Campaign operations workshop / 5 MIN READ
Decide who can approve what before the review
Separate creative judgment, factual review and binding approval into explicit responsibilities.
AI-assisted research and analysis for the SNS Creative Fieldbook
Sources checked 2026-11-06
A campaign review becomes slow and confusing when every comment is treated as a veto. Define which decisions each reviewer owns and which constraints cannot be waived by a creative preference.
What you will leave with: An approval map with decision scope, required evidence and escalation routes.
Use this when
- Campaigns stall in repeated rounds of stakeholder review.
- A senior preference conflicts with a legal or product requirement.
This is not authority to bypass mandatory legal, safety, privacy or commercial approvals.
Name the actual decisions
Atlassian’s DACI framework distinguishes a decision driver, approver, contributors and informed people. Apply those roles to specific campaign decisions rather than assigning one giant approval label to the whole project.
List the decisions that matter: selecting the concept, verifying product claims, accepting commercial terms and authorizing release. These may belong to different people. Define the scope of each approval so a design sign-off is not mistaken for permission to publish or spend. Record any mandatory review required by organizational policy, the campaign’s subject matter or the intended audience.
Distinguish input from authority
Give contributors a clear question and the evidence they should review. A product specialist can verify behavior without deciding the entire visual style. A regional lead can flag a local constraint without automatically reopening every strategic choice. Ask reviewers to identify whether a comment is a factual correction, a required constraint or a preference.
The decision owner should consider relevant expertise but remains accountable for the decision within their authority. Do not resolve a regulated or safety-critical issue by majority vote. If two required approvals conflict, surface the conflict and use the established escalation route rather than quietly choosing the more convenient answer.
Define what an approval actually covers
Attach each approval to a specific version, scope and intended use. “Looks good” in a chat thread is ambiguous if the reviewer saw only a cropped image or an earlier script. Ask for an explicit decision on the relevant material and record conditions that remain outstanding.
Specify whether small execution changes can proceed within agreed bounds and which changes require another review. Changing a claim, audience, product configuration or legal term is different from correcting a typo. Keep the rules proportionate so the team does not need a full committee for every harmless edit, while consequential changes cannot slip through as routine production.
Prepare for absence and disagreement
Name an authorized backup where policy allows it and confirm the backup understands the same scope. Do not assume that whoever is available can approve a binding commitment. Plan escalation early enough that an absent reviewer does not become an emergency reason to skip the process.
When a decision is made, communicate the outcome and its practical implications to the affected team. Record the rationale briefly, particularly when a preference was not adopted. If someone later raises new material evidence, review it through the correct route. Approval should end repetitive debate, not prevent correction of a genuine problem.
Make the reasoning concrete.
A fictional industrial campaign is visually approved by the marketing lead. A product engineer then identifies a demonstration that implies a capability the standard product does not have.
Treat marketing approval as final
Opening: Release the campaign because the designated creative approver signed off.
Hypothesis: The schedule stays unchanged.
Risk: Creative approval did not establish product-claim accuracy.
Use the approval map
Opening: Route the claim to its technical owner and revise the misleading demonstration.
Hypothesis: Each reviewer acts within their defined responsibility.
Risk: The changed claim may require a new release review.
The team pauses the affected asset, corrects the product implication and obtains approval for the actual revised version. The decision record distinguishes creative selection from technical verification.
Take the questions into your next brief.
Use these prompts in your own notes. Nothing is submitted from this page.
Decision
Which specific choice needs approval?
Authority
Who can approve it, and what is outside their scope?
Input
Which experts contribute facts or constraints?
Version
What material and intended use does the approval cover?
Escalation
What happens if a required reviewer is unavailable or approvals conflict?
Watch for the wrong conclusion.
- Giving everyone an undefined veto over the entire campaign.
- Treating a creative sign-off as legal or technical clearance.
- Applying approval from an old version to a changed claim.
Your next action
Map the separate approvals for one live campaign and resolve one decision that currently has two owners or none.
Sources & scope
The workflow, worksheets and hypothetical examples are original editorial analysis. Sources support only the identified principles. No measured business results or named human reviewer are claimed.
- Atlassian Team Playbook: DACI →Primary framework-publisher guidance · Supports: DACI distinguishes the decision driver, approver, contributors and informed people; the campaign application is original editorial analysis.