Executive PR provider scorecard
By Joel Andren · Published by PressFriendly, a PR agency · Reviewed August 21, 2026 · Editorial standards · 2 of 3 in this section
Score providers against fixed evidence, weights, evaluators, and a common service period. Keep safety, integrity, and contract gates outside the total. Record the evidence behind every score.
Resolve pass-fail gates before comparing totals
Mark each gate pass, fail, or unresolved:
- classifies earned editorial, paid access, sponsorship, and controlled publishing;
- rejects guarantees of coverage, search rank, awards, Wikipedia control, or audience outcomes;
- discloses competing clients, subcontractors, referral fees, and material platform or opportunity relationships;
- accepts named, revocable account access without password sharing;
- accepts the buyer's confidentiality, data, incident, return, deletion, and transition requirements;
- will publish attributed material only under the agreed executive approval process;
- supports factual substantiation, corrections, and required legal or compliance review;
- identifies proposed AI uses and accepts the buyer's restrictions; and
- provides acceptable pricing, rights, exit terms, references, and sample attribution.
A written contract change may cure a failed gate. Record an owner and deadline for unresolved items. Decide which roles may veto for legal, security, ethical, or personal-risk reasons.
PRSA says its Code of Ethics applies to members and has limited enforcement authority. Use its accuracy, disclosure, confidentiality, and conflict provisions as evidence questions, regardless of membership.
Anchored scores make providers comparable
Rate each category from 1 to 5 and multiply by its weight. A 1 means absent, contradicted, or weak evidence; 3 means adequate, relevant evidence; and 5 means strong, directly relevant evidence. Use 2 and 4 between those anchors. Divide the weighted total by 5 for a score out of 100.
| Category | Weight | Evidence to inspect |
|---|---|---|
| Objective and stakeholder fit | 15 | Diagnosis, audience, executive role, alternatives, constraints |
| Executive expertise, evidence, and voice | 15 | Interviews, sources, fact checks, executive contribution, revisions, samples |
| Assigned team and capacity | 12 | Named people, workloads, senior time, continuity, specialists, escalation |
| Channel and opportunity judgment | 10 | Audience fit, opportunity type, preparation, rights, ability to decline |
| Three-party governance | 12 | Executive, payer, manager, account, asset, approval, and risk ownership |
| Ethics, discretion, and conflicts | 10 | References, confidentiality, corrections, clients, incentives, disclosures |
| Security and data handling | 8 | Roles, MFA, tools, subcontractors, recordings, retention, incidents, exit |
| Measurement and learning | 8 | Baselines, outputs, response, outcomes, impact, cost, contribution limits |
| Scope and operating model | 5 | Deliverables, executive time, service levels, dependencies, change control |
| Commercial terms and exit | 5 | Total cost, expenses, rights, minimum term, pause, termination, handoff |
| Total | 100 |
Record the score, evidence, gaps, reference confirmation, contract change, and evaluator. Give no credit for unsupported claims. For samples, confirm who originated, interviewed, researched, drafted, edited, placed, and approved the work. Use the sample evaluation and reference checks.
Normalize cost and participation outside the quality score
Compare the same service period and include:
- professional fees, expenses, tools, travel, paid opportunities, and markups;
- internal manager, reviewer, legal, and security time;
- executive interview, review, preparation, travel, and appearance time;
- output assumptions, exclusions, and likely change orders; and
- minimum commitment, notice, transition cost, ownership, and license differences.
Normalize different operating models before comparing cost, or keep separate shortlists. A specialist with limited references may warrant a bounded paid test, but missing evidence stays visible.
Differences among evaluators are decision data
Have the executive score expertise, voice, working trust, consent, and personal risk. The day-to-day manager scores team, workflow, capacity, approvals, and reporting. Company risk owners score factual, legal, security, account, and organizational fit. The payer evaluates total cost and commercial exposure. Name the final decision owner before pitches.
Discuss large differences before averaging. Record the selection, waived gates and approvers, contract changes, runner-up, rationale, and first review date. Issue the same buyer brief to each bidder and rescore a changed delivery team.
PressFriendly sells executive PR services. Apply this scorecard and every pass-fail gate to us on the same terms as any other provider.