Audience research
Part of Five permission records for UGC marketplaces audience research in England
UGC marketplaces competitor research: how to build a ledger
UGC marketplaces competitor research: learn how to classify service leads, record evidence by field, note unknowns and plan dated rechecks before shortlisting.
UGC marketplaces competitor research needs an evidence ledger, not a collection of logos. The comparison question should be narrow: which documented route could support one English brand unit's short-form asset commission while preserving claims approval, accessible presentation, specified rights, payment and correction evidence?
What to take away
- Classify each service as self-service, managed or production before comparing it.
- Record every claim at field level with exact wording, page, date and limitation.
- Respect database rights and privacy when reviewing public pages manually.
- Keep independent records narrow and do not infer popularity or performance from visibility.
- Log missing contract terms and data roles as unknowns, not defects.
Classify the service before comparing it
- Record whether the offer is a self-service marketplace, managed marketplace or content-production service.
- Keep a creator directory, discovery product, affiliate platform, talent agency, social network, media buyer and rights service in separate categories.
- Name the legal contracting party, service or edition, evidence date and stated geography.
- Mark every statement as register fact, first-party claim, contract evidence, independent record or unknown.
For an initial candidate set, investigate Billo and Insense as UGC and creator-service candidates, and Collabstr as a creator-marketplace candidate. Treat these as leads, not confirmed direct UK competitors: verify each current offer, service category, legal contracting party and UK availability before comparing it.
The GOV.UK company information service can help identify an incorporated UK candidate and its filed particulars. Search by the exact legal name or company number, and record the filing type and date shown alongside the page and access date. A filing does not establish current trading, an England service, creator authority, product function or quality. Overseas and unincorporated parties need another documented identity route.
Record claims at field level
For each service claim, retain the exact wording, page, access date, edition and limitation. Separate creator onboarding, matching, briefing, files, payment, moderation, rights records and reporting. A page saying that a service connects brands and creators does not prove how identities, permissions or corrections work.
Build the dated ledger
Use one row for each claim or question, rather than one row per service. Record these fields: service and legal contracting party; comparator category and edition; research question; exact claim or status; source title and location; evidence type; access date; limitation; and recheck date. Use calendar dates in year-month-day order, keep the date accessed separate from the date the entry was written, and never backdate an entry.
| Ledger field | What to record |
|---|---|
| Service and category | Trading name, legal party, service or edition, stated geography, and whether it is self-service, managed or production-focused. |
| Question and claim | One field-level question and the exact wording found, or “unknown” if no evidence was reviewed. |
| Source and evidence type | Page or document title and location; classify it as an official register or guidance, first-party statement, contract or terms, independent record, authorised direct evidence, or unknown. |
| Access date and limitation | Actual date reviewed, what the source supports, and what it does not establish. |
| Operational evidence | Claims approval and responsibility for final sign-off; accessible presentation evidence such as captions or text alternatives where relevant; rights by channel, term, territory, editing and sublicensing; payment trigger, payer and timing; and the route and record for corrections. |
| Recheck | A planned calendar date, plus the event that would prompt an earlier review, such as a change to the service, page or terms. |
Worked-entry format (illustrative status, not a finding): service: Billo; question: who approves a creator asset before publication?; exact claim: none recorded; evidence type: unknown; source location: not yet reviewed; access date: YYYY-MM-DD, to be replaced with the actual review date; limitation: no conclusion about the approval workflow; recheck: enter an actual planned date before a shortlist decision. This example records an unknown, not a claim about Billo.
Do not count roster cards as verified creators. Do not derive residence, age, protected traits, representation, reach, audience composition or availability from a profile. A testimonial or case study remains a publisher claim unless the underlying parties, method and records are independently available.
Respect content and database boundaries
Respect content boundaries
- Read public pages manually and record only what is necessary for the research question.
- Review site terms, access controls, copyright and database rights before collecting structured material.
- Do not copy a creator list or use automated extraction merely because profiles are visible.
- Keep quotations short, attributed and within a reviewed purpose.
The IPO's database-rights guidance explains that database contents and an original selection or arrangement can receive different protection. The ICO-hosted data-scraping statement also treats publicly accessible personal information as a privacy risk, not unrestricted raw material.
Keep independent records narrow
Use ASA and CAP influencer marketing resources to check the UK advertising context relevant to creator, incentive and disclosure claims. Record the specific resource and passage reviewed, and what question it informs; these resources do not certify a marketplace or prove its customer base.
The CMA's consumer-review guidance matters when competitor pages publish consumer reviews or when commissioned assets appear to be reviews. It does not turn a review score into comparative product evidence.
Log what the research cannot show
Create fields for missing contract terms, data roles, subprocessor details, claims approval, accessible presentation, security assurance, payment terms, creator correction routes, rights schedules, support, export and deletion. For each, record the evidence sought and whether it is verified, a first-party claim or unknown. An absent public answer is an unknown, not proof of a defect. Request it during a permissioned procurement exercise if the service enters a shortlist.
Do not infer popularity, England market share, creator count, campaign volume, price, performance or customer satisfaction from search visibility, review totals or social activity. Set a recheck date before the next shortlist or procurement decision, and reopen the record if the service, page or terms change. Supplier contact, account testing and reference checks require separate authority and must not be implied by this desk review.
Before you act
- Classify the service before comparing it.
- Record claims at field level with exact wording.
- Respect content and database boundaries.
- Keep independent records narrow.
- Log what the research cannot show.
- Do not infer popularity or performance from visibility.
Common questions
What should an evidence ledger for UGC competitors contain?
Use one row per claim or question, with the service and legal party, category, exact wording or unknown status, source location and type, access date, limitation and recheck date. Track claims approval, accessible presentation, rights, payment and correction evidence as separate fields. Distinguish official records, first-party statements, contracts, independent records, authorised direct evidence and unknowns; do not treat an unknown as a defect.
How should claims be recorded at field level?
Record one claim or question per entry, with the exact wording, source location, evidence type, access date and limitation. Use a calendar date in year-month-day order and enter a planned recheck date; do not present an unreviewed field as a finding. Separate onboarding, matching, briefing, files, payment, moderation, rights records, approval and correction routes.
What are the limits of independent records?
Regulator and government records must be searched for the precise entity or claim. ASA and CAP resources describe UK advertising context but do not certify a marketplace. CMA consumer-review guidance matters for reviews but does not turn a review score into comparative product evidence.
