How to judge copywriting services: scoring, quotes and compliance evidence

What to take away

Why supplier reviews changed recently

The Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 reshaped consumer protection law in the UK. The Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 sets out the framework, including rules on unfair commercial practices. For a buyer, that matters because it changes what a supplier can promise in a pitch, a proposal or a landing page.

The Act received Royal Assent on 24 May 2024. Its consumer protection provisions are being commenced in stages, so the date that applies depends on the commencement regulations for the relevant provision.

In practice, the risk has shifted. Ten years ago a buyer mostly worried about whether the writing was any good. Now a misleading performance claim, a fake urgency line or an unsubstantiated "number one agency" badge can create a compliance problem that outlasts the campaign.

Enforcement did not wait for the Act. In May 2026 the CMA secured a High Court settlement in which Emma Sleep gave binding undertakings over misleading countdown timers and false "high demand" and "discount" claims.

A second change is about how complaints get reviewed. The Advertising Standards Authority publishes the outcomes of independent reviews of its own decisions, which gives buyers a way to check how a disputed claim was handled. That page is worth bookmarking if you regularly assess marketing suppliers.

Both changes point the same way. Due diligence is no longer a box-ticking exercise done after the contract is signed. It is part of the review itself.

What a review should actually score

A review is a decision tool, not a verdict. It should produce a score you can defend to someone who was not in the meeting.

Four categories cover most of what matters. Compliance evidence. Writing quality. Delivery reliability. Commercial terms. Weight them to suit your risk appetite, but score all four.

A workable default is compliance 30%, writing quality 30%, delivery reliability 25% and commercial terms 15%. Change the weights if your sector is regulated, but agree them before you see any supplier.

Compliance evidence is the easiest to gather and the easiest to fake, so ask for specifics. Which regulator guidance do they follow? Who signs off claims? What happens when a client asks for a comparative claim about a rival?

Writing quality is the hardest to score fairly. The fix is to brief two suppliers on the same task and compare the outputs blind. Strip the logos off and read them side by side.

Delivery reliability is where most relationships fail. Ask for the last three months of on-time delivery data, not an average. Averages hide the missed deadlines that matter.

Building a repeatable scoring sheet

A scoring sheet turns opinion into a record. Keep it to one page and score each category out of five, with a written note for any score below three.

For compliance, a five means the supplier can name the guidance they follow and show a sign-off process. A three means they follow a process but cannot describe it. A one means they say compliance is "handled by the client".

For quality, use a blind test. Score structure, accuracy against the brief, tone match and whether the piece needed heavy editing. Four sub-scores is enough.

For delivery, score against agreed dates. Count late deliveries rather than describing them. "Two of twelve late" is a score. "Generally reliable" is not.

For commercial terms, score clarity rather than price. A supplier who explains what triggers a change fee outscores one who is simply cheaper but vague. Our copywriting services selection checklist walks through the questions to ask before you score anything, which is the right order to work in.

Worked example. Supplier A scores 4 on compliance, 5 on quality, 3 on delivery and 3 on commercial terms. With the weights above, the weighted score is (4 x 0.30) + (5 x 0.30) + (3 x 0.25) + (3 x 0.15) = 3.9 out of 5.

Supplier B scores 5, 3, 5 and 4, which gives 4.25. The sheet makes the trade-off visible.

Claims, reviews and the rules that apply

Marketing claims are regulated. The Competition and Markets Authority publishes guidance for businesses covering how commercial practices should be presented, and it is the reference point when a supplier's pitch starts making promises about results.

Review content has its own rules too. If a supplier runs email or SMS campaigns that solicit testimonials, the messages fall under electronic marketing rules. The Information Commissioner's Office sets out direct marketing and privacy rules that cover consent and opt-outs, and a supplier who cannot describe their approach is a risk.

There is also a route for challenging regulator decisions themselves. The ASA publishes independent reviews of its own rulings, which is useful when you want to understand how a disputed claim was assessed rather than just reading the headline outcome.

The rules do not demand that you become a regulator. They do demand that you keep a record of the claims you approve, the basis for them, and the date you approved them.

Paid, native and sponsored content

Some suppliers now sell sponsored placements alongside written work. That changes what you are buying. A sponsored article on LinkedIn is a distribution product, and the platform describes the format on its sponsored content advertising page.

Label it correctly. A paid placement presented as editorial damages trust and creates a regulatory problem. Ask the supplier to show how the label appears in the published version, not the draft.

The review question is straightforward. Are you paying for writing, for distribution, or for both? If both, score them separately. A strong writer with weak distribution is a different proposition from a strong distributor with weak writers.

Comparison framework: four hypothetical supplier types

The table below is a hypothetical framework. It names no real supplier and gives no real scores. Use it to structure questions and score suppliers yourself.

Read the table down the columns, not across the rows. A supplier that scores well on compliance but poorly on delivery will still miss your launch date.

How to compare quotes fairly

Quotes are rarely like for like. One supplier prices per word, another per project, a third per day. Convert everything to a single unit before you compare. Cost per finished, approved article is the most useful.

