What Counts as a Qualified Quote: Validating Partner Referrals

Define qualification before the first referral arrives

Vague qualification language invites partner disputes. We recommend deciding in writing what makes a quote 'qualified' before any partner submits a lead, and attaching the definition to whatever agreement governs the relationship. A workable definition can answer five questions: who the prospect is, what they want quoted, how they were contacted, whether they know they were referred, and whether the request is genuine.

A definition might read: a qualified quote is a quote request submitted through the partner's tracked link or referral code, from a unique company not already in the Teal Packaging pipeline, for a project the prospect initiated themselves, with accurate contact information the prospect confirmed. That is an illustrative example of structure, not a commitment about how any actual program operates. This guide does not describe any live Teal program, so treat everything here as a planning worksheet.

• Prospect identity: named company and contact, not just an email address
• Project reality: product type, approximate quantity, and timeline intent
• Attribution: a tracked link, referral code, or written introduction
• Novelty: not an existing opportunity already known to Teal
• Consent: the prospect knows their details will be shared

The validation checklist Teal's editors use for planning

If you are designing a referral workflow, this checklist is Teal's editorial planning framework for evaluating whether a submitted lead should count. The underlying disclosure principle comes from the cited FTC guidance; the checklist itself is our recommendation, not a regulation.

Work each submitted lead through the steps in order and record the outcome. A lead that fails any hard gate is returned to the partner with the reason stated, which keeps decisions reviewable and reduces arguments later.

• Verify attribution: the referral link or code resolves to the submitting partner
• Confirm the prospect exists: company name, reachable contact, plausible business
• Check for duplicates: search existing conversations and past quote requests by company and email
• Screen for self-referral: compare the partner's own details against the prospect's
• Confirm prospect intent: the prospect responds to a confirmation contact and describes the project in their own words
• Classify the outcome: qualified, pending confirmation, or disqualified with reason
• Log the decision: date, reviewer, evidence reviewed, and result

A worked example of validating one referral

Consider a purely hypothetical partner, Dana, who submits a lead for a candle brand seeking a quote for 500 rigid boxes. You confirm that the submitted referral code identifies Dana, then search existing records for the company and email. Suppose the company requested a quote directly through the website two months earlier. If the written eligibility rules exclude existing opportunities, the referral would not qualify, regardless of last-touch attribution. If the rules allow existing opportunities, the request would still need to meet the other eligibility criteria before the chosen attribution rule determines credit. Define both eligibility and attribution, including which rule controls, before accepting referrals.

Now suppose instead the search finds nothing. You email the contact, who replies describing their jar dimensions and launch timing in their own words. That response supports genuine intent. The contact uses the company's email domain, which differs from Dana's business domain, but this does not establish that the businesses are independently owned or unaffiliated. If affiliation affects eligibility, seek an appropriate confirmation or review relevant business information before deciding. Keep the request pending until the chosen hard gates are satisfied. This hypothetical example illustrates process logic only; it says nothing about pricing, commission rates, or what any real program would pay.

Handling duplicates, self-referrals, and stale leads

Decide the tie-breaker rules explicitly. Common options include first-touch attribution, where the earliest verifiable referral wins; last-touch, where the most recent partner gets credit; and a split rule. Whichever you pick, apply it uniformly and document it in the partner-facing terms.

Stale leads deserve a defined window. If a prospect never responds to confirmation within, say, thirty days, the referral can expire rather than sit unresolved. Self-referrals and referrals from the partner's own household or affiliated companies should be excluded by rule, stated plainly in the agreement.

• State the attribution rule: first-touch, last-touch, or split
• Set a confirmation window with a defined expiry
• Exclude self-referrals and affiliated companies in writing
• Return disqualified leads with a stated reason

Disclosure: the part partners most often get wrong

Federal Trade Commission guidance on endorsements is directly relevant here. When a connection between an endorser and the seller could affect the credibility of an endorsement, and the audience would not reasonably expect it, that connection must be disclosed clearly and conspicuously. The guidance states that material connections include monetary payment or free or discounted products, regardless of whether an endorsement is required in return, and that a disclosure is needed when a significant minority of the audience does not understand the connection.

In practice, we recommend that a partner who posts about a brand while earning commission on referred quotes say so near the recommendation, in plain language, wherever the recommendation appears. Placing the disclosure with the content is generally easier for audiences to notice than a note in a profile bio. Per the guidance, the disclosure need not include complete details, but it must communicate the nature of the connection clearly enough for consumers to evaluate its significance. Because this is a legal area, treat this section as orientation and have counsel review any actual partner terms.

• Disclose the commission relationship near the recommendation itself
• Use plain wording such as 'I earn a commission on quotes from this link'
• Recommended: repeat the disclosure on each platform rather than relying on a single bio mention
• Recommended: use plain-language wording rather than relying on ambiguous hashtags alone

Documentation and dispute handling

Keep a simple referral log: submission date, partner, prospect, checks performed, result, and reviewer. When a partner disputes a decision, walk through the log entry together rather than re-arguing from memory. A practical way to organize disputes is into three categories: attribution conflicts, duplicate disputes, and disagreement over whether the prospect was genuine. Each can have a defined remedy if your rules are written before the first submission.

For disputes you cannot resolve internally, state in the agreement how escalation works and who makes the final call. A short written record is usually easier to review than a long email thread.

• Log every submission with checks and outcome
• Categorize disputes: attribution, duplicate, or authenticity
• Escalate unresolved disputes per a written process

Scope limits of this guide

This page is an editorial planning framework from Teal Packaging, not a description of an operating program, a legal opinion, or a compliance determination. It does not describe any live Teal program, and nothing here promises automatic orders, payments, or rewards. Commission structures, qualification windows, and disclosure language should be reviewed by qualified counsel before implementation. The cited FTC source supports only the disclosure principles summarized above, not the checklist or workflow itself. Teal standard minimums are 50 units, or 100 for specialty rigid, with no setup, plate, or tooling fees.

Questions about qualified quote criteria and partner commission validation