A B2B influencer marketing review methodology you can defend

What to take away

Define the review question

A methodology begins with the decision the reader has to make. If the choice is between two agencies, the review assesses fit to a defined brief. If the choice is whether to run a programme at all, it assesses the case for the channel.

Write the question down and keep it visible. Every criterion must help answer it; the rest is padding. Our B2B influencer marketing: reviews and comparison methods sets out how the wider comparison process fits together before you reach this stage.

What gets assessed

Three areas carry the weight.

First, the brief. Does the supplier restate your objective accurately and name the audience it will reach?

Second, the evidence behind each claim. A reach figure needs a source, and a case study needs a result the named client can confirm.

Third, delivery. Ask who does the work and what happens when a creator withdraws mid-campaign.

What is not assessed: pricing, contract clauses, insurance and data processing terms, which belong to procurement and legal review.

Separate claim from evidence

Every statement in a review sits in one of three categories.

A vendor claim is what the supplier says about itself. Record it with the date and the person who said it.

Independent evidence is something a third party can check. A company's registration and filing history can be confirmed through Companies House, the official register for UK company verification.

Editorial judgement is your assessment of whether the claim holds up against the brief. Say so plainly, because a reader who cannot tell judgement from evidence cannot use the review.

A worked example

For example, a UK software firm reviewing two agencies against a £40,000 annual brief might score as follows. Agency A claims a median cost per qualified lead of £180, sourced from its own dashboard. Agency B provides a client-confirmed figure of £240 over nine months, with the client named.

On the raw number Agency A looks stronger. On the evidence standard Agency B does. A defensible review records both, states that Agency A's figure is a vendor claim, and explains why the method favours the verifiable figure. The £40,000 budget and both lead costs are illustrative examples, not market data.

Skills and platform checks

Where a supplier promises paid campaign delivery, check the certifications its staff hold. LinkedIn publishes its own certification programme through LinkedIn Ads Certifications, which gives you a named standard to ask about. A certification is not proof of performance, but it is a checkable fact.

Paid promotion also has to comply with platform rules. Google's requirements are set out in its advertising policies, and a supplier that cannot describe how it applies them is a risk. Our B2B influencer marketing selection checklist covers the remaining checks worth running before you shortlist.

Scoring without false precision

Use three bands: meets the brief, partly meets it, does not meet it. Numeric scores imply a precision that supplier reviews rarely support.

Weight the criteria before you see the submissions. Weighting afterwards is how a preferred supplier wins.

Keep a written record of what you could not verify. That record is often more useful to the next reviewer than the score.

Common questions

Does this method include hands-on testing?

No. It assesses written submissions, public records and reference calls. It does not involve running a supplier's campaign, and no review on this site claims otherwise.

How many suppliers should a review cover?

Three is workable for most teams. Two makes comparison thin, and beyond four evidence quality usually drops.

What if a supplier refuses to name a client?

Record the claim as unverified and score it accordingly. Some contracts do prevent naming, so ask for an anonymised reference.

Can I reuse the same method for a different brief?

Yes, keep the method and rewrite the question. The criteria change with the brief, but the evidence standards should not.