advertisement
advertisement

CMOs, Not CIOs, Now Control 11 Percent Of Retail IT Spending

Written by Frank Hayes
August 7th, 2013

Almost 20 percent of the $60 billion in annual North American retail IT spending isn’t under the CIO’s control. Who’s spending most of that $11.6 billion? The chief marketing officer, according to a report that IHL released last Friday (Aug. 2). And instead of being just a few limited solutions areas, it looks like CMOs are using their 11 percent of total IT spend to dive into traditional IT operational areas. Translation: Yes, they’re buying and running hardware, not just paying for software and services without IT’s OK.

That kind of rogue IT activity isn’t new, and IT departments in and outside of retail have been dealing with it for decades. What’s different is the scale. “Hardware” used to mean a leased minicomputer sitting in a closet, running some specialized application cheaper than what IT would charge. Now CMOs are spending enough to create their own miniature IT shops, and the first the real IT shop will hear about it is after a catastrophe so bad that marketing can no longer hide it—which, with an in-department IT budget that big, can be one heck of an IT catastrophe.

Let’s skip over the usual hand-wringing about separation of responsibilities because, let’s face it, IT is traditionally very big on telling departments “no.” It’s not very good at explaining clearly why “no” is IT’s favorite word (followed closely by “expensive”), and why vendor sales people can always offer a much, much lower estimate for what some IT solution to a complicated marketing problem will cost.

What it comes down to is that when marketing people hear “no,” they’ll take their budgets and go looking for someone who will say “yes.” And IT vendors who’ll say “yes”—to almost anything—aren’t hard to find.

What to do? IHL has its own advice, which includes advice to vendors for selling to CMOs (thanks ever so much, guys). Given the CMO’s clout, it’s unlikely that retail CIOs would be able to stomp on rogue IT spending, especially when it appears to be working fine (and it will, until the day that disaster arrives) and it’s selling merchandise.

There is, of course, an easier way to find out the scope of the problem: Just declare that it’s not rogue spending, it’s OK with IT, and you’d like to see what they’re doing.

Then wangle a tour of marketing’s IT effort. Take notes. And when the tour is over, don’t make a peep about how they should have done 90 percent of this through IT and why it’s all wrong.

A month later, ask for another tour, to make sure you understood everything you saw the first time. Chances are you’ll see even more, because you didn’t kneecap the CMO after the first tour. Make sure you understand what they’re using, how they’re using it and how they see use of each set of systems expanding going forward. And still don’t make a peep of complaint.

Two months after that, ask the CMO what’s new, and get another tour. And that’s about the time you’ll be in a position to offer to help out if anything goes wrong or marketing needs to connect to systems under IT’s control.

Meanwhile, knowing what marketing has makes it possible for IT’s operations and security people to spot the most likely pain points in advance. There may be nothing IT can do in advance to prevent a disaster, but at least IT can be prepared.

Remember, in a turf war, IT will lose. The CMO’s big under-the-radar IT spend probably isn’t under the CFO’s radar, which means the CFO has already said yes. Forget trying to turn that into a no. Given a little time, you can offer the CMO solutions at a range of costs, along with explanations for why those solutions cost more than the vendor’s price and what the benefits are. That, after all, isf how you could have headed off that rogue IT spending in the first place.

And if all else fails, you can always flip the situation by buying a small slice of a marketing consultant’s time to tell you how to sell IT’s services to the people who should be its customers. After all, marketing is spending on IT. Reversing the situation just seems fair.


advertisement

Leave a Reply

Readers, specifically those who want to comment on a story:
Our Comment SPAM system is getting very aggressive these days and has been blocking legitimate comments. If you post a comment and don't see it appear within 2 hours or so, can you please send a heads-up to customer-service@storefrontbacktalk.com? Ideally, please include the time you posted the comment. That will allow us to try and hunt for it. Thanks! P.S. We're working on fixing the system, but we don't want to lose any valuable comments in the meantime.

Newsletters

StorefrontBacktalk delivers the latest retail technology news & analysis. Join more than 17,000 retail IT leaders who subscribe to our free weekly email. Sign up today!
advertisement

Most Recent Comments

Why Did Gonzales Hackers Like European Cards So Much Better?

I am still unclear about the core point here-- why higher value of European cards. Supply and demand, yes, makes sense. But the fact that the cards were chip and pin (EMV) should make them less valuable because that demonstrably reduces the ability to use them fraudulently. Did the author mean that the chip and pin cards could be used in a country where EMV is not implemented--the US--and this mis-match make it easier to us them since the issuing banks may not have as robust anti-fraud controls as non-EMV banks because they assumed EMV would do the fraud prevention for them Read more...
Two possible reasons that I can think of and have seen in the past - 1) Cards issued by European banks when used online cross border don't usually support AVS checks. So, when a European card is used with a billing address that's in the US, an ecom merchant wouldn't necessarily know that the shipping zip code doesn't match the billing code. 2) Also, in offline chip countries the card determines whether or not a transaction is approved, not the issuer. In my experience, European issuers haven't developed the same checks on authorization requests as US issuers. So, these cards might be more valuable because they are more likely to get approved. Read more...
A smart card slot in terminals doesn't mean there is a reader or that the reader is activated. Then, activated reader or not, the U.S. processors don't have apps certified or ready to load into those terminals to accept and process smart card transactions just yet. Don't get your card(t) before the terminal (horse). Read more...
The marketplace does speak. More fraud capacity translates to higher value for the stolen data. Because nearly 100% of all US transactions are authorized online in real time, we have less fraud regardless of whether the card is Magstripe only or chip and PIn. Hence, $10 prices for US cards vs $25 for the European counterparts. Read more...
@David True. The European cards have both an EMV chip AND a mag stripe. Europeans may generally use the chip for their transactions, but the insecure stripe remains vulnerable to skimming, whether it be from a false front on an ATM or a dishonest waiter with a handheld skimmer. If their stripe is skimmed, the track data can still be cloned and used fraudulently in the United States. If European banks only detect fraud from 9-5 GMT, that might explain why American criminals prefer them over American bank issued cards, who have fraud detection in place 24x7. Read more...

StorefrontBacktalk
Our apologies. Due to legal and security copyright issues, we can't facilitate the printing of Premium Content. If you absolutely need a hard copy, please contact customer service.