Home · Solutions · Sales & marketing
Solution · Sales & marketingOne event brief, and the consented guest list, RSVPs, arrival list and leads follow from it
Customer events that end in leads, not name badges
An event is defined once; robots build the consented guest list, send invitations and reminders, hold RSVPs against capacity, and turn attendance into leads and the importer's proof pack.
Executive summary
Guest lists from three DMS exports, RSVPs in four inboxes, a sign-in sheet in a drawer, the importer waiting for proof.
We design and deliver the event layer between a dealer group's customer data and its advisers, on the UiPath Platform and Microsoft 365.
No invitation leaves without a recorded consent for that channel, entity and brand, and an objection at any site stops every brand's next send.
the group CRM; SharePoint for the lists and the proof pack; the SMS gateway
Business problem
Customer events
A dealer group runs events because they put its best customers in a room with its advisers: owners of the outgoing model, drivers whose lease ends this year, service customers who never bought from the group. Part of the calendar is the importers' launches; part is co-funded, proven afterwards with invoices, creatives, an attendance list and photographs.
The work behind an event is spread across people who do not share a list: three DMS exports merged in Excel by the marketing manager, who removes the names she remembers as "do not contact", while consent lives in a different field in each DMS, on paper, or nowhere. Replies come back to four places, and the arrival list printed the night before misses the RSVP that came in at nine.
After the event the process stops: the sheet goes into a drawer, follow-up depends on who hosted which table, and weeks later the importer's portal asks for proof of performance, rebuilt from phones and the agency invoice, sometimes after the deadline. The data protection officer hears about it when a customer who withdrew consent in March receives the May invitation.
How it works today
- PersonThe marketing manager merges three DMS exports in Excel, deletes the names she remembers as withdrawn and sends the invitations through the agency
- Risk of errorConsent sits in a different field in each DMS or on paper; the merged list includes people who withdrew, who consented to brand A but not C, or who agreed to letters but not SMS
- WaitingReplies land in the marketing mailbox, at reception, on advisers' mobiles and at the agency; a slot booked three times surfaces on the Saturday
- PersonAt the door a clipboard records who came, walk-ins go in the margin without a consent form, and interest stays in the adviser's head
- Risk of errorFollow-up depends on the adviser: some call on Monday, some file the sheet, and most interested guests never become a lead
- WaitingWeeks later the co-op portal asks for proof of performance, assembled from phones and the agency invoice, often after the deadline
Why the current process costs more than it appears
The budget shows headcount, not what it is spent on.
- Consent checked from memory is the cheapest step and the most expensive to get wrong: one invitation to a customer who objected is a complaint with the group's name on it.
- Capacity surprises are paid for on the day: three families in one test-drive slot, or sixty empty seats that still paid for demonstrators, catering and the agency.
- Hospitality is what an event becomes when nobody owns the Monday; a guest who asked for a quote and was never called appears in no report.
- Proof of performance assembled backwards separates a co-funded event from a self-funded one: the importer pays against evidence submitted by a deadline.
Cost of inaction
An evening that ends with a sign-in sheet in a drawer has cost exactly as much as one that ends with thirty leads, and the difference is not in these rows. Three larger amounts sit outside them: the co-funding not claimed because the pack was late, the guest who asked for a quote and was never called, and the invitation that reached a customer who had objected.
What grows if nothing changes is the number of places this can go wrong: a fourth brand adds a DMS export and another consent field, and the two people in marketing absorb it until one leaves and the suppression list leaves with her.
A plausible organisation with realistic proportions. The figures are there to be recalculated on your data; they are not a client result.
An illustrative dealer group in Poland: three brands on six sites, about 480 employees; three DMS with three different consent fields; a two-person marketing team; Microsoft 365 E3.
26 customer events a year, from launch evenings to a track day for the premium brand; about 180 invitees each, roughly 4,680 invitations a year; a third co-funded by an importer.
DMS exports merged in Excel, consent from memory, RSVPs from four places, a clipboard at the door, follow-up left to the adviser, the proof pack assembled weeks later.
About 19 hours of desk work per event; the consent check is the least reliable step and the follow-up the least performed.
The event is defined once in Microsoft Lists; robots build the consented guest list, send invitations and reminders, hold RSVPs against capacity, turn attendance into leads with a task per adviser and assemble the proof pack.
In the modelled case the 19 hours per event shrink to defining the event, approving the list and deciding the exceptions; every interested guest has an adviser by the next morning. A model of this group, not a measurement of any client.
Proposed solution
We design and deliver the event layer between a dealer group's customer data and its advisers, on the UiPath Platform and Microsoft 365. Each event is defined once, in Microsoft Lists, and every robot reads that one record.
Robots on UiPath Orchestrator pull candidates from the three DMS and the group CRM, match the same person across brands and run the consent check per name and channel: marketing basis for this entity and brand, channel consent for e‑mail or SMS, no suppression-list entry. Exclusions are listed with the reason, and the marketing manager approves the result as a UiPath Action Center task in Microsoft Teams before anything is sent. RSVPs from every channel land in one Microsoft Lists list that drives capacity, reminders and the arrival list.
