Most agency shortlists look similar on paper. They compare budget, reach, creative capabilities, market coverage, and a few case studies. Those details matter, but they don't tell you how an agency will protect your spend once the campaign is live.
The harder questions are about fraud prevention, measurement methodology, and media efficiency. Can the agency explain where traffic comes from? Can it show what happens after the install? Can it separate attributed performance from incremental value? And when traffic quality drops, can someone pause the source before more budget disappears?
This buyer-side framework is designed for gaming industry marketing leaders comparing gaming marketing agencies, performance marketing partners, and media buying teams. Use it to structure shortlist conversations before the sales deck becomes the decision.
Start with the media mix. Don't accept a long list of platforms as proof of capability. Ask which channels the agency buys directly, which are managed through intermediaries, and where the team has enough volume to optimise properly.
Our guide to game user acquisition channels makes the key point: media buying, affiliate networks, and creator-led activity should be judged against player quality, retention, fraud risk, and return on ad spend, not in isolation.
A strong answer should connect each channel to a specific job. Media buying may be best for controlled testing and fast iteration. Affiliate activity may help diversify reach. Creator-led campaigns may build trust and explain the gameplay. The right mix depends on the game.
“Fraud is monitored” is not a fraud-prevention methodology. Ask the agency to explain the detection stack, the signals it uses, and where decisions happen in the buying chain.
For gaming campaigns, the discussion should cover at least these vectors:
Then ask where filtering happens. Pre-bid controls can block suspicious inventory before a bid is placed. Real-time controls can pause a source while the campaign is still active. Post-attribution detection may identify a problem, but it usually arrives after the install has been counted and the spend has been committed.
In our guide to transparent gaming UA partners treats active fraud detection, attribution clarity, source visibility, and real-time reporting as core partner criteria. That is a useful benchmark for any shortlist.
A polished dashboard can still hide a weak supply path. Require reporting that lets the buying team move from the campaign total to the publisher, placement, sub-publisher, device, and geography underneath it.
Ask whether the agency can provide:
Don't rely on one average. A source can deliver an attractive CPI while producing weak retention, unusual device patterns, or a high share of suspiciously short click-to-install intervals. The signals need to be reviewed together.
Also ask how quickly relevant raw data can be shared when an investigation starts. If the agency cannot provide enough detail to verify its own conclusions, the publisher is being asked to trust the report rather than assess it.
Every shortlist conversation should include a plain-language explanation of attribution. Ask which model is used, what the click and view-through lookback windows are, how organic users are treated, and which mobile measurement partner is connected.
Ask the agency to separate:
Last-click attribution can reward the touchpoint closest to conversion even when that touchpoint did not create the demand. A retargeting campaign can look strong while receiving credit for users who were already returning. Without a holdout group, that distinction stays hidden.
Mark Luijks explores the changing measurement environment in his article on the future of gaming UA. The practical lesson is simple: dashboards, cohort analysis, and post-install data improve decision-making, but privacy changes and imperfect tracking still require judgement.
Installs are an early signal, not the end of the funnel. Ask what the agency optimises toward after acquisition and what event volume is needed before automated buying can make reliable decisions.
Useful questions include:
ROI-focused media buying should connect spend to retained users, paying users, revenue, or another verified business outcome. A low CPI is not efficient if the acquired players churn immediately.
Ask how the agency will test whether advertising caused additional behaviour. Holdout and geo-lift tests are not suitable for every campaign in the same way, but refusing to discuss incrementality is a warning sign.
Before signing, agree on:
The test should answer a business question, not become another decorative dashboard. For example: did the campaign create new paying players, improve incremental revenue, or bring back users who would otherwise have remained inactive?
Fraud prevention and transparent reporting are useful only when the contract gives the publisher a way to act. Put the guardrails in writing.
At a minimum, discuss:
A number without a consequence is only a reporting preference. The contract should state who can pause spend, how quickly the agency must respond, and what evidence is required before a source is restarted.
A simple weighted score keeps the shortlist from being decided by the best presentation or the lowest CPI.
| Dimension | Suggested weight | What to assess |
|---|---|---|
| Traffic quality controls | 40% | Detection methodology, gaming-specific fraud coverage, filtering stage, blocking speed, and source monitoring |
| Reporting standards | 30% | Data granularity, reporting frequency, source-level retention, anomaly alerts, and independent verification |
| ROI guardrails | 30% | IVT ceilings, make-good clauses, kill-switch rights, audit access, and fee alignment |
Score each criterion from 1 to 5. A score below 3 in one dimension deserves a serious review. A low overall score does not always mean the agency cannot be used, but it does mean the relationship needs stronger protections before significant budget is committed.
Adjust the weights to fit the portfolio. A new market launch may place more weight on fraud controls and source transparency. A mature live-service title may place more weight on retention, revenue quality, and incrementality testing.
The best gaming marketing agency is not necessarily the one with the largest reach or the lowest quoted CPI. It is the partner that can explain where the traffic comes from, how quality is measured, what happens after the install, and what protection exists when the numbers stop making sense.
FragPunk launch case study shows the value of connecting channel testing with player tracking, sign-ups, revenue, and real-time performance dashboards across PC, Xbox, and PlayStation. That is the level of operational detail a buyer-side framework should test for.
Use the questions above before the shortlist becomes a contract. The right partner should be comfortable with the scrutiny because transparent reporting, fraud prevention, and ROI-focused media buying are part of the work, not a premium add-on.