Editorial Policy and Methodology

1. Editorial Charter

WPM ("Wedding Planner Marrakech") is an independent editorial publication and software platform that researches, evaluates, ranks, and publishes information about wedding planners, venues, and wedding-service vendors operating in Marrakech and the wider Marrakech-Safi region of the Kingdom of Morocco. This Editorial Policy and Methodology document (the "Policy") sets out the standards, procedures, definitions, evidentiary requirements, scoring framework, and remedial mechanisms that govern every editorial output we publish, whether on the WPM website, in WPM email digests, in the periodic Marrakech Wedding Market Report, or in any syndicated form.

The Policy exists to make our editorial process fully legible to three audiences. First, the engaged couples who rely on our published rankings and analyses to make consequential financial decisions, often involving sums between fifteen thousand euros and three hundred thousand euros, and who are entitled to understand exactly how those rankings are produced. Second, the wedding planners, venues, and vendors who appear in our publications and who are entitled, both as a matter of professional dignity and as a matter of the European and Moroccan legal frameworks set out below, to understand the basis on which they are described, scored, and compared. Third, regulators, ombudsmen, journalists, academic researchers, and counsel who may at any time examine our editorial conduct and to whom we are obliged to make our process transparent.

WPM operates as an editorial publisher in the tradition of consumer-protection journalism. We are influenced by and broadly aligned with the standards articulated in the International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN) Code of Principles, the Trust Project indicators of trustworthy journalism, the European Centre for Press and Media Freedom guidance on editorial independence, and the Council of Europe Recommendation No. R (74) 26 on the right of reply in relation to the press. We do not claim membership in those bodies, but we adopt their principles voluntarily as benchmarks against which our own work can be measured.

Nothing in this Policy is intended to limit or modify any rights that any person, planner, vendor, or other entity may have under the General Data Protection Regulation (Regulation (EU) 2016/679, hereinafter "GDPR"), under the Moroccan Loi n° 09-08 du 18 février 2009 relative à la protection des personnes physiques à l'égard du traitement des données à caractère personnel, under the European Union Digital Services Act (Regulation (EU) 2022/2065, hereinafter "DSA"), under any applicable consumer-protection statute including Directive 2011/83/EU on consumer rights and Directive 2019/770 on certain aspects concerning contracts for the supply of digital content and digital services, under the Moroccan Code de la presse et de l'édition (Loi n° 88-13), or under any rule of national defamation, privacy, or commercial-disparagement law applicable in any jurisdiction in which our content is read.

2. Defined Terms

The following defined terms have the meanings set out below wherever they appear, capitalised or not, in this Policy and in any other WPM editorial output. Definitions are arranged alphabetically.

Audit

A structured, document-supported examination of a wedding planner or vendor, comprising at minimum: review of publicly available company filings; review of pricing materials voluntarily disclosed by the subject or obtained from publicly accessible quotations; review of contractual templates where available; an on-site or video walk-through of the subject's principal place of business or the venues they regularly operate; and at least three structured conversations with prior couple-clients. An Audit is the evidentiary unit on which a ranking entry is built.

Couple-Client

A natural person who has engaged the relevant wedding planner or vendor for the planning, coordination, or delivery of a wedding event in the twenty-four (24) months preceding the date of the Audit. Where two engaged or married persons jointly engaged the planner or vendor, both are treated as a single Couple-Client unit for purposes of the three-conversation minimum referenced above.

Editorial Output

Any text, table, score, ranking, image, audio, video, podcast, newsletter, social-media post, or syndicated republication originated by WPM and attributable to WPM under our masthead.

Evidence Tier

The classification of a discrete factual claim within an Editorial Output by reference to the four-tier source hierarchy set out in Section 4 of this Policy. Every factual claim that materially affects a planner's or vendor's score must be supportable at Tier 1 or Tier 2.

Material Claim

Any statement of fact within an Editorial Output that, if false, could reasonably be expected to (i) affect a couple's decision to engage or not engage a planner or vendor, (ii) affect the planner's or vendor's commercial reputation, (iii) trigger a regulatory or legal consequence, or (iv) reduce the planner's or vendor's score by half a point or more on any single scoring dimension.