The morning after, every guest ticked as interested becomes a lead in the group CRM with a dated Action Center task for the adviser who hosted them, and the proof-of-performance pack assembles itself from what the event produced, deadline attached. No AI is involved; the rules are the marketing manager's and the data protection officer's, written once and applied every time.
UiPath Orchestrator queues, triggers and audit; UiPath Integration Service connectors for Microsoft Outlook 365, Microsoft Teams and Microsoft OneDrive & SharePoint; UiPath Action Center tasks in Microsoft Teams; Microsoft Lists; Microsoft Forms with its Power Automate trigger; Power BI
The event definition, segment and consent rules, the suppression list, the send schedule, RSVP and capacity logic, lead and task creation, the proof-pack assembly, the funnel report, the runbook
The three DMS and the group CRM through interfaces or screens; the SMS gateway through UiPath Integration Service Connector Builder; the importer's co-op portal through its screen where the dealer contract permits
How the automated process works
- PersonThe marketing manager defines the event once in Microsoft Lists: brand and entity, site, date, segments, capacity per slot, channels, and the co-op programme and deadline
- AutomationRobots pull candidates from the three DMS and the CRM by the segment rules and match the same person across brands
- AutomationThe consent check runs per name and channel: marketing basis for this entity and brand, channel consent for e‑mail or SMS, no suppression-list entry; a failed name is excluded with the reason
- PersonThe manager sees the list in Teams with counts, exclusions and capacity and approves it or changes the rules; nothing leaves before that
- AutomationInvitations leave with a personal RSVP link; replies collect in one list against capacity, reminders follow the schedule, and the arrival list reaches the site's Teams channel the evening before
- PersonAt the door the host desk ticks arrivals and registers walk-ins on a form with consent boxes; the adviser ticks interest next to the guests he spoke to
- AutomationEach interested guest becomes a lead in the CRM with a dated task for the hosting adviser in Teams; the proof pack is assembled on SharePoint, deadline attached
Human-in-the-loop model
Automation handles
- Candidate selection, matching across brands, and the consent check per name, channel, entity and brand
- Invitations, RSVPs, capacity, reminders and the arrival list
- Lead creation, the task per adviser, the proof pack and the funnel report
People decide
- What the event is: segments, format, capacity, budget and the co-op plan
- Whether the list goes out, and what happens to the excluded names, which a person may still invite by letter where the basis allows
- Who hosts whom and every conversation that follows; the consent rules themselves, owned by the data protection officer
Before and after
Systems and integrations
Where a rule suffices we do not use a model. Where judgement is needed, a person decides.
Inputs
- the event definition in Microsoft Lists
- the three DMS and the group CRM
- the suppression list
- RSVPs from Microsoft Forms, the event mailbox and the reception log
- the photo library and agency invoice on SharePoint
Automation layer
- UiPath Orchestrator
- UiPath Robots
- UiPath Integration Service
- UiPath Action Center
- Power Automate for the form responses
Target systems
- the group CRM
- SharePoint for the lists and the proof pack
- the SMS gateway
- the importer's co-op portal
- Power BI
Human touchpoints: guest-list approval in Microsoft Teams; the arrival list in the site's Teams channel; the task per adviser; the proof-pack task for the marketing manager
Technologies used
build the list, run the consent check, send, collect RSVPs, create leads and assemble the pack
Ae‑mail sends, channel posts, the lists and the event library; wraps the SMS gateway
Aguest-list approval, the dated task per adviser and the proof-pack task, all inside Teams
Athe event definition, the RSVP and arrival lists, the RSVP form and the walk-in form with consent boxes
Athe funnel per event and brand; co-op claims proven and paid
Asegments, the consent record and lead creation, through interfaces or screens
CIllustrative economic model
Start by questioning the assumptions.
Desk work is what the 19 hours buy: about four to export, merge and clean the list, five on invitations and RSVPs, three on reminders and the arrival list, four on follow-up and three on the proof pack. Twenty-six events a year is 2.17 a month for the calculator; €25 is a fully loaded cost of a marketing post in a Polish dealer group. No client was timed; budgets and orders stay outside the table.
Run the numbers on your data
An illustrative estimate from your own inputs. It models released capacity; it is not a promise of savings.
Business benefits
- No invitation leaves without a recorded consent for that channel, entity and brand, and an objection at any site stops every brand's next send
- The guest list takes an approval instead of two days of merging
- RSVPs, capacity and reminders live in one list, so a slot cannot be booked three times and empty seats show a week before
- Every interested guest has an adviser and a date by the next morning, and the site director sees which are overdue
- The proof pack exists the day after, so co-funded spend is claimed inside the deadline instead of written off
The management view
- Every event acquires the same anatomy and numbers, so two sites' launches compare and the format that produces orders is known
- Consent stops being answered from memory: the check is a versioned rule, and the exclusions are a list the data protection officer can open
- Follow-up becomes a duty with a due date per adviser and an overdue count per site
- Co-op recovery per importer programme becomes three figures: claimed, proven, paid
Board-level KPIs
Security and governance
An auditor should be able to reconstruct every decision.
