Governance vs. management in marketing technology – Chief Marketing Technologist.
Caron Carlson, editor ofFierceCIO — got to love that name, especially walking into a debate about the future of marketing technology — responded with an editorial to her readers,Are you ready to let marketing handle its own IT?
One of her concerns is my suggestion that, while marketing should largely run its own technology, IT could continue “to provide shared infrastructure, coordinate data and technology that crosses multiple departments (such as CRM systems), serve as a trusted consultant and enforce security and regulatory compliance as a checks-and-balances authority.”
Caron’s reaction:
I would love to hear from you on this vision, but at first glance it looks to me a nightmare in the making. As a general matter,any position that comes with enormous responsibility but without the commensurate authority to fulfill it is an untenable position. How could it be possible to ensure information security, compliance and integration in a large organization when one is not making either the strategic or nitty-gritty decisions involving whole sets of applications?
The emphasis added is mine because I strongly agree with Caron’s meta logic. A key reason I advocate for greater technology leadership in the marketing department is because I don’t believe that marketing can have responsibility for marketing outcomes that are based on technology — the bulk of digital marketing, which is becoming the bulk ofall marketing — without equally having the authority to manage that technology.
Continues @http://www.chiefmartec.com
Related articles
- Technology is just a tool… but are you skilled with it? (digitalassetmanagement.org.uk)
- The Time Is Ripe For A Chief Marketing Technologist (twistimage.com)
- Should marketing technology be centralized? (digitalassetmanagement.org.uk)
- What’s the difference between a CIO and CMO? (ericbrown.com)
