By Tangenix · Published 2026-10-24 · Free template

Referral Request Context Check

Check audience context, product facts and channel permission before proposing a referral, holding the action when recipient rights remain unknown.

Read this resource as Markdown

When to use this template

Use this when a founder is considering asking an existing user to introduce or recommend the product. Identify the exact proposed action, recipients, channels and applicable constraints before selecting any wording.

Choose another approach when: You intend to collect friends’ contact lists, treat one customer’s permission as consent from another person, or call a forwarding request compliant merely because participation is optional.

Gather these inputs

A real product experience that could support an honest recommendation.
The exact proposed referral mechanism, channel and any incentive.
Relevant recipient context, known permission evidence and applicable policy or jurisdiction review.

Copy and adapt the template

Edit the text below and copy it into your own document. Edits stay in this browser field and are not submitted or saved by this page.

Referral Request Context Check: editable text

Proposed mechanism: [information page, introduction, forwarded message or other exact action]
Who would act / who would receive: [roles; avoid importing contact lists]
Experience supporting the recommendation: [actual task and factual limits]
Product access state: [what a referred person could really do]
Channel and relevant jurisdiction: [record uncertainty]
What we would encourage: [exact action, including indirect forwarding prompts]
Recipient permission evidence: [not supplied by the current customer alone]
Incentive / important relationship: [actual terms and disclosure questions]
Current policy or qualified review: [source, date and scope]
Unresolved rights or eligibility: [specific gap]
Decision: proceed within reviewed scope / revise / hold
Alternative to assess: [accurate public information without directing electronic forwarding]
Recheck trigger / responsible owner: [changed mechanism or facts]
This is a planning check, not a legal approval or a ready-to-send referral message.

Worked example

Illustrative example, not a Crany customer result. Replace every example detail with facts you can verify.

Fictional example: a founder proposes asking pilot users to forward a promotional email to three colleagues. The fact that users could decline does not establish that those colleagues agreed to receive marketing.
The founder records the UK ICO guidance explaining that encouraging pass-on electronic marketing can count as instigation even without an incentive. The proposed forwarding mechanism is held pending an appropriate review; no customer address book is requested.
The team may separately assess a factual public information page that describes actual access and lets people decide whether to enquire. That alternative still requires review for its real channel and circumstances. No referral reward, product availability or legal approval is invented.

How to use it

Describe the actual referral mechanism and every recipient relationship before writing a request.
Check current channel and jurisdiction constraints rather than treating voluntary participation as sufficient.
Hold unresolved mechanisms and assess any alternative on its own facts before proceeding.

Check before using it

An existing user’s marketing preference is not transferred to someone else.
A request to forward electronic marketing is not relabeled as harmless word of mouth.
The check does not claim legal compliance or authorize sending any message.

What to measure

Track proposals revised or held, unresolved permission questions and factual access mismatches. If a reviewed mechanism later operates, separate voluntary enquiries from requests, shares and confirmed product outcomes. Do not infer consent or successful recommendations from referral-link clicks.

Research and sources

UK ICO guidance explains instigation and consent for pass-on electronic marketing under PECR; it is jurisdiction-specific. Mailchimp defines permission for its service. This original context check provides neither global legal advice nor a pre-approved referral script.

ICO: Electronic mail marketing rules and refer-a-friend schemes — checked 2026-10-24. UK PECR guidance on encouraging pass-on electronic marketing, instigation and recipient consent. Jurisdiction-specific; not global legal advice or approval of a referral mechanism.
Mailchimp: The Importance of Permission — checked 2026-10-24. Verifiable permission and clear identity for marketing audiences; provider policy, not a universal legal opinion.

This original template and worked example were prepared with AI assistance. Source documentation supports the principles stated above; it does not endorse Crany or guarantee this template’s performance.

About Crany

Crany is an AI marketing co-founder in development for software founders and vibe coders, designed to strategize, execute approved marketing and improve based on results. This free resource is usable independently of the product. Join the public waitlist.