- Robots reach each DMS, the CRM and the SMS gateway with their own accounts, kept in an Orchestrator credential store such as Azure Key Vault, with rights to read segments and consent and write leads
- Guest data stays in the group's Microsoft 365 tenant, the CRM and the EU region of UiPath Automation Cloud; arrival lists carry only what the door needs, and a Purview retention label clears them after the deadline
- Every send records which consent wording, entity, brand and channel it relied on, so an objection under GDPR Art. 21(2) is answered with a date and reaches every brand's suppression list the same day
- The attendance list for the importer holds counts, and names only where the consent names the importer as a recipient under Art. 13(1)(e); no robot writes to a co-op portal unless the dealer contract allows
Why now
Under the Prawo komunikacji elektronicznej (Dz.U. 2024 poz. 1221) an e‑mail or SMS invitation needs the channel consent of its art. 398 on top of the GDPR basis; a customer record is not a consent record, and a list built from memory cannot show what it relied on
Electrified line-ups mean more launches: 350,500 alternative-drivetrain cars were registered in Poland in 2025, 20% more than in 2024, and premium brands grew to 154,000 (PZPM and KPMG, February 2026); each new model is an evening at every site
The modelled €1,029 a month of desk time is the smallest of the three costs, and the tools are documented product: Action Center tasks complete inside Teams, a form response starts a flow
Relevant executive roles
Events become a measured channel with one funnel per brand and site, and the launch calendar runs without two people in marketing as the bottleneck
Co-op recovery becomes a figure per programme, and cost per lead by format compares across brands
Every send carries the consent it relied on, and an objection recorded anywhere stops every brand's next invitation
Common questions and objections
The agency designs and sends; it does not know who withdrew consent last week or who already owns brand C. The robot hands it a consented, de-duplicated list and takes back the send report.
One tick next to a name they have just spoken to, or the host desk does it at the door; the lead, the task and the date follow from that tick.
Only where the consent names the entity and the brands it covers. The check applies that rule per event, and the exclusion count shows how often brand A's consent stops short of brand C's evening.
When this is not the right solution
- Fewer than ten events a year on one brand at one site, where a well-kept list and a shared mailbox do the job
- Where no system holds a consent record, only paper forms in the sales files; solution 114 comes first
- Where the importer runs the events and the group only provides the showroom, with no list and no claim of its own
A question for the next management meeting
Between the invitation and the order, where do our events lose the customer: at the list, at the door, or on the Monday after?
Implementation approach
We start with one slice of the process and extend only once it is proven.
We deliver
- A read of your last twelve events, from list sources to which proof packs were claimed on time
- The event definition and the segment rules per brand, built with the marketing manager
- The consent check and the suppression list, agreed with your data protection officer; consolidating consent across brands is solution 114
- The invitation, RSVP and capacity flows, the Forms and Lists front-ends, lead creation and the proof-pack assembly
- The Power BI funnel and a runbook for the marketing team
We need from you
- The materials from those twelve events: lists, invitations, RSVP trackers, sign-in sheets, proof packs, outcomes
- Where consent lives in each DMS and the CRM, and your data protection officer for the rules
- Access to the DMS, the CRM, the event mailboxes, the SMS gateway and a co-op portal login per brand
Stages
Discovery
Twelve past events read end to end, from list sources to claims
Design
Event definition, segment and consent rules, capacity logic, follow-up windows, proof-pack index
Build
Robots, the Lists and Forms front-ends, the Teams tasks, the SMS connector, the funnel report
First event
One brand at one site, with list, exclusions and pack reviewed line by line
Season
The remaining formats and brands added event by event, with a review after each
Quick win. Effort follows the number of DMS platforms, where their consent fields live, and whether the co-op portal permits automated submission.
Forty-one names on a sign-in sheet, and the only follow-up is the drawer it goes into.
Send us the materials from your last three events: lists, invitations, RSVP tracker, sign-in sheets and the claimed proof packs. You get back a consent-gap count per event, a follow-up rate and a written assessment of what the robot would have done differently.
Follow one event from invitation to leadThe neighbouring process usually has the same problem
Nine channels, four brands, one receptionist deciding who calls the customer back. The Friday lead waits until Monday.
View solution Legal & complianceOne customer across three brands, one consent recordA reminder goes to someone who opted out, because the objection lives in another brand's system.
View solution Sales & marketingCampaign assets that arrive complete, approved and on timeThe version that went live in Romania was not the one legal approved, and nobody could prove which one it was.
View solutionIndustries we deliver this in most oftenAutomotive retail