Here is a number that should make every FMCG CFO uncomfortable: 15-25% of revenue spent on trade promotions, managed in spreadsheets.
Not managed in a sophisticated trade promotion optimisation platform. Not tracked through a real-time analytics dashboard. Managed in Excel files that live on shared drives, updated manually by trade marketing teams, reconciled by finance months after the promotions have ended.
This isn't a technology problem. Trade promotion management (TPM) systems exist. They've existed for years. The problem is that none of them work well enough for APAC's unique complexity.
Why APAC TPM Is Different
Trade promotion in APAC isn't the same as trade promotion in Europe or North America. The differences matter:
Distribution complexity: APAC consumer goods companies work through layers of distributors, sub-distributors, and wholesalers. A promotion designed for the modern trade channel may be executed differently by each distributor, creating reconciliation nightmares when it's time to measure ROI.
Market fragmentation: A regional FMCG company might run promotions across Singapore, Malaysia, Thailand, Indonesia, Vietnam, and the Philippines simultaneously. Each market has different retail landscapes, consumer behaviours, regulatory requirements for promotional activities, and even different definitions of what constitutes a "trade promotion."
Currency and tax complexity: Promotional discounts, rebates, and accruals need to be tracked in local currencies, converted at appropriate rates, and handled according to local tax rules. A buy-one-get-one promotion has different tax implications in Singapore versus Indonesia versus Thailand.
Data fragmentation: Sell-in data comes from distributors (in inconsistent formats). Sell-out data may or may not be available depending on the channel. Promotional compliance data is often anecdotal. Stitching together a complete picture of promotion performance requires combining data from multiple sources, none of which speak the same language.
The Spreadsheet Trap
Given this complexity, it's understandable why spreadsheets persist. They're flexible. They accommodate the ad hoc nature of APAC trade promotion. They let each market work in its own way.
But that flexibility is exactly the problem. When every market manages promotions differently, there's no way to:
- Compare promotion ROI across markets consistently
- Forecast promotional spend accurately
- Catch duplicate or conflicting claims from distributors
- Generate the accrual numbers that finance needs on time
- Make evidence-based decisions about which promotions to continue, modify, or kill
The result is that the single largest controllable expense after COGS is managed with the least rigor.
What Good Looks Like
The FMCG companies that are getting trade promotion management right in APAC aren't buying packaged TPM solutions. They're building intelligence layers that work with their existing processes:
Claim automation: Distributor claims — the invoices, debit notes, and proof-of-performance documents that distributors submit to get paid for executing promotions — are processed automatically. Document intelligence extracts the relevant data, validates it against promotion terms, and flags discrepancies.
Accrual accuracy: Instead of estimating promotional accruals and truing up months later, the system tracks actual promotional activity in near-real-time, giving finance accurate accrual numbers at any point in the period.
ROI visibility: By connecting promotion plans to actual sell-in and sell-out data, companies can see which promotions are working and which aren't — not months later, but during the promotion period.
Cross-market benchmarking: Standardised data across markets means that a promotion tactic that works in Thailand can be evaluated for applicability in Vietnam or Indonesia, with actual performance data to support the decision.
The Stakes Are High
For a regional FMCG company doing $500M in revenue, 20% trade promotion spend means $100M annually. If even 10% of that spend is ineffective — and industry research suggests the number is much higher — that's $10M in value destruction every year.
The spreadsheet isn't just suboptimal. At this scale, it's a fiduciary issue.