Artwork approval workflow: from first proof to final decision
Create an artwork approval process with clear reviewers, useful feedback, identifiable versions and an explicit decision before final delivery.
Define what approval means
Artwork approval should answer a specific question: is this version ready for its intended use, subject to the checks assigned to the reviewers? A casual “looks good” can mean that someone likes the concept, agrees with the wording or has finished a detailed production check. Those are different decisions. State the scope of each review so the team knows what has actually been accepted.
Separate concept approval from final artwork approval. A concept review considers the message, hierarchy, tone and overall direction. A final review checks the completed copy, selected imagery, required variants and delivery requirements. Approving a rough layout does not automatically approve every later adaptation. Keeping these stages distinct prevents an early positive response from becoming an accidental permission to publish unfinished work.
The process should be proportionate to the campaign. A simple internal announcement may need one accountable reviewer, while a major launch may require several specialist checks. More reviewers do not automatically produce a better result. Choose people because they have a relevant decision to make and give them a clear deadline. An approval chain that includes everyone but assigns responsibility to nobody can stall even straightforward work.
Build a review map before sending the proof
Write down who checks each part of the artwork. The campaign owner may confirm the message, a product colleague may check facts, a brand reviewer may assess consistency and a production partner may confirm technical requirements. Identify the person who resolves disagreements and the person who gives the final decision. Reviewers should understand whether they are advising or approving.
Choose the order deliberately. If the message is still uncertain, detailed production review may be premature. If a factual claim could change the headline, resolve it before translating twenty variants. Some checks can happen together, but dependent decisions need a sequence. A simple review map helps the team avoid polishing work that will be replaced after a more fundamental question is answered.
Give substitute arrangements for unavailable reviewers. The plan should say who can make a decision if someone is away, rather than allowing the designer to infer approval from silence. If there is no authorised substitute, record the delay and its effect on delivery. A visible unresolved decision is easier to manage than a hidden assumption that everyone has already agreed.
Send a review package with context
A proof should arrive with enough information to review it correctly. Include the campaign objective, the intended audience, the version identifier, the stage of review and the questions that need answers. If the artwork is a draft with placeholder photography or provisional text, label that clearly. Otherwise, reviewers may spend time on elements that are not ready or overlook an unfinished detail because they assume it is intentional.
Show the artwork in a useful context as well as at a readable size. A poster may need a full-layout view and a close view of small text. A social graphic may need to be checked at a realistic phone size. A mockup can help explain placement, but it should not replace the actual file when the review concerns copy accuracy or production dimensions.
- Identify the campaign and exact artwork version.
- State whether the review concerns a concept or final production.
- Link the relevant brief and approved copy.
- Explain known placeholders or unresolved dependencies.
- Name the reviewers and decision owner.
- Set one clear feedback deadline.
Ask reviewers for actionable comments
A useful comment identifies the issue, explains its effect and states what needs to change or be decided. “The date is wrong; use the confirmed date in the event brief” gives a designer a clear correction. “This feels strange” may be an honest reaction, but it needs a follow-up question about the message, hierarchy or audience before it becomes an instruction.
Ask reviewers to refer to specific text or areas of the artwork. If the tool supports anchored comments, use them. If it does not, quote the relevant phrase or describe the location. Keep each distinct issue separate so the designer can confirm it has been addressed. A paragraph containing six unrelated corrections is harder to track than a short list of clearly identified changes.
Encourage reviewers to distinguish a requirement from a preference. A misspelled name, missing date or unreadable call to action is different from a personal preference for another shade. Preferences can still be discussed, but they should not quietly override the agreed brief. The decision owner can weigh them against the campaign objective and the remaining production time.
Consolidate conflicts before revision begins
When several people review the same proof, their suggestions may conflict. One might request more copy while another wants a simpler layout. Do not forward both as equally mandatory instructions and expect the designer to resolve the organisation's priorities. The campaign owner should identify the conflict, seek a decision and issue one consolidated revision request.
