How to document podcast advertising reviews

What to take away

Decide what the review is for

The first job is not scoring. It is agreeing the decision the review must support. A buyer choosing between two networks needs different evidence from a buyer checking whether an existing sponsorship still works. Write it down and keep it beside the scoring sheet.

If the decision concerns a supplier relationship rather than a single campaign, the wider comparison methods matter more than any one score. Podcast advertising: reviews and comparison methods for 2027 sets out how those methods fit together across a year of buying.

Separate the three kinds of input

Every review draws on three inputs, and they should never be averaged into one number.

A score that hides which input produced it cannot be audited later.

What gets assessed

Assessed items should be things a buyer can verify. Delivery against an agreed schedule, reporting completeness and whether quoted costs match invoiced costs all qualify. Stated audience figures must trace to a named source. Each item needs a defined evidence type before scoring starts.

What does not get assessed

Not assessed: the reviewer's private opinion of a supplier's staff, and unpublished performance data the buyer has no right to see. Any claim of hands-on platform testing is also excluded unless the reviewer ran that campaign. Say so in the report rather than leaving a blank.

Build the numbered sequence

Step four is where most reviews are weakest. If a claim touches counterfeit-adjacent merchandise or brand misuse, the Intellectual property: Crime and infringement guidance is a government starting point rather than a supplier's assurance.

Check compliance before you score

Compliance questions sit underneath every commercial review. If a campaign involves direct marketing to listeners, the ICO guidance on direct marketing and privacy and electronic communications sets out the rules both advertiser and publisher work within.

Where a supplier has repeatedly ignored advertising standards, escalation has a defined route. The ASA explanation of Trading Standards referrals describes how persistent non-compliance is handled, useful context when weighing a supplier's history.

Keep the paper trail

A review that cannot be reconstructed six months later is not a review. Keep the dated criteria list, the evidence log and the reasoning notes together. If a supplier disagrees with an outcome, that file is the difference between a debate and a dispute.

For agency selection the standards differ from platform reviews, and the checks are more contractual. Podcast advertising agency reviews in England covers how those assessments are structured and what to ask for before signing.

Common questions

Does a review need hands-on testing?

No, and reviewers should not imply it. A methodology can rest on vendor claims, independent evidence and stated editorial judgement without first-hand campaign testing.

How should vendor claims be treated?

As claims, dated and attributed. They can inform a score, but never as independent evidence, and never averaged with measured data into one figure.

How long should the evidence trail be kept?

At least as long as the contract or campaign it relates to. Keep the criteria, evidence log and reasoning notes together so the outcome can be reconstructed if challenged.

Can editorial judgement change a score?

Yes, provided the reasoning is shown beside the change. Judgement that overrides evidence without a written reason is the most common way a review loses credibility.