Choosing which vendors to include in a loyalty program RFP usually isn’t a single-person decision, and loyalty software vendor selection works best when responsibility is shared from the start.
Since marketing knows what the program is meant to achieve and procurement knows how to buy it safely and at a reasonable price, combining those viewpoints early produces a shortlist much stronger than either side could have built alone.
This guide explains how the two functions should share the work and how their perspectives can be combined to produce a shortlist of candidates worth inviting. As NextBee develops customer loyalty software and is regularly in the vendor position during such evaluations, the sections that follow show where a partnership between marketing and procurement usually succeeds and where it usually fails. If you get the collaboration right at this stage, the RFP that follows will be much easier to execute.
Why loyalty software vendor selection is a shared decision
Neither team should make this decision alone. If marketing chooses vendors without procurement’s involvement, the shortlist might include platforms that look exciting in a demo but have hidden costs, weak security, or unworkable contract terms. On the other hand, if procurement selects the vendors without marketing, the list could be commercially sound yet fail to deliver the customer outcomes the program is meant to achieve.
Loyalty software sits at the intersection of both concerns because it affects revenue, customer data, and brand experience. A reasonable approach is for each function to lead where it is most knowledgeable, then bring the two perspectives together before sending any invitations. The following explains how this division of responsibilities functions in practice.
What marketing brings to the shortlist
Because marketing decides whether a platform can improve the figures the business cares about, its input should take priority. Before looking at any vendor, marketing should set out the outcome the program needs to achieve, such as an increased rate of repeat purchases, better retention, or higher customer lifetime value. From there, marketing should evaluate all candidates against those goals.
Moreover, because marketing knows the behavior the program should encourage and the customer experience it must deliver, it should judge a vendor by the depth of its rewards and membership levels, the flexibility of its earning rules, and its ability to personalize messages and communicate across channels. It is also important to consider the brand fit, as a loyalty program becomes an extension of the brand. A good loyalty marketing software platform should support the mechanics marketing wants to use, not force the program into a rigid framework.
What procurement brings to the shortlist
Procurement is responsible for deciding whether a vendor is safe, stable, and reasonably priced, just as much as assessing whether the software is capable. Its initial contribution is setting up a clear process, since procurement is best positioned to run a fair, consistent evaluation in which all vendors are assessed using the same criteria and asked to provide prices in the same format. This consistency later enables the two teams to compare quotes side by side rather than guess.
After establishing the process, procurement also considers the aspects that safeguard the business once the agreement is signed. This involves assessing the vendor’s commercial viability and stability as a long-term partner, checking the total cost together with any fees that increase as the number of members grows, and verifying the security and compliance standards the platform adheres to. For example, procurement will wish to confirm certifications such as SOC 2 Type II and compliance with regulations such as GDPR and CCPA, all of which NextBee is designed to meet. Since the vendor also provides standard agreement templates, as NextBee does, it can help procurement complete the legal review more quickly.
Where the two views combine into a shortlist
The shortlist is drawn up where marketing’s opinion meets procurement’s opinion, and the key point is to apply both sets of criteria to each candidate rather than trading one for the other. A vendor that appeals to marketing but fails procurement’s security test should not be included on the shortlist, any more than a vendor with commercial appeal that cannot deliver the customer outcomes marketing requires.
In practice, the process involves putting each candidate through a combined series of questions. Can the platform move our priority metric, and can it demonstrate that it has? Does it integrate with the systems in which our customer data is currently stored? Is it secure, compliant, and stable? Is the pricing reasonable and comparable? Only vendors that meet both teams’ requirements should move forward. This is what makes good loyalty software vendor selection, since it ensures the remaining vendors are strong in capability and sound from a commercial point of view.
How many loyalty software providers should you invite?
After the joint filtering process, avoid two pitfalls. The first is inviting too many vendors, which creates a long list of proposals that overwhelms both teams and reduces the attention each vendor gets. The second mistake is inviting too few vendors, since this could lead to an unbalanced comparison if one candidate drops out or fails to perform adequately during the process.
For most loyalty programs, three to five providers is a reasonable number, as it provides real choice and vigorous competition without turning the assessment into an administrative strain for either department. If the filtering process yields more than five strong options, tighten the criteria rather than extend the invitation, since a spot on the shortlist should be genuinely earned.
The loyalty software vendor both teams should want on the list
No matter what other factors you consider in the final decision, set aside at least one position for a provider that combines capable software with real service and a results-based business model. This type of vendor can please both groups: the marketing team gets a partner responsible for achieving outcomes, while the procurement team gets a supplier willing to share the risk rather than just charging a license fee.
NextBee matches this description and therefore serves as a useful benchmark for the list. Along with a wide range of loyalty features, such as custom earning rules, tier progression, and a rewards catalog with automated fulfillment in many countries, NextBee offers a delivery-ownership approach in which a dedicated team helps launch the program and continuously improve it. Furthermore, its pricing can be linked to agreed results, which is precisely the kind of shared accountability that gives both marketing and procurement peace of mind. Even if a different vendor is eventually selected, having a results-based, service-supported provider on the shortlist sets a clear standard against which the others can be assessed.
From an aligned shortlist to the right RFP
If marketing and procurement jointly prepare the shortlist, the resulting RFP is more targeted, because each vendor has already passed both the capability and commercial assessments. Marketing can be confident each candidate can deliver the program, and procurement can be confident each vendor is safe and properly priced. The result is a smoother process and a decision both teams and their stakeholders can justify.
As you move from a shortlist to a formal request, our guide on drafting a loyalty program RFP explains what to include in each section. If you want to see how a results-based, service-backed platform performs, request a demo and assess NextBee using your own standards.
