
Reviews
Part of How to review beauty creator partnerships before you commit budget
Selection checklist for beauty creator partnerships, by situation
A selection checklist for beauty creator partnerships that matches the route to the situation: paid trial, label check, fixed-fee licence or legal review.
What to take away
- Pick the route after you score the candidate, because the same creator can need a trial, a label check or a legal review.
- Do not buy exclusivity or perpetual rights before the audience audit is done.
- If nobody can explain the lawful basis for collecting data in one line, do not collect it.
- Keep one file per partnership covering disclosure, rights, data, payment terms and exit.
- Re-run the checklist at renewal, because output, ownership and audience all move.
Which situation are you in before you pick a route?
Read the situation before you reach for a template. No two partnerships carry the same risk, so the decision is rarely a straight yes or no. Match the route to the situation in the table, then write your reasoning into the partnership file.
| Situation | Route | Pitfall to avoid |
|---|---|---|
| First post with a new creator | Paid trial with a 30 day usage window | Buying exclusivity before the audience audit |
| Audience fit is clear but disclosure record is thin | Brief with a label check and a review date | Treating a clean feed as proof of clean disclosure |
| Content shows a result, a before-and-after or filtered images | Claim check before posting | Letting a filter or retouching exaggerate what the product does |
| Production is strong but rights are unclear | Fixed fee for named assets with a 12 month licence | Buying perpetual rights by default |
| Campaign collects data through surveys or giveaways | Written consent wording and a one line lawful basis | Collecting data without a lawful basis |
| Spend is high or the claim is regulated | Legal review before contract | Treating the checklist as a contract |
Route by situation
Situation
- No paid campaign history
- Paid trial, defined usage window
- Large following, weak comments
- Audience audit before any fee
- Unresolved regulator rulings
- Written conduct clause, staged payments
- Agency with competing brands
- Written conflict and exclusivity terms
- Renewal with higher rate card
- Re-scoring against current criteria
Choose
- No paid campaign history
- Annual exclusivity upfront
- Large following, weak comments
- Buying on follower count
- Unresolved regulator rulings
- Prepayment and long lead times
- Agency with competing brands
- Verbal assurances about firewalls
- Renewal with higher rate card
- Rolling over last year's terms
Avoid
- No paid campaign history
- Large following, weak comments
- Unresolved regulator rulings
- Agency with competing brands
- Renewal with higher rate card
A staged trial costs less than an exclusivity clause you never use. Record the route you took and the date, so a later reviewer can see the reasoning. Showing a creator which criterion they missed is fairer than silence, and it leaves the door open for a later brief.
What does a first post with a new creator need?
A paid trial with a 30 day usage window, and nothing more. Exclusivity before the audience audit is the pitfall, because you would be paying for a promise you cannot yet check. Audit first, then decide whether a longer deal is worth proposing.
Audience quality means recent evidence: comment threads, saves and repeat viewers. Ask for two campaigns from the past six months and read the replies yourself. The audit decides whether the trial can grow into a longer brief.
Two buyers can watch the same creator and reach opposite conclusions because neither wrote the brief down. Agreeing criteria before you open a follower count removes that argument, and it gives you a defensible reason to decline when the audit comes back weak.
How do you handle a thin disclosure record or unclear rights?
Brief with a label check and a review date when audience fit is clear but the disclosure record is thin. A clean feed is not proof of clean disclosure. A written disclosure policy gives the review date something to measure against.
A creator who hides a partnership once is likely to do it again, so read how earlier paid work was labelled before you brief. In the UK, the ASA publishes a non-compliant online advertisers list covering brands and agencies that have ignored its rulings.
Check both directions: the paying brand and any agency in the chain belong on that check too. A creator with a clean feed can still be briefed badly by a brand that hides the commercial relationship. The CMA also looks at hidden advertising as a consumer-protection matter.
Beauty content carries a claim risk of its own. The CAP Code, which the ASA enforces, requires ads not to mislead. A before-and-after image, filter or retouching that exaggerates what a skincare, make-up or hair product can do is a problem for the brand as well as the creator.
Ask to see the original image beside the posted one, and keep both in the partnership file. Agree before filming which results the creator may show, and which words describe them.
When production is strong but rights are unclear, pay a fixed fee for named assets with a 12 month licence rather than buying perpetual rights by default. Commercial terms cover fee, usage window, territory and exclusivity, and you should write down who owns the footage and for how long.
What changes when you collect data or spend heavily?
Settle consent wording and a one line lawful basis under UK GDPR before a campaign collects data through surveys or giveaways. If nobody can explain the lawful basis in one line, do not collect the data. Data handling covers consent for audience lists, surveys and giveaway entries.
High spend or a regulated claim means legal review before contract. The checklist is not a contract: it decides who reaches the contract stage and records why. Terms, liability and rights still belong in a written agreement, signed by both sides.
Public enforcement records explain why written evidence beats assurances. In 2016 the FTC announced that Warner Bros. settled charges that it failed to adequately disclose it paid online influencers to post. Deceptive influencer marketing is pursued, so keep evidence of what was labelled and when.
What goes in the partnership file?
Keep the tool short enough to use: ten fields that get completed beat forty that get skimmed. The file covers five blocks, and each block needs one line of dated evidence beside it, not a paragraph.
Five blocks of the checklist
- Audience qualityrecent comment threads, saves, repeat viewers
- Disclosure recordhow paid work has been labelled
- Commercial termsfee, usage window, territory, exclusivity
- Data handlingconsent for lists, surveys, giveaways
- Exit and renewalre-scoring and closing terms
- Audience qualitytwo recent campaigns, with the replies read
- Disclosure recordhow paid work was labelled, with examples
- Commercial termsfee, usage window, territory, exclusivity, footage owner
- Data handlingconsent wording and lawful basis
- Exit termsfootage return date and renewal review
Score each block out of five and note the route it triggers. The review methodology weights the five blocks equally at 20 per cent each, so the maximum weighted total is 100. The example below is not a real creator.
| Block | Score | Evidence line | Route it triggers |
|---|---|---|---|
| Audience quality | 4 | 12 recent comments name the product | Trial can go ahead |
| Disclosure record | 3 | one past paid post had no label | Label check and review date |
| Commercial terms | 4 | 12 month usage window agreed | Fixed fee for named assets |
| Data handling | 2 | giveaway consent wording missing | Fix the wording first |
| Exit terms | 3 | no footage return date set | Set the date before signing |
Weighted total: 64 out of 100. Date every piece of evidence, and re-run the checklist at renewal, after a change of ownership at either business, and whenever audience evidence looks stale.
Common questions
How many creators should a shortlist hold?
Enough to compare properly, few enough to check. Three to five scored candidates usually gives a real choice. To rank two that look equally strong, use the evidence line as in the comparison methods guide.
What evidence should sit in the partnership file?
The scored checklist, disclosure examples, agreed rights, consent records and payment terms. If a dispute arises, this file is your account of what was agreed.
What if a candidate fails the audience audit?
A failed audience audit is not a permanent rejection. Tell the creator which criterion was missed and revisit with a later brief.
Does the checklist replace a contract?
No. It decides who reaches the contract stage and records why. Terms, liability and rights still belong in a written agreement.