Pay-to-Play

Any practice by which money, gifts, services, hospitality with a fair-market value exceeding one hundred fifty euros (€150), advertising spend, or any other form of consideration is solicited by, or accepted by, WPM in exchange for inclusion in an Editorial Output, for an improved score, for preferential placement, for omission of negative information, or for any other editorial favour. Pay-to-Play is strictly prohibited under Section 10 of this Policy.

Planner

A natural person, partnership, company, or association of any legal form whose principal business activity, whether held out as such or not, includes the design, coordination, or supervised delivery of weddings or wedding-adjacent events. The term includes wedding designers, wedding coordinators, day-of coordinators, destination-wedding specialists, and any agency advertising any of the foregoing services.

Reasonable Period

Where this Policy or any other WPM document refers to a "Reasonable Period" without further specification, the period shall be construed by reference to the seriousness of the matter at hand, the complexity of the response required, and the legitimate interests of all affected parties, but shall not in any case exceed thirty (30) calendar days unless a longer period is expressly justified in writing.

Right of Reply

The procedural right of any natural or legal person who has been the subject of a Material Claim in an Editorial Output to submit a written response and to have that response published, in accordance with the procedure set out in Section 12 of this Policy and inspired by Council of Europe Recommendation No. R (74) 26.

Score

A numeric value between zero and five (0 to 5), with one decimal place of precision, awarded to a Planner on each of the four scoring dimensions defined in Section 7 of this Policy. The four dimensional scores are combined into an Overall score using the weighted average set out in Section 7.

Site Visit

An in-person attendance by a member of the WPM editorial team at the principal place of business of a Planner, at a venue regularly operated by the Planner, or at a Vendor's facility, conducted in accordance with the protocol set out in Section 6 of this Policy. A Site Visit is recorded in the editorial system with the date, the team member present, the persons met, and any photographs or notes taken.

Source Hierarchy

The four-tier ranking of evidentiary weight applied to factual claims, as defined in Section 4. Tier 1 is the most authoritative; Tier 4 is the least authoritative.

Subject

Any Planner, Vendor, or other natural or legal person about whom a Material Claim is made in an Editorial Output, and who therefore enjoys the procedural rights set out in Sections 12, 13, and 14 of this Policy.

Vendor

A natural person, partnership, company, or association of any legal form whose principal business activity includes the supply of goods or services to weddings or to Planners, including but not limited to florists, photographers, videographers, caterers, bakers, musicians, sound and lighting providers, marquee and tent operators, transport providers, makeup artists, hairstylists, decorators, calligraphers, stationers, and rental-equipment houses.

WPM Editorial Team

The natural persons who, at any given time, are responsible for the conception, research, drafting, editing, fact-checking, and publication of Editorial Outputs. The composition of the WPM Editorial Team at the date of this version of the Policy is disclosed in Section 9 (Conflict-of-Interest Register).

3. Editorial Independence

WPM is editorially independent of every Planner, Vendor, advertiser, sponsor, and commercial partner. The following structural and procedural safeguards are in place to make that independence operationally meaningful and not merely declared.

3.1 Structural separation

Editorial decisions, including the decision to publish or not to publish, the decision to award or not to award a particular score, and the decision to include or omit any Material Claim, are reserved exclusively to the WPM Editorial Team. No commercial partner, advertiser, paying Vendor, or paying Planner has any right or ability to (i) require the publication of any content, (ii) require the omission of any content, (iii) review any content prior to publication other than through the Right of Reply procedure set out in Section 12, or (iv) modify any score or ranking. Commercial communications between WPM and any paying party are conducted by personnel separate from the WPM Editorial Team.

