Module

Bind the money to the evidence

Budget, commitment, cap, deliverable and claim as one linked object — so a fund cannot be drawn past its cap and cannot settle without its proof.

Book a demo See the whole platform

The same problem, stated twice

Once for the person who owns the P&L, once for the person who owns the systems. Neither column is a summary of the other.

The financial problem

The fund was spent. The proof was not collected.

Eight to twenty percent of trade spend typically lacks adequate support, which makes it unrecoverable from the funder and exposed at audit.
Commitments exceed budget because the cap lives in a spreadsheet that is not the system of record.
Promotional agreements are negotiated individually when one event should generate many.
Funding settles late because the claim cannot be assembled until somebody reconstructs what was agreed.

The technical problem

Budget, commitment and evidence are three artefacts with no link between them.

Promotions run in email and spreadsheets: the budget in one file, vendor commitments in another, proof-of-performance in a folder.
There is no object joining money to evidence, so the link is reconstructed manually or not at all.
Vendor participation is collected by email, so nothing validates a commitment against the remaining cap at the moment it is made.
Generating dozens of agreements from one event means dozens of manual documents.

What RevUpra does

Inside trade promotion management

Promotion events

Window, venue, budget, lifecycle and the copy partners actually see.

Budget × CAP matrix

Vendor × item allocation with units × price and live within-budget tracking.

Vendor portal

Partners choose opportunities and commit spend themselves; every pick held for your review.

Deliverables & proof-of-performance

Evidence captured against the money and shareable with the funder.

Bulk agreements + e-sign

One event becomes many signed agreements without drafting each one.

Claims follow-through

Fund, dispatch and settle to the GL on the same ledger as your rebates.

Benchmarks

What good looks like

Use this as a self-assessment. If you cannot produce one of these numbers for your own programme, that is itself the finding.

Trade promotion management benchmarks
Metric	Typical today	Target
Drawn funds with proof-of-performance	70 – 88%	>95%
Commitments exceeding allocated CAP	Occasional, found late	0 — blocked at commitment
Days from event close to settled claim	45 – 90	<15
Agreements generated per event, manually	All of them	Bulk-generated

Ranges are indicative benchmarks drawn from published channel-incentive and pricing research together with our own implementation experience. They vary widely by programme complexity, channel depth and data quality — treat them as the opening question in a diagnostic, not a guarantee.

The test of a trade-promotion system is simple: can a fund be settled without its evidence. If it can, the programme will eventually fail an audit.

Leak points

What this closes

The leak points from our taxonomy that this module addresses directly.

Promotion & MDF spend leakage

“The fund was spent. The proof was not collected.”

Financially

Market-development funds are committed against a promotion, drawn down and paid, but the deliverable evidence is thin or missing. Unsupported spend is not recoverable from the vendor and, when audited, is often clawed back.

Technically

Promotions are run in email and spreadsheets: the budget lives in one file, the vendor commitments in another, the proof-of-performance in a folder. There is no object linking money to evidence, so the link is reconstructed manually or not at all.

Typical cost: 8% – 20% of MDF & co-op spend
Benchmark: Well-governed programmes carry proof-of-performance on >95% of drawn funds.

How it closes: Budget, CAP, vendor commitment, deliverable and claim are one linked object. Funds cannot be drawn past CAP, and evidence is attached to the money.

See the module →

Contract drift

“You are operating a version of the deal nobody signed.”

Financially

The signed agreement says one rate; the system was configured with another, or an amendment was agreed by email and never applied. Every transaction from that point is priced or accrued wrongly, and the exposure compounds silently until renewal.

Technically

The contract is a document and the configuration is data, and nothing binds them. Amendments arrive as redlined attachments; applying them to the running configuration is a manual re-keying step with no verification.

Typical cost: 0.5% – 2.0% of contracted revenue
Benchmark: Best practice is zero drift — every executed term traceable to the clause that created it.

How it closes: The contract is the front door. Terms are mashed live from the deal, redlined with attribution, executed, and the executed version is what the engine runs.

See the module →

Deduction & dispute write-off

“It was cheaper to write it off than to fight it.”

Financially

Customers deduct against invoices for claimed rebates, shortages and pricing disputes. Where the deduction cannot be quickly tied back to an authorisation, small balances get written off in bulk — and partners learn that they will be.

Technically

Deductions land in AR with a free-text reason code and no link to the incentive that supposedly justified them. Research is manual, per item, so the cost of investigation exceeds the value of anything small.

Typical cost: 0.2% – 0.9% of gross revenue
Benchmark: Strong programmes resolve >85% of deduction value without manual research.

How it closes: Deductions are matched to their authorising claim automatically; only genuine exceptions reach a human, so small balances stop being written off by default.

See the module →

Terminology

Terms on this page, defined

Plain-language definitions with the reason each one tends to leak.

MDF (market development funds) ↗: Money a supplier provides to a channel partner to fund marketing or promotional activity, drawn down against approved plans and evidence.
Co-op advertising ↗: A programme in which a supplier reimburses part of a partner’s advertising spend, usually accrued as a percentage of purchases and claimed with evidence.
Proof of performance ↗: The evidence that a funded promotional activity actually took place, required before the funding can be legitimately claimed or retained.
Trade promotion management ↗: Planning, funding, executing and settling promotional events funded by suppliers, from budget allocation through to the claim.

Open the full terminology library →

See what RevUpra can recover for you.

Thirty minutes, tailored to your programmes. We walk an agreement through modelling, contracting, accrual, claim and settlement using examples close to your own — and model an indicative ROI against your volumes.

Book a demo Read the leak map