How we score creator contracts without vendor spin

What to take away

Sign off a sponsorship agreement in England using a template a US creator sent over, and you meet the line “#ad, where required”. Required by whom? The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) administers the CAP Code: its rules require marketing communications to be obviously identifiable and distinguishable as advertising. ASA guidance says to make the commercial nature clear upfront and prominently, for example with “#ad”; a tidy interface says little about fitness for a paid partnership in England.

What does the review actually assess?

Four scored areas use a five-point scale. For each, the lowest score means the relevant information or safeguard is absent or unclear; the highest means it is clear, specific and supported by material we can inspect. Scores between those endpoints reflect how much of the criterion is evidenced, and no area moves above the midpoint without a stated source.

Disclosure handling: does the service prompt for a clear, prominent label, keep a record of what was agreed, and flag a brand asking for the label to be buried? A low score means the prompt is absent, ambiguous or easy to miss; a high score means the wording and its placement are clear and the agreed disclosure is recorded. We check the ASA-administered CAP Code, including rules 2.1 and 2.3, and the applicable consumer-protection law: the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 were the earlier framework, and unfair commercial practices are now addressed by the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024. The Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) is a consumer-protection enforcement body.

Deal record: does it store scope, exclusivity, usage rights and payment terms so a second person could read them back later? A low score means key terms are missing or scattered; a high score means the material terms are recorded clearly enough to check what each party agreed.

Data handling: does it explain what happens to creator and audience data, identify relevant roles and retention, and state a lawful basis where required? A low score means these points are missing or vague; a high score means they are explained clearly and supported by inspectable material. We treat the ICO’s published enforcement actions as relevant evidence of regulatory concerns; its age-appropriate design guidance provides context, not an enforcement register.

Stated limits: does the provider say what the product does not do? A low score means it implies full coverage without explaining boundaries; a high score means it states its limits clearly, including what still needs a person’s judgement or review.

What is left out of the score?

Pricing, seat counts and interface polish sit outside the score: they matter to a buyer but say nothing about contract quality. Unverifiable features do not score either.

Training is a context signal, not a quality mark: it may show that someone has studied a platform or disclosure rules, but it does not establish that contract wording is sound or compliant.

Before agreeing any shortlist, work through the creator contracts selection checklist in England: ask the provider in writing:

How do we separate vendor claims from independent evidence?

Every line carries one of three labels: vendor claim, independent evidence, or editorial judgement. The label stays attached to the statement, so a reader can see whether it comes from the provider, an external source or our interpretation.

A vendor claim is a statement a provider makes about itself. We attribute it to the provider and leave it unscored until material outside that claim supports it.

Independent evidence means material that can be checked outside the provider’s own promotional claims, such as the CAP Code, ASA guidance, published legislation or an ICO enforcement action. We identify the document or record and its relevant section or date where available; a provider’s own page is not independent evidence.

Editorial judgement is our reading of the gap between a claim and the evidence. We label that interpretation separately, so readers can distinguish it from a published rule or recorded finding.

An illustrative, unnamed case—not a score for a real provider—shows how we keep evidence separate. A team pays £400 a month for a contract tool and £150 a month for storage, plus £1,200 once for a template pack; pricing is outside the score, and we do not calculate a year-one total here. The tool prompts for a disclosure label, but the template pack has no exclusivity clause. We record what the example establishes and do not treat it as evidence about a named service.

How does England change the scoring?

For England campaigns, we check disclosure against the ASA-administered CAP Code and the applicable consumer-protection rules. We give disclosure prompts extra weight and check who approved the final wording, while recording the jurisdiction a review covers.

A tool can score well on record-keeping and still fail here, because the label appears after publication rather than before. Software does not fix that process failure.

For a broader comparison framework, including how shortlists are built, see creator contracts reviews and comparison methods for 2027.

Common questions

Do you test the tools yourself?

No. We assess documentation, published guidance and provider statements, and claim no hands-on testing or user interviews.

Can a high score be read as legal advice?

No. This is general guidance, and scores only help build a shortlist. A signed sponsorship agreement still needs review by a qualified adviser for your circumstances.

Why is pricing not scored?

Price says nothing about whether disclosure wording is correct. We report it as an illustrative figure and leave it out of the rating.

What lowers a score fastest?

A provider whose marketing data use has drawn regulatory action, or one that cannot say where a disclosure label is stored.