Public rate cards are rare, so ask every supplier to price the same brief. Illustrative example, not a market rate: Supplier A quotes £450 per approved article with two revision rounds included. Supplier B quotes £300 plus £120 per extra revision round. Two extra rounds make B £540, so A is cheaper on this brief.

Include the hidden costs. Editing rounds, subject matter expert interviews, image sourcing and publishing support are all real. A cheap quote that excludes three of those is not cheap.

Ask what happens when the brief changes. A clear change process is worth more than a discount, because scope creep is where budgets actually break.

Our guide to copywriting services product comparison in England covers how to normalise pricing across these different models, which is the step most buyers skip.

Finally, check who does the work. Many agencies pitch with senior staff and deliver with juniors. Ask for the names and experience of the people who will actually write your content.

Where reviews go wrong

Most reviews fail in one of three ways. They score the supplier's presentation rather than the work. They compare on price alone. Or they are written by the person who already chose the supplier.

Presentation is easy to score and nearly meaningless. A polished pitch deck tells you the supplier has a designer, not that they can write about your sector.

Price-only comparisons ignore the cost of rework. If a cheaper supplier needs three editing rounds, the saving disappears in internal time. Track your own review hours for a month and the picture becomes clear.

Bias is the quietest problem. If the person running the review is also the budget holder, get a second reader to score the blind samples independently. Disagreement is useful data.

Testimonials and star ratings

Testimonials are marketing content, and they are regulated like any other claim. A testimonial that promises a specific result needs to be substantiated. If a supplier cannot show the basis for a claim, treat it as decoration.

Star ratings have the same issue. An average without a count, a date range or a method tells you almost nothing. Ask how the rating was collected and whether negative responses were included.

A better signal is a named client who agrees to a short call. One twenty-minute conversation with a past client is worth more than a page of quotes.

If a supplier cannot provide a reference, ask why. There are legitimate answers, such as confidentiality clauses. There are also less legitimate ones.

Running the review end to end

Set a timeline. Two weeks is usually enough for a shortlist of three. One week to gather compliance evidence and quotes, one week for the blind writing test and reference calls.

Agree the scoring weights before you see any supplier. Deciding weights after the scores arrive is how reviews get reverse-engineered to a preferred outcome.

Keep a written record of every decision, including why suppliers were rejected. This protects you if the choice is questioned later, and it makes the next review faster.

Our guide to copywriting services agency reviews in England sets out a fuller timeline for agency-specific assessments, including how to handle reference calls.

After the contract starts, review again at 90 days. Early delivery data is more useful than any pitch.

Working with regulated sectors

If you operate in financial services, health or education, compliance evidence moves to the top of the scoring sheet. A supplier who has not worked in a regulated sector will need time to learn the boundaries.

Ask how they handle claims that require substantiation. A good answer names the evidence they would expect and the time needed to gather it. A weak answer promises to "be careful".

For regulated work, in-house or a specialist agency usually beats a generalist on risk, even when the writing is comparable. The cost difference is often smaller than the cost of one withdrawn campaign.

Our overview of copywriting services best providers in England groups suppliers by sector experience, which helps narrow the field before you score anything.

Pricing and contract terms to watch

Watch for auto-renewal clauses with long notice periods. A twelve-month term with ninety days' notice is a commitment, not a trial.

Watch for intellectual property terms. You should own the finished work outright. Some contracts retain rights to reuse your content in their own marketing.

Watch for performance clauses tied to metrics the supplier does not control. Traffic and rankings depend on many factors. A supplier who guarantees them is overpromising.

Ask for a termination clause that lets you exit with thirty days' notice after an initial period. If a supplier will not agree, that tells you something about how they expect the relationship to go.

Scaling content: what the review criteria look like at volume

Volume is where the delivery reliability and writing quality scores separate. A supplier that produces excellent work at ten articles a month may struggle at fifty. Ask how they maintain standards as volume rises.

Look for named editors. A dedicated editor who reviews every piece is a stronger signal than a promise of quality assurance. Ask what proportion of drafts are rejected internally.

Ask about subject matter expertise. Scaling usually means new writers joining, and new writers need briefing time. Budget for it in the ramp-up period.

Our guide to copywriting services operations and delivery guide for 2027 covers how to structure briefs, review cycles and handovers so quality holds as volume grows.

Common questions

How many suppliers should I compare?

Three is usually enough to see a range without wasting time. Two makes it hard to tell whether you have a good option or just the better of a poor pair. More than four rarely changes the decision.

Should I pay for a writing test?

Yes, if the brief is substantial. A paid test of two samples is fair to the supplier and gives you comparable material. Unpaid tests of several thousand words are unreasonable and often attract lower-quality effort.

Do star ratings mean anything?

They are a weak signal on their own. A rating without a count, a date range or a stated method tells you little. A named reference you can call is worth far more than a high average.

What if the supplier refuses a compliance question?

Treat it as a red flag. A supplier can say the detail is confidential, but they should still be able to describe their process in outline. Refusal to discuss it at all suggests there is none.