The promotional review process is a cornerstone of marketing compliance, yet it’s often fraught with challenges that can delay time-to-market and strain cross-functional teams. With the pressure to ensure each piece of content meets rigorous medical, legal, and regulatory standards, companies frequently encounter roadblocks that make the process time-consuming and complex.
We recently sat down with Annalise Ludtke, Senior Manager of Marketing and Communications at Vodori, to dive into the details of promotional review and discuss the practical ways companies can improve efficiency without sacrificing compliance.
Annalise brings a wealth of knowledge on strategies that tackle the most common frustrations, from feedback consolidation to claims management.
Check out Vodori’s Amend & Progress podcast for insights, actionable best practices, and expert perspectives to change how you think about and approach content review.
Apple Podcasts | Spotify | YouTube | Web + Others
Summary, Key Points, and Practical Takeaways
This interview has been edited for clarity and length.
Nick Capman: Can you give an overview of the promotional review process for life sciences companies?
Annalise Ludtke: Absolutely. In life sciences, the promotional review process, sometimes called MLR (Medical, Legal, and Regulatory) review or ad promo review, is crucial for getting any marketing materials to market. Because we're in a regulated space, every piece of promotional content needs to go through this specific review to make sure it’s truthful, non-misleading, and that every claim is supported with substantiated evidence. This is often a bottleneck because, frankly, it’s required—and not always the most fun. Marketing teams submit the content they’ve developed, like videos or social posts, and then MLR teams review it to ensure it’s fully compliant. It’s an essential step, but also a challenging one for many organizations. My hope today is to share a few best practices that can help alleviate some of those pain points.”
What are some of the primary challenges or bottlenecks in the promotional review process?
There are quite a few! Imagine sitting down with people who have different motivations. The Marketing and Communications folks are ready to get their content to market—they’ve spent weeks or months developing a video, a website, or social content, and they want it approved quickly. Then, you have the MLR team, who are there with their magnifying glasses to ensure every detail is compliant and accurate. When you have different teams working toward different goals, bottlenecks happen. One big challenge is feedback: if there are many people involved, the feedback gets lengthy and complicated. People disagree, and suddenly, you’re stuck trying to consolidate it all.
Another major challenge is the claims process. Many companies use a claims matrix to pre-approve specific claims for content, but when that matrix isn’t up-to-date, or if people don’t know where to find it, that step alone can bring the review process to a grinding halt.
How many people typically participate in the review process?
It really depends on the organization’s size. For smaller or emerging companies, it might just be a few folks or even outsourced reviewers. Larger organizations, on the other hand, might involve dozens. You’ve got all the compliance folks, plus brand and corporate communications, each with specific roles. The level of risk tolerance also plays a part—something high-stakes like a conference presentation might require more eyes on it than, say, a tweet. So, the size of the review team, and how many people need to be involved, can vary widely across companies.
What is the usual timeframe for a promotional review process?
According to Vodori’s 2024 benchmarks, the average time for the review process is around 13.8 days from submission to final approval. This includes everything: preparing the content, linking claims, handling feedback across departments, and consolidating it. For our customers, two weeks is generally what we’re seeing as a reasonable timeframe. That said, some content types, like videos, tend to take longer due to their complexity. But overall, the two-week mark is a solid benchmark for review cycles.
How can companies make this process more efficient?
One of the best strategies we’ve seen is the concept review. Let’s say you’re creating a new video campaign or website. Before you finalize anything, meet with the people who will review it. Discuss the target audience, the content’s intent, and the claims you’re planning to use. This way, compliance can voice any early concerns, marketing can refine their vision, and everyone can align. It’s not just about reducing review time; it’s about building shared ownership of the content. When marketing involves MLR early, they’re more likely to get buy-in, so the review feels like a collaboration rather than a checklist
What role does digital asset management play in ensuring accuracy?
A central, up-to-date repository is a huge asset. In Vodori, or really any digital asset management system, having a ‘one source of truth’ means that everyone knows exactly where to find the latest version of assets like logos, colors, and approved claims. It’s absolutely vital, especially when things get revised often. Imagine pulling assets from an unruly shared drive with multiple folders and no clear order—you waste time just trying to figure out if you’re using the right version. A single, centralized system keeps everyone aligned.
Are there any tips for handling individuals who delay the review process?
