Short answer
The DAMSelection scoring model rates each vendor from 0 to 5 on 12 fixed criteria inside named buyer scenarios, then applies scenario weights that sum to 100. A rating publishes only with dated evidence from a scripted demo, vendor documentation or a reference call, so every score on DAMSelection traces back to something a buyer can check.
How the scoring model works
The DAMSelection scoring model turns evidence into a scenario score in four steps.
- Name the scenario, such as packaging artwork approval or an agency brand portal. Each shortlist scores five vendors on three scenarios.
- Rate each of the 12 criteria from 0 to 5, using only accepted evidence.
- Multiply each rating by the scenario weight for that criterion. The 12 weights sum to 100.
- Add the 12 results and divide by 5. The scenario score runs from 0 to 100.
The formula: scenario score = sum of (weight × rating) ÷ 5. A vendor rated 5 on every criterion scores 100 in any scenario.
The 0 to 5 scale
DAMSelection 0 to 5 scale measures how well a vendor meets a requirement inside the scenario, from absent (0) to leading the market in a scripted demo (5).
The definitions table on this page gives each level. Each level also has an evidence ceiling: the highest rating a type of evidence can support.
| Rating | Minimum evidence |
|---|---|
| 0 | Documentation or a vendor answer showing the capability is absent or on the roadmap |
| 1 | A documented API or services route with no configuration path |
| 2 | A partial capability shown in a demo or documentation, with the workaround named |
| 3 | Standard configuration, documented or shown in a demo |
| 4 | Shown natively in a scripted demo, completed by the operator role without vendor help |
| 5 | Shown in a scripted demo on buyer-style assets, ahead of the other vendors on the same script |
DAMSelection rule: documentation alone caps a rating at 3. Ratings of 4 and 5 need a scripted demo.
The 12 criteria
The 12 DAMSelection criteria stay fixed across every scenario, so scores compare across vendors and pages.
| Criterion | What DAMSelection tests |
|---|---|
| Asset ingestion and processing | Bulk upload, format support, rendition generation, duplicate detection |
| Metadata and taxonomy flexibility | Configurable metadata schema, controlled vocabularies, multilingual fields |
| Search and AI discovery | Faceted search, auto-tagging quality, semantic search on the buyer's assets |
| Workflow and approvals | Review stages, annotations, audit trail, versioning |
| Rights and licence management | Usage rights fields, expiry actions, model releases |
| Brand portal and sharing | External portals, guest access, brand portal setup time |
| Distribution and CDN | Delivery URLs, on-the-fly crops and format conversion, cache control |
| PIM integration depth | Asset-to-product links, sync direction, connector ownership |
| Creative tool integration | Plug-ins for design tools, check-in and check-out |
| API and extensibility | API coverage, webhooks, rate limits, documentation quality |
| Security, hosting and compliance | Certifications, hosting regions, SSO, sub-processors |
| Administration and total cost profile | Admin effort, pricing archetype, storage and AI credit costs |
Scenario weights
DAMSelection scenario weights state what matters to one buyer type, and each scenario's 12 weights sum to 100.
Worked example: two scenarios with weights DAMSelection uses as a starting point.
| Criterion | Packaging artwork | Agency brand portal |
|---|---|---|
| Asset ingestion and processing | 6 | 6 |
| Metadata and taxonomy flexibility | 12 | 10 |
| Search and AI discovery | 6 | 12 |
| Workflow and approvals | 16 | 8 |
| Rights and licence management | 12 | 10 |
| Brand portal and sharing | 2 | 18 |
| Distribution and CDN | 4 | 6 |
| PIM integration depth | 16 | 2 |
| Creative tool integration | 8 | 8 |
| API and extensibility | 6 | 4 |
| Security, hosting and compliance | 6 | 6 |
| Administration and total cost profile | 6 | 10 |
| Total | 100 | 100 |
A vendor rated 4 on every criterion scores 80 in both scenarios. Weights separate vendors only where their ratings differ. Buyers can set their own weights with the DAM vendor scoring matrix.
Evidence rules
DAMSelection publishes a rating only when it carries dated evidence of an accepted type.
| Evidence type | What the record must hold |
|---|---|
| Scripted demo | Date, script step, timestamp in the recording, configuration shown |
| Documentation | URL and retrieval date |
| Reference call | Date, customer segment and size band; the customer's identity stays private |
| Vendor written answer | Date and the name of the responsible person at the vendor |
A vendor written answer never raises a rating above 2 without a demo or documentation. A rating without evidence stays blank, and the scenario shows "Scoring pending". The demo scripts follow the scripted DAM demo scenarios method. Buyers can produce their own with the DAM Demo Script Generator.
When scores change
DAMSelection scores change only when evidence changes, and every change logs the old rating, the new rating and the date.
- A documented release adds or removes a capability.
- A new scripted demo shows a different result.
- An accepted correction changes the evidence behind a rating.
- An acquisition or product merger changes the product being scored, which triggers a full re-score.
Vendors request a re-review through the corrections process. The neutrality policy rules out any paid route to a score.
Limits of a published score
A DAMSelection score reflects the DAMSelection scenario on the demo date, and a buyer's own scenarios decide the final choice.
DAMSelection assessment: use DAMSelection scores to build a shortlist, then rerun the scripts with your own assets, weights and users. The parent methodology page explains how scoring connects to verification and claim labels.
| Score | Definition |
|---|---|
| 0 | Absent or roadmap only |
| 1 | Possible only with custom build |
| 2 | Partial, with workarounds |
| 3 | Meets the requirement with configuration |
| 4 | Meets it natively with good usability |
| 5 | Leads the market, shown in a scripted demo |
Frequently asked
How are DAM vendors scored on DAMSelection?
DAMSelection rates each vendor from 0 to 5 on 12 fixed criteria inside a named buyer scenario. Each rating needs dated evidence from a scripted demo, documentation or a reference call. Ratings are multiplied by scenario weights that sum to 100, and the total is divided by 5 to give a score from 0 to 100.
Can a vendor pay for a higher score?
No vendor can pay for a higher DAMSelection score. The vendor data model has no sponsorship or payment field, and ratings change only when evidence changes. A vendor that disputes a rating can submit new evidence through the corrections process, and DAMSelection reviews it against the evidence rules.
Why do some DAMSelection pages show Scoring pending?
Scoring pending means the scripted demo round for that scenario is not complete. DAMSelection publishes no rating without accepted evidence, and ratings of 4 and 5 need a scripted demo. Facts on the same page are already verified and linked to their primary sources.
Can I use the DAMSelection scoring model for my own DAM selection?
Buyers can reuse the DAMSelection scoring model in their own selection. Keep the 12 criteria and the 0 to 5 scale, set weights that sum to 100 for your scenarios, and record evidence for every rating. The scoring matrix guide and the Demo Script Generator support each step.
How are scenario weights set?
Scenario weights start from the priorities of one buyer type, such as a packaging team or an agency portal owner. DAMSelection publishes the weights for every scenario it scores. A buyer adjusts them in a workshop with the selection team before any demo, so the weights cannot follow a favourite vendor.