly broadcast-led advertiser will still show single-digit-to-low-teens CTV/Streaming exposure in this view because ACR captures actual viewing across the connected-TV panel — including incidental impressions on Roku, Fire TV, Tubi, Apple TV, Pluto, Peacock, network broadcaster apps, and similar ad-supported streaming platforms. Those carry their own ad inventory distinct from the linear feed (and from vMVPDs), so they're reported under CTV / Streaming.

5. Glossary