Seven checks behind a micro influencer marketing review methodology

Check	Comparison point	Record to retain
Commercial visibility	Rates, minimum spend and cancellation terms	Whether the terms can be inspected before agreement
Delivery ownership	Reporting, approvals and failed posts	The named owner of each responsibility
Service boundary	Marketplace, managed agency or other offer	Included work and exclusions
Audience traceability	Demographic statements	An identifiable source, or no credit
Disclosure response	Paid-partnership labels and missed briefs	The described process, not a guarantee
Evidence basis	Independent, provider or promotional material	Source category and reason for each mark
Regulatory context	Rulings and challenge status	Context for a buyer, not a forecast

Commercial terms as an evidence check

Commercial visibility asks whether rates, minimum spend and cancellation terms are available before agreement. The mark records access to those terms, not whether an offer is inexpensive or good value. Keep the same questions for each provider and note the supporting document when making the comparison.

Price should be treated as evidence of disclosed terms, not as a proxy for service quality. Keep the record focused on whether the terms are accessible and clear, rather than ranking suppliers by the lowest figure or assuming that a visible cost includes every possible item of work.

Visible responsibility across delivery

Delivery marks concern the visibility of reporting cadence, approval timings and responsibility when a post does not go live. A contract record can identify who owns these duties; informal assurances should remain labelled as promotional. Record documentary coverage instead of predicting how a future campaign will operate.

Keep compared offers like for like

Decide whether an offer is a creator marketplace, managed agency or another clearly stated service before comparing marks. List included work and exclusions, then apply the same boundary to each provider. The selection checklist offers a procurement reference for keeping different responsibilities from appearing equivalent under one label.

Traceability of audience claims

Give credit for a demographic statement only when the buyer can trace it to an identifiable source.

If a claim draws on national population data, the ONS UK population estimates are a named reference. Those estimates cover the UK and its nations; an unsupported audience statement adds nothing to this comparison.

Disclosure process, not promised outcomes

Record whether a provider explains how paid-partnership labels are handled and what follows when a creator misses the brief. A written policy documents a control, but cannot prove that every creator will comply later. Social media endorsements and the CAP Code are reference terms, not proof of delivery.

Classifying material behind each mark

For scoring, distinguish independent or regulatory records from material supplied by a provider. Tier one means independent or regulatory evidence; tier two means verifiable provider documents, such as contracts or written policies.

Promotional claims are neither: record them without treating them as corroboration. See supplier due diligence and comparison methods for procurement context.

Regulatory events are context

For an advertising dispute that reached the regulator, note whether a ruling was challenged. The ASA appeals process gives procedural context. The unfair commercial practices rules in the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 and its Schedule 20 on banned practices inform the omission check, but neither source predicts how an individual provider will perform.

Assigning consistent marks

Give each of the seven checks a mark from 1 to 5 using only material relevant to that criterion. Apply the same anchors to every provider, then add a brief reason beside each result. The scale describes the strength and traceability of the record, not a prediction of campaign outcomes.

1:No usable evidence is available, or the source cannot be identified or traced.
2:Only a promotional claim or vague assertion addresses the check, without inspectable support.
3:A verifiable tier-two document addresses the process or terms but leaves a notable gap or gives only a partial answer.
4:Traceable, criterion-specific material covers the core points, though a limited detail remains unclear.
5:Relevant points are fully addressed by traceable material, using tier-one evidence where relevant and provider documents for operational detail where needed.

A demographic statement without a traceable source receives no credit, as the table indicates. No creator accounts were audited and no campaign spend was placed, so the process cannot establish follower authenticity or engagement rates. A strong result elsewhere must not be used to conceal that limitation.

Seven-Check Scoring Method

Define the review scope
Set the evidence tier
Check disclosure control
Test the audience evidence

Reading the combined result

Use an equal-weight arithmetic mean for the summary: add the seven marks and divide by seven. Equal weighting avoids assigning an unsupported priority to any one check. Display every individual result beside the mean so a strong total cannot obscure a weak disclosure, audience or delivery record.

Retaining the comparison over time

Keep this comparison as a dated procurement record for a shortlist, not as a league table. Store each score with its written rationale, source class and supporting material. That preserves the basis for each judgement and allows a buyer to see which evidence was available when a mark was assigned.

Refresh the file at least once every two quarters, or sooner if a provider changes ownership or pricing or updates its disclosure policy. When later tier-one or tier-two material addresses a weakness, add an explanation and retain the earlier reasoning rather than silently replacing it.