📬 Spending Freedom: Managing employee expenses

Pricing isn’t a puzzle no one wants to solve at Snowflake

Instead of finance vs. product finger-pointing, Snowflake built a Monetization Operating Model to align teams and scale pricing. On October 2nd, Snowflake’s Director of Finance, Ryan Campbell, and Metronome CEO Scott Woody share how it prepares companies for the AI era of monetization.

Save your seat

Before we get into it, I’ve got an ask for all the CFOs and senior finance professionals out there…

We recently launched the Boardroom Brief, a brand new newsletter focused on the topics keeping CFOs up at night.

I’m on the hunt for non-US based CFOs to give input on the following issues:

1) Exports into the US - and disruption from tariffs

2) ESG reporting/compliance challenges (TCFD, CSRD, etc).

Reply directly to this email or reach out directly to my reporter [email protected] if you’d be interested in an on-the-record discussion about how these issues have impacted your company and finance team.

Anyway … onto today’s Mailbag

We’ve got some great topics today. Here’s what’s on tap:

Now, let’s get into it.

Stuart from the UK asked:

I am the FD of a small manufacturing business. We discuss KPIs weekly as a management team. Given the industry, operational KPIs around product efficiency and volumes are key.

What role do you think finance should have in setting up systems, collating this information, diligence, and setting targets for it?

I’ve come into the business, so operations had already set up the KPIs and “own” them. But, I feel the urge to get stuck into them because my instinct is that non-finance departments rarely apply the same level of rigour/specificity to this type of thing, particularly in a small business.

Stuart, thanks for the question.

A crucial role of finance is to act as the bridge between operations and the P&L. In a manufacturing business, that means linking operational KPIs to the financial statements, and then using that bridge to tell wonderful stories that drive intensity and action. If finance isn’t in the mix, that link breaks.

So yes, you need to be involved. The question is: In what way?

If you were starting from scratch, I’d say own the KPI framework out of finance. But you’ve inherited something ops has already built. That changes the play.

Start by asking, “Is what’s there working?”

If it’s a mess, you need to step in, clean it up, and impose some rigor.

If it’s functional but a bit loose, your job is more subtle. Partner with ops to strengthen definitions, tighten governance, and build the bridge into the P&L.

The litmus test: How often do those ops KPIs explain what you see in the financials? If sales revenues are down but volumes are up and no-one can explain why, that’s a flag. If scrap rates improve but margin doesn’t move, something’s off. That’s where finance earns its seat: by validating, connecting, and making sure the numbers add up.

And here’s the part ops will usually love: showing how their hard work translates into dollars on the bottom line. Most operators are tactile, practical people. Seeing their output turn into margin is motivating. Finance can be the function that makes that connection visible.

MG from Australia asked:

I am the CFO of a fast-growing apparel brand, and we are currently testing freedom and responsibility inspired by what they did at Netflix. This means our expenses and travel policy is one sentence: “Do what is in the company's best interest.”

I am a great believer in finance not getting in the way of the business, but I am also nervous about what could go wrong. How have you thought of striking this balance in your CFO roles?

MG – honestly, it’s not for me. I get itchy even thinking about it.

“What’s in the company’s best interest” is a broad church. Different people will interpret that in different ways, and you can’t assume alignment just because it’s written on a slide.

Yes, Netflix made it work. But Netflix is Netflix. They have the luxury of hiring the very best people in the world, and they back it up with a ruthless performance culture. Managers are constantly encouraged to ask themselves the “keeper test” question: Would I fight to keep this person if they wanted to leave? That mindset is baked into how they run teams.

And if that person were a profligate spender, reckless with company money, you can bet the answer would be ‘no.’

Netflix also moved away from rigid annual reviews, preferring constant feedback, open conversations, and a high bar for performance. And when someone isn’t working out, they move quickly. That’s the foundation that allows them to trust people with this level of freedom.

So I think taking one part of the Netflix way of operating, without taking it in the context of the culture is dangerous.

In most growing consumer brands, you’ve got younger managers making judgment calls, tight margins, lots of scaling pain. That’s a very different risk profile.

My take: Policies like this are an amplifier of the culture you have.

If your culture is already strong and performance management is rigorous, it can work and even make the culture stronger. You can’t put a price on your employees knowing they are trusted.

But put this policy on the wrong foundation and it will expose every crack. Herb Kelleher had it right: “Culture is what happens when nobody’s looking.”

From a finance standpoint, even with this policy, there are some guardrails you can put around it. You don’t need to control every transaction, but you do need to watch the patterns. Track spend by category, by team, by individual. Look for anomalies. Build lightweight guardrails into your card platform (category restrictions, aggregate caps). That way, the freedom is real, but the blow-ups are contained.

And pair it with HR. Netflix’s model only works because feedback and performance management are constant, and abuse of principles would be dealt with quickly. If you don’t have that muscle, you’re running the risk of cultural drift and financial leakage.

