Choose an iGaming influencer marketing agency by scoring its evidence, not its pitch. The strongest proposal connects licensed markets to audience verification, named delivery owners, creator checks, complete costs and a measurement plan that reconciles platform data with operator records.
Start with a written brief and apply the same weighted criteria to every bidder. A familiar logo, a large creator database or a performance forecast does not establish fit for your product and markets.
Six criteria worth scoring
| Criterion | What good looks like | Red flag |
|---|---|---|
| Market and licensing fit | Country-by-country eligibility workflow and documented exclusions | “Global reach” with no licence or destination checks |
| Creator vetting | Audience, content, sponsorship, fraud and brand-safety checks | Follower count presented as the main selection method |
| Measurement | Named events, IDs, attribution window, deduplication and backend reconciliation | ROI promised from impressions alone |
| Commercial clarity | Creator fees, rights, agency work, production and contingencies separated | One opaque total with unspecified rights |
| Operations | Named approvers, live monitoring, escalation and evidence capture | No owner for late changes or policy incidents |
| Relevant evidence | Permissioned examples with definitions, period and limitations | Unverifiable screenshots or guaranteed results |
Download the weighted agency-selection scorecard (CSV).
Ask for evidence you can inspect
- An anonymised creator-vetting record showing what is checked and who approves it.
- A sample campaign brief and change-control process.
- A sample report with metric definitions, raw-source ownership and reconciliation notes.
- Proof that any cited case study may be used, plus the result period and attribution basis.
- A complete fee schedule covering usage rights, exclusivity, production and pass-through creator costs.
- The people who will source, negotiate, review, monitor and report your campaign.
References can help, but ask a specific question: what was the team responsible for, what changed during delivery, and which result did the client verify? Do not ask the agency to share private creator or client data it is not authorised to disclose.
Compare the same scope, not headline prices
Normalise every proposal into deliverables, territories, usage term, exclusivity, creator fees, agency fees, production, compliance work, tracking and contingency. A cheaper proposal may exclude paid usage rights or reporting; a higher one may include them. Record assumptions beside the price so procurement can compare like with like.
Use a two-stage process: first score written evidence, then interview the highest-scoring teams about one realistic scenario. For example, ask how they would respond if a creator changes the approved link during a live stream. The scenario tests the operating system behind the deck.
Questions for the agency interview
- How will you prove that the reachable audience overlaps our licensed markets?
- What would make you reject a creator with strong public numbers?
- Who approves claims and disclosures before a stream goes live?
- Which data comes from the platform, your systems and our backend?
- How do you prevent one depositor or code use from being counted twice?
- What can we reuse after the campaign, where and for how long?
- Which forecast assumptions are ours to approve, and which are supported by prior evidence?
Read the audience-fraud screening guide and ROI measurement guide before final scoring.
Disclosure about this guide
This guide is published by Octo Media Group, an agency that sells iGaming influencer and streamer marketing services. It is a buyer framework, not an independent agency ranking. Octo engagements start around $10,000, with the final scope and price agreed in a proposal; that starting point does not prescribe deliverables or guarantee outcomes.
If the scorecard matches your procurement process, send Octo the same brief you give other bidders. Compare the response using the same evidence standard.