- \n
- Missing functionality in the platform,<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- Issues with the tool or services provided,<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- and\/or a feeling that you might be paying more than you should be paying.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n
In addition to the things email marketers know going into the RFP, there are also things they know they don\u2019t know<\/b>. These are the question marks.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Email marketers might have questions going in to an RFP like:<\/b><\/p>\n\n\n\n
- \n
- Where is the market in terms of pricing?<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- Can anyone solve the pain points I have?<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- Who are the top email vendors today?<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n
These are the questions that the RFP process itself is designed to answer.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/span>Beware of your RFP Blind spots<\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
But there is a third category that lurks within every ESP RFP, and it can lead to a breakdown in the RFP, or worse, a bad decision in the end. That category includes the things an email marketer isn’t aware of he\/she doesn\u2019t know. The Blind Spots. What typically falls under this category? Let\u2019s take a closer look at several.<\/p>\n\n\n
\n![\"RFP](\"https:\/\/www.emailvendorselection.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/RFP-selection-quadrant-RFP-Selection-Window.jpg\")
<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n<\/span>1. There are much bigger differences between ESPs than you have been led to believe (by everyone)<\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Most ESPs will tell you that they are the best ESP. And lots of analysts are in the business of telling you which is the best ESP. Neither of which tells the email marketer who might be the best ESP for his or her particular needs. You have to lift the curtain yourself to see that not every ESP is created equal<\/a>. That\u2019s because no ESP want to limit the opportunities they have to win business by admitting they can’t do something another vendor can do.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The downside is that often an email marketer will include ESPs in their RFP that really shouldn\u2019t be included in the first place. They are solely there because they are \u201chot\u201d in the marketplace.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
I call it the \u201cFlavor of the Week\u201d syndrome<\/b>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Everyone\u2019s time is wasted when an ESP that\u2019s a very poor fit is included in an RFP, but even worse is when that ESP wins the RFP.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/span>Including the wrong ESP, not knowing the right one<\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
How could the wrong ESP possibly ever win? If a marketer doesn\u2019t created a well-defined requirements document it’s actually easy to pick the wrong ESP. Or if they place too much emphasis on pricing<\/a> above everything else.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The truth is, you can\u2019t be expected to know all the differences between every ESP. Which is exactly why you should consider involving someone who knows the market and can help you select the vendors to include in your RFP. The last two enterprise RFPs we guided were won by vendors our clients wouldn\u2019t have invited to participate in the RFP<\/b> without our advice.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Think about that for a minute.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/span>2. ESP pricing models are (almost) impossible to compare<\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
ESP pricing models have become much more diverse and complex. ESPs have become very good at making side-by-side price comparisons between vendors almost impossible to do. 15 years ago an email marketer could basically compare CPM to CPM and determine which vendor had better pricing.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
But over the last several years different categories of pricing have been added by these vendors. Things like data storage fees, subscriber fees, and technology platform operations. There\u2019s no consistency between vendors, some charge for one thing, others for something else.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Avoid \u201cwhack-a-mole\u201d pricing<\/b>
What all of the new fees are specifically designed to do is allow the ESPs to present lower CPMs in the hope that a prospect\u2019s focus will be solely on that number. Don\u2019t believe me? In negotiations we\u2019ve conducted on behalf of our clients we\u2019ve seen vendors react to our request to lower one fee by raising the CPM<\/a>. We call that \u201cwhack-a-mole\u201d pricing<\/b>.<\/p>\n\n\n\nIn reality, the CPM listed in most pricing proposals today is only a partial CPM. Your actual CPM is your annual email volume divided by your total annual fees. We\u2019ve solved the price comparison problem by creating a Common Pricing Template which forces the vendors to put pricing into our format for side-by-side comparisons of various pricing proposals.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
If you wait to understand various pricing models until you\u2019ve asked for pricing proposals in your RFP, you\u2019re too late. The ability to make accurate comparisons will be hindered by a lack of understanding how each vendor arrived at its final cost.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Not fully understanding pricing models can be particularly painful if you end up selecting one of the ESPs that require upfront payment for your email program each year. Yes, you read that correctly. Nothing like paying a seven-figure amount before you\u2019ve even started to migrate off your old vendor (and while you are still paying for the old vendor\u2019s services!).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Wouldn\u2019t you have liked to know that you had to pay in advance before you made your choice? I\u2019m pretty sure your CFO would find that information useful!<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/span>3. You (marketing) and your IT team might have very different ideas about what the ideal ESP looks like<\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
We have seen this scenario time and again in our work with our clients. And it\u2019s not just a division between marketing and IT. There\u2019s also the campaign production team, who also has its own ideas on what the ideal solution looks like.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
This can lead to vigorous disagreements about the choice of vendor, and entire departments unhappy with the final selection.
Knowing what\u2019s important to each department in advance can save you much grief during the RFP process and after the final selection has been made. Some vendor solutions can bridge gaps between teams better than others. Depending on who is making the decision at your company, the list of vendors you include can change dramatically.<\/p>\n\n\n\nHere\u2019s a list of each group\u2019s general priorities from our experience in managing email RFPs:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Marketing VPs and Marketing Directors priorities<\/b><\/p>\n\n\n\n
- \n
- Huge emphasis on the stability\/reliability of the platform<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- Interested in the availability of value-added services like analytics and creative<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- Critical to use various sources of data in real-time before it gets stale<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- Also focused on robust reporting and analytics capabilities<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n
IT priorities<\/b><\/p>\n\n\n\n
- \n
- Tend to focus on the ability of email vendors to play the data \u201cwhere it lies\u201d (as opposed to marketing who doesn\u2019t care whether or not it needs to move around) and overall data security.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- This often takes the shape of an on-premise solution<\/a> like Adobe, or a hybrid like MessageGears.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- Or they gravitate towards email relay solutions that offer easy connections and extensive APIs like SparkPost and SendGrid, which typically don\u2019t come with marketer-friendly UI\u2019s. Have a look at the best SendGrid alternatives here<\/a>, most of them have easy-to-use interfaces for marketers.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n
Campaign Production priorities<\/b><\/p>\n\n\n\n
- Or they gravitate towards email relay solutions that offer easy connections and extensive APIs like SparkPost and SendGrid, which typically don\u2019t come with marketer-friendly UI\u2019s. Have a look at the best SendGrid alternatives here<\/a>, most of them have easy-to-use interfaces for marketers.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n