That indirect spend is a complex area, with a great deal of opportunity to reduce costs and increase value is well known. But a discussion at today’s Procurement Leaders Masterclass in Vienna put the focus on what could be seen as a secondary benefit of thinking more strategically about these categories of spend.

How do we measure success in indirect procurement? Is it cost savings? Value creation? Both? Neither? Should CPOs be focusing on the bottom line or the top?

This guest post by Ivan Skoric, head of digital production at Charterhouse discusses the benefits of decoupling in digital marketing, looks for answers behind the recent report that procurement and marketing are still in conflict, particularly in relatively new areas of spend, such as digital marketing.

The subjects of risk management, marketing, and new products doomed to fail may seem to have little in common. But, five separate and unconnected reports I read last week tied them all together as procurement concerns, at least in my mind

The world’s largest advertiser, Procter & Gamble, has always been used as bit of a bellwether for the health of the marketing and advertising sector.

If you think your procurement team can get away w.ithout market intelligence, think again.

Tim Cook’s continued employment at Apple is worth a lot: €378 million in annual salary and restricted stock units according to an SEC proxy statement published on Monday 9th January.

A story from earlier this week revealed how European companies are still wasting millions on marketing due to poor procurement practices. It’s a story which has proven popular - marketing, after all, is a category of spend that will always stir debate.