Seven checks behind a podcast SEO review methodology

What to take away

Most teams score a provider on the strength of its own pitch deck. That is the mistake this method exists to avoid.
Compliance is checked against published enforcement and non-compliant advertiser records, not against assurances in a sales call.
Scores describe the quality of the evidence a provider publishes, not the results it will deliver for your show.

The method below sits alongside the wider framework in Podcast SEO: reviews and comparison methods for 2027, which covers how review criteria should be weighted across a full buying cycle.

What the review assessed

Scope of evidence reviewed

Each provider was assessed on publicly available material: service pages, published case notes, pricing statements and any regulatory or industry records that name the business. Pages that changed during the review window were logged with the date they were read.

Evidence buckets and scoring

Vendor claim

Source: Provider's own words
Moves score: No
Tie-break rule: Weaker bucket
Example: Pricing page claim

Independent evidence

Source: Dated regulator record
Moves score: Yes
Tie-break rule: Weaker bucket
Example: ICO enforcement action

Editorial judgement

Source: Our reading
Moves score: Yes
Tie-break rule: Weaker bucket
Example: Support judgement

What was not assessed matters as much: no account was opened, no campaign was run, no client was contacted. Where a provider publishes no figures, the entry records that absence rather than filling the gap with an estimate.

A claim that could not be traced is listed as open in the evidence note, not treated as false. Each entry states the review window, so readers can judge how current the findings are.

How claims were separated

Every statement was filed into one of three buckets. A vendor claim is anything the provider says about itself. Independent evidence is a dated record from a regulator, standards body or similar source. Editorial judgement is our own reading of whether a claim is supported.

Only the second and third buckets move a score. A confident sentence on a pricing page is a vendor claim, however specific it sounds, and it is logged as one. Where a claim sits between two buckets, the weaker classification is applied and the reason is noted.

The seven-step scoring sequence

The numbered checks

Confirm the legal entity on Companies House and match it to the name on the contract.
Log every performance claim with the date it was published.
Trace each claim to a source outside the provider's own site.
Check the provider and its named ad partners against the ASA list of non-compliant online advertisers, which is a quick way to catch partners with a poor record.
Review ICO enforcement action examples to see how marketing data breaches have been handled in practice.
Compare the provider's stated ad practices with the IAB UK Gold Standard letter.
Record a score for evidence quality, plus a separate note on what could not be verified.

Steps four to six are the ones teams skip. They are also the cheapest to run and the least dependent on the provider's cooperation. Run them in order, because a failed entity check makes the remaining six pointless.

Seven-step scoring sequence

1. Confirm legal entity on Companies House
2. Log performance claims with dates
3. Trace claims to outside sources
4. Check ASA non-compliant advertiser list
5. Review ICO enforcement action examples
6. Compare ad practices with IAB UK Gold Standard
7. Score evidence quality and note gaps

Turning checks into a score

Score each of the seven checks from zero to three. Zero means no evidence at all. Three means a dated, independent source that directly supports the claim. A claim that cannot be traced scores zero, whatever the provider says about it. The evidence note should list every zero and say what would be needed to close it.

A blank scoring sheet with seven rows, a zero to three column per check and one column for the evidence note is enough to start.

Illustrative entry, not a named company: the checks are meant to be run against your own shortlist. The entity check and the dated claim log both score three. The tracing check scores one, because two performance claims appear only on the provider's own pages.

The ASA list check scores two, ICO enforcement scores zero and the IAB UK Gold Standard comparison scores two. The evidence quality note scores one, with four claims listed as unverified. Total twelve out of twenty-one.

Add the total out of twenty-one, then publish the evidence note beside it. A provider scoring eighteen with four unverified claims is a different proposition from one scoring fourteen with everything sourced. Buyers comparing shortlists should weigh that gap, and the comparison guide for England buyers sets out how to present the two totals side by side.

Common questions

Does a high score mean the provider will get results?

No. The score measures the quality of published evidence, not campaign outcomes. A provider can score well and still be a poor fit for your show.

How often should the checks be repeated?

At least before each renewal, and immediately if a regulator publishes new action naming the provider or one of its partners.