At some point in practically every PIM selection, someone clicks on Excel and gets down to it. Vendors across the top, features down the side, weights applied, all pointing towards declaring the ‘winner’. Ostensibly, it’s a perfectly rational and defendable step. Having said that, it also invariably produces an erroneous outcome -a platform which scores very well on paper, but which creates friction on a day-to-day level, prompting teams to migrate their work back into spreadsheets and exception-spotting.
Why would this happen when the spreadsheet looks sound and sensible? Basically, because a features comparison provides an answer to the following question: “Which vendor has the most capabilities?” In fact, what matters much more is which of the platforms on your list best fits how your organisation needs to work, based on fundamental criteria like your product structure, your channels, your integrations, and the people who will use it every day.
The ‘checklist fallacy’
Credible PIM solutions tick all the boxes when it comes to core features
- Workflows
- Variants
- Syndication
- APIs
- Translation support
- Supplier onboarding
- Asset links
…And more
In fact, the gaps on headline capabilities among the best solutions has narrowed as the PIM market has matured. You end up with a spreadsheet full of ticks, so your scoring model only reflects pseudo-precision.
What checklists can’t capture is precisely what detail sits behind ‘yes’:
- Workflow engine might be a basic approval toggle or a configurable governance model
- Supplier onboarding could be a self-service portal with validation, or no more than a manual import routine
- Integration may be a maintained connector, or consist of a brittle template that breaks on contact with your variant logic
Multi-language means likely to support local editing cleanly, or likely to force users through fields they shouldn’t need to touchSo, two given vendors may both tick all your boxes, but only one of them will actually survive your reality at scale.
Features don’t map to real workflows
A PIM isn’t a stitched together bundle of functions, but a system which sits at the centre of how work gets done: How data is created, enriched, approved, corrected, and published. It’s that sequence (hand-offs, exceptions, rework loops) where you get the all-important satisfactory ROI …or not.
Selection based largely on features doesn’t factor in the DNA of your workflow. It tends to treat a particular PIM capability as binary, rather than asking whether it supports your operating constraints. For example, it could be:
- A 14-step chain of approval across markets and functions
- Parent–child–grandchild relationships, bundles and component links
- Category teams enriching in parallel while compliance blocks publication
- Frequent changes in retailer templates requiring rapid re-mapping
The typical demo-based sample dataset is unlikely to surface these scenarios. And a checklist just can’t.
A ‘mirage’: The integration factors which checklists don’t weight sufficiently
‘Pre-built connector’. Super feature, but also one of the most dangerous phrases in a PIM demo. What’s precisely required for integration isn’t determined merely by whether a connector exists; What you really need to know is whether the connector will provide a good match with your data model and operational cadence.
Your checklist spreadsheet will record: ‘Supports ERP / eCommerce / DAM integration’. What it doesn’t record are:
- What happens if product identifiers don’t reconcile
- How errors are handled and displayed to users
- Whether variant structures can map without using custom logic
- What can potentially break when a channel changes its schema
- How much middleware you need to make it stable
These kinds of details are frequently where an accurate total cost of ownership can be inferred, and they are the factors behind feature-led selection which can cause an unpleasant surprise later when it comes to ROI.
What you should evaluate instead
Features have their place – but use them as filters, not decision instruments. For your own set-up, once minimum feature thresholds are met, your evaluation should be very much scenario-led.
You need to replace checklist questions like “Does it have…?” (“yes/no” doesn’t inform you much) with workflow-based queries like “Show us how…”:
- Launch scenario: Update a promotion across 5,000 SKUs – How many steps? Who approves? What’s blocked?
- Complex product scenario: Model your most awkward product family live – variants, inheritance, bundles, edge cases
- Supplier scenario: Onboard a messy supplier feed (multiple formats, missing info) – Get it to validate, normalise, and route exceptions. Measure to what extent manual effort is needed
- Channel scenario: Publish to one of your priority channels – Demonstrate rules, mappings, error handling, and change control
- User scenario: Put real users in the interface – Are they able to complete tasks efficiently without resorting to workarounds?
To hammer home the point, if you don’t evaluate these, you’re running the risk of buying claims (which may or may not work with your set-up) rather than the genuinely best fit for the particularities of your ecosystem.
The only-too-predictable cost of a features-only choice
If PIM selection is driven by checkboxes, the principle mismatch will always emerge at the same moment: Your go-live (or very shortly after). Moreover, the platform works ‘as described’, so it’s not on the vendor. ‘As described’ just doesn’t work well for your organisation.
Typical symptoms:
- Your workflows require workarounds and a side order of spreadsheets
- integrations with assumed ‘quality standard’ actually need bespoke development
- User adoption is sluggish because the User Interface and mental model don’t match users’ assumptions and behaviour
- So-called ‘governance’ is either a bottleneck or is ignored altogether
At this point you have two choices: Either spend more to close the gap, or accept a system which will only deliver a fraction of its potential value.
Discovery call
If your business needs to move beyond PIM features checklists, reach out to us today at Start with Data. We’ll arrange a short discovery call where we can provide support for mapping your critical workflows and constraints. Then, we’ll turn these into scenario-led evaluation scripts so you can test vendor fit with your real-life data before signing that contract for a new PIM.