The client side creative approval process
The route that thrilled everyone at the first presentation ships three weeks later as a flat version nobody wanted and everybody signed off. That did not happen because the creative was weak. It happened in the approval process. This is the view from the other side of the table, from the people handing the work in: why good creative dissolves in the third round of feedback, and how to run a client side creative approval process that lets it survive.
Key takeaways
- Creative rarely dies on the idea. It dies because every reviewer removes a little risk, and after three rounds nothing is left that anyone would notice.
- In the global BetterBriefs study run with the UK IPA in 2021, 80 % of marketers believed they write good briefs, while only 10 % of creative agencies agreed.
- The same research estimates that roughly 33 % of marketing budgets is wasted through poor briefs and misdirected work.
- Analysis by Nielsen Catalina Solutions in 2017 attributed about 47 % of the sales effect of advertising to the creative itself, so every round that waters it down is expensive.
- One rule does most of the work: one decision maker, everybody else advises. Not a vote.
- Below you will find a three sentence feedback template and the email to send before the first presentation.
Why does good creative die in the third round of feedback?
Because each round asks a different question and nobody says so out loud. Round one is about the idea, round two about the execution, round three is usually personal taste from people who joined the project late. Everyone means well, and everyone shaves off a little of whatever might surprise somebody. Three rounds later you have work that offends nobody and interests nobody.
The second reason sits in the brief. When it is unclear what the creative is meant to do and for whom, the only available yardstick is whether people like it. The numbers here are uncomfortable: in the 2021 BetterBriefs study with the IPA, 80 % of marketers thought they wrote good briefs and only 10 % of agencies agreed, and the same work puts the waste from poor briefing at around a third of marketing budgets. You can read the full marketing brief research on their site. What a brief that prevents this looks like is in our piece on the creative brief.
The third reason is simply human: groups decide worse than individuals when the goal is to stand out. In creative work it shows up the same way every time. Of three routes, the sharpest one falls first.
Who should actually get a vote?
One person decides, everybody else advises. Nothing in between works, however neat it looks in a spreadsheet. Sort people into three groups before the first presentation.
- Decision maker (one). Owns the outcome of the campaign and has the last word. Ideally the marketing lead or the owner, not whoever has the most time.
- Advisors (two or three). Sales, product, legal. Their comments are factual inputs, not votes. Factual means: we cannot make that claim, the product does not look like that any more.
- Informed (any number). They see the work when it is finished. Not earlier, and above all not in an open document with comments switched on.
It sounds strict and it saves weeks. When a client draws this list before the first presentation, the rounds get roughly twice as short. When they do not, we find out in round three that there is one more director at head office.
What does an approval process that protects the work look like?
Three rounds, each with its own question, and each one closing something for good. What is closed does not reopen. That is the whole trick.
- Direction round. The question is: is this the right route for our audience? Type and photography are not up for discussion. The output is one chosen route.
- Execution round. The question is: is it well made? Copy, imagery, emphasis and pacing belong here. The direction does not change.
- Detail round. The question is: is it error free? Typos, figures, logos, legal requirements. Nothing else.
Two practical additions work better than any tool. First, one person on the client side collects the feedback and sends it once, reconciled. Ten emails from five people over three days means the first three no longer apply. Second, when two inputs contradict each other, we do not decide on the client's behalf. We send both versions back with one question: which of these serves the original goal better?
And one thing we do on our own side: we do not bring three finished layouts to the first presentation. Finished work invites a verdict on taste. Rough routes invite a decision about direction, which is exactly what round one needs. If you want to see how the idea itself takes shape before that, we wrote about the creative campaign concept.
How do you give feedback that can actually be used?
With a three sentence template. Use it literally, even if it feels stiff at first.
- What I see. The first third of the video is about company history.
- What worries me about it, against the goal. Our audience is buyers who do not know us and will leave before we reach the product.
- What I need, not how to do it. I need the first ten seconds to make clear what we sell.
The difference from shorten the intro is that the designer or editor can see the goal, and often finds a better answer than either of us would have specified. A solution written into a comment blocks every other solution.
Even more effective is one email before the first presentation. Four lines will do: who decides, who advises, what the campaign has to achieve, and the three things that cannot change (a claim, a date, a product claim). That email can save two rounds, which is about two weeks. Our glossary has a short definition of the creative brief if you need to send it to someone.
When is the cautious version right?
More often than creatives would like. In a regulated field, in public tenders, or on a sensitive subject, the careful version is not cowardice, it is a fair reading of the risk. The same holds when a brand is in a crisis or changing owners. Clarity beats surprise in those months.
We will name the bias in our own position too. As a studio we naturally argue for the sharper route, because it shows the work and looks better in a portfolio. The client carries the consequence, we do not. So we ask a different question: what is the worst that happens if we run it like this? If the answer is that a few people will pause and think, we go. If the answer is that you lose the account, the cautious version wins and that is fine. The difference is that the decision is made deliberately, rather than the nerve leaking away one comment at a time. You can see how we handle that on projects on our creative services page.
Frequently asked questions
How many rounds of feedback are normal?
Three, and they should be written into the proposal before anything starts. Every extra round usually traces back to a direction that was never closed in round one. If five or more rounds keep happening, the problem is not the pace of the work, it is a missing decision maker.
How do I stop everyone weighing in on the design?
By splitting the roles before the first presentation and having a single place where feedback is collected. A simple sentence at the start of the meeting helps too: one person decides today, everybody else contributes within their own area. People take that better than you would expect when they hear it in advance.
What do I do when two comments contradict each other?
Do not decide for the agency and do not send a compromise. A compromise between two opposite notes is usually worse than either of them. Send both back with the question of which one serves the original campaign goal.
Does it make sense to approve creative by polling employees?
Not as a taste vote. Employees are not the audience and they have seen the material ten times, so they react to novelty rather than effectiveness. It does make sense to ask them about facts: is what we claim about the product true, and would colleagues recognise the situation in the video?
If you are collecting notes from five people right now and suspect little of the original idea will survive, send us the brief and the latest round of feedback. We will tell you which inputs move the goal forward and which ones only remove risk, and how to fit the whole thing into three rounds. Write to us on our contact page.
