Simplifying the Review and Approval Process

The process of content review, approval, and distribution is often perceived as a "necessary evil" in life science marketing. If you're reading this, you probably know how challenging this process can be. In this episode, I had the pleasure of chatting with Annalise Ludtke, Senior Manager for Marketing Communications and Strategy at Vodori, and host of the Amend and Progress podcast. She offered some great insights on how to streamline and improve this process while still keeping everything compliant, fast, and efficient.

Right out of the gate, Annalise laid out the core problem Vodori aims to solve: the complexity of managing content in life science organizations. Companies need to develop a lot of promotional and educational materials, and getting those materials reviewed, approved, and distributed is a complicated process. The challenge is not just about creating great content—it’s about managing the feedback loops, the endless rounds of revisions, and the hurdles of compliance.

Without a solid process for reviewing and approving content, life science companies can’t effectively market their products. Of course, you need to make sure everything you put out there meets legal and regulatory standards.

Best Practices

Annalise shared some best practices that Vodori advocates, and these tips stood out to me as practical and actionable regardless of any platform you might deploy or none at all.

* Parallel vs. Sequential Review: One of the key strategies Annalise mentioned is the benefit of parallel review processes, where all the necessary stakeholders—whether it's medical, legal, or regulatory teams—are reviewing content simultaneously rather than sequentially. This can save a lot of time because it encourages open dialogue between the different reviewers. If someone has an issue with a piece of content, they can discuss it with the other reviewers in real-time, instead of waiting for feedback to trickle in one department at a time.

I appreciated her point that while parallel review might seem more chaotic at first glance, it actually fosters more collaboration. Reviewers can resolve conflicting feedback before it gets back to the content owner, which can speed things up dramatically.

* Clear Ownership and Communication: Clearly defined roles and responsibilities make everyone’s job easier. Annalise emphasized that it's critical for each reviewer to stay in their lane and provide feedback based on their specific area of expertise. This helps avoid confusion and unnecessary edits, which can slow down the process. Additionally, it's essential for reviewers to communicate clearly—indicating whether a comment is a required change or just a suggestion, for instance. This small change can remove a lot of friction and keep the process moving forward smoothly. Color-coding comments to signify importance is a simple yet effective way to clarify expectations.

* Real-Time Collaboration: I imagine most companies now have the ability for multiple stakeholders to collaborate on documents in real-time, where everyone can log in, see the comments being made by others, and even have discussions within the document itself. This not only saves time but also reduces the likelihood of conflicting feedback, which would require another round of calls or emails to resolve.

Is this content helpful?

Where is the data for that claim?

If someone has a question about a claim, you’d like to know where to find the data that supports it. It seems a simple idea to have a claims library. Vodori’s platform allows companies to store and manage approved claims, making it easier to track where and how certain claims are being used in marketing materials. Likewise when claims are updated with new data, you’d like to know where they have been used in the past to find all t