Reviews
Part of How do I check SAAS marketing reviews before I buy
How to assess SaaS marketing providers using evidence
A practical SaaS marketing provider assessment method, with evidence to request, a reusable scoring table and due diligence before you sign.
What to take away
- For SaaS marketing, decide what you need before you looka named owner, a budget line and one outcome to move.
- Set inclusion criteria first, then geography, then price.
- Score every provider on one weighted rubric, with an artefact behind each mark.
- Treat claims about AI, results and pricing as assertions to verify.
- Keep procurement in the first call so the shortlist survives legal review.
Set the criteria before you look at providers
Write down what the buyer must have
Start with constraints, not capability. A fixed budget, a two-person marketing function and a European road map point to a different provider from a funded scale-up with in-house design. List the must-haves: contract length, notice period, data location and who owns the relationship.
Must-Haves Before You Look
- Contract length and notice period
- Data location and ownership
- Who owns the relationship
- Outcome and period in one sentence
- Geography rule stated in the brief
- Artefact, not adjective, for each claim
Name the outcome you will move, and the period. For example, a team might want 40 qualified demonstrations over two quarters from a £6,000 monthly retainer. That single sentence tells you whether a provider's case studies are relevant.
If you have no written plan, the SAAS marketing selection checklist in England turns one into requirements you can hand a supplier without exposing your position.
Agree the geography rule and the evidence rule
England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland share much contract law, but tax and some public sector procurement differ. If your buyers are England-only, say so in the brief. A single English case study is not evidence of UK-wide coverage.
Ask for the artefact, not the adjective. Data-driven should mean a dashboard you can see. Senior team should mean names and roles.
Every criterion then needs a document, a reference call or a named example. For environmental claims, the CMA's Green Claims Code is a reference for checking that claims are not misleading.
Score providers on the same rubric
Use a weighted table, not a feeling
Score each provider out of five per criterion, multiply by the weight, and total. Weights should follow your plan, not a template. The table below is a blank scoring template that a team spending around £8,000 a month can adapt.
Evidence to request
- Outcome fit and relevant experience
- A relevant case study showing the starting point, work delivered and outcome; a provider reference
- Account team and ownership
- Names and roles of the team, including the named account lead
- Reporting and measurement
- A sample dashboard or live reporting pack
- Data, AI and privacy
- Written answers on lawful basis, where the model runs and what happens to customer data
- Commercial terms
- Draft contract covering fees, notice period, data processing, IP ownership and exit
- Due diligence
- Accounts, evidence of professional indemnity insurance and references
Weight
- Outcome fit and relevant experience
- ____
- Account team and ownership
- ____
- Reporting and measurement
- ____
- Data, AI and privacy
- ____
- Commercial terms
- ____
- Due diligence
- ____
Score (/5)
- Outcome fit and relevant experience
- ____
- Account team and ownership
- ____
- Reporting and measurement
- ____
- Data, AI and privacy
- ____
- Commercial terms
- ____
- Due diligence
- ____
Weighted score
- Outcome fit and relevant experience
- ____
- Account team and ownership
- ____
- Reporting and measurement
- ____
- Data, AI and privacy
- ____
- Commercial terms
- ____
- Due diligence
- ____
Weighted Scoring Rubric
Criterion
- Fit with buyer and market
- 25%
- Method and measurement
- 20%
- Data protection and AI use
- 15%
- Team and continuity
- 15%
- Commercial terms
- 15%
- References
- 10%
Weight
- Fit with buyer and market
- Named examples in your category
- Method and measurement
- Written plan, auditable reporting
- Data protection and AI use
- Lawful basis, AI use explained
- Team and continuity
- Named people, cover for leave
- Commercial terms
- Clear scope, exit terms
- References
- Two client calls of similar size
What earns a 5
- Fit with buyer and market
- Method and measurement
- Data protection and AI use
- Team and continuity
- Commercial terms
- References
Have two people score separately, then compare. Where marks differ by more than one point, re-read the evidence before averaging.
Keep the artefact or reference note beside each mark so another assessor can follow the reasoning. Treat an unsupported claim as unverified rather than as evidence.
Check the AI and data answers properly
The ICO's guidance on artificial intelligence and data protection is the reference point when a provider says its tools generate content, score leads or personalise journeys.
Ask which lawful basis covers each use and where the model runs. Ask what happens to your customer data afterwards. If a provider will not answer in writing, score that criterion at one.
Run due diligence before you sign
Test the working relationship, not the pitch
Ask the person who will run your account to walk through a live reporting pack. Ask what they would do in month one if pipeline did not move, and what they would stop doing. A provider that cannot name a trade-off is selling capacity, not judgement.
Check financial standing and insurance cover before the contract goes to legal. A supplier that cannot show accounts or professional indemnity is a risk you carry.
The CIM's strategy and planning training courses are one route to that skill, and a useful benchmark for a provider's planner.
Put the commercial terms under the same light
Read the contract against your rubric: notice periods, IP ownership, data processing terms, and what happens to your accounts on exit. Where a fee is performance-linked, check the baseline is one you both accept in writing.
Confirm who owns the creative, the ad accounts and the audience data at exit, and ask for a transition period in writing.
Then decide. Three scored providers, one table and the evidence attached give a defensible choice and a record of why.
Common questions
How many providers should be on a shortlist?
Three is usually enough. Two makes price the only real variable; five or more dilutes the scoring.
Should geography decide the shortlist?
Use it as an inclusion criterion, not a preference. Choose England-only presence, UK-wide coverage or EEA data handling, then hold every provider to that line.
What if a provider refuses to share references?
Treat it as a missing document, which lowers the total rather than ruling them out.
Who should own the final decision?
One named person, usually the marketing lead, with procurement and legal signing off terms.
