Shopping feeds review methodology explained for catalogue teams

What to take away

A shopping feeds review methodology is a written set of rules for what gets assessed, how each item is scored, and which claims count as vendor statements rather than verified facts.

What a review does and does not assess

The review assesses documented feed and catalogue capabilities, evidence of channel requirements being met, and the vendor’s stated commercial terms. It does not guarantee platform approval, product visibility or performance. Hands-on results are included only when a documented test took place; otherwise, findings are based on available evidence and are labelled accordingly.

Criteria fixed before scoring

Use the same criteria for every candidate, with these relative weights:

These are relative priorities, not percentage shares. The editorial desk assigns each weight before scoring, based on what a multichannel shop needs when a catalogue changes weekly, not on a vendor’s marketing priorities. Scores are recorded before any call with a sales team. The record shows who set each weight and when; published results show the weight beside each criterion score rather than hiding them in a single total.

Evidence types kept apart

Independent evidence includes platform documentation, standards, court decisions, regulatory material and government guidance relevant to the criterion. It can establish a requirement, but does not by itself prove a vendor meets it. Independent evidence is kept distinct from vendor claims.

Editorial judgement is the desk's reasoned view, marked as judgement in the text. A claim like "99.9% uptime" stays in the vendor column until an outside source confirms it. Where a claim cannot be checked, the review says so rather than scoring it true.

Scoring and source discipline

The scoring ladder

Each criterion scores zero to four: zero is no evidence either way, one is a vendor claim only, and two is partial independent support. Three is documented evidence with a minor gap; four is documented evidence with no material gap.

The ladder stops a confident pitch from outranking a verified fact. A supplier with strong claims can score lower than a quieter one with auditable documents.

Sources that carry weight

For shopping-feed criteria, check the relevant official platform documentation and feed specifications, including those for Google Merchant Center and Microsoft Merchant Center. These establish channel requirements and can help assess a vendor’s documented support for them; they do not independently prove that the vendor’s service performs as claimed.

The ICO enforcement actions are relevant only if the review includes a vendor’s handling of personal data. They do not establish feed quality, channel compliance or product performance.

For each piece of evidence, record its source, the claim it supports, any date shown and its limitations. Score only the criterion that the evidence supports; where a source is vendor-controlled, keep it labelled as a vendor claim. Do not use fulfilment or workplace-safety guidance as evidence of feed capability.

Applying the method to a shortlist

What the reader should do next

Start with a written brief, then score every shortlisted supplier against the same ladder. Ask each vendor the same questions in writing and keep the answers as evidence. If the shortlist needs widening, the best providers in England comparison shows how candidates are grouped before scoring begins.

Build a comparison grid with one row per candidate and columns for each criterion, its weight, the score, the evidence and any unresolved question. Ask every vendor the same questions and request comparable material, such as feed examples, mapping documentation, channel error reports and order-sync evidence where available. Do not infer a pass from a platform’s requirements alone; record what the vendor’s evidence actually demonstrates.

An illustrative shortlist could include Channable, Productsup and Feedonomics as vendor candidates, with Google Merchant Center and Microsoft Merchant Center recorded as channel platforms rather than comparable vendors. These are candidates for a team to assess, not suppliers tested or ranked by this article; leave scores blank until evidence has been gathered.

Do not let a demo change a weight, and if a criterion turns out to be wrong, record the change and the reason, then rescore every supplier equally.

When evidence is thin

Thin evidence is a finding, not a gap to hide. Where a supplier cannot show independent support for a claim, the review states that plainly and caps the score. Treat a capped score as a prompt to ask harder questions, not as proof of wrongdoing.

Common questions

Does the review include hands-on testing?

Only where a documented test took place, with dates, conditions and results recorded. Otherwise the method relies on vendor documents, independent sources and stated editorial judgement.

How are vendor claims treated?

They are recorded as claims and scored on the ladder. A claim moves up only when a source outside the vendor supports it.

Who sets the scoring weights?

The editorial desk sets them before scoring, and any later change is logged with a reason so every supplier is treated the same way.