Reviews
Part of Why creator contracts reviews need a repeatable method before 2027
A creator contracts selection checklist keeps due diligence on the record
Nine-point creator contracts selection checklist: disclosure checks, a scoring rubric and an evidence trail for comparing sponsorship agreements in England.
What to take away
- Decide what you are actually selecting before you write anything: a supplier, a tool, or the wording of the agreement itself.
- Score every option on the same nine points, and keep the evidence behind each score, because a choice with no paper trail is hard to defend.
- Disclosure duties sit with the creator and the brand, so check how each option handles labelling before you shortlist.
- Rules and platform policy move, so give the decision a named owner and a review date.
- Take the wording to a qualified adviser before signature. This article is general guidance only.
Start with the decision, not the checklist
Most teams build the list before they know what they are choosing, which produces plenty of nice-to-haves and no clear winner.
Write the decision in one line, for example: choose a provider to draft sponsorship agreements for a 12-month campaign. Every point then either supports that decision or comes off the list.
A decision line that names the output, the campaign length and the person who signs keeps the scoring honest. If you cannot write that line yet, you are still gathering options rather than choosing between them.
If the decision is really about comparing providers, the method in creator contracts: reviews and comparison methods for 2027 keeps scoring consistent across a field of suppliers.
The nine-point selection checklist
Score each point from 1 to 5 and add a source note.
Nine-point selection checklist
- Disclosure wordingclear label per guidance
- Misleading omissionscatch material facts left out
- Ad experienceplacement meets published standards
- Rights and usagescope, territory, term in writing
- Exclusivitynarrow category, defined period
- Payment termsfees, timing, late consequences
- Terminationlive posts, drafts, invoices
- Evidence traildated record of checks
- Disclosure wording. Does the option produce a clear label under the ASA CAP Code rules on recognition of ads, checked against the social media endorsements guidance for content creators?
- Misleading omissions. Can the process catch a material fact left out of a post, which the CMA treats under the DMCCA misleading omissions rules and the misleading actions and omissions provisions?
- Ad recognition. Does the option show '#ad' in the first line and use the platform disclosure tool, with the Coalition for Better Ads status kept only as a fallback for format experience?
- Rights and usage. Are licence scope, territory and term written in plain terms?
- Exclusivity. Is the category restriction narrow enough for the creator to earn elsewhere?
- Payment terms. Are fees, timing and late-payment consequences stated?
- Termination. What happens to live posts, drafts and unpaid invoices if either side walks?
- Evidence trail. Can you show a dated screenshot of the '#ad' label and a signed disclosure clause that cites the CAP Code, plus who checked it?
- Review date. Is there a named owner and a date to revisit?
How to score and record evidence
A rubric stops the loudest voice in the room from deciding.
Handling missing evidence
Is the document supplied?
rescore the point
mark unverified and cap the total
Scoring rubric with weights
Point
- Disclosure wording
- Label matches guidance
- Misleading omissions
- Omission check in review
- Ad experience
- Meets published standards
- Rights and usage
- Scope, territory, term
- Exclusivity
- Narrow category, period
- Payment terms
- Dates and consequences
- Termination
- Posts and drafts covered
- Evidence trail
- Dated record on file
What good looks like
- Disclosure wording
- 15%
- Misleading omissions
- 15%
- Ad experience
- 5%
- Rights and usage
- 10%
- Exclusivity
- 10%
- Payment terms
- 10%
- Termination
- 10%
- Evidence trail
- 15%
Weight
- Disclosure wording
- Misleading omissions
- Ad experience
- Rights and usage
- Exclusivity
- Payment terms
- Termination
- Evidence trail
Copy this score sheet into your own file before scoring starts.
| Point | What good looks like | Weight | Score 1 to 5 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Disclosure wording | Label matches ASA CAP Code recognition rules for the format | 15% | |
| Misleading omissions | Omission check built into review against CMA/DMCCA rules | 15% | |
| Ad recognition | '#ad' first line and platform disclosure tool set | 5% | |
| Rights and usage | Scope, territory and term in writing | 10% | |
| Exclusivity | Narrow category, defined period | 10% | |
| Payment terms | Dates and consequences stated | 10% | |
| Termination | Live posts and drafts covered | 10% | |
| Evidence trail | Dated screenshot and signed clause held on file | 15% | |
| Review date | Owner and date named | 10% |
Weights are an illustrative example, not a standard. Set your own and fix them before scoring starts. Fixing them later, once scores are in, bends the result towards the provider you already prefer.
Write one line per point explaining the score, plus the document behind it. A score of 4 with no source note is an opinion, not evidence. Where two options tie, the tie-break is the highest-weighted point.
Missing evidence is not a zero, it is a hold. Ask for the document and rescore. If it cannot be supplied, mark the point unverified and cap the total.
Worked example: Option A, disclosure wording. Score 4. Source note: signed disclosure clause dated 4 March 2026 and a dated screenshot of the '#ad' label in the first line. The score is 4 because the label is clear but the platform disclosure-tool setting is not recorded.
A total weighted score of 70 per cent or more passes, 50 to 69 per cent is a hold, and below 50 per cent fails. These thresholds are illustrative, so set yours before scoring starts.
Check the shortlist against your own market
The rubric compares options with each other. It says nothing about whether your shortlist reflects what is available.
Before locking the shortlist, sweep the field in creator contracts best providers in England so you are not scoring three near-identical choices and calling it a market.
Build the shortlist from three sources: providers you have already used, providers named in a published list, and providers a peer has signed with. Note where each name came from, so the sweep is auditable.
Ask each provider for the disclosure clause and payment schedule as separate documents, not a summary deck. Compare named platform disclosure tools such as Instagram Paid partnership, TikTok Branded content and YouTube paid promotion checkbox.
Common questions
Who owns the disclosure duty in a sponsorship agreement?
It sits with the creator and the brand that paid for the content. An agency or tool can make compliance easier but cannot take the duty away, so the agreement should say who checks the label before publication.
How often should the checklist be reviewed?
At least once a year, and whenever platform policy or regulator guidance changes.
Can a checklist replace legal advice?
No. It is an evidence and comparison tool. Individual agreements turn on their own facts, so take the wording to a qualified adviser before signing.
What if two suppliers score the same?
Use your highest-weighted point as the tie-break, or ask both for the missing evidence. Do not invent a new score you cannot support.
