Editorial Policy | Aero Marketing

Last reviewed 18 August 2026.

Aero Marketing reviews software that people spend money on. That comes with an obligation: readers acting on what we publish should not be worse off for having trusted us. This policy sets out the standards we hold ourselves to, and the specific things we will not do.

Who decides what we publish

Aero Marketing is a small independent publication. Editorial decisions — what to cover, what to say, and whether to publish at all — rest with the publication, not with any advertiser, affiliate partner or software vendor. Every page is written and reviewed by a person before it goes live.

No third party has approval rights over our content. No third party sees drafts before publication. No third party can require a change after publication except by pointing out a factual error, which we then verify ourselves under our corrections policy.

How editorial independence is protected

Independence is a process, not a promise. Three things make it real here:

Sequence. The verdict is formed from the research before any question of monetisation is considered.
Separation. Nobody who might benefit commercially from a particular verdict has the power to change it.
Disclosure. Our commercial position is published in full on a page anyone can read, and updated before it changes, not after.

How we reach a verdict

We do not score software against an abstract ideal. We score it against the question a reader is actually asking: is this the right tool for a business like mine, at the price I would pay? A platform can be genuinely good and still be the wrong answer for most of the people reading about it, and we will say so when that is the case.

The criteria we assess, and the sources we use, are set out in detail in our content methodology.

Where we recommend something, we say who it is right for and who should avoid it. A recommendation without a counterparty is marketing, not review.

How we deal with vendors

We do not accept payment for coverage, for a review, for a position in a comparison, or for the removal of criticism.
We do not publish vendor-supplied copy as editorial.
We are happy to receive corrections, documentation and product access from vendors, and we say on the page when we have received any of these.
Being given a free account does not buy a favourable verdict, and we disclose it where it happens.

How we use AI

We will not pretend otherwise: AI tools assist with research, structuring and drafting here, as they now do at most publications. That assistance does not remove the obligations. Every published page is checked, edited and signed off by a person. Every factual claim is traced to a source a human has read. Nothing is published because software generated it and it looked plausible.

We do not publish machine-generated filler to inflate word counts or page counts, and we do not publish pages whose only purpose is to match a search query.

What we refuse to publish

Reviews of software we have not researched properly.
Claims of hands-on testing we have not done.
Invented statistics, invented customers, invented testimonials or invented case studies.
Pricing we have not verified against a source, or verified figures presented without a date.
Fabricated urgency — fake discounts, fake deadlines, fake availability.
Attacks on competitors, or weaknesses we cannot evidence.
Thin pages built around a keyword rather than a reader.

How we keep pages current

Software pricing and features change, sometimes without announcement. Pages that contain time-sensitive facts carry the date the facts were verified. We re-check pricing pages at least quarterly and after any change we become aware of, and we update the verification date when we do.

If you find something out of date before we do, tell us — that is genuinely useful and we will credit the correction if you would like us to.