In regulated groups, review is not a formality at the end of a project. It is the step that decides whether the video ships on time or three months later. Most delays do not come from an overly strict legal team, but from a video that reaches them at the wrong time, in the wrong form.
Why it stalls
The classic scenario: the agency delivers a finished animation, legal discovers the content, raises six points, two of which require rewriting an entire sequence. The agency quotes a week of rework. The new version goes back to review, another approver steps in, and the cycle starts again.
The problem is structural. An animation is the worst medium for reviewing substance: you cannot annotate it line by line, you do not know which shot matches which claim, and every change is expensive. Legal was not consulted at the right time, so they compensate at the finish line.
Step 1: approve the script, not the video
The script is a text document. It can be annotated, compared, signed off. Every voice-over sentence and every on-screen text is in it, with sources if the sector requires them. Legal approves the script in writing before anything is drawn. At this stage, a correction takes ten minutes.
In pharma, we deliver the script with its references in the margin so medical can check without searching.
Step 2: make the storyboard the second checkpoint
The storyboard shows every shot with its accompanying text. This is when an approver spots that a visual suggests something the text does not say, for instance a chart that exaggerates a trend. It is also the last moment when a change costs nothing. After that, we animate.
Step 3: isolate what changes often
Figures, legal notices, product names, dates: these elements are animated separately, as independent layers. When a data point changes after delivery, we swap the layer without touching the rest. The video is no longer a frozen block that goes back through full review at every update.
Step 4: fix the review circuit before starting
Who approves what, in which order, with what response time. This circuit is written at scoping and appears in the schedule. Legal knows they will receive the script on day 8 and that we expect their answer by day 11. It is not a constraint imposed on them: it is what saves them from receiving a finished animation on a Friday evening for a Monday release.
What it changes for the timeline
On a 90-second presentation video, this process fits in 28 days, approvals included. Review is no longer a step after production. It is spread across two moments where it costs little, and animation only starts on content that is already approved.
Internal videos: HR, leadership and employee representatives
A video meant for employees has its own approvers. HR reviews anything touching on jobs, working conditions and the way teams are described. Leadership approves the substance and the tone. Internal communications checks consistency with other messages.
When the subject requires informing or consulting employee representatives, a reorganisation for instance, the video must not get ahead of that process. It is for your HR and legal teams to say what can be announced, and when. Our article on announcing a reorganisation on video details the timing.
The method stays the same: every approver is listed at scoping, reviews the script in writing, and knows the date their answer is expected.
What to ask your agency
Three simple questions. Is the script approved in writing before animation? Is the storyboard a deliverable in its own right? Are regulatory elements isolated in the files? If the answer to any of the three is no, plan for three months.
Approval is only one part of the project: our guide to corporate motion design video also covers formats, prices, steps and length.
