Article 19 in a series about why the strategies that used to work don’t work the same way anymore, and what that means for every decision you’re making right now.
You have been here before.
Not in your building, necessarily. In this series. Over the last several articles, you’ve watched the same thing happen from three different angles.
You watched an email start its life with a clear intention. One idea, written for one person on the other end. Then it went up for approval, and as it moved from desk to desk, each person who touched it added the thing that mattered to them: a board priority here, a sponsor mention there, a line about the anniversary season, a second call to action because the first one felt thin. By the time it went out, it satisfied everyone who had touched it and motivated no one outside the building.
You watched a marketing director do everything this series has asked. She wrote the audience-first campaign. She started from the person still deciding, not the person already sold. She sent it into the approval process, and it came back to her changed. The final version was safer, fuller, more complete. It said everything. It moved no one.
And you watched a season brochure get rewritten a few articles ago, the paragraph that finally spoke to someone who had never heard the symphony and needed to know what it would feel like to hear it live, not where the conductor had performed it before. (That was the piece on rewriting the three sentences that lose you audiences.) You felt how good the rewrite was. And if you’re honest, you also felt the quiet certainty that it would never survive the approval process. Too plain. Not enough about the season. Where’s the prestige?
Three scenes across three articles in this series. One thing in common that none of them named directly.
None of these happened in a meeting. There was no table where everyone sat down together and argued it out. Each one happened the way approvals almost always happen: a piece of work routed quietly through an organization, gathering changes as it traveled, until it arrived back at the person who started it as a finished set of instructions. And in that process, everyone got to weigh in except the one person the communication was actually for.
That process is what this article is about.
How the Process Works Against the Work
Here is the uncomfortable part. No one adding a change is doing anything wrong.
The board member protecting institutional dignity is doing their job. The development director who needs the language to work for a major donor is doing their job. The artistic director who wants the world to understand the ambition of what they programmed is doing their job, and doing it well. Every note added along the way is added by a competent person acting in good faith on behalf of something real.
The problem isn’t the people. It’s what the process does when you add them up.
Three things happen almost every time a piece is routed for approval, and they happen quietly enough that no one clocks them as a pattern.
First, each reviewer adds what matters to them. Individually, every addition is reasonable. Collectively, they pull the communication back toward the institution and away from the person it was written for. A piece that started as an invitation becomes a summary of everyone’s priorities.
Second, the draft accumulates insider language with every pass. Not because anyone wants to exclude anyone. Insider language is simply what fluent people produce when they’re being careful. The more senior and expert the reviewer, the more naturally they reach for the vocabulary of the field. Each pass makes the piece a little more precise for people who already belong, and a little more opaque to people who don’t.
Third, and this is the one that decides the outcome, no one in the routing is accountable for the audience. The person who understands the newcomer best, the marketing director, usually sits at the start of the process, not the end. She hands the piece off, and it travels away from her, collecting changes from people who are each certain about their own priority and none of whom were asked to weigh the reader’s. She never gets to answer an addition or make the case against it. She gets the piece back all at once, as a set of decisions already made. Her judgment about the audience is the first thing overruled and the last thing defended.
Put those three together and you get a process that reliably converts audience-first instinct into insider-comfortable output. Not once. Every time. The individuals change their minds; the process doesn’t change its result.
This is why the marketing director can’t win alone. It was never a talent problem or an effort problem. She is building a new orientation inside a system that was engineered, accidentally and over many years, to reverse it. You can hire the right person, train them well, hand them this entire series, and still watch their best work come back sanded down, because the last stretch of the route it travels is built to protect the institution, not the reader.
And it isn’t only the marketing director who lives this. The development director sends an appeal into the same route and gets it back heavier with institutional pride and lighter on the donor’s actual reason for giving. The education director watches a warm, plainspoken program description come back fluent in the institutional language of a grant report. Anyone whose job is to reach a person outside the building feels the same thing. The work goes in written for that person, and comes back written for everyone else.
None of this is an argument against routing. Routing exists for a good reason. A single author has blind spots. They assume knowledge the reader doesn’t have, forget the context a newcomer would need, leave out the thing that felt too obvious to say. A second and third reader catch exactly those gaps, and often make a piece better than its author could have made it alone. The problem is not that other people weigh in. It is that there is no shared standard for which additions belong, so every edit is treated as equally valid and almost all of them go in.
That is the opening for the fix. Give the process a single standard, one question every edit has to pass, and the same routing that dilutes the work starts improving it. The process is producing the problem today. The same process, pointed at the reader, is the solution.
The Fix Is a Different Process, Not a Longer One
You don’t fix this by stripping out the reviewers or bolting on a new routing form. The reviewers are valuable. What’s missing is the standard they’re editing toward. So you give every edit one question to answer, and you change what the process is built to protect. Three changes do it.
1. Every piece starts with a brief
Before a draft goes anywhere, it carries a short cover note, no more than a few sentences, that states two things plainly: who this communication is for, and what we want that person to do after they read it. One primary job. Inform, or inspire, or convert. Not all three at once.
This sounds administrative. It is actually the whole point, because most dilution comes from a single unspoken fear: that if we don’t mention everything we’re doing, no one will think we’re doing enough. So the gala gets added to the single-ticket email. The education program gets added to the subscription pitch. The brief is what gives someone the standing to say: the job of this piece is to sell a ticket to this show, so the gala doesn’t belong here. Not because the gala doesn’t matter. Because this piece has one job, and we agreed on it before anyone started editing.
