The review process is where most video projects stall. Feedback arrives late, without timecodes, in scattered channels. Revision rounds multiply. This guide covers a structured approach that keeps projects moving.
Define the number of revision rounds, the feedback window (e.g., 48 hours), and who has approval authority. When these rules are agreed on upfront, scope creep during review drops significantly.
Share a brief that includes the approved script, reference material, and delivery specs. The reviewer should know what 'done' looks like before they press play.
Time-coded comments eliminate ambiguity. Instead of 'the transition around the middle feels off,' reviewers mark the exact frame. This saves editors from rewatching footage to decode vague notes.
Threaded replies keep the conversation per-note organized. When a note is addressed, it can be resolved — creating a clear audit trail of what was changed and why.
Every new export should stack on the previous version automatically. Reviewers should see the latest cut by default, with the ability to compare against any prior version.
Version comparison modes — side-by-side, overlay, split — let the reviewer verify that their specific note was addressed without rewatching the entire piece.
A formal approval step — 'Approved' or 'Changes Requested' — replaces the ambiguous 'looks good, but...' email. Once approved, the version is locked and the project moves to delivery.
Track approval status per stakeholder when multiple sign-offs are required. This visibility prevents the common problem of one approver blocking the entire pipeline.