Many retailers’ finance processes were set up when money came in through one or two places, e.g. a till or a single webshop, and landed in one bank account.
But adding additional sales channels changes that. A retailer that sells through a physical store, its own webshop, Amazon and TikTok Shop is paid in four different ways and spends money through four different sets of people. This article looks at why more complex retail setups can break month-end. We’ll explore why the two halves of the problem need different fixes, and which half a finance team can bring under control quickly.
Splitting income and spending
On the income side, each channel pays out on its own timetable. Amazon, for example, typically pays out every fortnight, net of fees. Shopify Payments settles within a few business days, TikTok Shop pays once an order is completed and the return window has passed, and the conventional store banks daily.
On the spending side, the store manager buys shelving and carrier bags on one card, while the ecommerce team pays for packaging, ad spend and software on another. This means that the same supplier’s invoices can arrive at two addresses.
The result is a month-end that needs four settlement exports and a spreadsheet, and there’s no quick answer to what the business spent last month across store and webshop.
Each new channel adds a payout cycle
So, while having multiple channels is becoming more and more normal, every one a retailer adds brings a new way of being paid. Each one has its own payout cycle, its own fee structure and its own settlement file. And, unfortunately, the finance process that worked for a till and a card terminal will likely struggle to adapt the more additional channels you open.
This is the aspect of omnichannel finance that smaller finance teams struggle with the most, and it’s a problem that can require a specialist approach. Matching a fortnightly Amazon deposit back to hundreds of orders, fees, refunds and reserves requires a certain degree of experience and patience.
The second problem: outgoing spend
Alongside the settlement problem there’s the problem of outgoing spend. The business spends money across both channels, on suppliers, packaging, advertising, software and staff. That spend is scattered across cards, inboxes and people in the same way the income is scattered across platforms.
These two problems both cause friction in month-end, but they’re fundamentally different. Settlement is about money arriving in formats you do not control, while spend is about money leaving in ways you do.
Why one big stack decision makes both worse
Looking for one single new system that will handle everything often means treating these two different problems as one.
Settlement reconciliation needs a connector that reads each marketplace’s payout file and posts fees, refunds and reserves to the ledger correctly. Spend control needs one policy, one set of limits and one coding scheme for everyone who buys, whichever channel they buy for. A tool built for one is rarely good at the other, so choosing one system for both usually means compromising on each.
Which half can you standardise this quarter?
While you can’t choose how Amazon pays out, you can choose how your people spend. Settlement requires a connector, a finance calendar built around each payout cycle, and probably some accounting help. Spend, on the other hand, can be brought under one set of rules across store and webshop now, because as a business you already control every input.
How to fix each side
Split the ledger by direction and fix each side with the tool made for it.
For incoming settlement:
- A marketplace reconciliation or accounting connector per channel, posting gross sales, fees, refunds and reserves to the ledger from each payout file.
- A finance calendar built around each channel's payout cycle rather than a single month-end.
For outgoing spend:
- Cards and approvals issued per person or per channel budget, with limits set in advance.
- Receipts and cost codes captured at the point of purchase, so nothing is coded from a statement later.
- Supplier invoices routed through one AP queue whichever address they arrive at.
- Channel or location as a tag on every transaction, so store and webshop spend can be compared on the same page.
Moss covers the outgoing side only. Cards, Expense Management and AP put store and webshop spend under one policy, one approval flow and one coding scheme, and each transaction carries a channel tag. What it doesn’t do is reconcile marketplace payouts or post settlement fees, so the incoming side still needs its connector.
What changes at month-end
The settlement side still produces a file per channel, and a connector posts them. The spend side becomes one report with store and webshop side by side, showing what each spent on suppliers, packaging, advertising and staff, coded at the point of purchase rather than reconstructed from statements.
Month-end is still two jobs, but each has the right tool. As a result, spending takes a fraction of the time it did before.
