Influencer Vetting Checklist: Review Before You Partner

Influencer vetting turns a shortlist into a decision you can explain. Start with evidence of fit for this campaign, then list what you still need before approaching or hiring the creator.

Quick Prompt: Review a creator before you partner

@Mysocial MCP

Edit your prompt Use Mysocial's stored research to review up to 3 shortlisted creators against [campaign brief]. Cite relevant posts and dates, separate observed content fit from unknown audience or performance claims, and give each creator proceed, clarify or decline with reasons and one next question. Read existing evidence only; draft here, do not save or contact anyone.

Review and send in your AI app.

Setup & access

Connect and select Mysocial before sending. Connect Mysocial →

Select the workspace and represented brand, then supply the campaign brief and known creator references. Mysocial can provide held creator/post evidence subject to your access and coverage; Universe reads require Universe access. It does not certify fake-follower percentages, read private messages or provide every creator's private demographics. Captions, transcripts and comment text have different coverage. Missing data stays unknown. New research may use an allowance; ask before collecting it. You review the draft and contact creators yourself.

Result: A source-linked creator review with evidence, unknowns, a provisional decision and the next verification question.

Replace the brackets with your product, audience, market, content job and constraints. Manual route: paste dated source notes into your assistant, or fill in the worksheet below. Nothing needs to be saved or sent.

What a useful influencer review should return

For each creator, get sourced evidence → unknowns → a decision → one next question. Keep content fit, audience evidence and commercial readiness separate.

“Proceed” means continue the review. Signing, paying, publishing and contacting each need their own decision. Record who reviewed the evidence and when.

The influencer vetting checklist

1. Define campaign fit

Complete this sentence before opening a profile:

We need [audience] to understand [product use] through [deliverable], in [market], by [date].

• Set the requirement: a UK coffee brand might need a home-brewing demonstration, rather than café travel footage.
• List deal-breakers: category conflicts, production constraints or an unsuitable deliverable.
• Still building a shortlist? Use the separate guide to finding relevant small creators.

2. Inspect the actual posts

• Open the sources: include ordinary work alongside standout posts. Record URLs, dates and the sample period.
• Name what you inspected: caption, watched video or available transcript. A caption mention cannot prove how a demonstration looked; a comment count cannot supply quotations.
• Mark access gaps: unavailable material stays unknown. Ask for a manual viewing task where needed.

3. Compare like with like

• Match the basis: platform, format, observation date and time since publication. An old video’s accumulated views and a new Reel’s views are not a fair comparison.
• Define the calculation: write the numerator and denominator. Interactions ÷ followers and interactions ÷ reach answer different questions; disclose missing fields.
• Investigate unusual results: ask what explains a spike or a difference from the inspected sample. A spike, repeated commenter or unfamiliar language alone does not prove bought followers. Use a separate fake-profile review when needed.

4. Check audience evidence

• Request a dated record: use the relevant platform and account when geography, age or another audience attribute matters.
• Read the definition: followers, reached accounts and viewers are different populations. Record the reporting period and who supplied the figures.
• Keep uncertainty visible: creator-supplied evidence is not an independent audit. Location and language do not establish audience demographics. Missing evidence is unresolved, not proof of dishonesty.

5. Check sponsorships and disclosures

• Inspect your sample: note visible category conflicts, product claims and how sponsorships are explained.
• Keep the limits: an incomplete archive cannot establish that a creator has never worked with a competitor.
• Check the relevant rules: review disclosure requirements for the market and platform before approving the work.

Source detail

FTC and YouTube disclosure guidance

For work affecting US consumers, the FTC’s guidance says material brand relationships should be obvious to viewers; payment and free or discounted products can be relevant. It advises placing disclosures with the endorsement and warns against relying solely on a platform disclosure tool. Check the applicable rules for your market. FTC Disclosures 101.

YouTube separately requires creators featuring branded content to use its paid-promotion control, which adds a disclosure label. Review the platform’s current requirements alongside the campaign’s obligations. YouTube’s branded-content guidance.

6. Confirm terms before committing

• Work: deliverables, review process and production dates.
• Rights: usage rights and exclusivity.
• Costs: fee, expenses and payment terms. Compare them in the campaign budget worksheet.

A content-fit review cannot supply missing terms or guarantee sales. Once the evidence supports contact, use the influencer outreach guide to draft the message.

Worked example: a coffee brand reviews three creators

Original fictional teaching example. These invented notes and labels are not actual creators, quotations, customer results or forecasts. Replace them with real post URLs and dates in your review.

Brief: demonstrate home brewing for a refillable coffee brand selling to UK customers.

Creator A — clarify audience and availability

• Evidence: A1 (September 4) shows weighing beans and brewing steps; A2 (September 18) discusses home coffee storage.
• Unknown: UK audience coverage and production availability.
• Next action: request dated audience geography and availability. The notes support content fit, not “verified UK buyers.”

Creator B — decline for this brief on current evidence

• Evidence: B1 (September 6) tours a café; B2 (September 20) reviews another café. Neither supplied note demonstrates home brewing.
• Unknown: relevant work outside the sample and production constraints.
• Next action: reconsider if a home-brewing example is supplied. A mismatch with this brief does not make B a poor creator.

Creator C — clarify the category agreement

• Evidence: C1 (September 8) demonstrates a home brewer; C2 (September 22) names a competing coffee subscription in a sponsored post.
• Unknown: the existing agreement’s exclusivity terms.
• Next action: ask about its category and dates before proceeding. Do not invent contract terms from the post.

Copy this review record

Keep the source, date and access limits beside each finding. Use this record manually or paste it into your assistant:

Campaign / represented brand:
Creator / platform:
Reviewer / review date:
Inspected sources and dates:
Sample and access limits:

Content-fit finding and supporting source:
Comparable performance evidence and metric definition:
Audience evidence, period and who supplied it:
Visible sponsorships / questions to clarify:
Delivery and usage terms still needed:

Decision: proceed to next check / clarify / decline for this brief
Reason supported by the inspected evidence:
One next question that could change the decision:

Make the prompt useful for your team

• Agency: name the client workspace and brief before supplying the shortlist.
• Brand: specify the product use the creator needs to demonstrate.
• Repeat review: supply the earlier dated record and ask what changed. Do not silently reuse stale findings.

Use Mysocial’s influencer discovery context to examine held creator work. The prompt produces a draft from available evidence; you make the partnership decision.