Martech Diary Series | Part 2

---

Reflections of a marketer navigating marketing automation across local and global organisations.

---

“I would rather share one lifetime with you than face all the ages of this world alone.”

(The Lord of the Rings — slightly adapted for those brave enough to discuss
long-term commitments, budgets included.)

Because if you are going to commit — commit properly.

---

Dear Diary,

After writing Part 1 on adoption, one question refused to leave the ballroom.

Not does martech work?

But:

Who paid for the first concert — the glorious go-live performance?

And who will fund the future concerts — the sprints, enhancements, AI layers, integrations… and sometimes just the addition of one crucial new instrument?

Because launch is always funded.

It is the encore — and the subtle improvements between performances — that test the partnership. Between Marketing and IT, that is.

In the spirit of the season, it felt like the right moment to widen the circle and bring Finance properly into the room — for a candid conversation about money, commitment, and long-term arrangements in this unofficial, slightly Bridgerton-flavoured  💘 Valentine’s Edition: A CMO Meets a CFO.

Because nothing tests a relationship quite like agreeing who pays — and who stays accountable once the excitement of go-live fades.

---

Let me introduce: The CFO Ant 🐜

In our enchanted forest of strategy maps and dashboards, the CFO ant adjusts her suit, gestures toward the figures, and calmly guides the ROMI Decoder:

“Now let me show you how to budget these costs.”

And suddenly this is no longer about martech enthusiasm.

It is all about financial architecture.

To sharpen my thinking — and to properly understand the real options for budgeting martech — I consulted my CFO advisor: a customGPT I built to explore strategies and practices across European corporate and SMB finance leadership.

That perspective quietly reshaped the way I look at this debate.

---

🟨 Post-it 1:

“Who pays” is the wrong question

Most organisations start with the wrong debate:

Should martech sit in IT? Or in Marketing?

But this is the wrong framing.

The real questions are:

• Who owns the decision rights?
• Who is accountable for outcomes?
• Who carries the risk if value does not materialise?

If Marketing drives growth but does not feel the cost, prioritisation drifts.

If IT funds the platform but does not own value creation, accountability diffuses.

And when accountability diffuses, ROMI becomes an elegant dashboard — admired, rarely enforced. Ownership of the budget must be matched with ownership of measurable benefit — otherwise martech risks behaving like a cost centre while being labelled a growth engine.

Wiz, if martech budget ownership is unclear, can ROMI still be enforced?

Note to self :

A splendid engagement may charm society — but it is the signed agreement that governs the future.

---

🟨 Post-it 2:

Split by work type, not by phase

Many companies attempt a tidy split:

Year 1: implementation.

Year 2: maintenance.

It looks organised, but it rarely reflects reality.

The CFO framing is sharper:

Do not split by when. Split by what.

If the work creates business capability — journeys, segmentation, experimentation — it belongs with the business.

If the work mitigates enterprise risk — security, integration, compliance — it belongs with IT.

But here is where the metaphor deepens.

Sometimes the change is not a new concert.

It is the addition of a single instrument.

A new field in the interface pulling master data via API.

A real-time attribute enriching customer context.

A consent signal refining targeting.

A scoring parameter elevating prioritisation.

To Marketing, this is strategic refinement.

It improves the concert experience being designed and measured.

To IT, it is another integration in the queue.

And sometimes — not because of compliance, not because of security — but because of budget.

If the integration effort sits in the IT cost centre, IT controls prioritisation.

And whoever controls the budget controls the tempo.

Wiz, who should decide when a new “instrument” is added — if Marketing owns the strategy but IT owns the budget line?

Note to self :

If the estate funds the orchestra, the estate chooses the repertoire — even when the conductor hears a masterpiece waiting to be played.

---

🟨 Post-it 3:

AI — the charming complication

And then, of course, there is AI.

AI will reshape how martech is implemented and operated — without question.

But it does not change the ownership logic.

It intensifies it.

Because AI introduces not just functionality, but:

• a risk posture (data exposure, model behaviour, regulatory implications),
• and an operating model (monitoring drift, evaluation cycles, consumption-based costs).

From the CFO perspective:

IT owns the guardrails — security, compliance, reliability.

Business owns the value — use cases, experimentation, measurable uplift.

What organisations often label as “AI maintenance” is, in truth, continuous business change.

And continuous business change belongs with business accountability.

Wiz, does AI change where martech ownership should sit — or does it simply expose weak governance faster?

Note to self :

Invite a dazzling newcomer to the season without clear rules, and you will soon discover that admiration is easier than governance.

---

🟨 Post-it 4:

The financial risks nobody budgets for

The greatest financial risk in martech is rarely overspending.

It is uncapped demand.

When:

• “maintenance” absorbs ongoing business change,
• AI consumption costs sit invisibly in IT,
• integration requests multiply without prioritisation discipline,
• and ‘Keeping-The-Lights-On‘ is never separated from strategic development,

cost grows faster than value.

Quietly. Politely. Relentlessly.

And without explicit benefit tracking, that imbalance remains invisible — until budgets tighten.

Like hosting every suitor in London without reviewing the estate accounts.

Wiz, can martech deliver ROMI if demand is uncapped and accountability diluted?

Note to self :

Even the grandest manor cannot endure a season without stewardship — elegance requires limits.

---

💜 Closing reflection (because of course)

Across organisations, the pattern remains remarkably consistent.

Martech does not fail because it is expensive.

It fails because ownership is politely assumed — and budgets quietly dictate power.

When business owns value and IT owns risk, martech becomes a disciplined partnership.

When they do not, it becomes a romance of good intentions — radiant at go-live, complicated by autumn.

The promise is made at the ceremony.

The commitment is proven in the years that follow.

And if you are going to commit — commit properly.

---

📎 Curious about the CFO perspective behind this reflection?

I used my CFO Advisor customGPT — built to explore European corporate and SMB finance strategies — to pressure-test these assumptions.

👉 Test it yourself