3.2 Funding disclosure

WPM is funded by (a) subscription revenue from engaged couples who choose to upgrade to the Pro tier (one hundred forty-nine euros, €149); (b) recurring subscription revenue from Vendors who choose to maintain a profile in the Vendor Portal; and (c) optional featured-placement fees paid by Vendors. Featured placement does not affect editorial scores or rankings; featured-placement units are visually distinct, labelled accordingly, and excluded from the methodology described in Section 7. WPM does not sell any wedding planning, consulting, or one-off advisory services to couples, and is therefore not in commercial competition with any Planner reviewed in any Editorial Output. WPM does not accept advertising from Planners, does not accept commission or referral fees from Planners or Vendors in respect of bookings made by couples introduced through WPM, and does not own, operate, or hold any equity or beneficial interest in any Planner reviewed in any Editorial Output.

3.3 Ownership disclosure

The full beneficial ownership of the legal entity that operates WPM is set out on the corporate identity page of this site. Any change in ownership of more than five percent (5%) is disclosed in writing on that page within thirty (30) days of the change taking effect. The natural persons who currently exercise editorial control are identified on that same page.

4. Source Hierarchy and Evidence Tiers

Every factual claim that appears in an Editorial Output is, before publication, classified by the WPM Editorial Team as belonging to one of four Evidence Tiers. The classification is recorded in the editorial system and is available for inspection by the Subject of any Material Claim under the procedure set out in Section 12 of this Policy. The four tiers are as follows.

No Material Claim is published unless it is supported by at least one Tier 1 source or by at least two independent Tier 2 sources. No score below 3.0 is published on any dimension unless the underlying findings are supported by at least one Tier 1 source.

5. Sampling and Inclusion Methodology

WPM does not maintain an open directory in which any Planner or Vendor may obtain a listing on demand. Inclusion in a ranking, in a comparative table, or in a featured Editorial Output is at the editorial discretion of the WPM Editorial Team and follows the inclusion methodology set out in this section.

The WPM Editorial Team maintains a working list of all Planners and Vendors known to operate in the Marrakech-Safi region. The list is constructed from public registry data, from venue partner referrals, from Couple-Client interviews, from prior editorial coverage, and from observation of physical and online presence in the region. The working list is reviewed at least quarterly and is the population from which sampling for ranking exercises is drawn.

For any ranking exercise, the WPM Editorial Team applies the following inclusion criteria: (i) the Planner or Vendor must have completed at least three (3) weddings in the Marrakech-Safi region in the eighteen (18) months preceding the cut-off date for the ranking; (ii) the Planner or Vendor must have a verifiable means of contact (a registered business address, a working professional email address, or a working professional telephone number); (iii) the Planner or Vendor must not be the subject of any unresolved formal complaint within the editorial system at the cut-off date that, if confirmed, would result in temporary exclusion under Section 9.4 of this Policy.

Subjects who meet the inclusion criteria are notified in writing, through the contact channel of record, that they are being considered for the ranking exercise, are invited to submit any documents or testimony they wish to be considered, and are reminded of their Right of Reply under Section 12. Subjects who do not respond within twenty-one (21) days are still scored on the basis of the evidence available to the WPM Editorial Team, with that fact noted in the published methodology footnote attached to the ranking.

6. Site-Visit Protocol

A Site Visit is conducted by at least one member of the WPM Editorial Team. The Subject is given not less than seven (7) calendar days' written notice of the proposed visit unless the Subject expressly waives that notice period in writing. The visit lasts for a minimum of forty-five (45) minutes.

During the visit, the team member observes the physical premises or venue, photographs are taken with the Subject's express consent, and structured questions are asked from a standard interview schedule covering: pricing transparency; contract templates; deposit and refund policy; subcontracting practices; insurance and liability cover; staff composition; languages spoken on site; accessibility provisions; conflict-resolution mechanisms; data-protection arrangements; and the Subject's voluntary disclosures regarding past complaints, litigation, or regulatory action.

Notes from the visit are recorded in the editorial system within seventy-two (72) hours and are preserved for a minimum of five (5) years. The Subject may request, under the Right of Reply procedure, a copy of any direct quotation attributed to a representative of the Subject prior to publication.

7. Scoring Framework

Each Planner is scored on four dimensions. The Overall score published on the Planner's profile is a weighted average of the four dimensional scores, computed as set out below. Vendors are scored on the same framework with adapted question schedules; for the avoidance of doubt, both Planners and Vendors are subject to the methodology described in this section.

