Make campaign feedback specific enough to act on

Give reviewers a defined contribution

Atlassian’s responsibilities guidance distinguishes what a role owns from what others assume it owns. Apply that clarity before inviting people to review campaign work.

Tell each reviewer which question they are helping answer and which decisions have already been made. Provide the current brief, relevant constraints and the work’s stage of development. Early concepts need feedback on the idea and intended meaning; near-final work needs accuracy and execution checks. Asking for everything at every stage encourages late strategic changes disguised as small edits.

Describe the gap before prescribing the repair

Use a simple structure: the part of the work, the intended criterion, the observed concern and why it matters. “This opening does not identify the business task until the final frame” is actionable. “Make it more premium” leaves the maker guessing what change the reviewer wants.

A proposed solution can be helpful, but label it as one option unless a specific requirement determines the fix. Explain evidence when it exists and identify a preference when it does not. Do not invent audience reactions to make taste sound objective. “I find this unclear” is honest; “customers will hate this” needs support.

Resolve conflicts before returning instructions

Ask the review owner to consolidate comments and identify contradictions. If one reviewer asks for a shorter explanation and another requires an additional condition, the maker needs a decision about the trade-off, not both comments marked mandatory. Route specialist issues to the appropriate authority.

Separate changes required for truth, safety or compliance from discretionary creative refinements. Preserve the reasons behind rejected suggestions so they do not reappear unchanged at the next review. Avoid using a long comment thread as a substitute for deciding. When a conflict cannot be resolved asynchronously, discuss the specific choice rather than reopening the entire project.

Close the loop on the revised work

Return a clear set of accepted changes with the relevant criteria and owner. When the maker revises, review whether the concern was addressed rather than whether your exact preferred solution was copied. A different solution can meet the requirement better.

Record new scope separately from corrections to the agreed work. If the audience or strategic objective changes, acknowledge that the brief changed and assess its consequences. Do not present a new direction as evidence that the team failed to follow the old one. End the review with a decision, remaining conditions and the next authorized step.

Make the reasoning concrete.

A fictional B2B campaign review produces two comments: “cut the opening in half” and “explain every product configuration before the main message.” Both are marked urgent.

The review owner retains the material eligibility condition, moves secondary detail to the appropriate supporting material and gives the maker freedom to restructure the opening around the agreed task.

Take the questions into your next brief.

Use these prompts in your own notes. Nothing is submitted from this page.

1. Review job

   What question is this reviewer responsible for answering?

2. Criterion

   Which agreed requirement does the concern relate to?

3. Gap

   What specifically is missing, misleading or ineffective?

4. Conflict

   Which comments require an explicit trade-off decision?

5. Closure

   What is required, optional or outside the current scope?

Watch for the wrong conclusion.

• Presenting personal taste as a proven audience reaction.
• Sending contradictory instructions without a decision.
• Calling a changed strategy a minor correction.

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: Roles and Responsibilities →Primary framework-publisher guidance · Supports: Explicit responsibility discussions expose overlaps and unassigned work; the campaign or sales application is original editorial analysis.