Your first 20 blog posts had a consistent voice, clear perspective, and high quality. Your last 20 are all over the place: different tones, varying quality, inconsistent formatting, conflicting points of view.
What happened?
You scaled the team. You added writers, subject matter experts contribute content, different stakeholders weigh in on different topics. Everyone has good intentions, but without clear governance, content quality drifts.
The typical response: create a multi-stage approval process. Everything goes through legal, marketing, product, and executive review. Content that used to take two weeks now takes six. Quality improves slightly, but velocity collapses.
That's the wrong trade-off.
After managing content programs across three companies with teams ranging from 2 to 15 people, I've learned that effective content governance isn't about more approvals—it's about clear standards, the right decision-making authority, and knowing when different types of content need different levels of control.
Here's how to maintain content quality without creating approval bureaucracy.
Define Your Non-Negotiables
Content governance starts with clarity about what must be consistent vs. what can vary.
Non-negotiables (must be consistent):
- Brand voice and tone fundamentals
- Core messaging and positioning
- Legal and compliance requirements
- Basic quality standards (grammar, accuracy, formatting)
- SEO and metadata structure
Flexible elements (can vary):
- Individual writer's style within voice guidelines
- Specific examples and case studies used
- Depth and technical level by audience
- Format experimentation (videos, interactive content, etc.)
Most governance problems come from treating everything as non-negotiable. Be explicit about what actually requires consistency and give teams freedom elsewhere.
Create Lightweight Style and Voice Guidelines
Nobody reads 40-page brand guidelines. Create usable references instead.
The one-page voice guide:
Our voice is: [3-4 adjectives that describe how you sound] Example: "Practical, direct, opinionated, helpful"
Our voice is not: [3-4 adjectives that describe what to avoid] Example: "Academic, preachy, salesy, overly formal"
Writing principles:
- Principle 1: [With example]
- Principle 2: [With example]
- Principle 3: [With example]
Example transformations:
- Instead of: [Weak example] Write: [Strong example]
- Instead of: [Weak example] Write: [Strong example]
This single page guides 90% of voice decisions. Detailed guidelines can exist for edge cases, but the one-pager is what people actually reference.
The content quality checklist:
Before publishing, every piece should meet these standards:
- [ ] Makes a clear, useful point within 2 paragraphs
- [ ] Includes specific examples or evidence, not vague generalizations
- [ ] Provides actionable takeaways, not just information
- [ ] Uses subheadings that clearly preview content
- [ ] Has a clear CTA or next step
- [ ] Matches our voice guidelines
- [ ] Free of grammatical errors and typos
This checklist prevents most quality issues without requiring manager review of every piece.
Implement Tiered Review Based on Content Type
Not all content carries the same risk or visibility. Different content needs different governance.
Tier 1: Light review (or no review)
Content types:
- Social media posts
- Email newsletters to existing subscribers
- Internal content (sales enablement, internal blogs)
- Content updates or refreshes
Review process: Writer self-reviews using quality checklist. Publish.
Rationale: Low risk, high volume. Requiring approvals creates bottlenecks for minimal risk reduction.
Tier 2: Editor review
Content types:
- Standard blog posts
- Customer stories and case studies
- Webinar content
- Lead magnets (ebooks, guides)
Review process: Writer creates, editor reviews for quality/voice/accuracy, publish.
Rationale: Medium visibility. Editor review ensures quality without requiring executive or legal input.
Tier 3: Stakeholder review
Content types:
- Thought leadership from executives
- Controversial or contrarian positions
- Content making claims about competitors
- Press releases and media content
- Pricing or product feature announcements
Review process: Writer creates, editor reviews, relevant stakeholders review (legal for competitive claims, product for feature accuracy, exec for thought leadership), publish.
Rationale: High visibility or risk. Stakeholder review is justified because errors have significant consequences.
Most content should be Tier 1 or 2. If everything requires Tier 3 review, your governance is too heavy.
Assign Clear Decision-Making Authority
Governance breaks down when it's unclear who has final say. Make authority explicit.
Content manager/editor has final say on:
- Voice and tone (does it match brand guidelines?)
- Quality standards (is it good enough to publish?)
- Headline and structure (is it clear and scannable?)
- Publishing decisions (is it ready to ship?)
