Here are the rounds costing more than the video, who has to approve, and the two-day rule settling the problem.
The rounds costing more than the video
Three costs, rarely added up.
The direct cost: every revision round beyond two is invoiced, or should be.
The delay cost: a campaign pushed back two weeks misses the commercial window that justified its existence.
And the quality cost: a video re-edited four times loses its pace, its naturalness and often its effectiveness.
One constant observation: beyond the third round, corrections stop improving the video and start degrading it. The third round is almost always the last one that brings anything.
The two-day rule
It is simple and it settles the essentials.
Everybody in the circuit has two working days to give their remarks. After that, no answer counts as agreement, and the video goes out.
Three conditions for it to work.
The circuit is written down, with names, not departments.
Each person knows what they approve: compliance, brand, product, or nothing.
And one single person arbitrates disagreements, designated in advance.
One immediate consequence: remarks become shorter and more precise, because the deadline forces prioritising.
What is corrected and what is not
Three categories, and they have to be distinguished explicitly.
What is always corrected: a factual error, a missing mandatory statement, a wrong price, a forbidden claim, a shot absent from the brief.
What is corrected if it is written in the brief: the length, the format, the order of shots, the sentence to remember.
What is not corrected: the accent, the natural delivery, the physique, the creator's home. Those elements are the content, not a fault.
One case frequent in Spain: the regional accent. Asking a creator to neutralise their accent removes precisely what makes the video credible, and the result rings false. If a precise linguistic variety is needed, that is decided at casting, never at correction.
The brief avoids half the rounds
Four elements to write beforehand, removing the back and forth afterwards.
The exact length expected, and the format delivered.
The sentence to remember, written out in full.
The list of what is forbidden, approved with a lawyer if the category requires it.
And an example of what would be refused, not only of what would be accepted.
One practice speeding everything up: having the script approved by the full circuit before the shoot. A correction on a document costs ten minutes, the same correction after the shoot costs a day.
Who approves what, and in how long
| Stage | Who decides | Reasonable delay |
|---|---|---|
| The script | The person steering | One day |
| The edit | The same person | Two days |
| The legal notices | The department concerned | Three days |
What makes delays explode
Having five people review at once. Each reviewer adds a request, and the requests contradict each other. One decision-maker, and an advisory opinion alongside.
What is fixed before the first shoot
The number of revisions included, the person who decides in case of disagreement, and the date after which a missing approval counts as acceptance.
What to measure
Three indicators, and they are enough to steer by.
The average number of rounds per video, tracked month by month.
The delay between delivery and going live, which measures approval and nothing else.
And the share of delivered videos never published: that is the harshest indicator, and the most revealing of a brief problem.
One last marker, useful when the internal discussion drags on: ask who takes responsibility for not publishing. A video stuck in approval costs everything it has cost, plus the sale it did not make.