7.1 Weight matrix

The four dimensions and their weights in the Overall calculation are:

1. Overall Quality of execution and craft. Weight: thirty-five percent (35%).
2. Transparency, including pricing transparency, contract clarity, and disclosure practices. Weight: twenty-five percent (25%).
3. Value for money, normalised to the price band declared by the Subject. Weight: twenty percent (20%).
4. Reliability, including responsiveness, contractual performance, and post-event handling. Weight: twenty percent (20%).

7.2 Formula

Overall = (0.35 × Quality) + (0.25 × Transparency) + (0.20 × Value) + (0.20 × Reliability). The Overall score is rounded to one decimal place using standard banker's rounding (round-half-to-even). Where any single dimensional score is missing because of insufficient evidence, no Overall score is published; the relevant dimensional scores are published individually with a notation explaining the absence of an Overall.

7.3 Changes to the framework

Any change to the dimensions, to the weights, to the rubric, or to the formula is recorded in Section 14 (Version History) of this Policy and is implemented prospectively only. Existing Subjects are not retroactively rescored under a new framework without their advance written notice and an opportunity to comment.

8. Scoring Rubric (Numeric Anchors)

The following anchors are applied uniformly to each of the four scoring dimensions defined in Section 7. Scores between integer anchors are awarded by exercise of editorial judgement, with the rationale recorded in the editorial system.

• 0.0 to 0.9: Severe failure. Evidence of conduct that would, if not remedied, expose the Couple-Client to substantial financial, physical, or reputational harm. Examples include unrecoverable deposit forfeiture without contractual basis, undisclosed subcontracting to unvetted providers, or material misrepresentation of capabilities.
• 1.0 to 1.9: Significant deficiency. Conduct or capability materially below the standard reasonably expected by Couple-Clients in the relevant price band, but without evidence of harm to date.
• 2.0 to 2.9: Below market. The Subject performs the role but with documented friction, missed deadlines, or limited transparency.
• 3.0 to 3.9: At market. Competent execution, ordinary transparency, no significant complaints in the eighteen-month window.
• 4.0 to 4.9: Above market. Documented evidence of consistently strong execution, voluntarily transparent pricing, fast and substantive responsiveness, and constructive post-event handling.
• 5.0: Exceptional. Reserved for Subjects whose practice would be cited as a benchmark within the Marrakech market by independent industry observers. Awarded sparingly.

9. Conflict-of-Interest Register

The WPM Editorial Team is required to disclose, and to avoid where reasonably possible, any actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest in relation to any Subject. The current register, updated as of the date of this Policy, is as follows.

• 9.1 No member of the WPM Editorial Team owns, in whole or in part, any Planner or Vendor reviewed in any Editorial Output, nor holds any directorship, employment, advisory mandate, or consultancy contract with any such Planner or Vendor.
• 9.2 No member of the WPM Editorial Team accepts gifts, hospitality, travel, or services from any Subject with a fair-market value exceeding one hundred fifty euros (€150). Hospitality below that threshold (a coffee, a working lunch during a Site Visit, an entry pass to a public industry event) is permitted and recorded in the editorial system.
• 9.3 Where a member of the WPM Editorial Team has a personal relationship with a Subject (family member, close personal friend, former business associate within the previous five years), that team member is recused from the editorial review of that Subject. Recusal is recorded in the editorial system.
• 9.4 Where a Subject is the complainant or respondent in a formal complaint pending within WPM's internal complaints process, no new positive Editorial Output regarding that Subject is published until the complaint is resolved.

10. Pay-to-Play Prohibition

WPM does not, under any circumstances, accept payment, gift, hospitality, advertising spend, or any other consideration in exchange for: (i) inclusion in any ranking or editorial review; (ii) an improved or specific score; (iii) preferential placement in any list, table, or directory; (iv) the omission of any negative Material Claim; (v) the early or selective publication of any Editorial Output; (vi) the modification of any historical Editorial Output; or (vii) any other editorial favour. Featured-placement advertising units are explicitly labelled as such, are visually distinct from editorial content, and have no effect on the editorial scores or rankings produced under Sections 7 and 8 of this Policy. Any attempt by a Subject or by a third party to procure any of the prohibited outcomes set out in this Section 10 is itself recorded in the editorial system, may be reported in an Editorial Output, and may be referred to the relevant professional or regulatory body where applicable.

