Comparing social media agencies: the pitch evaluation scorecard

A social media agency evaluation scorecard is a scoring sheet built before the first pitch, setting out the criteria you will observe, how much each one weighs and what a good answer looks like. It lets you compare three or four agencies on the same basis and choose a social media agency on evidence rather than on gut feel or price.

Each evaluator scores alone, then the panel works through the gaps. Price does not belong on the sheet: it works earlier, as an eligibility filter. This article covers the seven criteria that best predict a working relationship, how to weight them, and the control questions to ask at the end of a pitch.

What a social media agency scorecard is for, and when to build it

An evaluation scorecard is a grid of criteria and signals that the selection panel fills in during each pitch. It does not replace judgement, it forces judgement to land on the same points for every agency you see.

When you build it matters more than what is on it. Written after the first presentation, it mirrors whatever that agency chose to show: its strengths become criteria, its blind spots disappear from view.

The natural moment to draft it is alongside the social media agency brief, using the same inputs: business objective, priority platforms, production volume, approval constraints.

Every criterion should trace back to a line in the brief. If one traces back to nothing, it measures a personal preference.

The scorecard also assumes a coherent shortlist. Scoring a production studio, an influence agency and an integrated agency against the same criteria makes little sense, because they answer different needs; our French guide to the different types of TikTok agency sets out those distinctions. Sorting by type happens on paper.

Why price is a filter upstream, not a criterion on the sheet

A budget filter is an eligibility threshold set before the process starts, which rules out proposals that are out of reach without scoring them. That is where price belongs in a pitch process.

Scoring price has a mechanical effect: the cheapest proposal picks up points, while the sheet says nothing about what was stripped out of the scope to get there.

Two proposals at different levels almost never describe the same scope: number of videos, shoot days, usage rights, strategy time. The score then rewards whoever promised least.

The sounder method is to state a budget range in the brief and ask every agency to answer within it. Proposals then become comparable at constant budget, and the scorecard measures what each one does with the same money.

If you are still calibrating that range, our article on social media agency cost explains what moves it.

Price comes back later, after scoring, when you adjust scope with the agency that came out on top. That order avoids the usual outcome, picking on the number and then discovering what it never covered.

How to choose a social media agency: the seven criteria that predict a working relationship

A predictive criterion is something you can observe during a pitch that reliably shows up later in day to day work. The seven below are the ones Sleeq most often sees separate close contenders.

• Grasp of the brief and of the brand. Does the agency restate the problem before presenting its answer? A restatement that goes back to the business issue, not just the content request, points to an agency able to make its own calls.
• Quality of the strategic recommendation. Look at the link between diagnosis and plan. A strong recommendation explains why one platform comes before another, and names an option that was ruled out. A list of formats with no hierarchy is a catalogue, not a strategy.
• Demonstrated creative ability. The work shown matters less than the ability to explain how it was made: where the idea came from, which brand constraint had to be absorbed. Ask for an example close to your own constraint, not the flashiest thing in the reel.
• Production set-up and ability to hold a rhythm. Social media work rarely fails on the idea, more often on cadence. Ask them to walk through a typical week: how many shoots, which approval chain, who edits, what happens when a date falls through.
• The team actually assigned, and its availability. Check who is presenting and who will deliver: the gap between the two is a common source of disappointment. Our piece on social media agency team roles lists the roles worth naming in writing.
• Measurement and reporting method. An agency that proposes its metrics before you ask for them is used to being held to account. Check whether those metrics connect to a business objective or stop at views.
• Quality of the relationship. Raise a blunt objection in the room and watch the reaction. An agency that takes the pushback and asks uncomfortable questions of its own will work better with you than one that agrees with everything.

The scorecard, criterion by criterion

The table below turns the seven criteria into things you can observe. Fill it in during the pitch, not the next morning: memory flattens impressions and favours whichever agency you heard last.

Add a score column and a comment column to your own copy, so you can explain a gap when the panel compares sheets.

Weighting the scorecard to the stakes of the account

Weighting is the share of the final score given to each criterion. It expresses what matters on this account, and it is set before the first pitch, never adjusted afterwards to help a favourite.

An account whose main challenge is content volume should not be weighted like one whose challenge is building a brand voice: in the first case the production set-up and the assigned team carry serious weight, in the second strategic recommendation and creative ability move to the front.

