How a short form video review methodology earns trust

What to take away

What the assessment covers

A short form video review methodology starts by naming the scope: the rules a post must satisfy, the format limits a platform applies, and the evidence a team can check.

Product claims and rule statements

Platform documentation is read as a claim, not a fact. A statement that a format supports a given length or aspect ratio is logged with the page it came from and the date it was read.

Rule statements are treated differently. Where a requirement comes from legislation or a regulator, it is cited directly. The Guide to PECR is the reference point we use for electronic marketing, including paid social and video ads.

Evidence we do not gather

We do not run live campaigns, hold platform accounts for testing, or interview staff at vendors. No hands-on testing is claimed.

That leaves a gap, and the gap is disclosed. Where a feature can only be confirmed by using it, the review says so.

How the rubric works

Scoring is deliberately plain. Each platform is marked against the same five criteria, and the weighting is set before any reading begins.

The scoring table

Scores run from one to five on each row. A platform with thin documentation can still score well on format fit, which is why the weights are published.

Audience and skills evidence

The audience row draws on the internet access reference tables published by the Office for National Statistics, which give demographic breakdowns of internet and social media use. Those figures answer reach questions that vendor decks cannot.

Structured training, such as the social and content marketing courses run by the Chartered Institute of Marketing, helps a buyer judge whether their team can act on a review's findings.

For the wider framework this rubric sits inside, see reviews and comparison methods. It sets out how platform, agency and tool reviews fit together across a buying cycle.

Where judgement enters

The rubric reduces discretion but does not remove it. Editorial judgement decides what counts as adequate documentation and how much weight a single dated page carries.

Separating claim from judgement

Each review marks statements as vendor claim, independent evidence, or editorial judgement. A reader can then disagree with the judgement without re-checking the underlying facts.

Where two sources conflict, both are shown with their dates. The review states which one it followed and why.

Limits and updating

A review is a snapshot. Platform rules and formats change, and a score that was fair in one quarter may not be fair in the next.

Each review carries the date its sources were read. Anything older than twelve months is flagged as due for re-checking.

Agency-side reviews follow the same discipline, as set out in short form video agency reviews in England, which applies this rubric to supplier claims.

Common questions

Does this methodology involve testing the platforms?

No. It assesses published documentation, regulator guidance and dated official data. Where a claim cannot be checked without live use, the review says so.

Why publish the scoring weights?

Fixed weights stop a platform being marked up after scoring to suit a conclusion. A reader who disagrees can recalculate from the published table.

How are vendor claims handled?

They are recorded, labelled and scored under evidence quality. A claim repeated across a vendor's own pages is still one claim, not corroboration.

How often is a review refreshed?

Sources are dated, and anything older than twelve months is flagged for re-checking. Refresh priority goes to platforms with the most rule changes in the period.