How should you read a PPC agencies review methodology?

What to take away

Each action in the ICO's enforcement action register is published with a date, giving buyers an independent compliance timeline to check before shortlisting.
A review methodology can score written answers, published case data and compliance records. It cannot score account performance.
Vendor claims, independent evidence and your own judgement belong in three separate columns.
Cross-border campaigns add a second rulebook, so check how a provider handles rules outside England.

What a review methodology assesses

A review method is a scoring framework, not a test drive. It records the questions asked, the documents requested and the weight each answer carries.

Three evidence tiers

Documents you can verify
Statements you can check with a third party
Assertions you can only record

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.

See PPC agencies reviews and comparison methods for 2027 for the pillar framework this method sits inside.

What is assessed, and what is not

Assessed vs not assessed

Assessed

Registration: Filing history
Pricing: Published pricing
Contracts: Contract terms
Data: Data protection statements
Staff: Named account staff

Not assessed

Registration: Live performance
Pricing: Media spend efficiency
Contracts: Creative quality in market
Data: Your working relationship
Staff: Hands-on testing

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 and publish the anchors, so a two means the same thing across every provider. Without anchors, scores 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, so note the date on each entry concerning a provider you are considering.

When a register entry names a different trading entity, check the relationship before you discount it.

Cross-border campaigns need a compliance story covering more than UK rules. The European Commission's material on EU policies on online advertising outlines the wider regulatory direction, which helps you ask better questions about consent and targeting.

Weighting the criteria

Weight compliance and disclosure highest for regulated sectors. Weight reporting clarity and named staffing highest for lean in-house teams.

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.

The decision table

Choose

Single-market England campaign: Clear pricing and a named account lead
Cross-border campaigns into the EU: Documented consent and targeting rules
Regulated sector, strict data duties: A documented data protection record
Multi-market or franchise accounts: One named contact per market
A fast, low-risk test: Fixed-scope trial with written measures

Avoid

Single-market England campaign: Providers who will not name the team
Cross-border campaigns into the EU: Compliance treated as a one-off form
Regulated sector, strict data duties: Unexplained gaps in filings
Multi-market or franchise accounts: A single lead covering six countries
A fast, low-risk test: Open-ended retainers with no exit terms

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 the paperwork stage that follows this method, PPC agencies product comparison in England covers the questions that expose weak documentation.

Applying the method to platform choices

Paid search rarely runs alone. If a provider also manages LinkedIn, test its grasp of format-level detail. LinkedIn's guidance on text ads explains how those placements work, giving you a benchmark for judging the provider's explanation.

Ask providers to explain one recent format change in their own words. Fluency across channels shows how quickly they adapt when a platform updates its rules.

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.