A programmatic advertising selection checklist without the sales pitch

What to take away

A mid-sized Manchester agency shortlists three demand-side platforms, sits through three pitches and cannot explain why one won. The missing piece is a written selection checklist agreed before any vendor joins the call.

Build yours around four things: a fixed scope, a scoring rubric, evidence you can verify and contract terms you have read. This page sets out the checks in the order a buying team should run them.

Define scope and criteria first

Write the buying brief before the pitch

A checklist only works if the brief exists first. Set out the channels, formats, data sources, reporting cadence and the internal owner. State what the platform must do on day one and what can wait. Without that split, every vendor claims to cover everything and the comparison collapses.

Use this brief checklist before inviting vendors:

For a worked method on comparing suppliers, see how to compare programmatic platforms. Collect the same evidence from each vendor: channel and format coverage, data and measurement capabilities, reporting samples, service commitments, security controls and commercial terms.

Set the non-negotiables

List the conditions that end a conversation. Examples include UK data residency, an audit right, transparent fee disclosure and a named account lead. Keep the list short. For example, a team paying £400 a month for a managed seat may accept a shared account lead, but a team spending £40,000 a month should not.

Treat UK data residency as your stated buying requirement, not as a blanket UK GDPR rule. Ask where data is stored and processed, and check the vendor’s arrangements against the UK GDPR and relevant Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) guidance.

Score every vendor the same way

Build a weighted rubric

Weightings should reflect the brief, not the pitch. The table below is an illustrative rubric for an English agency buying a managed platform. Adjust the weights to your own priorities and record why each one changed.

Score each criterion from 1 to 5: 1 means it does not meet the brief or provides no evidence; 3 means it partly meets the brief, with gaps; 5 means it meets the brief with verifiable evidence. Use 2 and 4 for scores between those anchors. Multiply each score by its weight, then add the weighted scores. A failed non-negotiable should rule out a vendor regardless of its total.

Score each criterion out of five, multiply by the weight and keep the workings. Give every vendor the same brief and questions; record the evidence behind each score, score independently before discussing differences, and retain the final weighted totals. A rubric agreed in advance is what makes the outcome defensible, which is the point made in our guide to programmatic advertising review methodology.

Test the creative and format claims

Ask vendors to show how their formats meet published standards. The IAB UK introduction to creative best practice is a sensible reference for judging whether a format claim holds up. If a vendor cannot map its ad units to that guidance, treat the claim as unproven.

Run due diligence and check the contract

Verify the evidence

Ask for a live walkthrough of the platform, not a slide deck. Request sample reports with the client name removed and check the numbers reconcile. Ask how optimisation decisions are made and who signs them off. The Google Ads success guidance is useful for testing whether a vendor understands campaign structure and bidding, even if the platform is not Google.

Paid social sits close to programmatic buying in many agency plans. If LinkedIn is in scope, read the guidance on boosting posts so you can question how organic and paid activity will be separated in reporting.

For due diligence, check the vendor’s data locations and controls, request evidence for security and audit commitments, and test that sample reports reconcile. Confirm who is responsible for implementation, optimisation and approving changes, and record any gaps or unanswered questions before contract review.

Read the terms before you sign

Check the notice period, the data ownership clause and what happens to historical reporting on exit. Confirm who owns the audience segments built during the contract. Request an itemised fee schedule in writing, including applicable platform, seat, media, data and setup charges, plus the vendor’s actual minimum spend and any other mandatory commitments. Compare the written terms with your brief; do not rely on an unstated or verbal figure. If a vendor resists a written exit clause, that is a scoring signal, not a negotiation tactic.

Common questions

How many vendors should be on a shortlist?

Three is usually enough to compare without exhausting the team. More than five makes the scoring process slow and the differences harder to see.

Who should own the selection decision?

One named person should own the rubric and the final recommendation. A panel can score, but a committee that shares the decision usually produces a compromise vendor.

How long should the process take?

For a mid-market agency, four to six weeks is realistic: one week to write the brief, two to score, and the rest for due diligence and contract review.

What if no vendor scores well?

That is a valid result. Revisit the brief, check whether the budget matches the scope, and run the process again rather than signing with the least bad option.