Subject matter experts have final say on:
- Technical accuracy (are facts correct?)
- Industry context (is the perspective credible?)
Legal has final say on:
- Compliance with regulations
- Risk of defamation or intellectual property issues
Product/executive has final say on:
- Product roadmap references
- Strategic messaging and positioning
When stakeholders disagree, escalate to the content manager or marketing leader to make the final call. No endless committee discussions.
Use Templates to Enforce Structure
Templates solve many governance problems before they start.
Blog post template:
Title: [Benefit-driven, specific]
Opening: [Hook that illustrates the problem, 2-3 paragraphs]
## Section 1: [Clear descriptive heading]
- Key point
- Supporting detail
- Example
## Section 2: [Clear descriptive heading]
...
Conclusion: [Actionable takeaway]
CTA: [Specific next step]
Case study template:
Customer name and logo
Industry and company size
Challenge: [2-3 sentences]
Solution: [2-3 sentences]
Results:
- Metric 1
- Metric 2
- Metric 3
Pull quote from customer
Optional: Implementation details, lessons learned
Templates don't kill creativity—they provide structure so writers can focus creative energy on substance, not figuring out format.
Build a Content Review SLA
Governance fails when reviews take weeks. Set SLAs and hold reviewers accountable.
Standard SLAs:
- Editor review: 48 hours
- Stakeholder review (legal, product, exec): 72 hours
- If reviewer doesn't respond within SLA, content automatically moves forward
How to enforce:
- Send review requests with clear deadlines
- After 48/72 hours, send one reminder
- After SLA expires, proceed without their input
This prevents one slow reviewer from blocking all content. Reviewers who care will respond within SLA. Reviewers who don't respond clearly don't think it's critical.
Create an Approval Matrix
Make it crystal clear who needs to approve what.
Example matrix:
| Content Type | Writer | Editor | Product | Legal | Exec |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Blog post | Create | Approve | - | - | - |
| Case study | Create | Review | Review | - | - |
| Competitive comparison | Create | Review | Approve | Review | - |
| Thought leadership | Create | Review | Review | - | Approve |
| Pricing page update | Create | Review | Approve | Review | Approve |
This matrix prevents the "should we have product review this?" discussions every time content is created.
Run Content Audits Quarterly
Governance isn't just about what you publish—it's also about maintaining what you've already published.
Quarterly audit checklist:
- Accuracy: Are facts, stats, and product details still current?
- Relevance: Is this content still useful, or has it been superseded?
- Performance: Is this content driving traffic/conversions, or should it be improved/removed?
- Brand consistency: Does older content still match current voice and messaging?
Assign audit responsibility to specific team members. Flag content for update, removal, or repurposing.
Outdated, inaccurate content damages credibility. Regular audits prevent this.
Handle Sensitive Topics Proactively
Certain content topics carry higher risk. Create explicit guidelines for these.
Competitive comparisons:
- Must be factually accurate (cite sources)
- Must acknowledge competitor strengths, not just bash
- Legal must review before publication
- Update quarterly to ensure accuracy
Customer stories:
- Written approval from customer required before publication
- Customer review and sign-off on final draft
- Clear agreement on what can/can't be shared
- Respect confidentiality and sensitive data
Industry predictions or controversial positions:
- Clear disclaimer that this is opinion, not fact
- Backed by reasoning and evidence
- Executive review for reputation risk
Pricing and product claims:
- Product team approval required
- Legal review for any regulatory claims (ROI, compliance, security)
- Keep updated as product and pricing change
Having explicit playbooks for high-risk content prevents governance emergencies.
The Governance Sweet Spot
Too little governance: Inconsistent quality, brand confusion, legal risks, content that damages credibility.
Too much governance: Slow velocity, team frustration, bureaucracy that kills creativity, content that's safe but boring.
The sweet spot:
- Clear standards everyone understands
- Lightweight process for most content
- Heavier process only for high-risk content
- Fast review SLAs with automatic escalation
- Authority vested in content team, not committees
Your content team should be able to publish 80% of content with minimal approvals. The remaining 20% that requires broader review should have a fast, clear process.
When governance works, your team ships high-quality, on-brand content consistently without feeling like they're fighting an approval bureaucracy. That's the goal.