Operations
Part of Organising creator media kit handovers around evidence, ownership and version control
What to inspect in a creator media kit file before it leaves the workspace
Creator media kits quality checklist for England: inspect claim support, sample permissions, commercial context and the actual portfolio file before release.
This is a pre-release inspection checklist and a creator media kits quality checklist for one file: the exact creator media kit version you intend to send. It records what you inspected, the evidence behind each claim and the items that still block release.
What to take away
- Inspect the export a recipient will open, not the editable source file.
- Compare each material claim with its source and note the period it covers.
- Check a permission record for every image, clip and work sample.
- Hold the file while any material claim or permission item is open.
Confirm the version and the recipient
Note the filename, version or export date, and how the recipient will open it: a link, a PDF or a hosted page. Record who checked it and when. Approval of the creator is not approval of a later version.
Decide the intended task first, because it decides what counts as a material claim. A kit for a brand's partnerships team needs different checks from one sent to a journalist for a profile.
The format decides what a recipient can read. A controlled HTML page, an accessible download and a linked hosted page each carry structure, link text and images differently, so inspect the version you are actually sending rather than the editable master.
Keep a short list at the top of the note:
- Source version and receiving file or page.
- Intended recipient and task.
- Reviewer name and inspection date.
- Parts excluded from the review.
Confirm the subject of the check
- Identify source version and receiving file
- Record reviewer and date
- State intended recipient task
- List parts outside the review
- Keep details at top of note
Check each claim against its source
CAP section 3 of the CAP Code — the UK Code of Non-broadcast Advertising and Direct & Promotional Marketing — requires substantiation for objective claims where the advertising codes apply, and the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) enforces the code. Compare each material statement with the record behind it, including the period that record covers.
Watch for a shift in meaning between the original record and your summary. Confirm the creator's stated contribution to any selected work. Send unsupported wording back rather than reading it generously.
A reach or engagement claim stands only when the period it covers and the number of posts behind it are written beside it. A number on its own is not substantiation.
Check the meaning of claims
- Compare each material statement with evidence
- Check source period remains visible
- Look for change in meaning
- Confirm creator's described contribution
- Remove or return unsupported wording
- Open hyperlink destination to verify
An open destination does not verify the nearby sentence. Point to the part that supports the claim. If the source has changed, send the item for evidence review.
Example: one claim, one check
One claim, one check
| Media kit wording | Source record | Action |
|---|---|---|
| Average reach 240,000 per post | Platform export, January to March, three posts | Ask for the full period and sample size |
| Worked with three national retailers | Two invoices and one unpaid pitch | Cut to "worked with two retailers" |
The second row is the common failure. A pitch is not a partnership, and the summary had quietly upgraded it.
Check rights and commercial context
GOV.UK's copyright guidance ("Copyright: detailed information") explains that using protected work needs permission or another applicable basis. File a record for each asset and its planned presentation: a model or contributor release, a sync or master licence for a music track, a PRS for Music or PPL clearance where one applies, and written permission for a brand name or logo.
No automated image check supplies a missing permission. Doubtful coverage goes to an intellectual property solicitor, and that asset waits.
Check whether relationship information survives a crop or a condensed sample. A caption elsewhere in the pack may not travel with the extract. The CAP Code rules on the recognition of marketing communications set out what a reader must be able to identify.
Inspect the file the recipient opens
The accessible-document guidance from the Government Digital Service asks for meaningful structure and link text. WCAG 2.2 (Web Content Accessibility Guidelines) is the standard behind those checks, EN 301 549 sets the accessibility requirements for digital documents and web content, and the Equality Act 2010 carries the underlying duty in the UK. The checks transfer well, though that guidance targets government content.
Open the export and confirm headings survive. Check that link text says where it goes, that alt text describes every image, and that a claim made by an image is repeated in words. Confirm the contact route is clear without decoding an icon, and that the contrast between text and its background holds.
Run the file checks by name: a tagged PDF in the right reading order, the PDF/UA profile where the recipient needs it, fonts embedded, alt text present, link destinations working, and a file size the recipient can open. Adobe Acrobat Pro's accessibility checker, PAC 2024 (PDF Accessibility Checker) and Accessibility Insights for Web will flag most structural faults before you send.
Flattened output can behave differently, so compare the export with the editor view.
Record findings, tasks and the holding rule
For each item, write the observation, the evidence and the decision. Use "pending" for a check nobody has performed yet.
Hold the file from release if a material claim has no source, a permission record is missing for a used asset, or a required disclosure is absent. The named owner decides the next step, with an intellectual property solicitor for rights questions and a music rights adviser for PRS for Music or PPL clearance.
Keep the reviewed export with the note so the decision can be traced later.
Common questions
What does this inspection produce?
A record of what was inspected, the evidence behind each material claim and the items still open. A later export needs its own check.
How do I handle an unsupported claim?
Compare it with its source and note the period covered. Remove it, qualify it or return it to the creator.
What if a permission question stays open?
Hold the affected asset and the release. Ask the relevant specialist whether the permission record is adequate for the planned use.
Can I approve the file and fix the export later?
No. Changes to layout, images or figures can alter meaning and disclosure. Re-inspect the affected parts before the new version goes out.
