Reviews
Reviewing corporate communications agencies and software on equivalent work
Corporate communications reviews: examine evidence, compare equivalent work and define honest verdicts for agency services and software used by buyers in England.
What to take away
- Compare an agency and a software product only against one brief and one acceptance test.
- Ask for dated, owned documentsthe edition number, the proposal version and the passage that answers your question.
- Mark every essential requirement against the evidence, not against a score.
- Normalise money in pounds sterling per unit per period, with VAT treatment and exclusions stated.
- A verdict names the assignment and its biggest limitation, not general superiority.
Deciding which purchase the review covers
Define the communication problem in the buyer's own words. Name the people who need information and where the work passes to someone else.
Then name the purchased contribution. Advice, writing capacity and a subscription can support one programme while delivering different things.
Keep geography concrete. England may describe the audience rather than a supplier's office, so ask about attendance and UK-wide coverage separately.
Give the review a subject and a period, so that one edition is not judged as the whole brand.
Setting the evidence standard before offers arrive
Write a short evidence request for each essential requirement. Ask for a current document, its owner, its date and the passage that answers the question.
Sort evidence by origin. A product manual and a case study chosen by the supplier are both first-party material.
That is why reading an agency review before you trust its verdict matters when the only record comes from the seller.
The GovS 011 communications standard sets expectations for government departments and arm's length bodies. It shapes a private buyer's questions, but it certifies no commercial supplier.
The Data Protection Act 2018 covers how personal data inside client evidence is used.
Building a comparison on one shared brief
Agree one brief and log every clarification that changes it. Put the same audience, deliverables and acceptance conditions to every candidate.
One Shared Brief Comparison
Comparison question
- What is supplied?
- Same defined task
- Which offer is described?
- Dated edition
- What does a charge cover?
- Matching scope
- What has been observed?
- Recorded task
- What remains unknown?
- Explicit unresolved field
A consistent basis
- What is supplied?
- Deliverables listed separately
- Which offer is described?
- Proposal version or SOW
- What does a charge cover?
- Commitment period and VAT
- What has been observed?
- Stated conditions
- What remains unknown?
- No inferred score
For software, name the edition and configuration each statement applies to, then compare the same task at the same depth. Compare access to one discussion space, not one whole suite against another product's single feature.
| Comparison question | A consistent basis |
|---|---|
| What is supplied? | The same defined task, or deliverables listed separately |
| Which offer is described? | Dated edition, proposal version or statement of work |
| What does a charge cover? | Matching scope, commitment period and VAT treatment |
| What has been observed? | A recorded task under stated conditions |
| What remains unknown? | An explicit unresolved field, with no inferred score |
This table is a working structure, not a rating scale or an industry standard.
Example: one brief bought two ways
Illustrative brief: a 900-person English services firm briefs managers on a policy change within six weeks.
Illustrative Licence Arithmetic
- 40licences
- £9per licensed person per month
- £360per month
- £2,160across six months
- Write the brief onceaudience, message, acceptance test, six-week window.
- Ask the agency for a named team, expected client input and a finished-deliverable definition.
- Ask the vendor for the edition, seat count and configuration needed for that same task.
Illustrative arithmetic only: 40 licences at £9 per licensed person per month is £360 a month, so £2,160 across six months.
Costing the manual route first, as selecting corporate communications software only after the manual route is costed sets out, keeps a licence fee from standing in for internal writing time.
Cost units, demonstrations and sensitivity
Obtain dated quotations for the actual scope before making a price claim. Record currency, charging unit, commitment period and VAT treatment.
For subscriptions, separate the recurring licence charge from implementation work, and never treat an unknown charge as zero.
A demonstration is not a test. Record who drove the session and what material was supplied.
Mark each essential requirement with a reason. Fix any weighting before reading responses, then change one disputed preference to see whether the decision flips.
If the evidence supports only a description, stop there. A verdict beyond the records serves the reader worse than a bounded result.
Making the verdict match the evidence
State the assignment, the strongest supporting record and the limitation most likely to change a decision. Say what was not examined.
Prefer suitability for the brief over general superiority.
Keep delivered material separate from effects. GovS 011's split between outputs, outtakes and outcomes asks what the evidence actually covers.
Where the material is advertising, the CAP Code's comparison rules require comparisons of products meeting the same needs on relevant, verifiable features.
The comparison in four attribution approaches for corporate communications, compared on one decision shows why a measured behaviour change needs its own record.
Common questions
Is this a supplier assessment?
No. It is a method for comparing agencies and software on equivalent work, with no provider tested for it.
How many candidates should one review cover?
Enough to test each essential requirement once. Two can expose a gap.
What if a supplier refuses a dated quotation?
Treat the price as unresolved. An inferred number is not a finding.
Can the options be scored to one number?
Only after essentials are marked and weights are fixed in advance. Report the sensitivity of a disputed preference beside the total.
In this guide
- How we review corporate communications suppliers, and what we refuse to publishCorporate communications review methodology for England: define the assignment, evidence rules, reviewer disclosures and limits before assessing a supplier.
- How to shortlist corporate communications providers with evidence for each requirementHow to shortlist corporate communications providers: set eligibility, choose a track, verify identity and record evidence for each requirement in the brief.
- Teams or Slack for corporate communications? What the records settle and what they cannotCorporate communications product comparison: examine dated Teams and Slack channel records, membership boundaries and untested areas before planning a trial.
- Before you request a corporate communications proposal, fix the scopeCorporate communications selection checklist: gather a clear scope, comparable offers, acceptance evidence and accountable approval for an England-focused brief.