Bosman from London, UK asked:

A new Brand Director has joined our FMCG. They’re understandably keen to make their mark. They’ve proposed a brand refresh (not a full rebranding, but a modernization). Our brand is well-loved and not that old (5-10 years). The direct cost has been outlined, but clearly, there are a large number of indirect costs that will start to filter through (everything from engineering time through to uniforms at the production site).

Obviously a tricky one to quantify from an RoI standpoint. There’s not too much you’d need to believe from a brand awareness uplift standpoint to think this is a good thing to do… But equally, it might have the inverse effect if botched. How would you think about challenging this, and what would you need to get comfortable enough to sign off?

This is one of my favorite topics. I could rant until I’m blue in the face on rebrands.

Let me kick off with a (not-so) subtle but important framing:

Most rebrands are pointless vanity projects. They’re usually driven by new CEOs or CMOs who want to put their personal stamp on a business they’ve just joined. And, I’m afraid that kind of narcissism has no place in brand decisions.

The only perspective on brand that matters is the customer’s.

A brand can and should evolve. But the ones that work best are subtle evolutions, not radical pivots. Apple did a hard reset of their brand early on (with little to lose), but since then, it’s been a slow, careful modernization. That’s how you keep a brand fresh without losing its soul.

And a brand isn’t just a logo. It’s the beating heart of a consumer business. That heart has to be protected at all costs. I’d argue a new Brand Director, a few months into the job, doesn’t yet understand what the soul of your brand really is. They don’t have a mandate to spend.

The risk of refreshing too early is that they mess with something they don’t fully understand.

And what if they don’t last? Are you ready to do this all over again when the next Brand Director walks in.

You’ve already said the brand is “well loved.” That means there’s something worth protecting. Proceed with extreme caution. Radical rebrands usually end badly. Just ask the CEOs of Cracker Barrel and Jaguar…

Now, to be fair, you’re not talking about a full rebrand here, just a modernization. But modernization means different things for people. I’ll bet my life that the Cracker Barrel CEO described her rebrand as a ‘modernization.’

Break the program down into milestones. Then scale up commitments only as confidence builds.

Start with a proper consumer brand study. That gives you data, optionality, and an asset you can use elsewhere. the best branding exercises I’ve seen happen where data meets creativity. When you are running on your CMOs personal taste, you have a problem.

That’s the compromise. You’re not saying “never,” you’re saying “prove it in stages.”

On ROI: Don’t waste time on it. You can’t quantify the impact of a prospective rebrand, you’re just guessing to make yourself feel like you are doing it properly. It’s much better to acknowledge that financializing the ROI is pointless. What you can do is gather data, control risk, and scale commitment as the risk reduces.

I’ve seen huge amounts of shareholder value created (and destroyed) through branding exercise. A good CMO is worth their weight in gold.

And yes, I care a lot more about branding than your average CFO. A lot of thought and effort goes into the branding of my content, too…

A few of the biggest stories that every CFO is paying close attention to. This is the section you might not want to see your name in.

Ex-xAI CFO Mike Liberatore has joined the rival team over at OpenAI. Dropping your approval on a $10B capex program (in July) before bolting for your competitor is a brave move.

Five executives of RCI Hospitality, including CEO Eric Langan and CFO Bradley Chhay, have been indicted for bribing a NY auditor on at least 10 occasions to avoid paying more than $8M in taxes over the last 15 years.

And in case you were wondering, they were those kinds of bribes.

Another black eye for the Big Four. According to the US government’s post-mortem, KPMG failed to identify Silicon Valley Bank’s shortcomings ahead of its collapse back in 2023.

Senator Richard Blumenthal said the report “exposes KPMG’s willful blindness and stresses that significant reforms to the auditing industry are needed to promote transparency and better protect consumers.”

Audit quality is the issue that won’t go away. There is no easy fix.

ICYMI, here are some of my favorite finance/business social media posts from this week. In the words of Kendall Roy, “all bangers, all the time.”:

Worth noting…

Let me know what you thought of today’s Mailbag. Just hit reply… I read every message.

On Thursday, I officially launched the Boardroom Brief newsletter. I brought on a (real) journalist to help tackle the topics that are top of mind for CFOs and boards. In the inaugural edition, we dove into how the CFO role has actually evolved and what AI means for the future of the role. Read the first Boardroom Brief right now.

On Saturday, in the Playbook, I shared how the CFO should behave when a crisis sits outside of finance. Spoiler: it’s the only time NPC isn’t an insult. Check out the newsletter here.

Disclaimer: I am not your accountant, tax advisor, lawyer, CFO, director, or friend. Well, maybe I’m your friend, but I am not any of those other things. Everything I publish represents my opinions only, not advice. Running the finances for a company is serious business, and you should take the proper advice you need.