Reviews
Part of Why B2B influencer marketing reviews need a method before a score
Before you shortlist a creator, run a B2B influencer marketing selection checklist
A B2B influencer marketing selection checklist covering audience evidence, disclosure, data provenance and a weighted scoring rubric for UK teams.
What to take away
- Most teams score creators on audience size and engagement, then reverse-engineer the cost case afterwards. That order hides the real risks.
- Decide your non-negotiables firstaudience fit, disclosure record, data provenance and evidence quality.
- Use a weighted rubric so a strong score in one column cannot mask a failure in another.
- Keep an audit trailwho checked what, on which date, against which source.
- Any data bought from a broker carries obligations under UK data protection law, so check provenance before the list reaches your CRM.
Why does starting with reach sink the shortlist?
The mistake most teams make is opening with a ranking. Reach is easy to obtain and says nothing about whether the audience matches your buying committee.
Reverse the shortlist order
- Define buying roles to influence
- Ask which creators reach them
- Check audience evidence
- Score and rank creators
A purchasing group rarely sits in one function. A creator who speaks credibly to finance may be unknown to the technical evaluators who sign the contract, so list the decision roles before you list names.
Reverse the order. Define the buying roles you need to influence, then ask which creators demonstrably reach them. If that question is unsettled, read the reviews and comparison methods for B2B influencer marketing before you approach anyone, because every later check depends on it.
Is the audience evidence real or assumed?
Ask for the source behind any audience claim. Platform analytics exports, subscriber data and event attendance records are acceptable. Screenshots of a follower count are not.
Acceptable audience evidence
Acceptable
- Platform analytics
- Export
- Subscriber data
- Export
- Event attendance
- Records
Not acceptable
- Platform analytics
- Screenshot
- Subscriber data
- Guess
- Event attendance
- Claim
If a creator cannot produce the export, record that as a gap rather than a refusal. Gaps are acceptable at shortlisting, but guesses presented as data are not.
The Office for National Statistics publishes home internet and social media usage data showing adoption patterns across the population, which is useful context when a creator claims to reach a particular UK segment.
Who owns the contact data?
If a creator or agency offers to supply a contact list, treat it as a data transaction, not a marketing favour. You need to know where the records came from and what lawful basis supports the outreach.
The Information Commissioner's Office explains the duties that apply when you use the marketing services of data brokers, and those duties sit with you as the sender, not the supplier.
Does the disclosure record hold up?
Check how the creator labelled paid work over the past twelve months. Look for consistent, prominent disclosure rather than one correct example. Ask what happens when a post is amended after publication.
UK advertising rules require paid promotions to be obviously identifiable. A creator who treats that requirement as negotiable is a commercial risk, however good the work.
Can the creator evidence delivery?
Request two examples of comparable work with outcomes attached. You are testing whether the evidence is proportionate to the claim, not whether the numbers impress.
Where an agency sits between you and the creator, review what it actually controls. A published review of the Linqia agency and its supporting tools shows how one provider structures services, which prompts sharper questions for any intermediary.
Scoring rubric
Score each creator from 1 to 5 on every row and multiply by the weight. Set a minimum score for the mandatory rows before you rank anything.
| Criterion | Weight | Mandatory | Evidence required |
|---|---|---|---|
| Audience fit to buying roles | 25% | Yes | Platform or subscriber analytics export |
| Disclosure record | 20% | Yes | Twelve months of labelled paid posts |
| Data provenance | 15% | Yes | Written statement of source and lawful basis |
| Evidence of comparable delivery | 15% | No | Two case examples with outcomes |
| Commercial terms clarity | 10% | No | Written rate card or scope document |
| Operational reliability | 10% | No | Response times, named contact, deadline history |
| Conflict check | 5% | No | Declaration of competing clients |
A weighted table keeps the conversation honest. For a worked comparison of how two providers score against the same criteria, see the B2B influencer marketing product comparison.
What goes in the audit trail?
Record the reviewer, the date and the source for every check. If a creator is rejected, note which mandatory row failed. A dated record answers the question in six months.
Store the evidence alongside the score rather than in a separate folder. If a campaign underperforms later, the trail shows whether the creator or the brief was at fault.
Common questions
How many creators should reach the shortlist?
Three to five is workable for most briefs. Fewer limits comparison, and more turns scoring into an administrative burden.
Should a low score on one row disqualify a creator?
Only mandatory rows disqualify. Weak commercial terms can be negotiated, but a failed disclosure or data provenance check cannot be fixed by a lower fee.
How often should the checklist be rerun?
Rerun the mandatory rows annually and whenever a creator changes representation. Audience and disclosure evidence ages quickly, and an old approval is not a current one.
Who should sign off the shortlist?
Someone outside the team that built it. Procurement, legal or a senior marketer can challenge the scoring before money is committed.