If the brand is coming out of a relationship that ended badly, relationship quality and reporting deserve more weight than usual.

As an example to adjust rather than a rule, a volume driven process might split the weight into three even blocks: production and assigned team, grasp of the brief and recommendation, then creative ability, measurement and relationship.

Those proportions are not universal: they exist to force the trade off before the first presentation.

Have each evaluator score separately

Individual scoring before the debrief means every participant fills in the sheet alone, with no discussion, before the panel meets. It is the most effective precaution against groupthink.

In a room, the first opinion spoken anchors the ones that follow, especially when it comes from the most senior person present. The debrief turns into an exercise in agreeing, and the scorecard justifies a decision already made.

The useful information is not the average, it is the spread. When one criterion draws widely different scores, the discussion concentrates there, and that is usually where the decision sits: two people did not see the same thing, or do not want the same thing from a partner.

A sheet where everybody agrees was filled in too quickly.

A few practical conditions make the exercise reliable:

• Three to five evaluators, no more.
• The same panel for every pitch.
• Scores handed in before the end of the day.

Sleeq, a creative social and influence agency based in Paris, finds that the best run processes are the ones where the panel was assembled at the same time as the brief.

What a pitch cannot show you, and the control questions

A pitch is a rehearsed situation: it shows the best version of an agency, with the team it decided to put in the room. It is a good test of thinking and a poor test of stamina.

Three things stay invisible on the day:

• How the agency reacts to something going wrong.
• How stable the team is over several months.
• How the exchanges feel once the relationship becomes routine.

The only way to get close is to ask control questions at the end of the presentation, once the rehearsed run through is over.

• Of the people in this room, who will work on the account, and for what share of their time?
• What happens, concretely, if a shoot falls through the day before?
• Tell us about a relationship that went badly and what you changed afterwards.
• Which part of our brief looks hardest to deliver?
• What do you need from us for this plan to work?
• What do the first three months look like if we sign next week?

The last question is the most revealing: an agency used to onboarding describes a dated ramp up plan rather than intentions, ground we cover in our article on the first 90 days with a social media agency.

If you are running a process, you can talk your scorecard through with the Sleeq team.

Frequently asked questions

How do you build a social media agency evaluation scorecard?

Start from the brief and take its main lines: business objective, priority platforms, production volume, approval constraints. Turn each one into something you can observe during a pitch, then write a positive signal and a warning signal for every criterion. Set the weighting before the first presentation, and keep the sheet to seven criteria.

Should price be scored on the evaluation sheet?

No. Price works better as an eligibility filter applied before the process than as a scored criterion. Scored, it automatically rewards the cheapest proposal without saying what was removed from the scope. State a budget range in the brief, ask every agency to answer within it, then score what each one proposes at equivalent budget.

How many agencies should you invite to pitch?

Three or four is enough for most processes. Fewer than that and the comparison lacks reference points. More and the panel tires, presentations blur together and the last ones heard gain an unfair advantage. Select those finalists on paper, checking agency type, platform coverage and budget fit, so the pitch stage separates contenders rather than filtering for you.

Who should sit on the evaluation panel?

Three to five people, and the same ones at every pitch: the manager who will run the relationship day to day, a marketing decision maker, and depending on context someone from product or communications. A wider panel dilutes responsibility. Each participant fills in the scorecard alone before the debrief, so the first opinion spoken does not steer the others.

What are the warning signs during a pitch?

A presentation that opens with case studies without restating your problem, a purely commercial team promising to name the operational people later, volumes announced with no description of the set-up behind them, reporting built around views, and a complete absence of pushback on your brief. An agency with nothing to challenge has not read the request closely.

What do you do when two agencies score the same?

Go back to your heaviest criteria rather than the overall score, and compare the two finalists on those alone. If they are still level, run a short second session with no presentation, involving the people who would actually work on the account, around a concrete problem to solve in the room.

Key takeaways

• Build the social media agency scorecard before the first pitch, from the brief, never after hearing an agency present.
• Seven criteria are enough: understanding, recommendation, creative ability, production, team, measurement, relationship.
• Price is an eligibility filter upstream, not a scored criterion; stating a range in the brief makes proposals comparable.
• Weighting follows the stakes of the account and is fixed before the first presentation.
• Each evaluator scores alone before the debrief, and the spread between scores is worth more than the average.
• A pitch says nothing about stamina, so control questions at the end close part of that blind spot.