Your content isn’t too boring — it’s too bottlenecked

The reality is, most content doesn’t die because it’s “too boring.” It dies because it gets buried under layers of feedback, reworks, approvals, and opinions — each one diluting the message just a little more. Until eventually, it’s either completely unrecognisable… or just never gets published at all.

It’s not a creativity issue. It’s a workflow issue.

In industries where compliance matters, where SMEs need to weigh in, and where marketing teams are stretched thin, the content process itself can become the biggest blocker. Not the brief. Not the quality. Just the fact that six different people are waiting to comment — and no one knows who actually has the final say.

So before you overhaul your tone of voice or rewrite your entire website for the third time, pause and ask:
Is the content broken — or is the system that’s meant to deliver it the real problem?

The 3 silent killers of content velocity

1. Unclear roles = content chaos

When everyone’s responsible, no one is.
This is how you end up with a Google Doc full of conflicting comments and zero decisions. Content floats from person to person like a hot potato — but no one wants to be the one to actually hit “publish.”

Without clear roles, review rounds get messy. Is this person editing for clarity, or just making “vibe” suggestions? Is that SME reviewing for accuracy, or rewriting because they didn’t like the example? Who actually has the final call?

If you don’t set those expectations up front, the feedback will come — but it’ll be unfocused, contradictory, and impossible to action.

2. Too many opinions, not enough accountability

Let’s be honest: most content doesn’t get better with every extra round of feedback — it gets blander.
One person wants it punchier. Another says it’s “too casual.” Legal’s nervous about that claim, but doesn’t suggest an alternative. Now you’ve got a Frankenstein draft that’s technically correct… and totally lifeless.

What’s missing isn’t more opinions. It’s accountability. Someone needs to own the direction, filter the feedback, and protect the content from turning into a beige blob of compromise.

3. Fear of publishing = death by draft

This one’s sneaky. Because on the surface, it looks like “just being careful.”
But if your team has more 90%-done drafts than published posts, something’s wrong. And often, it’s fear — fear of saying the wrong thing, of being seen, of hitting send without everyone’s blessing.

In regulated industries, that fear isn’t unfounded. But it needs to be managed by process, not paralysis. Otherwise, you’ll keep rewriting until the moment’s passed — and the content’s irrelevant.

The ripple effect of a broken approval process

Slow approvals don’t just delay a blog post. They quietly drain momentum from your entire content function.

Every time a draft stalls, you lose more than time — you lose context, confidence, and creative energy. By the time feedback finally comes through (if it ever does), the writer’s moved on, the stakeholder’s forgotten what they asked for, and the piece feels stale before it’s even live.

Here’s what that looks like in practice:

• Opportunities get missed. That reactive post tied to new legislation? Irrelevant now. That campaign idea? Already used by your competitor.
• Writers burn out. It’s hard to stay motivated when nothing ever gets published and every round of edits feels like a gamble.
• Marketing looks slow. Even when the team’s working hard, the output says otherwise — making it harder to build trust internally.
• Content gets a bad name. Leadership starts to see content as the bottleneck, when really, it’s the tangle of unclear approvals behind it.

In other words: broken workflows don’t just block content. They erode the credibility of the people trying to create it.

What a good review workflow actually looks like

Let’s be clear: reviews are necessary. Especially when your content touches compliance, product accuracy, or anything vaguely public-facing. But review ≠ rewrite. And input ≠ chaos.

A good workflow doesn’t mean fewer people involved — it just means the right people, at the right time, with the right purpose.

Here’s what that can look like:

1. Stage it.

Break the process into clear phases. Example:

• Draft → Review → Final signoff
  • Draft: Writer creates a first version based on a tight brief.
  • Review: One or two subject matter experts or compliance reviewers give targeted feedback. Not line edits. Not “I’d phrase it differently.” Just: is it correct? Is it compliant?
  • Final signoff: One person — yes, one — makes the decision to publish.

Each phase has a purpose. No back-and-forth. No reopening the brief. Just forward motion.

2. Cap the reviewers.

More than 3 reviewers = a feedback pile-on.
If you must include multiple stakeholders, stagger them — don’t throw everyone into the same round. And make sure they know why they’re reviewing. (Hint: “because they asked to be cc’d” doesn’t count.)

3. Assign final accountability.

One person should have the authority — and responsibility — to say: “We’re done.”

This isn’t about ego. It’s about momentum. Without a final decision-maker, content gets stuck in an infinite loop of “just one more tweak.” That’s how drafts die.

If your approval process requires group consensus, you don’t have a workflow. You have a stalemate.

How to start untangling the mess

You don’t need a six-month content ops project to fix this. You just need to stop pretending your current process is “fine.”

Here’s where to start:

🔍 Map your current process — honestly

Draw it out. Who touches the content, in what order, and why? You’ll probably discover loops, dead ends, and mystery steps that no one can quite explain.

You can’t streamline what you haven’t acknowledged.

👥 Limit the number of reviewers

Three is usually plenty. Any more than that, and feedback becomes a group chat.

If someone’s job is to inform the content, not approve it, get their input up front — during the brief or in a quick interview — not during the review round.

✅ Assign one final approver

Not a group. Not a team. A single human being.

This person makes the call, owns the outcome, and stops the content from looping endlessly through the comments section.

⏳ Set a review expiry date

If you haven’t left feedback by X date, the content moves forward.
Harsh? Maybe. Effective? Always.

You don’t need to chase people down to do their jobs. Give them a deadline and move on.

These aren’t radical changes — they’re just clear boundaries. And when you put them in place, content starts to flow again. Not perfectly. But consistently. And consistently is where the magic is.

Still think it’s the content?

Next time you hear someone say, “This just isn’t quite right yet,” ask them what exactly isn’t right — the words, or the workflow?

Because more often than not, the issue isn’t a lack of creativity. It’s a lack of clarity. Around roles, responsibilities, and what “done” even means.

So no — your content probably isn’t too boring.
It’s just too bottlenecked.

Still stuck in a 7-person feedback loop? It might be time to rethink your process.