Reviews
Part of How to review beauty creator partnerships before you commit budget
Review beauty creator partnerships with four assessment areas and scoring before you commit
A review method for beauty creator partnerships: score disclosure, rights, data handling and claim evidence from 0 to 2, with named UK rules, what counts as supported and a worked example.
Review beauty creator partnerships with four assessment areas and scoring before you commit
Before committing to a beauty creator partnership, rate four areas separately: disclosure, rights and usage, data handling and claim evidence. Each area gets a score, and anything you could not check is recorded as a gap. A written method and a quality checklist keep claims, evidence and judgement apart.
Four Assessment Areas
- Disclosure practicepaid content labelled clearly
- Rights and usagereuse duration, channels, cost
- Data handlingconsent, retention, audience data
- Evidence qualityperformance figures trace to source
The scoring scale and the commitment gate
Score each area 2 for supported, 1 for unclear and 0 for unsupported, giving a maximum of 8. Not assessed scores nothing and is logged as a gap, so an unchecked area is never mistaken for a pass or a failure. The gate is simple: commit only when all four areas score 2.
All four are required because one weak area can undo the rest. Unlabelled paid posts expose the brand as well as the creator, unclear rights can mean paying again to reuse content, loose data handling can breach UK GDPR and an untested claim wastes the fee.
What earns "supported" in each area
- Disclosure.Comparable past posts label paid content with "Ad" or "Advert" at the start of the caption, visible without tapping "see more", and the draft contract requires the same. The rules are CAP Code rule 2.1 (ads must be obviously identifiable) and rule 2.3 (commercial intent must not be disguised), explained in the CAP and CMA Influencers' guide to making clear that ads are ads. The CMA's Hidden ads guidance adds that brands can be held accountable. A platform paid-partnership tag alone scores 1. Posts with no labels score 0.
- Rights and usage.Written terms state duration, channels, territory, exclusivity and the fee for paid usage. Under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 the creator is normally the first owner of the content, so an assignment must be in writing and signed. Missing duration or channels scores 1. No written terms scores 0.
- Data handling.The brand knows whether it will receive audience data, giveaway entries or contact details. A privacy notice names the controller, there is a lawful basis under UK GDPR and consent is recorded where PECR requires it for email marketing. ICO guidance applies. A privacy notice with no retention terms scores 1. No notice scores 0.
- Claim evidence.A dated platform analytics export matches the claim, such as an engagement or reach figure. Product claims need documentary evidence under CAP Code rule 3.7. A claim with no export scores 1. An export that contradicts the claim scores 0.
Worked example 1: the evidence gap
A beauty team weighs a creator proposal priced at £400 a month. Its deck promises a 12 per cent engagement lift but includes no dated analytics export. The fee and lift come from the deck alone, so the review can establish only what the records show.
| Assessment area | Relevant material to check | Finding in this scenario | Rating |
|---|---|---|---|
| Disclosure | Published posts, platform labels, and ASA rulings | Records have not been reviewed | Not assessed |
| Rights and usage | Contract terms, rate cards, and briefs | Records have not been reviewed | Not assessed |
| Data handling | Privacy notices and consent flows | Records have not been reviewed | Not assessed |
| Claim evidence | Media packs, platform analytics, and named sources | Deck states a 12 per cent lift but supplies no dated export | Unclear |
Claim evidence scores 1 of 2 and three areas are gaps, so the proposal scores 1 of 8 with three areas unchecked. It fails the gate. The team pauses and asks for the dated analytics export first. Any reported figure is logged with its wording, date and source.
Assessment Areas and Evidence
Area
- Disclosure
- Posts, labels, ASA rulings
- Rights and usage
- Contract terms, rate cards
- Data handling
- Privacy notices, consent flows
- Claim evidence
- Media packs, analytics, sources
Evidence used
- Disclosure
- Pass or flag
- Rights and usage
- Cost band
- Data handling
- Risk flag
- Claim evidence
- Confidence level
What it can change
- Disclosure
- Rights and usage
- Data handling
- Claim evidence
Worked example 2: all four areas assessed
A second illustrative proposal arrives with past posts, a draft contract, a privacy notice and an analytics export. Disclosure scores 2, because posts carry "Ad" at the start. Rights score 1, because the contract omits duration. Data handling scores 2. Claims score 1, because the export covers only one month.
The total is 6 of 8, so the gate is not met. The team asks for the duration and channels in writing and for three months of analytics. If both arrive, rights and claims move to 2 and the total becomes 8. The team then commits, with the score kept as a dated record. A risk record lists anything still open.
A blank template to apply
Copy this for each proposal and record the date and source of every item.
- Disclosure
- label wording, position, contract clause. Score 0, 1 or 2.
- Rights and usage
- duration, channels, territory, exclusivity, paid usage fee. Score 0, 1 or 2.
- Data handling
- controller, lawful basis, consent, retention. Score 0, 1 or 2.
- Claim evidence
- claim, dated export, date range. Score 0, 1 or 2.
- Gaps
- areas not assessed and the evidence that would close them.
- Decision
- commit, request more evidence or pause.
Use a selection checklist to track outstanding requests. For disclosure wording, see a written disclosure policy. For rights, read about when influencers need a written contract. For data, see who controls audience data. A later launch review can rescore using the records then available.
