CAP-02 · Capability and outsourcing

Marketing supplier selection criteria rubric

Ten criteria a clinic can apply to any prospective supplier, scored by the clinic, with no supplier named, compared or recommended.

By the Rank My Clinic assessment desk· ·1496 words· 10 criteria

What this instrument establishes

This rubric gives a clinic ten criteria to apply to any prospective marketing supplier: understanding of the regulatory context, willingness to be specified, clarity about who does the work, position on claims, data protection arrangements, reporting method, exit terms, references, conflicts, and what they decline to do. It names no supplier, compares none, and recommends none.

A rubric the clinic holds, not a list the publication holds

The obvious thing for a publication in this territory to do is publish a list of recommended suppliers. This publication does not, will not, and has no mechanism by which anybody could appear on one. There is no directory here, no ranking, no comparison and no award.

The reason is structural rather than modest. A publication cannot assess the competence of a supplier it has not worked with, and a list constructed without that assessment is a list of whoever asked. Lists of that kind exist in this sector and readers cannot tell them apart from assessed ones, which is precisely why an unassessed list is worse than none.

What is genuinely useful is the opposite arrangement: the clinic holds the criteria and applies them. The clinic can see what a supplier says in writing, whether they raise regulation unprompted, whether they will accept a specification, and whether they own the accounts. Those are assessable by the person in the room.

The criteria are chosen for one property: each is answerable in writing before any money changes hands, and each distinguishes between suppliers in a way that is visible to a non-specialist. Criterion ten does the most work of any of them.

How to apply the rubric

Send the ten criteria to the prospective supplier as questions, in writing, before any meeting. What comes back, and how quickly, scores several criteria on its own.

Score criterion one from whether they raised the advertising restrictions before you did. A supplier working in this sector who does not mention the position on prescription-only medicines unprompted has told you something.

Score criterion four by asking directly what they would do if you asked them to publish a claim they thought unsupportable. Hesitation is informative.

Score criterion seven by asking who owns the advertising account, the analytics property, the domain and the website. If the answer is the supplier, score 0 and resolve it before proceeding. This is the criterion that costs most to fix later.

Score criterion ten by asking what they would advise against. A supplier who agrees with every proposal you make is either agreeing to be agreeable or has no view.

Keep the written answers. They form the basis of the specification, and disagreements later are resolved by reference to them.

Common scoring errors

Assessing the presentation rather than the answers. Presentation quality is a supplier's core skill and tells you least.

Accepting verbal assurances on data and account ownership. Both criteria ask for written answers because both are expensive to resolve retrospectively.

Treating case studies as references. Criterion eight asks for contactable references in a comparable setting, and asks you to contact them.

Scoring enthusiasm as understanding. Criterion one is satisfied by specific knowledge of the restrictions, not by confidence about the sector.

Skipping criterion ten because it feels adversarial. It is the single most informative question in the rubric.

Specifying the work using this library

The most useful thing a clinic can do after selecting a supplier is hand them a specification, and the instruments in this library are written to serve as one.

Commissioning treatment pages: give them the treatment page quality rubric and state that acceptance requires a score of 30 or above with no criterion below 2. Commissioning website work: give them the technical foundations audit and require the criteria to be satisfied on delivery. Commissioning anything published: require it to pass the advertising compliance self-audit before it goes live.

This changes the relationship in a specific way. Acceptance becomes a matter of scoring rather than of opinion, which removes the most common source of dispute in clinic marketing. It also lets a good supplier demonstrate quality against a standard rather than argue for it.

Keep the approval step inside the clinic whatever the arrangement. Responsibility for what is published in your name does not transfer, and the capability decision matrix sets out which functions must remain internal for that reason.

CAP-02

Supplier selection criteria rubric

What it measures
Whether a prospective supplier satisfies criteria the clinic has set, assessed by the clinic against evidence the supplier provides.
What it does not measure
It cannot assess competence in advance, it names nobody, and it makes no recommendation of any kind.
Scoring method
Criterion referenced. 10 criteria, each scored 0 to 3 against the descriptor given. Maximum 30.
Evidence needed
What a prospective supplier provides in response to your questions, in writing.
Working time
Around 40 minutes per supplier assessed.
Who should score it
Whoever will manage the relationship, with whoever holds the budget.
Band scale
  • 0 Absent
  • 1 Emerging
  • 2 Established
  • 3 Embedded
  1. 01

    Regulatory context is understood

    The supplier can describe, unprompted, the advertising restrictions applying to aesthetic clinics. Score 0 if they cannot, 3 if they raise it before you do.

  2. 02

    Willingness to work to a specification

    They accept a written specification and an acceptance test rather than requiring open scope. Score 0 if resistant, 3 if they improve the specification.

