Website Content Approval Workflow

Why should we automate content approval instead of managing it over email and spreadsheets?

Email threads and spreadsheets make it hard to see which requests are stuck in review or who owes the next action. This workflow gives each request a record with a status and timeline, so brand review, compliance review, staging and publishing progress are visible without chasing people for updates. It also keeps a history of decisions and feedback on the record, reducing the need to search through old email chains.

What is the ROI of using this workflow compared to handling content requests manually?

Manual coordination of content requests typically involves repeated follow-ups, lost feedback, and unclear ownership at each stage. By assigning tasks directly to the brand reviewer, compliance reviewer, requester and web team, and by routing automatically based on their decisions, the workflow is designed to reduce the administrative overhead of moving a request from submission to published. Teams gain a clearer view of where time is going, since every step and its outcome is recorded against the request.

Who is involved at each stage of this workflow?

The requester submits the initial request and later updates content based on feedback and verifies the live page. A brand reviewer records an Approved, Changes requested or Rejected decision with feedback, compliance reviews any content flagged for regulated or legal claims, and the web team stages and publishes the content. Each of these participants is assigned a task at the relevant point, and their input is saved to the record.

What happens if the brand reviewer requests changes or rejects the content?

If changes are requested, the status moves to Changes Requested and the requester gets a task showing the brand feedback and asking them to revise the content; once they submit revision notes, the workflow sends the request back to the brand reviewer for reassessment. If the brand reviewer rejects the content, the status is set to Rejected and the requester receives an email with the reviewer's feedback explaining the decision.

How does the compliance review step work, and when is it triggered?

After brand approval, the workflow checks whether the requester indicated the content makes regulated or legal claims. If so, the status moves to Compliance Review and a compliance task is assigned to record a Cleared or Changes needed result with comments; if not, the request goes straight to staging. When compliance requests changes, the requester revises the content and the request is routed back to brand review before continuing.

Can we customise the steps, tasks or forms in this workflow?

Yes. A workflow can be changed by describing the change in plain English or by editing its steps directly in the workflow editor, and earlier versions are kept so changes can be reviewed over time. This makes it possible to adjust the request form fields, task wording or routing rules as review requirements change.

Do requesters, reviewers or the web team need an account to take part?

Requesters take part through the public request form and through forms emailed to them at each task, without ever needing an account. Brand reviewers, compliance and the web team are workspace members who receive assigned tasks within the workspace.

What information is saved on the content request record?

The record captures the original submission details, the Brand Review Decision and Feedback, any Revision Notes, the Compliance Result and Comments, the Preview Link, the Live URL, and any Issues Found during verification. Because the workflow waits for each of these tasks, the entered information is saved directly to the record along with its status and timeline, rather than staying with an individual task.

How does the post-publish verification step help catch issues after content goes live?

After the content is published and the requester receives the live URL by email, they are assigned a task to check the live page and record any issues found. This step, followed by setting the status to Verified, gives teams a documented checkpoint confirming the live page was reviewed after publishing, with any reported issues kept on the record for follow-up.

Does this workflow help with compliance obligations around regulated or legal claims?

The workflow records whether a request was flagged as containing regulated or legal claims, routes it to a compliance review task, and saves the Compliance Result and Comments on the record's timeline. This creates a documented review trail, but each business should confirm its own regulatory and legal obligations separately, as the workflow does not itself determine compliance.