We keep seeing this pattern play out the same way. Ownership feels solved at launch because nobody's had to use it yet. The stakeholder map looks clean. The RACI, if one exists, looks cleaner. Then a customer disputes a rejected receipt, or a prize sits unclaimed past the deadline, or a payment fails and nobody can say why — and the ownership that looked so obvious turns out to be five people quietly assuming someone else has it
Data, second. A single campaign can run across four systems — entry platform, validation tool, payment rail, CRM — and none of them agree on the source of truth.
When someone finally needs to reconcile a claim against a payment against a customer record, they're not pulling a report. They're stitching exports together in a spreadsheet and hoping the IDs match.
The handoff, third. Agencies run the campaign day to day. Marketing owns the customer relationship. Finance owns the money. Legal owns the risk. Each of those parties is genuinely accountable for their piece. Nobody is accountable for the seam between the pieces — and that seam is exactly where reconciliation problems live.
The teams that get this right don't wait for the exception to decide who owns it. They design for the exception before launch — who resolves a disputed claim, who signs off an unclaimed payout, who owns the reconciliation report when the numbers don't tie out. That's a five-minute conversation before a campaign goes live. It's a much longer one after a customer has already escalated.
Worth asking before your next campaign locks in: if a claim gets rejected and the customer pushes back, do you already know who resolves it — or does everyone just assume it isn't them?