11. Artificial Intelligence Disclosure

WPM uses generative artificial intelligence systems as productivity tools in the preparation of Editorial Outputs. These uses include: drafting initial summaries of long-form Couple-Client interview transcripts; producing first-pass translations of editorial copy between English, French, Spanish, Italian, and Arabic; generating routine descriptive paragraphs from structured editorial inputs; and assisting with copy-editing and consistency checks across the corpus.

All AI-assisted output is reviewed and signed off by a member of the WPM Editorial Team before publication. No Material Claim, no Score, and no ranking position is determined by an AI system without human editorial review and approval. The WPM Editorial Team maintains professional responsibility for the accuracy and editorial standard of every Editorial Output.

This disclosure is made having regard to Article 50 of Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 June 2024 laying down harmonised rules on artificial intelligence (the "AI Act"), and in particular the transparency obligations applicable to providers and deployers of AI systems that generate or manipulate text published with the purpose of informing the public on matters of public interest.

12. Right of Reply Procedure

Any Subject of a Material Claim has a right to submit a written reply for publication, in accordance with the procedure set out below. This procedure is inspired by Council of Europe Recommendation No. R (74) 26 on the right of reply in relation to the press, and is applied alongside any concurrent legal right under the applicable national law.

1. 12.1 Submission. The Subject submits a written reply, of not more than five hundred (500) words, to the editorial address (editorial@weddingplannermarrakech.com), within ninety (90) days of the publication or last modification of the Editorial Output to which the reply relates. The reply must identify the Editorial Output, identify the specific Material Claim or Claims to which it responds, and state the corrections or contextual additions sought.
2. 12.2 Acknowledgement. WPM acknowledges receipt of the reply within five (5) working days.
3. 12.3 Review. The WPM Editorial Team reviews the reply against the underlying evidence preserved in the editorial system and either (a) corrects the Editorial Output where the reply demonstrates a factual inaccuracy, with publication of a correction note under Section 13 of this Policy; (b) publishes the reply alongside or beneath the Editorial Output, accompanied by a brief editorial response if appropriate; (c) publishes a partial correction together with the reply; or (d) declines to publish the reply on stated grounds, which grounds are limited to: the reply is not in response to a Material Claim; the reply is defamatory of a third party; the reply contains content unlawful under any applicable law; or the reply exceeds the word limit and the Subject has declined the opportunity to revise.
4. 12.4 Timeline. WPM completes the review and publishes the reply, the correction, or the reasoned refusal within thirty (30) calendar days of acknowledgement, save in cases of demonstrable evidentiary complexity in which a single extension of fifteen (15) days may be taken with written notice to the Subject.
5. 12.5 No waiver. Use of the Right of Reply procedure does not waive any other legal remedy available to the Subject under the applicable law, including any right to bring an action under the Moroccan Code de la presse et de l'édition (Loi n° 88-13), under the relevant provisions of the French Loi du 29 juillet 1881 sur la liberté de la presse where applicable, under the Belgian, Spanish, or Italian press laws as applicable, or under the general civil-law principles of any other relevant jurisdiction.

13. Corrections and Updates Protocol

WPM publishes corrections to Editorial Outputs promptly upon discovery of any material inaccuracy, whether discovered internally, raised through the Right of Reply procedure, or notified by any third party. The protocol is as follows.

13.1 Severity classification

Corrections are classified as follows. A Severity-1 correction (factual error in a Material Claim or in a Score) is published within seventy-two (72) hours of confirmation. A Severity-2 correction (factual error in a non-material claim, or contextual omission that affects reader understanding) is published within seven (7) calendar days. A Severity-3 correction (typographical, stylistic, or non-factual error) is published within thirty (30) calendar days.

13.2 Correction note

Every published correction is accompanied by a dated, signed correction note appended to the corrected Editorial Output, identifying the original text, the corrected text, the date of correction, and the reason for the correction. Original text is preserved in the editorial system for a minimum of seven (7) years for evidentiary purposes.

