We all say feedback matters. But too often, we treat it like a post-mortem. It arrives too late, says too little, and costs too much.
Creative rework rarely comes down to weak talent. More often, it’s because feedback arrives after the point of no return. The issue isn’t feedback itself. It’s when it lands, who gives it, and whether the brief can carry it. Feedback isn’t a moment. It’s an ecosystem.
The briefs looked solid on the surface, but many were recycled, rushed, or too vague to guide real decisions. The creative team lacked clear intent. The marketing team, stretched thin, often lacked context or had to cut corners just to keep up. Internal business partners joined too late, usually after marketing had reviewed the work three or more times with the creative team. In trying to present a polished output, marketers delayed input from key voices. By then, even small misreads could cost days, sometimes weeks.
What followed were misfires, reverts, and missed timelines. Not because the work was weak, but because the foundation was. When the brief lacked clarity, feedback couldn’t do its job. And when feedback came late or casually, it exposed just how fragile the brief really was. The two were symbiotic, each relying on the other to hold shape. But both were in trouble.
This wasn’t about difficult personalities or misalignment. It was about timing, structure, and intent. And the cost wasn’t evenly shared. Creatives bore the blame. Timelines bent around the chaos. And from the outside, it just looked like slow and misaligned creative..
To change the pattern, we focused less on the feedback itself and more on the conditions around it. We began matching the type of feedback to the stage of work. Early input set direction. Mid-stage feedback became collaborative. Final feedback focused on polish, not pivot. This shift gave the team a shared language and clearer expectations. Brennan McEachran’s 10/50/99 model became a key reference. Not as gospel, but as a way to align expectations with what the work could absorb.
We also clarified intent and authority. Inspired by Jeff Weiner’s framework, we started tagging feedback for what it was: one person’s opinion, a strong suggestion, or a mandate. This didn’t just reduce ambiguity. It gave teams, especially more junior members, clear levers to pull. They could weigh feedback for what it was, not just who it came from. It helped remove the intimidation factor, creating space for healthy challenge and constructive pushback. Feedback stopped being a source of tension and became our stage for alignment.
And we revisited the brief. If feedback kept arriving late or missing the point, the root issue was usually upstream. A strong brief gives feedback something to attach to. Without it, even good intentions drift.
The tension didn’t disappear. But it moved earlier. Conversations happened with the right people in the room. The team found clarity sooner. Trust grew. And the rework reduced.
You don’t finish the Mona Lisa, then bin it because the feedback showed up late. If feedback arrives too late to change the outcome, it’s not feedback. It’s failure, disguised as input.