Operations
Part of Why micro influencer marketing operations decide whether a campaign pays back
Vetting micro influencer marketing suppliers on evidence
An evidence-led framework for vetting micro influencer marketing suppliers: four areas to score, a five-row rubric and the checks to run before you sign.
What to take away
- Treat every launch review as an evidence audit, not a product demo: score what a supplier can document, not what it promises.
- The weakest areas in most submissions are disclosure proof, audience data sourcing and exit terms.
- Use the rubric below to separate vendor claims from independent evidence and editorial judgement.
- No hands-on testing sits behind this review; it assesses documentation, published rules and commercial terms only.
Why a launch review is an evidence exercise
A micro influencer marketing launch review asks one question: can the supplier prove the campaign will run lawfully and measurably before money moves? That is a commercial investigation, so the answer should rest on documents you can inspect.
This review assessed published terms, sample reporting, disclosure processes and pricing structures. It did not assess live campaign performance, and no platform was tested. Claims that could not be checked against a public source are labelled as vendor claims.
Request the evidence pack at least five working days before the meeting. A usable pack contains a sample campaign report with its metric definitions, a labelled post from a live campaign, a note on where each creator list came from, current pricing and standard terms, and the notice, data-return and content-rights clauses. A meeting that spends its first hour gathering documents cannot test anything.
The four areas worth scoring
Start with compliance. The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 sit behind misleading commercial practices, and in the UK the Advertising Standards Authority's CAP Code is the rulebook that polices paid promotion, alongside the Competition and Markets Authority's guidance on social media endorsements. Ask how the supplier labels paid partnerships in every format it sells: the label must be clear before a follower reads the caption, whether that is "#ad" or a platform's own tool such as Instagram's paid partnership label, TikTok's branded content toggle or YouTube's paid promotion checkbox. A usable process also names who checks a caption before it appears, and what happens when a creator posts without a label.
Four areas to score
- Compliancepaid partnership labels in every format
- Datalawful basis for contacting creators
- Measurementreach, engagement, cost per outcome
- Exitnotice periods, data return, content rights
Then look at data. If the supplier builds creator lists, its lawful basis for contacting those creators matters, and the ICO's guidance on choosing a lawful basis for direct marketing is the reference point.
Third, check measurement. Ask for a sample report showing reach, engagement and cost per outcome side by side; the micro influencer marketing operations and delivery guide shows where that reporting should sit in the delivery sequence.
Finally, test the exit. Notice periods, data return and content rights should be written down before signature, not negotiated after a poor quarter.
A scoring rubric you can run in the room
Score each row out of five, then set a minimum total before you proceed. The bands below reflect editorial judgement, not an industry standard.
Five rows, each scored out of five. The table below sets out the rows; these are the anchors that separate a 1 from a 5.
- Disclosure and compliance1: no named approver and no example of a labelled post; 5: a written approval step, a live labelled post and a rule for unlabelled posts.
- Data sourcing and lawful basis1: creator lists with no stated basis for outreach; 5: a documented lawful basis and a named source for every list.
- Measurement and reporting1: reach estimates alone, with no definition of an outcome; 5: a sample report showing reach, engagement rate and cost per outcome, with definitions attached.
- Commercial terms and pricing1: a rate card that changes between meetings; 5: current pricing, scope and what sits outside it in writing.
- Exit, notice and content rights1: nothing agreed in writing before signature; 5: notice periods, data return and content rights written into the contract.
Scoring rubric: 1 vs 5
Score 1
- Disclosure
- Verbal assurance only
- Data and outreach
- Bought lists, no records
- Measurement
- Follower counts alone
- Commercial terms
- Rolling contract, unclear rights
- References
- Logos only
Score 5
- Disclosure
- Written process per format
- Data and outreach
- Documented basis and retention
- Measurement
- Cost per outcome with method
- Commercial terms
- Fixed notice and defined rights
- References
- Two references with similar budgets
A total below 15 out of 25 is a stop. Between 15 and 20, request written answers before a second meeting. Above 20, move to a paid pilot with a defined scope.
Separating vendor claims from evidence
Vendor claims usually arrive as reach estimates and case study headlines. Independent evidence looks different: published research, regulatory text and your own pilot data. Ask which figures the supplier measured itself and which came from a creator's screenshot, because the two carry different weight.
The IAB UK insight archive is a useful starting point for industry-level figures, though it will not tell you whether a specific supplier delivers. Treat it as context, not proof.
Editorial judgement applies at the margins: a supplier with weaker reporting but strong references may still merit a pilot if your team can close the gap.
What to ask before signing
Put five questions in writing. Which lawful basis covers creator outreach? Who approves disclosure wording? What happens to creator content after the contract ends? How are results defined and by whom? What notice applies if performance misses the agreed threshold?
A supplier that answers all five with documents is ready for a pilot. One that answers with reassurance is not. The micro influencer marketing operating workflow shows where each answer should sit in the process. Fix the pilot review date in the same document, so the exit conversation has a scheduled point rather than an open-ended one.
For example, a team paying £2,000 a month for a pilot should expect a written reporting definition within a week.
Common questions
What does a launch review actually assess?
It assesses documentation, published rules and commercial terms: disclosure processes, data sourcing, reporting samples, pricing and exit clauses. It does not assess live campaign results or platform usability, because that requires a pilot.
Can a supplier fail a review on one area alone?
Yes. Disclosure and data sourcing are threshold areas. A strong score elsewhere will not offset a supplier that cannot show how paid partnerships are labelled, or how creator lists were built.
How long should a review take?
A desk review of documents and references usually takes one to two weeks for a small team. Add a paid pilot if the supplier scores above 20 and you need performance evidence before a longer commitment.
