People also ask
In practice
The approval gate exists because placements are irreversible in ways that matter: content sits on someone else’s site under their editorial control, carries the client’s claims, and may involve fees and devaluation risk — all decisions the client, not the vendor, owns. A working workflow shows one package per placement: who the publisher is (with the qualification evidence — traffic, relevance, the screen that passed), what the content says (the full draft or paragraph, not a summary), where the link goes (exact URL and anchor), what it costs (fee flag — which placements involve payment), and what happens next (go-live, monitoring, replacement terms).
The client approves or amends; amendments loop once through the vendor; nothing ships on silence. The design tension is speed versus control — campaigns with weekly approval cycles can stall, so mature workflows batch: a weekly or fortnightly approval pack of all pending placements, with a standing rule that unclear cases hold. The vendor’s discipline inside the workflow: no placement is pitched that has not already passed qualification (the client judges fit and voice, not basic quality — that is the vendor’s job), and amendments are recorded so the next pack reflects them.
What the workflow prevents: the classic failure where the client first sees a placement as a line in the monthly report — after the content is live, the fee is paid and the only remaining option is asking a publisher to unpublish.
See also: Cross-market placement boards, Approving placements before they go live, Publisher fee transparency.
Checklist: Guest Post Campaign.
Related service: Link insertions.