  3. 03

    Who does the work is clear

    Named people, their roles and whether any work is subcontracted. Score 0 if unclear, 3 if named in writing.

  4. 04

    Position on claims

    They will not publish clinical claims without clinic approval and say so unprompted. Score 0 if they treat claims as copywriting, 3 if they require approval.

  5. 05

    Data protection arrangements

    A written processing arrangement is offered without being requested. Score 0 if absent, 3 if offered and specific.

  6. 06

    Reporting method is stated

    What will be reported, on what schedule, using what definitions, and whether you can reproduce it. Score 0 if reporting is unspecified, 3 if defined and verifiable.

  7. 07

    Exit terms are reasonable

    Notice, ownership of accounts, assets and data, and what transfers on exit. Score 0 if accounts are held in the supplier's name, 3 if the clinic owns everything throughout.

  8. 08

    References are checkable

    They will provide contactable references in a comparable setting. Score 0 if none, 3 if provided and contacted.

  9. 09

    Conflicts are disclosed

    Any work with competing clinics, commissions from platforms or referral arrangements. Score 0 if undisclosed, 3 if disclosed unprompted.

  10. 10

    They decline something

    They say clearly what they do not do and what they would advise against. Score 0 if they agree to everything, 3 if their limits are explicit.

Total score 0/ 30 Not yet scored

Scoring runs in your browser and nowhere else. Nothing is saved, nothing is sent to us, and closing the page clears it. Print this page to fill the instrument in on paper.

Band interpretations

0 to 10Absent

The supplier has not satisfied basic criteria on regulation, claims or data. Proceeding would place the clinic's compliance position in the hands of somebody who has not demonstrated they understand it.

Next action. Do not proceed on this basis. If you wish to continue, resolve the regulatory, claims and data criteria in writing first.

11 to 17Emerging

Some criteria are met and the important ones are unresolved. Typically the commercial terms are clear and the regulatory and data positions are not.

Next action. Put the unresolved criteria in writing and ask for written answers. A supplier unwilling to answer in writing has answered.

18 to 25Established

Most criteria are satisfied. Gaps are usually exit terms, account ownership and conflict disclosure.

Next action. Resolve account ownership before any work begins. It is the criterion that is expensive to fix afterwards.

26 to 30Embedded

Every criterion is satisfied in writing, including the ones the supplier raised themselves.

Next action. Proceed with a written specification and an acceptance test drawn from the relevant instrument in this library.

Capability and outsourcing instrument CAP-02. Bands are criterion referenced: they describe your operation against the descriptors above, not against any other clinic. No comparative benchmark for UK aesthetic clinics is published, so this instrument does not pretend to one.

What this instrument does not tell you

  • Whether the supplier is competent. Competence is demonstrated by work, and no assessment in advance establishes it.
  • Which supplier to choose. This publication names, compares and recommends no supplier of any kind.
  • What the work should cost. No reliable published pricing exists and none is offered here.
  • Whether the relationship will work. Fit is not assessable from a rubric.
  • How suppliers in this sector generally perform. No such dataset exists and this publication does not construct one.

Every instrument on this site carries this block. An assessment that will not state its own limits is a sales document with a scale printed on it.

Questions about this instrument

Will you recommend a supplier?

No. This publication names no supplier, publishes no directory, runs no awards and produces no comparison of any organisation serving clinics. The rubric exists so that the clinic can assess for itself, which is the only assessment that has seen the actual proposal.

Is it reasonable to ask a supplier to work to a written specification?

It is the single most useful thing a clinic can do, and a supplier's reaction to being specified is itself informative. Good suppliers usually improve the specification; the ones who resist it are telling you how acceptance will be argued later.

Who should own the advertising and analytics accounts?

The clinic, throughout, with the supplier granted access. Accounts held in a supplier's name are the most common expensive finding when a relationship ends, because history, audiences and configuration do not transfer.

What if a supplier will not answer in writing?

That is an answer. The criteria are all answerable in a paragraph each, and a reluctance to put the regulatory and data positions in writing before work begins does not improve after it starts.

Should we ask for guaranteed results?

No supplier can guarantee ranking or citation outcomes, and one offering a guarantee is describing something they do not control. What can be specified is the work and its acceptance criteria, which is what the instruments in this library provide.

Sources

  1. Information Commissioner's Office: UK GDPR guidance and resources
  2. Advertising Standards Authority: the non-broadcast advertising code
  3. Competition and Markets Authority
  4. Google Search Central: SEO starter guide

Disclosure. This instrument contains no commercial links of any kind. Rank My Clinic is published by Northbank Media. We do not rank clinics, we do not rank suppliers, and no organisation can pay to influence any criterion, band or interpretation. Nothing here is medical, legal or regulatory advice.

Related instruments

The full library