How we select products

Selection happens before commercial considerations

Products are chosen for whether we can document them properly, not for what they might pay. Commission rates are not part of the selection criteria and are not visible to the editorial process at the point a product is chosen.

This is not idealism. A catalogue assembled by commission rate is exactly the pattern affiliate networks screen for, and it produces records that cannot be defended when a claim is challenged.

The sourcing priority order

We work down this list, because it is ordered by how well we can evidence what we publish:

1. Products we own and can photograph ourselves. Full image rights, direct access to the label, and the ability to re-check details without relying on anyone else.
2. Products whose manufacturer publishes an approved media kit. Clear usage terms and accurate official imagery.
3. Products supplied with written permission to publish. Permission recorded and filed against the record.
4. Products with imagery available under an applicable licence. Licence terms checked and stored, not assumed.

We do not take retailer images because they appear in search results. Public visibility is not permission.

What disqualifies a product

These controls prevent publication altogether when a product cannot be identified or described honestly:

• The label does not state the elemental amount of the active ingredient, or the equivalent core specification for its category.
• The manufacturer's own marketing makes a disease claim.
• The retailer listing and the manufacturer's specification disagree, and we cannot establish which is correct.
• The image has unknown provenance or we cannot document at least the rights needed for editorial publication.
• The product's availability could not be confirmed within the last month.
• The only available exact product image is AI-generated or AI-altered. AI visuals may support editorial context, but they are never presented as an exact packshot.

Editorial-use rights and commercial-use rights are recorded separately. A profile may remain editorial-only when editorial image permission is documented but commercial affiliate reuse is still pending. Missing commercial rights prevent affiliate activation; they do not by themselves make an otherwise honest editorial profile disappear.

How the catalogue is structured

Products are classified before they are written about. Each sits in a customer-facing department — Health & Wellness, Beauty & Personal Care, Food & Drink, Fashion & Accessories — and beneath that in a formal path following the shape of the GS1 Global Product Classification: segment, family, class and brick.

The classification is not decoration. Comparison rules attach to it, so every product in a given class inherits the same required fields and the same claim rules. That is more reliable than expecting each writer to remember the right rules for each category.

Why the catalogue is small

A complete commercial record takes real work: sourcing, image rights, label verification, claim review and editorial review, each dated. We would rather publish a small set of useful profiles that survive scrutiny than a large set that does not.

An incomplete commercial record is not given a purchase prompt. It may remain visible as a clearly labelled editorial profile only when the product identity, source, editorial-use image rights, claim boundaries and known limitations are documented. The build fails when an affiliate action, tracked link or commercial claim is attempted without the required evidence.

Publication status is staged

Every record carries four separate controls. Publication, product evidence, commercial asset rights and affiliate relationship answer different questions. A calculated commercial-readiness field combines them; editors cannot use it to bypass an open gate.

• Publication status: whether the record is draft, an editorial_profile, published, paused or retired.
• Product evidence: whether the identity, variant and material product facts are incomplete, verification pending, verified or expired.
• Commercial asset rights: whether required packshots, composites, video, voice, music, fonts or templates are not assessed, pending, restricted, verified or expired.
• Affiliate status: whether the programme is not applied for, pending, approved, active, blocked or paused.

PowderedPurple may publish a clearly labelled, non-monetised editorial profile when the product can be reliably identified and the available evidence and limitations are shown. Publication does not mean affiliate readiness. Affiliate links remain blocked until product evidence, commercial asset rights, programme approval, disclosures and tracked-link testing are complete.

Every current branded profile is editorial_profile, with product evidence verification_pending, commercial asset rights pending, affiliate status blocked and calculated commercial readiness blocked.

Every status transition records who changed it, when, the previous and new status, the reason, the approval reference and the next review date.

• Research draft (research_draft): private working material; it is not published.
• Editorial profile (editorial_profile): public educational content with a reliable identity, source, editorial-use image permission and visible limitations. It has no affiliate link or purchase action.
• Verification pending (verification_pending): public only when the known gaps are clearly shown; no purchase action is permitted while material evidence or commercial rights remain open.
• Affiliate ready (affiliate_ready): a staging status requiring complete product, claim, asset-rights and programme evidence before any activation. It still carries no public purchase action.
• Affiliate active (affiliate_active): an approved programme relationship, programme-issued tracked link, nearby disclosure and current link test are all present.
• Paused (paused): temporarily withheld from public or commercial use when availability, evidence, rights or review dates need revalidation.

Our current catalogue entries are editorial profiles. They are non-monetised and do not carry affiliate purchase actions.

Revalidation

Published records are not finished records. Editorial facts are re-verified within 90 days, editorial review within 180 days, and any tracked affiliate link is re-tested every 30 days. A record that falls out of date is withdrawn from display until it is re-checked, rather than left standing.

Category guides come first

Before individual products, we publish category buying guides: how to evaluate a magnesium supplement, what to check before buying an ashwagandha product, how to assess a tinted mineral sunscreen, what to look for in a gel nail kit, how to evaluate a ceremonial matcha starter set.

These teach the checks rather than pointing at a purchase, they carry no trademark or image-rights exposure, and they are honest about the fact that we are describing a category rather than endorsing a product. You can read them in the Journal.

Questions

If you think a product has been included or excluded wrongly, write to info@powderedpurple.com. See also our review methodology and affiliate disclosure.

Last reviewed: 1 August 2026. Next scheduled review: 1 February 2027.