How should you read a PPC agencies review methodology?

What to take away

What a review methodology assesses

A review of PPC agencies is a scoring framework, not a test drive. The evidence-led framework in this guide records the criteria, documents requested, score anchors and relative weights before providers are compared. It assesses disclosure and records, not account performance.

Score the same criteria for every provider:

Two agencies can score identically and still deliver different results, because a score measures disclosure rather than skill. Treat it as a shortlist filter, not a forecast.

This guide sets out the scoring criteria and anchors directly. For broader context, see PPC agencies reviews and comparison methods for 2027.

What is assessed, and what is not

Not assessed: live account performance, media spend efficiency, creative quality in market, or your working relationship with the team. None can be judged from documents, and this review claims no hands-on testing.

Score each criterion out of five using the same anchors for every provider: 1 means no answer or supporting material; 2 means an assertion without supporting evidence; 3 means a dated provider document that is not independently corroborated; 4 means independently checkable evidence that supports the criterion; and 5 means current, independent evidence directly relevant to it. For example, a provider-only case study with no checkable supporting record is a 2 for evidence quality; independent evidence that directly supports a claim can score higher, depending on its relevance and currency. Publish the anchors so scores do not drift towards whoever wrote the longest submission.

Where a provider publishes performance figures, record them with a date and mark them as vendor claims. They become evidence only when something independent corroborates them.

Separating claims from evidence

Keep three columns. One holds what the provider asserts, one holds what an independent body confirms, and one holds your judgement on relevance to your account.

Independent evidence is narrower than most buyers expect, because regulators publish outcomes rather than endorsements. The ICO enforcement action register lists data and marketing compliance actions. Check the relevant entry's date, stated issue and outcome rather than treating it as an endorsement or a complete measure of a provider's compliance.

Search the register for the provider's legal name and any trading names. For each possible match, check the notice and named legal entity, then ask the provider to explain its relevance and verify that you have matched the right organisation. No matching entry is not a clean bill of health; record it as no action found in this register, not as verified compliance.

For UK campaigns, ask providers to identify how they address the UK GDPR and the Data Protection Act 2018 when handling personal data, and the Privacy and Electronic Communications Regulations 2003 (PECR) for electronic marketing and cookies. For EU-facing campaigns, ask which EU rules apply, including the GDPR and the Digital Services Act where relevant. The European Commission's material on EU policies on online advertising gives broader context, but does not establish which rules apply to an individual campaign.

Weighting the criteria

Set relative weights before reading providers' submissions and apply them consistently. For a regulated-sector shortlist, give compliance evidence and evidence quality the highest weight, reporting and account governance a middle weight, and presentation quality or uncorroborated case studies a low weight. For a lean in-house team, move named staffing and reporting into the highest-weight group. For example, strong reporting should not cancel out unsupported compliance claims when compliance has been set as a highest-weight criterion.

Recording the gaps

Log every unanswered question with the date you asked it. A pattern of avoidance across several providers tells you more than any single score.

You can apply the same template to named providers such as Impression, Brainlabs and Hallam. These are examples for testing the method, not recommendations or scored results in this article.

The decision table

Compliance checks in the method

Compliance is where a review can lean on public records instead of assertions. Company filings, enforcement registers and published policies are checkable, and a provider's willingness to point you to them is a signal.

If a provider has no enforcement history, say so plainly. Absence of action is not a clean bill of health, and the method should label it unverified.

Ask for the specific document, not a summary. A policy page describing a process is weaker evidence than a dated record of how it was applied.

For supplementary paperwork questions, see PPC agencies product comparison in England. The criteria and scoring anchors for this method are set out above.

Applying the method to platform choices

Check paid-search expertise against the platforms relevant to the account: Google Ads, Microsoft Advertising and, where used, Search Ads 360. Ask the provider to explain account structure, conversion tracking and reporting on the platforms it would manage. LinkedIn text ads are paid social rather than paid search; LinkedIn's guidance on text ads explains that separate format.

Ask providers to explain a recent change relevant to one of the named search platforms and how they would check its effect on an account. Judge the accuracy and clarity of the explanation, not confidence alone.

Score accuracy, not confidence. A provider that admits uncertainty and offers to check often scores better than one that improvises.

Common questions

Can a review methodology measure campaign performance?

No. It measures what a provider discloses and what records confirm. Performance depends on your account, your market and your budget.

Should vendor case studies count as evidence?

Treat them as vendor claims unless the figures are independently published. Record them with a date and a source label.

How often should the scoring be repeated?

Repeat it when contracts renew, ownership changes or a regulator publishes a new action. A score is a snapshot, not a permanent rating.