Before you approve a digital PR review methodology, check these tests

Approve a review method only when its marks can be traced to evidence and its limits stay visible. Set the rules before reading supplier pitches, then use the score as one part of a procurement decision. It cannot establish future campaign outcomes or show whether a team will suit a particular account.

What decision should the score support?

Use the score to compare documented evidence against agreed criteria, not to turn every supplier quality into a number. Set each criterion, its weighting and the maximum total before opening pitch material. Keep the framework unchanged for every candidate, so the basis does not shift once preferences emerge.

Separate evidence from impressions on the working sheet. Supplier statements, independent confirmation and editorial judgement should remain identifiable beside each mark. This lets the panel see whether a result rests on corroborated material or on claims still awaiting confirmation, rather than letting a tidy total conceal that distinction.

How should each piece of evidence be classified?

Give every item a clear evidence status before assigning credit. A claim that has not been checked remains unverified; do not promote it to confirmed evidence by inference. The categories should describe the support available, not make confident supplier wording appear equivalent to independent corroboration.

Supplier statements may receive credit in their own category, but should count for less than independent support. Keep the documents beside the score and record reviewer judgement separately. These distinctions allow a strong total to be considered alongside the qualifications that affect how much confidence it deserves.

Which supplier records can be checked before signing?

Four document-based checks are suitable for review before a contract: placement quality, disclosure, certification and live link records. Give each a separate place on the score sheet. They concern material a supplier can provide, unlike interpersonal chemistry, which documents alone cannot establish.

Ask how paid placements are labelled and how the supplier handles CAP Code requirements. The ASA's public list of non-compliant online advertisers is another checkable source. If a supplier cannot explain its disclosure process, record that as an unresolved procurement risk instead of allowing it to disappear inside an average score.

Compare the approach with the UK advertising rules for digital PR and a disclosure policy. Consult the ASA advertising codes, and request IAB UK Gold Standard evidence where relevant. Certification can make a process easier to audit, but it does not prove the quality of an individual placement.

The four tests, with pass and fail rules

These thresholds are suggested starting rules for a panel to adopt before reading pitches. They are not an industry standard, so change them if you wish, but fix them in advance.

Score each test as pass (full marks), partial (half marks, with the gap recorded) or fail (zero). Check the ASA's list of non-compliant online advertisers for the supplier and its named clients; any entry goes on the sheet as an unresolved risk.

How can you judge whether coverage is meaningful?

Consider the page context as well as the presence of a link. A link in a news article is not interchangeable with one on a syndicated press release feed, so assess whether the coverage appears somewhere a reader might plausibly visit.

Request the supplier's last twelve campaigns and examine the coverage. Then ask for sample live URLs and open each page yourself. A screenshot cannot establish whether a placement remains live or show its surrounding context, so inspect the page rather than relying on an image supplied by the vendor.

Use a quality checklist to keep evidence requests consistent. Treat a case study as a supplier statement until its details have been checked. That distinction prevents an attractive example from receiving the same status as a placement whose live URL and context have been reviewed directly.

Which matters should stay outside the document score?

Keep price fairness, cultural fit, account-team chemistry, seniority claims and pitch performance separate from a document-based score. These may influence a commercial choice, but records supplied by a vendor cannot verify them. Label those assessments as subjective instead of presenting them as evidence confirmed through this review.

Price fairness depends on scope, while interpersonal fit and pitch impressions cannot be established from supplier records alone. Use vendor due diligence to consider broader procurement risks, but do not let a favourable meeting stand in for proof of delivery or allow a subjective view to blend into the evidence score.

This process is not a performance audit: it does not involve running campaigns, auditing accounts or conducting interviews. If the decision requires evidence about campaign results or account handling, assess delivered work separately. A document score cannot substitute for that different review.

What should happen to claims that remain unverified?

Keep each unresolved claim beside the score, together with the evidence needed to settle it. Do not award partial credit by guesswork. The panel should be able to see both the present result and what could change it, rather than relying on a ranking with its qualifications removed.

Five to eight criteria can provide a workable balance: too few may hide trade-offs, while too many can make weighting arbitrary and slow the panel. Keep each criterion within the fixed total and retain its supporting material. A final ranking by itself does not explain why a supplier received its marks.

For example, a supplier might lead a 100-point sheet while two authority claims remain unverified. Keep both qualifications in the recommendation. If placements on weaker domains affect the decision, set the supplier against its rivals using the guides to vetting a supplier and assessing suppliers before signing. The highest total should not be described as assurance.

How can reviewers apply the method consistently?

Write the criteria and weightings before examining pitch materials, then leave them unchanged throughout scoring. Where possible, have reviewers score in pairs and keep the source document behind each judgement. A second reviewer may spot a mark that reflects a favourable meeting rather than the written evidence.

Apply the same evidence categories to every supplier. Guidance on running reviews and comparing agencies can help align criteria across providers. Retain the rationale for each score, so another reviewer can follow how the mark relates to the material and identify any claim that still needs checking.

Review the sheet annually, or sooner if a certification scheme or advertising rule changes. Record any update and apply the revised method consistently. Changing criteria during an active assessment makes earlier scores inconsistent, so do not quietly alter the basis for one supplier alone.

What should you do first?

Prepare the score sheet before requesting supplier material, then apply the same rules to each candidate. Begin with the actions below; they establish criteria, evidence status and verification needs before a total can shape the final recommendation.