Reviews
UGC marketplace review method: ten evidence checks for one UK commission
A repeatable UGC marketplace review for one UK commission, with ten evidence checks, official company and copyright references, and a clear HOLD rule.
A defensible UGC marketplace review starts with one defined commission and evidence that can be checked. A profile, feature list or star score does not identify the service being reviewed, the work it would perform or the records supporting its claims. Keep those questions separate.
Keep the review focused on a decision: whether this candidate and this service can move to the next stage. Record missing evidence as HOLD rather than filling gaps with assumptions. That makes the outcome specific to the review, rather than a claim about every marketplace or commission.
Key takeaways
Use one candidate, one defined service and one evidence record as the unit of review. Keep commercial terms, authority, creator information, rights, privacy, advertising and exit as separate checks, then mark unresolved items HOLD. Do not infer a pass from a polished profile alone.
- Compare candidates against the same evidence fields.
- Keep a source or record beside each finding.
- Make the decision specific to the service and terms reviewed.
Set one review subject
Fix the unit of review before looking at a provider. Define the intended asset, the buyer's role, the creator's role, the publication route and what a successful handover would mean. Keep product, fee, creator and usage term as fields to fill from evidence, not assumptions.
Write down the exact service and the part it would perform. A business models comparison can help separate commissioning routes, while a supplier comparison can keep candidate records on the same fields. Do not compare a discovery offer with another service's production or management work as though they were identical.
For each candidate, record the contracting entity, any trading name, service description, terms being reviewed and evidence date. Keep the terms and service scope tied to that specific candidate. If a fact is unclear, mark it unresolved and ask for evidence rather than treating a marketing description as confirmation for later checks.
Apply ten checks to every candidate
Use the same ten checks for each candidate. Record the evidence reference and reviewer beside each finding. The HOLD conditions are review rules, not conclusions about a provider's quality or conduct. Define them before using the table and apply them consistently across candidates.
| Check | Evidence to record | HOLD if |
|---|---|---|
| Identity | Contracting entity and trading relationship | The entity or relationship is unclear |
| Service scope | Exact service, included work and exclusions | Only a broad category is described |
| Authority | Who contracts, approves work and grants permissions | A required role is not confirmed |
| Creator information | Data source, purpose and correction route | A profile field has no clear basis or source |
| Commission control | Brief, versions, approval and acceptance records | No approval owner or acceptance record is clear |
| Commercial terms | Payer, payee, fee unit, currency, VAT basis and exclusions | The price basis or responsible party is unclear |
| Claims and disclosure | Claim evidence, commercial relationship and final label | A decision for the proposed asset is missing |
| Rights | Permission for each relevant asset and intended use | A permission or use term is unresolved |
| Privacy and contact | Personal-data handling and planned outreach route | The proposed handling or contact has not been examined |
| Correction and exit | Correction, takedown, export and closure records | The buyer cannot describe the intended exit process |
Keep the fields separate rather than reducing them to one average. A strong answer on service scope cannot resolve unclear authority or a missing permission. For commercial terms, record the actual unit and currency offered, if evidenced; a blank is more useful than a guessed price.
Check identity, rights and marketing
Use public records as one evidence source, not as proof of service quality or creator authority. Keep identity evidence distinct from what the candidate says it can do. The distinction prevents a registered detail from standing in for service-specific proof or permission.
The GOV.UK company-information service provides free details including a company's registered address and incorporation date, current and resigned officers, document images, mortgage charge data, previous company names and insolvency information. Record only the details relevant to the candidate's identity check.
Free email alerts can flag company-detail updates such as a director or address change. Keep an alert record separate from a service review: a changed detail prompts a check, but does not by itself answer whether the proposed commission is suitable for the specific work.
The Companies House Public Data API lists a Filing history resource with get and list operations, and a company-register request uses a company number to return register information. Keep the result beside the candidate record, with the review date and the question it was intended to answer.
Copyright protection is automatic and does not require an application or fee, and there is not a register of copyright works in the UK (GOV.UK copyright overview). Treat that position as a reason to request written permission for the intended use, not as a substitute for checking who can grant it. Compare each permission with the usage rights needed for the commission.
An AdviceOnline item titled "Recognising ads: Social media and influencer marketing" appears in the ASA/CAP resource search. Use it as a prompt for reviewing the proposed asset, then record the candidate-specific decision separately. Keep the evidence and decision together, rather than assuming one answer fits every commission. The disclosure policy workflow can help structure that record.
Review planned electronic marketing by phone, email or text against the PECR guidance, and record the decision. Keep discovery separate from marketing contact: finding a creator does not, by itself, resolve whether a planned message is lawful. The data protection workflow can help organise related personal-data questions.
For privacy, record the Data Protection Act 2018 as a named legal reference. Also note what personal data is handled, why it is handled, who can access it and how correction or deletion would be managed. Keep these practical questions separate from the candidate's general description of its service.
Record a verdict and keep it current
Use PASS, HOLD, FAIL or NOT APPLICABLE for each check, and attach the evidence that supports the label. Define each status before comparing candidates. HOLD should mean a required answer or record is missing; it should not suggest improper conduct by the provider.
A candidate should move forward only when the buyer's own required checks are satisfied. Keep the decision tied to the service, terms and evidence reviewed. If any input changes, reopen the affected checks instead of carrying an old result forward without review or explanation.
A controlled test can check whether a candidate's process records the evidence the buyer expects. Set the test input and expected result in advance, keep a record of the observed output, and state what was not tested. This tests only the chosen setup and test, not every possible use of the service.
Retain the evidence references, open questions, reviewer and decision together. A vendor due diligence record can support that file, but the conclusion should remain specific: which service was checked, which evidence was available and which questions still need an answer.
Frequently asked questions
Use these questions to close the record, not to replace the evidence fields. Each answer should point back to the candidate, service and terms actually reviewed. If an answer depends on an assumption, leave the relevant check on HOLD and ask for the missing record.
What does HOLD mean?
Does a company record verify service quality?
What should happen when terms change?
In this guide
- How UGC services are reviewed here, with fictional-data tests and no averaging of failuresApply a reproducible England UGC review method with exact service identity, an evidence hierarchy, fictional-data tests and separate pass gates.
- UGC marketplaces in England: what providers must proveUGC marketplaces in England: the advertising, data and labelling rules a provider must prove it follows, from CAP Code rule 2.1 to PECR and the CPRs.
- UGC marketplaces compared: five commissioning routes on one England assetCompare five UGC commissioning routes for one England asset on identical evidence fields, while keeping unavailable service facts visibly unknown.
- UGC agency review of Billion Dollar Boy and Social Chain: filed identity checked, verdict HOLDCompanies House identity checks for Billion Dollar Boy Limited and Social Chain Ltd, the evidence gap, untested areas and why the UGC agency verdict is HOLD.
- A buyer-owned UGC selection checklist that stops the appointment when a hard gate failsUse a buyer-owned England UGC selection checklist that requests exact evidence, preserves unknowns and stops appointment when any hard gate fails.
