Reviewer Roadblocks? Keep Experts in Their Lanes!
This piece is a response to a question posed by a colleague in financial communications. Send us yours – we’ll answer it in a future article.
We all have editing horror stories. Purcell Communications has found many can be solved with our proven process management systems.
Here’s one you probably know: reviewer rivalry. Marketing approves a piece, but Legal makes changes to the tone and/or message. Trivial and not-so-trivial corrections go back and forth with egos in the balance and heated discussions via email until no one is happy. And it hasn’t even hit proofreading yet…
To handle the headache of competing reviewers, we help clients distinguish between the process of reviewing and the process of message alignment by starting with these 3 simple steps:
- Define roles for each reviewer before you ask them to review – and put those definitions “on repeat” so they get the message.
- Document any guidelines you’re using to generate content and share them with each reviewer.
- Engage chronic overachievers outside of the review process to capture their ideas and input for future writing projects. We call this core content.
Separating these message alignment steps from the actual review helps lower the emotional temperature, making it easier to focus on the shared goal: reducing errors and creating good content.
Keep syntax corrections off the minds of executives and strategy questions off the minds of Legal with good process management. Take the heat out of review loops by defining roles for each member of the team – clearing the way for your financial writers to create clear, approved, and accurate content.
Want more insight? This Purcell Insight was written in response to a question posed during a recent webinar by our founder and President, Kyle Purcell. View the slideshow from the webinar to learn more – and if it gives you flashbacks, give us a call.