Preserve the original comments while recording the agreed resolution. This avoids making contributors feel ignored and creates a useful explanation for later reviews. For example, the team may decide to keep the main graphic concise and place the additional detail on the landing page. That decision addresses both concerns without forcing every piece of information into the same asset.
Once a revision round begins, define how late comments will be handled. Urgent factual corrections may need immediate attention; optional suggestions may wait for the next review. A predictable rule protects the designer from a moving target while still allowing genuinely important problems to be fixed. Record changes to the brief separately from corrections to the artwork.
Tie every decision to a version
An approval is only useful if the team can identify the file it covers. Use a stable version identifier and keep the reviewed proof accessible. Do not overwrite an approved file with new work under the same name and assume the old approval still applies. If the content changes, the relevant checks may need to be repeated.
A simple naming pattern can include the campaign, asset, language, size and version. The exact pattern matters less than consistent use and a clear relationship between the proof and final deliverable. Avoid relying on names such as “final-final-new” because they describe someone's intention without establishing sequence or approval status. The campaign record should show which version is current and which has been superseded.
When a revision is uploaded, include a short change summary. Reviewers can then focus on the requested corrections while checking that no unintended changes were introduced. A changed date may affect several placements, and an updated logo may alter spacing. The summary should help reviewers understand the scope without suggesting that they can skip checks they remain responsible for.
Check adaptations as actual deliverables
A master design can be approved while one of its variants still contains a problem. Different aspect ratios may crop an image badly, hide a line of copy or reduce the call to action to an unreadable size. Translated text can change line breaks and emphasis. Review each required variant at the level appropriate to its risks and intended use.
Create a checklist that names the variants rather than a single box labelled “all sizes.” This makes omissions visible. Confirm that the files use the approved copy and imagery, preserve the intended message and meet the current destination requirements. Where a production partner has supplied a specification, compare the final files against that specification rather than relying on a familiar template.
Do not treat a successful export as proof of correctness. Open the output and inspect it. Check that fonts, transparency, images and layout appear as intended in the delivered format. If a print proof or platform preview is part of the workflow, include time for it before the final deadline. The approval process should cover the result the recipient will use, not only the designer's working view.
Record a clear final decision
Use an explicit outcome such as approved, changes required or awaiting a named decision. If approval is conditional, list the conditions and say who will verify them. “Approved once the date is corrected” still leaves a check to complete. The campaign record should not imply that the corrected file has been reviewed when nobody has seen it.
Record the decision maker, date, version and scope. This is practical operational context, not a substitute for any specialist or contractual approval your organisation requires. Keep the record near the files so the person preparing delivery can confirm which artwork is authorised. A decision hidden in a private message is difficult for the rest of the team to use reliably.
Example: catching a late event change
Suppose a campaign's main concept has been approved, but the event time changes before final export. The campaign owner updates the brief, lists the affected assets and asks the designer to produce a new version. The reviewer checks the time on every variant and confirms that the registration destination still matches. The final decision references the corrected version, while the earlier proof remains labelled as superseded.
Without this sequence, a team might update one social image and accidentally send an old poster to print. The value of the workflow is that it connects the change, the affected outputs and the approval decision. It does not depend on everyone remembering which attachment was most recently discussed.
Frequently asked questions
Is a comment saying “looks good” enough for approval?
It is ambiguous unless the team has defined what that response means and which version it concerns. Ask for an explicit decision at the relevant review stage. A positive opinion about the concept should not be treated as confirmation that factual, brand and technical checks have all been completed.
Should every reviewer see every revision?
Not necessarily. Route revisions to the people responsible for the affected decisions, while keeping the final decision owner informed. A change to the central message may need broad review; a confirmed spelling correction may need a narrower check. Agree the approach in advance so the designer does not decide approval authority alone.
How can Campaign Bay support the process?
Campaign Bay brings campaign briefs, design partners, artwork reviews and final deliveries together. Use the campaign record to keep context close to the work, and agree how your team identifies versions and records decisions. A shared workspace makes information easier to find, while people remain responsible for accurate review and approval.