Draft three, or was it four?
Twelve creators each deliver a video and some stories. Drafts arrive as WhatsApp videos (compressed and hard to review), email attachments, Google Drive links and WeTransfer links that expire. Your executive downloads them, reviews them, uploads them to a shared folder for the client, and emails the client a list.
The client's brand manager comments in the email, the client's legal reviewer comments in the folder, and a product manager replies to the brand manager directly. Your executive combines the feedback and sends it to creators. Revised drafts come back. By the third round, nobody is completely sure which version the client approved, and one creator posts version two.
Why approvals get tangled
Three parties, several reviewers on the client side and many files, with no single place to hold the versions and the comments.
- Creators send drafts through whatever channel is handy.
- Messaging apps compress video, so reviewers see a worse version.
- Client reviewers comment in different places and sometimes disagree.
- The agency relays feedback, rewording it, and some is lost.
- Approval is an email saying "all good", not linked to a version.
What tangled approvals cost
Campaigns slip because each round takes longer than it should. Creators are frustrated by vague or conflicting feedback, and by being asked to change something a different reviewer had approved. The wrong version goes live. When something in a live post is questioned, there is no clear record of who approved what.
Your team pays with its time. Executives become couriers, moving files and comments between parties, and the actual judgement, whether the content works, gets squeezed.
Files are a problem of their own. Transfer links expire, WhatsApp videos lose quality, and the raw files the client wants for later use are scattered across a dozen places by the end of the campaign. Finding the approved version of one creator's video three months later can take an afternoon.
One approval flow for creator content
- Each creator uploads drafts through their campaign link, at full quality, with a caption draft and any notes.
- Each upload becomes a numbered version linked to the deliverable it is for.
- Your team reviews first, commenting on the video at a timestamp or on the caption, and decides whether it goes to the client.
- The client's reviewers see the same version and comment in the same place; you set whether one or several need to approve.
- Conflicting comments are visible side by side, so your account manager can resolve them before feedback goes to the creator.
- The creator receives one clear set of feedback on their page and uploads the next version.
- Approval is recorded against a version, with name and time, and the approved file and caption are what the creator is told to post, and what your post check compares against.
| Stage | Who | Recorded |
|---|---|---|
| Draft uploaded | Creator | Version number, time |
| Agency review | Account team | Comments, pass to client or return |
| Client review | Named reviewers | Comments, approvals |
| Feedback to creator | Account manager | Combined, one message |
| Final approval | Client approver | Version, name, time |
A round of approvals that closes cleanly
Drafts arrive in one place at full quality. Your executive reviews them in the morning and sends the good ones to the client the same day. The client's brand manager and legal reviewer comment on the same versions; one conflict is spotted and settled on a quick call. Creators get one clear set of feedback each. Approved versions are marked, and creators are told exactly which file and caption to post.
When the client later asks who approved a post, the answer is on the version: their own reviewer, on a given date.
Timings improve too, because the flow shows where each deliverable is waiting: on the creator, on your team or on the client. The account manager can chase the right party, and the client can see for themselves when their own review is the hold-up.
Is your approval process like this?
- Creator drafts arrive by WhatsApp, email and file links.
- Client reviewers comment in different places.
- Feedback is relayed and reworded by your team.
- You are not always sure which version was approved.
- A creator has posted an unapproved version.