13.3 Score corrections

Where a correction results in a change to any Score by half a point (0.5) or more, the Subject is notified in writing prior to publication of the corrected Score, and the correction note specifies both the prior Score and the corrected Score.

14. Dispute Escalation Ladder

Where a Subject or any other interested party is not satisfied with the outcome of the Right of Reply procedure or with a correction decision, the following escalation ladder applies.

1. 14.1 Editorial reconsideration. The matter is referred to a second member of the WPM Editorial Team, who was not involved in the original editorial decision and who reviews the file de novo within fifteen (15) calendar days.
2. 14.2 Editor-in-Chief review. If reconsideration does not resolve the matter, the Subject may refer the matter to the Editor-in-Chief, who reviews the file and the reconsideration decision and renders a written decision within thirty (30) calendar days. The decision is recorded in the editorial system.
3. 14.3 External recourse. WPM does not require the Subject to exhaust the foregoing internal procedures before exercising any external legal or regulatory recourse, including (without limitation) referral to the competent national data-protection authority, to the competent national press council or media regulator, to a court of competent jurisdiction, or to any alternative dispute-resolution mechanism agreed between the parties.

15. Version History

The following is the complete version history of this Policy. Each version is preserved in the editorial system and may be inspected on written request.

• Version 3.0, 10 May 2026. Comprehensive expansion of the Policy: addition of Defined Terms section; formal articulation of the four-tier Source Hierarchy; introduction of the Sampling and Inclusion Methodology; codification of the Site-Visit Protocol; numeric Scoring Rubric anchors; expanded Conflict-of-Interest Register; explicit Pay-to-Play Prohibition; AI Disclosure aligned with EU AI Act Article 50; Right of Reply procedure inspired by Council of Europe Recommendation No. R (74) 26; severity-tiered Corrections Protocol; three-step Dispute Escalation Ladder.
• Version 2.0, 14 April 2026. Introduction of the four-dimension scoring framework (Quality, Transparency, Value, Reliability) and the weighted Overall calculation. Removal of any commission-based ranking inputs.
• Version 1.0, 1 February 2026. Initial publication of the editorial methodology.

16. Editor Attestation

I, in my capacity as Editor-in-Chief of WPM, attest that this Editorial Policy and Methodology has been adopted as the operative editorial standard of WPM with effect from the date set out at the head of this document, that the procedures set out herein are followed in the day-to-day editorial conduct of WPM, and that the WPM Editorial Team is bound by the terms of this Policy. Signed for and on behalf of WPM editorial.

17. References and Bibliography

This Policy refers to, and is informed by, the following legal instruments and editorial-standards documents.

1. Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (General Data Protection Regulation), OJ L 119, 4.5.2016, p. 1.
2. Regulation (EU) 2022/2065 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 October 2022 on a Single Market for Digital Services (Digital Services Act), OJ L 277, 27.10.2022, p. 1.
3. Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 June 2024 laying down harmonised rules on artificial intelligence (Artificial Intelligence Act).
4. Directive 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on consumer rights, OJ L 304, 22.11.2011, p. 64.
5. Directive 2019/770 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2019 on certain aspects concerning contracts for the supply of digital content and digital services, OJ L 136, 22.5.2019, p. 1.
6. Loi n° 09-08 du 18 février 2009 relative à la protection des personnes physiques à l'égard du traitement des données à caractère personnel, Bulletin Officiel n° 5714 du 5 mars 2009, Royaume du Maroc.
7. Loi n° 88-13 relative à la presse et à l'édition, Bulletin Officiel n° 6493, Royaume du Maroc.
8. Loi du 29 juillet 1881 sur la liberté de la presse, République française, JORF du 30 juillet 1881.
9. Council of Europe, Recommendation No. R (74) 26 of the Committee of Ministers to Member States on the right of reply (position of the individual in relation to the press), adopted 2 July 1974.
10. International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN), Code of Principles, Poynter Institute (current version).
11. The Trust Project, Trust Indicators for News, Santa Clara University (current version).