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.

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.

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.

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 independently funded by its founder and currently generates no revenue: the simulator, the account, the saved plan, and the editorial reviews are all free, and no paid product is on sale. Vendors pay WPM nothing: there is no paid listing, no subscription, no featured placement, and no commission. Editorial scores and rankings can never be influenced by payment. 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

WPM is owned and operated by a single individual, with no third-party shareholder, no holding structure, and no outside investor. Any change in that position is disclosed in writing on the About page of this site within thirty (30) days of the change taking effect. The natural persons who currently exercise editorial control are identified on that same page.

4. Sources

Editorial Outputs are built from what we can actually see and, where access allows, from what people tell us directly. In practice that means the Subject's own website and social accounts, pricing the Subject publishes or sends us for publication, client reviews posted publicly, feedback gathered in the Marrakech wedding market, and interviews with couples who have worked with the Subject. Not every one of these is available for every Subject, and we do not pretend otherwise: access varies, and we weigh what we hold rather than imply a complete file. Where a factual claim cannot be attributed to something we can point to, whether we identify that ourselves or it is brought to our attention, it is removed rather than maintained. We do not disclose our editorial process or our sources on request, in line with ordinary practice for a publication.

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. Inclusion and profiles

WPM does not score or rate Planners. Until 23 September 2026 it published two numeric scores per Planner; both have been withdrawn, for every Planner at once, and no replacement scoring exists. What remains is a directory, a written profile, and the order described in 7.4.

7.1 How a Planner comes to be listed

A Planner is listed because the WPM Editorial Team judges that a couple planning a Marrakech wedding would want to know the agency exists. No Planner pays to be listed, no Planner can pay to be removed, and no payment, advertising or commercial relationship of any kind influences inclusion. Whether a Planner is listed is an editorial decision. The order in which listed Planners appear is set as described in 7.4.

7.2 What a profile contains

A profile describes what the agency does, who it appears to suit, the languages it works in and how to reach it. It is written from what is publicly observable, the Planner's own website and social accounts, client reviews posted publicly, and where access allows, feedback gathered in the market and conversations with couples who have worked with them. Not every one of those is available for every Planner. Anything that reads as opinion is our opinion and is presented as such. We publish no fees: rates are a matter between the couple and the agency.

7.3 Changes

Any change to how Planners are listed or described is recorded in Section 15 (Version History) and applied to every Planner at the same time, never to one Planner in isolation. Nothing about a profile is altered under commercial pressure, as a favour, or in exchange for information, advertising or any other consideration.

7.4 How the directory is ordered

Planners appear in order of the upvotes shown on each row, most first; Planners on an equal count appear alphabetically. A vote can only be cast from a signed-in Google account, one vote per account per Planner. A vote cannot be bought, transferred, or cast on a Planner's behalf, and no payment, advertising or commercial relationship of any kind affects it.

8. What a profile is not

A profile is a description, not a certification, a warranty, or a statement of fact about an agency's competence. Being listed is not an endorsement and being described briefly is not a criticism. Where the material available to us is thin, we say so on the page rather than imply anything from its absence. Nothing here is advice to engage or not engage anyone, and couples are expected to make their own enquiries and to ask for a written quote before committing.

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 and French; 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 5.1, 25 September 2026. Voting is restricted to signed-in Google accounts, one vote per account per Planner. The Planner directory is ordered by the upvotes shown on each profile rather than alphabetically. No scoring is reinstated: no Transparency score, no Overall score, and no fee information returns. Section 7.4 is added to describe the ordering.
• Version 5.0, 23 September 2026. Scoring is withdrawn entirely. The Transparency and Overall scores, the ranking order, and all published fee information are removed from every Planner at the same time. Section 7 now describes inclusion and what a profile contains. WPM is a directory with written profiles and no longer rates, scores or ranks Planners.
• Version 4.0, 23 September 2026. The scoring framework is replaced. The four weighted dimensions, the weighted Overall formula, the 0 to 5 dimensional scale and the numeric rubric anchors are withdrawn, together with the four-tier source hierarchy and its retention schedule. Two scores are now published per Planner, both on a 0 to 10 scale: Transparency, set mechanically by whether rates are public, and Overall, published as editorial judgement. Applied to every Planner at the same time.
• 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).