Organise approvals without confusing versions

Choose one working copy

Decide where the current draft lives. Keep the text, media selection and intended channel together so the reviewer can assess the complete post. Different copies scattered across messages make it harder to identify what is current. When feedback arrives through another route, transfer it into the shared working copy and show how it was handled.

Make feedback specific

Ask reviewers to identify the affected part and the change they want. A comment such as not quite right does not explain whether the problem is tone, meaning or image choice. Separate factual corrections from style preferences. This helps the editor see which changes are necessary and which decisions still need discussion between the people involved.

Agree approval states

Use a few understandable states, such as draft, under review, changes required and approved. Sending a draft does not mean it has been reviewed. Positive feedback on an image does not automatically approve the entire post. Record the scope and version of each approval so the person handling publication knows exactly what was agreed.

Handle later changes deliberately

Define which edits after approval require another review. A changed price or different service promise materially affects the content. Replacing an image can also change the context. Do not automatically carry the earlier approval across to the revised post. Document the new decision so it remains distinguishable from approval of the previous version.

Complete the publishing handover

The publishing owner needs the approved version, intended channel and agreed date. If direct channel integration is planned, it is configured and tested separately. A local plan does not send or publish anything. After a trial, check that everyone means the same version and status. A compact process is usually easier to maintain than many special states whose meaning is unclear to colleagues.