The brief travels with the piece. Every reviewer reads it before they touch a word. And every proposed change now has to answer a simple question: does this help the piece do its one job, or does it just add mine?
2. Two questions gate every piece
Before anything is approved, it passes two questions. Not as a suggestion. As the gate.
The Two-Question Approval Test
Before this goes out, every piece answers two questions:
1. Does someone who has never attended this organization feel like this communication is for them?
2. Does this communication answer the question the audience is asking, or the question we want to answer?
If we can’t answer both, it isn’t finished. Not because it’s bad. Because it hasn’t done its job yet.
You’ve met the first question before. It opened the pre-audit a few articles ago, and that’s not an accident. These two questions are the whole series compressed into something a leader can actually hold while a piece is in front of them. Everything we’ve built, the belonging signals, the five needs, the before and after rewrites, the post-visit window, collapses into this: is this for the person who doesn’t already belong, and does it answer what they’re actually asking?
The questions do one more thing, and it may be the most valuable. They change what feedback sounds like.
“This needs to be better” is not usable. Neither is “this feels off” or “I’d want more energy here.” That kind of note sends the piece back into the same soup it came from. The questions replace it with feedback that points at something specific. Not “make it stronger” but “this doesn’t answer question one, because the first sentence assumes you already know who the conductor is.” Not “add more about the season” but “that line answers our question, not theirs, so it comes out.” Now the feedback is about the reader, by name, instead of about the institution’s comfort.
3. Fewer reviewers, on purpose
Then ask one more question, not about the piece but about the process itself: who actually needs to review this, and who is merely accustomed to reviewing it? This isn’t about silencing useful eyes. The point of the brief and the two questions is that the review a piece gets makes it better. It’s about making sure the people on the route are there because the piece genuinely needs them. Most approval chains are long because they grew, not because they were designed. People are on them out of habit, hierarchy, or a fear of leaving someone out. Every reviewer who is not genuinely required is one more pass of accumulated priorities the reader has to survive. Name who the piece actually needs, give those people the brief and the two questions, and take everyone else off the route. A shorter process is not a looser one. It is a process with fewer chances to forget who the work is for.
Who Actually Holds This
Here is what the marketing director can and cannot do.
She can propose all of this. She can write the brief. She can ask the two questions every time a piece leaves her desk. What she cannot do is enforce any of it, because the moment a change comes back from someone senior that serves the institution instead of the reader, she is right back where she started, holding a marked-up draft with no standing to send it the other way.
The brief and the two questions only have authority if the people with authority stand behind them.
That means the executive director and the artistic director. Not endorsing the idea. Owning it. It has to be the ED who decides which names stay on the approval route and which come off. It has to be the ED who, when a change comes back that answers the institution’s question instead of the audience’s, is the one who takes it back out. It has to be the artistic director who looks at the plainer, braver version and protects it instead of reaching for the credential.
When the people with the most authority hold the process to those questions, the marketing director stops swimming upstream. Not because she was handed more power. Because the current changed direction.
The Question Underneath the Whole Series
And that is the shift this entire series has been walking toward.
For nineteen articles we’ve circled one change without naming it plainly. Here it is.
There is a version of leadership that asks: how do we market this better? Why aren’t audiences supporting us? How do we reach more people? Every one of those questions points outward, at the audience, as a problem to be solved. And every one keeps the institution at the center, wondering why the world won’t come to it.
Then there is a leader who asks a different question. Not how do we get them here, but: what does this person need in order to be here?
That is the whole orientation change, in one question.
It sounds small. It is not small. The first set of questions treats the audience as a market to be captured. The second treats the audience as a group of human beings to be served.
But the question only works if it is asked again and again. One meeting where a leader asks it changes nothing. People nod, and the next piece routes exactly as it did before. What changes a culture is the leader who asks it every single time, out loud, in front of everyone, until the people around them start asking it before the leader does. Repetition is the mechanism. The question has to become the thing the organization expects to be asked, the standard every piece knows it will be measured against, before anyone believes it is real.
When that happens, something shifts that doesn’t shift back. Not just in the email that goes out that afternoon, but in the organization that produced it. Because an organization is, in the end, just the accumulated answer to the questions its leaders keep asking.
That is the milestone. Not a campaign that worked. Not a quarter that beat projection. A leader who changed the questions they are asking, and, in changing the questions, changed what the organization is oriented around.
The Choice You’re Already Making
Every arts organization is deciding whose needs its approval process is built to protect.
Almost all of them are deciding by default. The process grew the way processes grow, and it quietly came to serve the people inside the building, because those are the only people who were ever on it. The audience’s needs were never removed. They simply were never added, because it never occurred to anyone to put them there.
The brief and the two questions are how you decide on purpose. They don’t add a person to the process. They put the audience’s questions into the process itself, carried by every piece and answered by someone with the authority to hold the line.
You’re making the choice either way. The only question is whether you’re making it by default or by design.
Next: The approval process is where audience-first holds or collapses, but the process doesn’t fix itself. Someone has to decide that the audience’s needs travel with every piece, and that someone can’t be the person with the least authority in the chain. The next piece names who has to own this, and why it is the one thing a leader cannot delegate.
Good work survives the approval route when the people reviewing it share a standard. The free Audience First Organizational Alignment Assessment looks at operational integration, including whether staff can make audience-first decisions without excessive approval layers. It takes about 10 minutes, and your personalized report arrives in your inbox as soon as you finish.
Leave a Reply