Editorial Policy

Everything published on Commissioning Desk is subject to the standards on this page. They apply equally to staff-written articles and guest contributions.

Everything published on Commissioning Desk is subject to the standards on this page. For more about who we are and what we cover, see the About page.

Independence

No article on this site is paid for, sponsored, or influenced by a commercial relationship. We do not run affiliate links. We do not accept payment for coverage of any product, platform, agency, or service. If that changes, we will say so here.

Where a contributor has a commercial connection to something discussed in their article, we disclose it.

Accuracy

Every specific claim in an article (a price, a date, a platform feature, a statistic) should be verified against a primary source before publication. When we cite data or research, we name the source and the date in the text, not in a footnote.

We get things wrong sometimes. When we do, we correct the article, note the correction at the bottom of the piece, and keep the original wording visible so readers can see what changed.

If you believe something we have published is inaccurate, please contact us. We will review it and, if the claim does not hold up, correct it promptly.

Named criticism

We are willing to criticise specific practices, platforms, and companies by name. We hold ourselves to a sliding standard of evidence depending on what we are criticising.

Practices (for example, ‘retainers that do not specify response times’) can be criticised based on professional experience.

Platforms (for example, a specific CMS or hosting provider) can be criticised when we provide evidence on the page: performance data, documented limitations, real migration patterns.

Named companies can be criticised only when the evidence is publicly verifiable. Published contracts, documented outages, on-record practices. Not rumour, not secondhand accounts.

This standard applies to every company we mention, including any that our contributors or editors have a relationship with. If a competitor does something well, we say so. If an organisation connected to our team has done something we would criticise in anyone else, we say that too.

Guest contributions

We publish pieces from agency founders, in-house digital leads, platform specialists, and practitioners with genuine experience to share. Guest contributors write under their own byline and in their own voice.

Every guest piece goes through the same editorial process as our own work. We cut vendor-favouring language, remove unsubstantiated claims, and edit anything that reads more like marketing than journalism. The contributor’s name goes on the article; the publication’s reputation sits behind it.

We do not accept paid guest placements. There is no fee to contribute and no fee to be featured.

Complaints

If you believe an article is inaccurate, unfair, or fails to meet the standards described on this page, contact us with the specific article and the specific concern.

We will acknowledge your complaint, review the piece against our editorial standards, and respond with either a correction, a clarification, or an explanation of why the article stands as published.

We take complaints seriously. They are reviewed by an editor who was not involved in writing or commissioning the piece in question.