MDF approval process: From funding request to partner claim

An MDF approval process should connect the proposed campaign, the funding decision, the evidence of delivery and the final claim. Give each request a clear owner and keep those decisions attached to the same campaign record.

Market development funds, or MDF, are funds a vendor makes available to support approved partner marketing activity. The practical challenge is maintaining a clear agreement as a campaign moves from an idea to something that has happened and needs to be paid for.

A request may be approved for a customer workshop, then change in date, scope or cost. By the time the claim arrives, the reviewer needs to know what was authorised and what was delivered. A well defined process makes that comparison straightforward.

Begin with the funding rules

Before opening applications, explain who can apply, which activities qualify and what financial contribution the vendor is offering.

Specify whether funding covers the full eligible cost, a percentage of it or a fixed contribution. State any maximum contribution and how the partner's own investment is treated. Keep eligible and excluded costs understandable enough for a partner to prepare a realistic request.

Set out the relevant dates: when an application is due, when the activity must happen and when the claim and evidence must be submitted. Distinguish these deadlines rather than referring to a single funding period.

Funding models vary. Microsoft's cooperative marketing funds guidance, for example, distinguishes earning, usage and claiming periods. Those are rules for Microsoft's programme. Your own MDF guide should state the dates and funding mechanism that apply to your partners.

Introduce this information during partner onboarding and keep the current rules available afterwards. A partner should be able to check eligibility before spending time on a proposal.

Ask for a campaign plan that supports a decision

Collect enough information to judge the activity's purpose, cost and practicality. Start with the commercial question: which audience is the partner trying to reach, with what offer, and what should happen after the activity?

For a typical request, ask for the partner organisation, campaign owner, activity description, target audience, proposed dates, itemised budget, requested contribution and intended outcome. Include the person responsible for following up the response.

“Run an event” gives the reviewer little to assess. “Run a technical workshop for existing customers evaluating an additional service, with account managers responsible for the agreed next meetings” provides a clearer basis for a decision.

Ask for a forecast that can later be compared with actual results, but keep the distinction visible. Expected attendance or estimated pipeline is a planning assumption. It is not a campaign result.

Assign a unique campaign reference when the request is created. Use that reference for subsequent changes, evidence, claims and outcome reviews.

Make each approval responsibility clear

Define who assesses the marketing plan, who confirms the available budget and who reviews the claim. One person may perform several roles in a small team, but the decisions should still be identifiable.

Give the partner a visible status and a next action. If information is missing, specify what is needed. If the request is declined, explain the relevant reason. A generic rejection leaves the partner unable to improve the proposal.

Set a response expectation the team can meet, and define what happens if an application approaches its activity date without a decision. Do not leave partners to interpret silence as funding approval.

Keep approval, delivery and payment distinct

Use statuses that communicate the decision currently needed. A practical sequence is:

Draft → Submitted → Under review → Approved → Activity completed → Claim submitted → Claim approved → Paid.

Add routes for more information, changes, cancellation and rejection where the workflow needs them. Avoid using “complete” for both an event that has happened and a claim that has been paid.

An approval should record the permitted activity, eligible costs, contribution rule, maximum amount, relevant dates and expected evidence. For a reimbursement model, the approval reserves funding subject to the programme conditions. It does not establish the final amount payable before the claim is checked.

If the partner changes the audience, supplier, activity, date or budget materially, route the change back to the appropriate reviewer. Keep the original decision and the revised approval together so that the claim can be reviewed against the correct version.

For cancellation, record whether any eligible committed costs remain and how the programme will handle them. Release the unused funding once the request is closed under the applicable rules. Do not leave cancelled campaigns occupying budget indefinitely.

Tell partners what proof to collect before they start

Evidence requirements are most useful when the partner knows them before the activity. Match the proof to what the vendor needs to verify: the activity occurred, the claimed costs are eligible and the requested contribution can be reconciled.

DigiCert's published MDF claim form provides a concrete example. It connects a claim to an approved campaign identifier and asks for an invoice, itemised expense receipts and evidence of the marketing deliverables. It also records activity outcomes. The precise requirements belong to that programme, but the relationship between approval, proof and claim is useful when designing your own process.

These are examples to adapt, not a universal evidence checklist. Keep the requested proof proportionate to the activity. If aggregated attendance is sufficient, there is no reason to collect a full attendee file simply because one is available.

Make missing evidence visible during claim review. A reviewer should be able to return the specific item for correction without losing the rest of the claim history.

Reconcile the claim against the approval

The following is an illustrative funding example, not a Mesh customer result or programme policy.

A partner proposes a £4,000 workshop. The vendor approves funding of 50% of eligible costs, capped at £2,000. The budget owner reserves £2,000.

After delivery, the partner submits £3,600 of costs. The reviewer confirms that £3,200 meets the approved scope and evidence requirements. The remaining £400 is outside the agreed scope and is not included in this claim's eligible amount.

The contribution is therefore 50% of £3,200, which is £1,600. This is below the £2,000 cap. Once the claim is settled and closed, £400 of the original reservation can be released under the example's rules.

There are two different £400 amounts here: an expense excluded from eligibility, and unused vendor funding. Record them separately so that the claim and the budget can both be explained.

Keep the approved maximum, submitted costs, eligible costs, approved contribution and paid amount as distinct values. They describe different stages. Adding them together would overstate the programme's spending.

Where the programme uses advance funding rather than reimbursement, define the corresponding reconciliation and treatment of any unused advance explicitly.

Review both the spending and the result

At programme level, distinguish funding that is available, reserved for approved activity, approved for payment and paid. Show how amounts move between those categories. A submitted claim is a request under review, not additional spending on top of its existing reservation.

Then review what the marketing achieved. Compare the intended audience and activity with what happened, the quality of the response and the next commercial actions. A completed event can satisfy delivery requirements while still revealing that the campaign should change next time.

Keep evidence of delivery separate from evidence of commercial impact. An invoice can support a cost claim. It cannot establish that the activity created a sales opportunity. When reporting pipeline, connect the result to identifiable opportunities and the programme's attribution rules.

Agree the follow up date based on the activity and sales cycle. Some results will be visible soon after delivery; others will need a later review. Record what remains an estimate and what has been observed.

Trial the whole process with one campaign

Walk a realistic request through approval, a scope change, delivery, a claim correction and payment. Check whether each person can see the decision they need to make and whether the partner understands what happens next.

Mesh's partner programme design guide places MDF within the wider commercial model. This workflow turns that programme choice into a repeatable operating process.

Use the trial to remove unnecessary fields, clarify evidence requirements and fix ambiguous statuses. The result should be a campaign record that explains what was proposed, what was funded, what was delivered and what the team learned.