Your sales team launches a campaign with messaging that contradicts your homepage. Marketing publishes a case study using positioning you deprecated six months ago. A product manager announces a new feature using language that doesn't match your brand voice.
Messaging chaos.
You implement a review process. Now everything needs approval. Simple updates take two weeks. Teams start bypassing the process because it's too slow.
Messaging bureaucracy.
After implementing messaging governance at three B2B companies—and watching several systems fail—I've learned that effective governance isn't about control. It's about creating clarity on what needs review, who reviews it, and how fast decisions get made.
Here's how to build messaging governance that maintains consistency without becoming a bottleneck.
Define What Requires Review vs. What Doesn't
The biggest mistake: requiring approval for everything.
Tier 1 - Must have review (high visibility, high risk):
- Homepage and primary web pages
- Major product launches
- Press releases and external communications
- Sales decks and core collateral
- Pricing and packaging changes
- Legal/compliance-sensitive messaging
- Executive presentations to analysts or press
These impact brand perception and business results. They justify review time.
Tier 2 - Recommended review (moderate visibility):
- Blog posts and thought leadership
- Email campaign templates
- Social media campaigns
- Webinar presentations
- Customer-facing documentation updates
These benefit from review but shouldn't block shipping.
Tier 3 - No review needed (low visibility, low risk):
- Individual social posts
- Internal communications
- Support ticket responses
- Sales email personalization
- A/B test variations
These need guidelines, not approval.
Clear tiers prevent the "review everything" trap.
Establish Decision Rights and SLAs
Governance fails when no one knows who decides or how long it takes.
Assign clear ownership:
Product Marketing: Owns messaging strategy and consistency. Final approval on Tier 1 assets.
Marketing Leadership: Approves major messaging shifts and positioning changes.
Legal: Approves claims requiring compliance review (ROI claims, security statements, industry-specific regulations).
Sales Leadership: Provides input on sales messaging, but doesn't have veto power over strategic messaging.
Set response time SLAs:
Tier 1 assets: 48 hours for review Tier 2 assets: 24 hours for review Urgent requests: 4 hours (use sparingly)
If reviewers can't meet SLA, the asset ships as-is. This prevents review from becoming a black hole.
Use "silence is approval" for Tier 2. Submit for review, wait 24 hours. If no response, proceed. This prevents delays from reviewer availability.
Clear ownership and SLAs make governance predictable.
Create Self-Service Guidelines
The best governance is when teams don't need approval because they already know what's right.
Build a messaging style guide that includes:
Voice and tone principles:
- How we sound (conversational, authoritative, technical, friendly)
- What language we use and avoid
- How we address different audiences
Terminology standards:
- Approved product names and capitalization
- Feature naming conventions
- Industry terminology we use consistently
Claim validation requirements:
- What types of claims need proof points
- How to cite statistics and data
- When customer approval is needed for case studies
Messaging templates:
- Value proposition structure
- Product description formula
- Use case narrative format
Make it searchable and scannable. No 50-page PDFs. Use a wiki or Notion with clear headings, search functionality, and lots of examples.
Include good and bad examples. Show what good messaging looks like. Show common mistakes to avoid. Examples teach better than rules.
When teams can self-check against clear guidelines, they need less approval.
Implement Lightweight Review Processes
Review doesn't require meetings and lengthy approval chains.
Use asynchronous review for most assets. Drop asset in Slack channel with context: "Reviewing new sales one-pager. Please comment by EOD tomorrow. Silence = approval."
Reviewers comment inline. Requester addresses feedback. Ships.
Hold 30-minute messaging office hours weekly. Teams can bring messaging questions, get quick feedback, resolve ambiguities. This prevents "how do we say this?" questions from becoming multi-day email threads.
Create a messaging review template:
Asset: [What you're reviewing]
Audience: [Who this is for]
Channel: [Where this will be used]
Tier: [1, 2, or 3]
Review needed by: [Date]
Specific questions: [What you need feedback on]
[Link to asset]
Structured requests get faster, better responses.