This is a common issue, and there are a few ways to address it. One effective approach is to inform teams about peak review periods. If you know a campaign is coming up, tell your MLR team what’s on the horizon and by when you’ll need their input. This helps them prioritize, especially since reviewing content isn’t their only job. Vodori also allows you to set automated reminders, which can take the pressure off the project manager to constantly nudge people. But ultimately, if one person is consistently delaying the process, it might be a one-on-one conversation to discuss why these delays are happening and how to streamline it.
How can companies manage version control during reviews?
Version control is a big challenge. Vodori’s platform solves this by connecting all versions of a document so that when a new version is uploaded, the old one is still available for review but isn’t accessible for active use. We also have a side-by-side comparison tool so reviewers can see what’s changed from the last version to the new one. This creates a traceable chain of custody, so everyone is clear on which version is the most recent.
Are there other software benefits that streamline the promotional review process?
Absolutely. Software isn’t just about uploading and reviewing content. It lets you link claims and substantiations directly, so reviewers can easily verify claims without hunting through documents. There’s also a job board where you can see where each piece of content is in the review cycle—whether it’s pending review, in progress, or ready for final approval. This visibility is invaluable because it cuts down on constant ‘where is this now?’ questions and keeps everyone on the same page.
Is there a post-review evaluation process to identify improvement areas?
Yes! Benchmarking is key here. We recommend companies regularly analyze their metrics—things like average review time, review time by content type, and role-specific review times. If your average review time has gone up from two to four weeks, that’s an opportunity to investigate. Did the process change? Is it a personnel issue? Whatever the cause, metrics help you spot issues and decide where to focus improvement efforts.”
Is AI expected to play a role in the promotional review process in the future?
AI is definitely on our radar, though we’re approaching it carefully. Compliance is critical, so we’re looking at ways to introduce AI that support reviewers without compromising that rigor. For example, we could use AI for pre-checks on spelling, grammar, and brand consistency, ensuring the content is polished before the human review. We don’t want reviewers distracted by minor issues—they should focus on compliance, which is where human judgment is invaluable. This kind of AI support could make content review faster, but we’re committed to doing it thoughtfully.
Annalise’s key takeaways:
Anticipate Bottlenecks and Divergent Goals: Understand that marketing and compliance teams have different objectives, which can lead to bottlenecks. Plan for extended feedback cycles and be proactive in consolidating and prioritizing feedback to streamline the process.
Use Claims Matrices to Pre-Approve Content: A well-maintained claims matrix is essential for efficiency. Ensure it’s up-to-date and easily accessible so that approved claims can be quickly referenced, reducing delays during compliance review.
Tailor the Review Process to Content Type and Risk Tolerance: For high-stakes content like conference materials, involve more reviewers. For lower-risk content, like social media posts, streamline the review to speed up approvals.
Leverage Concept Reviews for Early Buy-In: Conducting an initial concept review with all stakeholders creates shared ownership, reduces surprises in the final review, and establishes alignment on messaging, audience, and claims early in the process.
Establish a Single Source of Truth for Assets: Implement a digital asset management system for a centralized, up-to-date repository of logos, branding elements, and claims. This ensures consistency, reduces errors, and simplifies version control.
Address Common Delays with Clear Communication: Inform compliance teams in advance of peak review periods to help them prioritize. Automated reminders can reduce delays, but sometimes a one-on-one discussion with frequent bottleneck individuals may be needed to address ongoing issues.
Implement Version Control for Traceability: Use a version comparison tool to track document changes and maintain an audit trail. This ensures only the most recent version is in circulation, providing reviewers with clarity and confidence in each version.
Track Metrics to Identify and Resolve Review Inefficiencies: Regularly analyze metrics, such as average review times by content type and department. Benchmarking against industry standards helps pinpoint problem areas and offers insights for ongoing process improvements.
The FDA Group helps life science organizations rapidly access the industry's best consultants, contractors, and candidates.
Need expert help planning and executing compliance projects or connecting with a quality and compliance professional? Get in touch with us. If we haven’t worked together yet, watch our explainer video below or head to our company introduction page to see if we could help you execute your projects now or in the future.
Our service areas:
Quality Assurance | Regulatory Affairs | Clinical Operations | Commissioning, Qualification, and Validation | Chemistry, Manufacturing, and Controls (CMC) | Pharmacovigilance | Expert Witness
Our engagement models:
Consulting Projects | Staff Augmentation | FTE Recruitment | Functional Service Program
Our podcast:
Apple | Spotify | YouTube | Web + Others
Share this post