Marketplace listing launches for education and cause apps

A listing in an education or cause marketplace is won at the privacy review, not on the day it goes live. On the integrations we have taken through Clever, ClassLink and the French GAR, the review stage - data inventory, sub-processor list, retention schedule, deletion path, signed DPA - has run between nine and twenty weeks. The listing copy takes about four days. We plan the engagement around that ratio, and we book no co-marketing slot before the badge exists, because a partnership date you cannot fulfil is a relationship you spend once. Where we work: Clever Library and ClassLink for United States districts, Google Workspace Marketplace, Apple School Manager, LTI 1.3 Advantage catalogues for Canvas and Moodle, the GAR and the Eduthèque referencing route in France, and on the cause side Benevity Causes, Percent and TechSoup. Each gate opens on a different thing. Clever reads your rostering behaviour and what you do with a mid-year unenrolment. The GAR reads your ScoLOMFR metadata and your ENT integration. Benevity reads your fiscal registration and your beneficiary reporting. We pick the two or three that match what you have actually built, and tell you plainly which ones you should not attempt this year. Promotion, after the badge: The listing page is not a channel. What moves installs is the platform's own distribution: the partner newsletter, the new-in-the-library slot, the district webinar, the account team's slide. We negotiate those as dated commitments with a named owner on the platform side. We also prepare you for the part sellers forget, which is that a platform's team has to be able to describe your product in one sentence to a school board, and if they cannot, no slot rescues it. Then the first review cycle, because these directories weight recent reviews heavily and most listings never collect one. What we refuse: We do not write reviews for a customer to sign, offer anything of value for a review, or trade licences for a testimonial. We do not submit a children's product until we have watched a real deletion happen - a screen recording of a pupil record leaving your production systems and your backups, not a paragraph in a policy. Where the deletion path does not work we stop and tell you to fix it, which has ended two engagements before submission. We will not manage a listing for a product that profiles or resells pupil data in any form, including for its own analytics, and no commercial argument moves that line. Who this is not for: Teams who want to appear in every directory at once. Distribution in this sector runs through a small number of platform staff who talk to each other, and being a nuisance in three places is expensive for years. Also not for products at prototype stage: the review asks for evidence of a security programme already operating, and you cannot assemble one during the review itself. What you receive: A written eligibility ruling per marketplace, with the specific blocker named where there is one. Listing assets in English and French where the platform serves both. Completed questionnaires and a maintained answer library that stays with you. A negotiated co-marketing calendar with named contacts and dates. A monthly install and activation read by source, so you know which directory earned an account rather than which one it happened to sit in.