Fund management and spend enablement keep getting sold as separate products. We don't think that split serves the people who actually have to reconcile it every month.
Every design decision starts from the same question: does this make it easier for the person on the ground to spend the dollars they've earned, without corporate losing the thread.
That's the pattern across most of this category — a platform either administers and audits the fund, or it helps a location spend it. Rarely both, under one login, against one source of truth.
The result is predictable: a claim gets approved in a fund-management tool, the actual purchase happens through a different vendor or agency, and someone spends the end of every cycle trying to match the two by hand. Every handoff between systems is a place where a number can drift from what actually happened, and where corporate loses a little bit of the visibility it's supposed to have.
We didn't think that gap was necessary. If the same balance that gets approved is the balance a location spends against — in the same system, in the same flow — there's nothing left to reconcile, because nothing ever diverged in the first place.
Fund management, media buying, physical ordering, and reporting should share one source of truth — not live in separate tools that each have their own version of the numbers.
Most platforms in this category are sold through demo-gated, custom-quote processes with no public pricing anywhere. We think that's a solvable problem, not an industry standard worth preserving.
A location should be able to move fast — buy the media, order the goods — without corporate losing visibility into what was spent, on what, and whether it was on-brand.
Every dollar that moves through the platform should be able to show its work — what it was spent on, whether it happened, and whether it was on-brand — without anyone having to go digging for it later.
Approval routing, fund rules, and compliance requirements should be configurable to match how a specific organization actually works, rather than forcing every customer into one rigid workflow.
A platform built for franchise groups and field marketing teams — not just enterprise IT departments — should be something people can actually use without months of training.
The platform doesn't run in isolation — it sits on top of the same identity data, creative production, distribution, and attribution infrastructure used to run marketing programs at scale for organizations across a range of industries.
Co-Op Command is the layer that ties this infrastructure together into one accountable system — a location doesn't need to know which piece is doing the work behind the scenes, only that the spend, the proof, and the reporting all land in the same place.
System setup, location load, and media plan configuration are done inside the first two days. Creative is the one phase that scales with scope — a business card moves fast, a multi-field flyer or a print-on-demand piece takes longer — so that timeline gets sized once we know what's being built.
System setup, location load, and media plan configuration — done inside the first two days for every program, regardless of size.
Creative timelines vary with complexity — a simple business card moves in a day, a multi-field flyer or print-on-demand piece takes longer.
The best way to know if this approach makes sense for your program is to walk through it with your own numbers.