Evaluation method
Evaluation Criteria for Marketing Automation Platforms
A marketing automation platform for gambling must re-check eligibility before every send, stop rather than send when a check fails, cancel queued messages when a customer's status changes and keep marketing and protective templates apart. These tests check each one.
In short
- Tier 1: send-time checks, fail-closed behavior, exclusion and harm-flag suppression, product tagging.
- Tier 2: queued send cancellation, opt-out handling, send logs with reason codes.
- Tier 3: authoring, scheduling and reporting.
- A platform that only checks consent when a customer enters a flow fails tier 1.
Scope and limits. Tests for buyers running their own trial. Not a review or ranking of any product. Scale and weighting: our evaluation method.
Tier 1: safeguarding and consent
| Requirement | Test | Passing looks like |
|---|---|---|
| Send-time check | Start a three-step flow, then exclude the customer after step 1 | Steps 2 and 3 are suppressed and logged |
| Fail closed | Make the eligibility source unreachable during a send | Sends are held, not sent |
| Harm flags (Great Britain customer interaction guidance) | Set a safer gambling flag on a customer in a flow | Marketing and bonus messages stop; protective messages continue |
| Product tags (SR code 5.1.12) | Send a casino campaign to a customer opted in to betting only | Suppressed |
The harm-flag test reflects the Gambling Commission's customer interaction guidance for remote licensees in Great Britain, explained in when a safer gambling flag stops marketing. The order of checks behind all four tests is described in consent-gated workflows.
Tier 2: changes, opt-outs and logs
| Requirement | Test | Passing looks like |
|---|---|---|
| Queued send cancellation | Schedule a send, then opt the customer out before it runs | The queued send is canceled |
| Opt-out timing | Opt out through the email footer and through a text reply | Applied well within the market limits, such as 10 business days under CAN-SPAM and 5 working days in Australia |
| Opt-out scope | Opt out of casino email only | Casino email stops; other permitted messages continue |
| Send log | Export the log for a suppressed send | Customer, template, product, channel, time, result and reason |
| Template types | Try to add a promotional block to a protective template | Refused, or flagged for review |
Footer and sender requirements behind the opt-out tests are set out in email and SMS rules for gambling automation.
Tier 3: operations
- Flows can be paused globally in one action.
- Manual uploads pass through the same send-time check.
- Reports separate suppressed, held and sent messages.
Questions for the vendor
- At what moment does the platform check eligibility for each step?
- What happens to a send when the eligibility source does not answer?
- Can a queued message be canceled for one customer?
- How are opt-outs from texts recognized beyond the exact keyword?
- Can manual sends bypass the checks? If so, how is that controlled?
Run the full set with seeded accounts using the workflow test plan.
Red flags in a demo
- Eligibility is described as "synced" without saying when the check happens.
- The demo uses the vendor's own prepared contacts instead of yours.
- Suppressed sends are invisible in reporting, so there is no way to see what was stopped.
- Manual sends and file uploads skip the checks "for speed".
- Protective message templates sit in the same editable library as promotions.
Ask the vendor to repeat the failing step with your seeded accounts, and record what you saw on the evidence scale in the evaluation method.
Questions
Is an entry check plus a nightly refresh good enough?
No. A customer who self-excludes in the afternoon could still receive an evening message. Treat send-time checking as a tier 1 requirement.
Should protective messages be sent from the marketing platform?
They can be, if the platform keeps them as a separate template type without promotion and they do not depend on marketing consent.
Sources
- Gambling Commission, LCCP 3.5.3 Self-exclusion - remote SR code, no date shown.
- Gambling Commission, Customer interaction guidance for remote gambling licensees (Formal guidance under SR Code 3.4.3), Section C: Act, last updated August 23, 2023.
- Gambling Commission, LCCP Condition 5.1.12 - Direct marketing preferences, no date shown.
- Federal Trade Commission, CAN-SPAM Act: A Compliance Guide for Business, published August 9, 2023, edited January 2024.
- Australian Communications and Media Authority, Avoid sending spam, no date shown.
Every source was read on October 28, 2026. How we choose sources: data sources.
Safer gambling support is listed on the safer gambling page.