Review the promotion customers actually see
Approved copy can become a different promotion when it reaches a video, carousel or mobile screen. Keep the creative, the decision and the evidence together.
A campaign can pass a copy review and still reach customers in a different form. The designer crops the image. A video editor shortens the closing frame. A caption is collapsed behind a “more” link. The words may be unchanged; the promotion is not.
AI makes it easier to produce those variations. The approval process needs to follow the variations all the way to publication.
The finished asset is the unit of review
The FCA’s social-media guidance explains that financial promotion rules apply across advertising channels and that promotions should present benefits and risks in a balanced way. Changing the channel does not remove the underlying expectations. FCA, FG24/1.
A practical consequence is to review what will appear on the screen, alongside the source copy. The relevant product rules still need to be identified: an investment advertisement, a credit promotion and a cryptoasset promotion do not share one universal checklist.
For each asset, record the product, intended audience, channel and version. Then examine how the claim is presented. Does the image introduce a promise the caption does not qualify? Does the voiceover make a stronger statement than the text? Does a mobile crop remove information that was present in the desktop design?
These are questions about the actual communication. A clean text document cannot answer them.
Make the finding specific enough to fix
Consider an illustrative investment campaign. The headline reads “Your future, guaranteed.” A video carries a risk warning near the end. The reviewer decides that the guarantee claim needs clarification and the warning needs a more readable presentation.
“Please review compliance” gives the designer another investigation. A useful comment gives them a change they can make:
| Finding | Where it belongs | What the comment should explain |
|---|---|---|
| Guarantee claim | On the headline in the image | Which promise needs support or replacement, and why |
| Warning presentation | At the relevant point in the video | What makes the warning difficult to read and which version should be checked again |
| Missing context | On the affected PDF page | What information the reader needs to understand the claim |
The location matters. If the same phrase appears in the thumbnail, caption and closing frame, a comment should make clear which occurrences need changing. For video, a timestamp or time range removes the need to describe the frame from memory.
AI can help surface candidate findings across these formats. Each finding should lead back to the relevant creative and rule, so a person can inspect the context and decide what to do. A severity label helps prioritise that work; it does not supply the decision.
Approve a version, not a filename
A filename such as campaign-final.mp4 is a poor approval boundary. It can stay the same while its contents change.
Keep revisions distinct. The record should make it possible to establish which asset was reviewed, what changed after the review, and which version received approval. A revised warning should not disappear into a fresh upload with no connection to the original finding.
A workable sequence is:
- Submit the creative with its intended placement and relevant context.
- Attach findings and comments to that version.
- Upload the revision and explain how the findings were addressed.
- Review the changes and record the decision against the revised asset.
- Retain the approved asset with the discussion and previous versions.
Decide how post-approval changes will be handled too. A new crop, caption or voiceover can affect the communication. Agree the review triggers before a campaign is running, when there is time to make the process clear.
Make the export understandable without the application
An exported report may be read by someone who never saw the review screen. It needs enough context to stand on its own.
Include the asset identifier and version, a readable representation of the creative, the relevant findings and their locations, the discussion, and the decision history. Distinguish a finding that was addressed from one that was accepted with a recorded explanation. Include who made the decision and when.
Before relying on the export, ask someone outside the original review to reconstruct what happened. Can they identify the approved version? Can they understand why the headline changed? Can they see whether the warning was reviewed again? If they need a separate email thread, the record is incomplete for that purpose.
The precise retention and regulatory reporting requirements depend on the activity. This is a suggested review structure, rather than a substitute for that assessment.
Connor Financial Promotions brings the asset, findings, comments and approval history into one review, with PDF exports. The point is to preserve the connection: what customers saw, what was questioned, and what was decided.
Frequently asked questions
Is checking the text enough?
Text is one part of the review. Layout, cropping, timing, captions and the intended channel can change how a promotion is understood.
What belongs in a promotion review record?
A useful record links the exact asset version, intended placement, applicable rules, findings, comments, revisions and approval decision. The precise recordkeeping requirements depend on the product and activity.