Build Escalation Paths for Conflicts
What happens when teams disagree about messaging?
Level 1: Messaging lead resolves. For most conflicts, product marketing makes the call. They have context and authority. Decide quickly, document the decision, move on.
Level 2: Cross-functional discussion. For conflicts involving strategic tradeoffs (sales wants to message differently than product marketing), hold a 30-minute working session. Debate, decide, document.
Level 3: Leadership decision. For rare cases where teams fundamentally disagree and it impacts business strategy, escalate to CMO or executive team. These should be rare—if you're escalating frequently, your governance isn't working.
Document decisions and rationale. When you make a messaging call, write down why. "We chose to emphasize speed over customization because win/loss data shows speed is the #1 buying criteria for our target market."
This prevents re-litigating the same decisions repeatedly.
Monitor and Measure Governance Effectiveness
How do you know if governance is working?
Track review cycle time. How long does it take for assets to get reviewed and approved? If average is over 72 hours, your process is too slow.
Measure bypass rate. How often do teams ship without required review? High bypass rate signals governance is too burdensome.
Survey team satisfaction quarterly. Ask teams:
- "How clear are you on what messaging needs review?" (1-10)
- "How responsive is the review process?" (1-10)
- "Does messaging review add value or just create delays?" (Value/Delays/Both)
Monitor messaging consistency across channels. Review random samples of customer-facing content. Are teams following guidelines? Is messaging consistent? Inconsistency reveals governance gaps.
Count escalations and conflicts. Frequent conflicts indicate unclear decision rights or poor guidelines.
Good governance is invisible. Teams follow it naturally because it's clear and helpful.
Adapt Governance as You Scale
What works for 5 people breaks at 50 people.
Small team (5-20 people):
- Minimal formal process
- Single person (usually PMM) reviews everything
- Quick Slack-based approvals
- Lightweight style guide
Medium team (20-100 people):
- Defined tiers and review requirements
- Multiple reviewers with clear ownership
- Self-service guidelines and templates
- Regular messaging office hours
Large team (100+ people):
- Distributed ownership (PMM per product line)
- Automated workflow tools (Asana, Monday)
- Comprehensive style guide and training
- Dedicated messaging operations role
Scale your process to match team size and complexity.
Common Governance Pitfalls to Avoid
Most messaging governance fails for predictable reasons.
Too much process: Every asset requires three approvals and a committee meeting. Result: Teams bypass the system or nothing ships.
Too little process: No guidelines, no review. Result: Messaging chaos and brand inconsistency.
Unclear decision rights: Multiple people think they have final approval. Result: Endless debates and delays.
Slow response times: Reviews take a week. Result: Teams stop submitting for review.
No enforcement: Guidelines exist but aren't followed. Result: The illusion of governance without actual consistency.
Over-indexing on perfection: Every word gets debated. Result: Paralysis and missed opportunities.
The right governance creates clarity and speed, not control and delay.
Start Simple, Evolve Based on Need
Don't build enterprise governance for a 10-person team.
Version 1.0 (Minimum Viable Governance):
- One-page style guide
- Clear owner for messaging decisions
- Simple tiering: "needs review" vs. "doesn't need review"
- 24-hour review SLA
Version 2.0 (Add as needed):
- Expanded guidelines with examples
- Multiple reviewers with clear ownership
- Messaging templates and frameworks
- Regular training and office hours
Version 3.0 (Mature governance):
- Comprehensive style guide and training
- Automated workflow and review tools
- Distributed ownership model
- Messaging operations function
Build the minimum effective process, then add layers when gaps appear.
Messaging governance works when it creates clarity without creating bottlenecks. Define what needs review, establish fast decision-making, empower teams with self-service guidelines, and measure whether governance is helping or hindering. The goal isn't control—it's consistent, high-quality messaging that ships fast.