Marketing automation software selection: review method

Marketing automation software selection in England works best as an evidence-led platform review with a small test, not a beauty parade of demonstrations. Define the journeys, remove candidates that miss essential controls, and ask the remaining suppliers to prove the same tasks in the edition being quoted.

What to take away

Name the candidates before scoring

The method applies to any marketing automation platform, including HubSpot, Salesforce Marketing Cloud, Marketo, Mailchimp, Klaviyo, ActiveCampaign, Braze and Dotdigital. Record the platform and the exact edition quoted beside every candidate, and keep one shortlist document showing, for each entry, the journeys tested, the evidence returned, the exclusions still open and the commercial owner. A brand name on its own is not a candidate.

Write requirements as observable events

Choose no more than three initial journeys. For each, name the trigger, eligible audience, fields used, channel, content owner, approval, suppression check, system output and stop condition. Turn ambitions into tests. Instead of asking for "easy integration", require a new consent-status value to reach the platform, preserve its timestamp and block an ineligible test recipient before a message is released.

List present data volumes and a higher operating case. Count the units a supplier may charge for, including contacts, sends, interactions, users, environments, API calls or credits. Do not turn the higher case into a growth forecast. It exists to reveal cost sensitivity.

Remove unsuitable options early

Create hard exclusions before assigning weights. Common examples are no separation between authoring and publishing, inadequate identity controls, an unusable audit trail, inaccessible outputs, an essential connector that cannot recover safely, unclear processor terms or no workable export. A mandatory failure should end evaluation rather than be averaged away by attractive features.

Apply each exclusion to the edition on the quote, not to the brand. HubSpot, Marketo, Dotdigital or Klaviyo may place a control in a different tier or leave it to configuration work, so ask in writing which edition carries the separation of authoring and publishing, the identity controls, the audit trail, the accessible outputs and the export. An answer that names no edition leaves the exclusion unresolved.

Legal permission needs its own gate. The ICO's electronic-mail guidance explains PECR questions for email, text and similar messages. Platform functionality does not decide whether a particular recipient can lawfully receive a campaign. Record subscriber type, the relevant permission route, evidence and opt-out behaviour for each test journey, with qualified UK counsel reviewing the intended use.

Issue one evidence request

Give each candidate an identical pack: requirements, volumes, integrations, assurance questions, proposed test and quote template. Request public documentation where available, then a written answer tied to the proposed edition. Keep "standard", "configurable", "custom work" and "not available" as separate responses.

Security deserves testable detail. The NCSC's cloud security principles cover areas including identity, privileged administration, audit information, data in transit and supplier development. Use them to frame questions, but ask a named security specialist to assess the returned evidence. The guidance is not a product approval list.

Accessibility should also be independent. Select the relevant WCAG 2.2 criteria for both the authoring interface and messages or pages the team will publish. Test with representative content and assistive technology. A supplier's general accessibility statement cannot answer whether the buyer's configured workflow is usable.

Control the trial

Prepare synthetic or otherwise approved data and ask the buyer's normal operator to complete the script. Include an invalid record, a withdrawal, a connector interruption, an unauthorised user and an export. Record completion time only as local trial evidence, not a market benchmark. Note every supplier intervention and any feature that appeared only in a different edition.

Set stop conditions in advance. End or pause the trial if data leaves the approved environment, a suppression fails, privileged access cannot be constrained, the quoted scope changes or a material cost remains undefined. Do not expand the test to make a favoured product pass.

Record the decision and departure route

Score only evidenced requirements. Show gaps and residual risks beside the score, and preserve the reasons for rejecting alternatives. The approval note should name the commercial owner, system owner, data-protection reviewer, security reviewer and accessibility reviewer.

test sample exports and document termination steps before signature. The ICO's processor-contract guidance covers return or deletion of personal information at the end of services, plus other required processing terms.

The page is under review following legislative change, so qualified reviewers should check the current version on approval. A selection is ready only when entry, operation and exit have owners and evidence.

Before you act

Common questions

How many initial journeys should be chosen, and what must each one specify?

Choose no more than three initial journeys. For each, name the trigger, eligible audience, fields used, channel, content owner, approval, suppression check, system output and stop condition. Turn ambitions into tests rather than asking for easy integration.

Why should hard exclusions be applied before weighting features?

A mandatory failure should end evaluation rather than be averaged away by attractive features. Common examples include no separation between authoring and publishing, inadequate identity controls, an unusable audit trail, inaccessible outputs, an essential connector that cannot recover safely, unclear processor terms or no workable export.

What should happen before signing a contract with the chosen supplier?

Test sample exports and document termination steps before signature. The ICO processor-contract guidance covers return or deletion of personal information at the end of services, and its page is under review following legislative change, so qualified reviewers should check the current version when the contract is approved.