In-house social work has a problem agencies do not: everyone in the business has an opinion and some have the ability to publish. A defined brand social media workflow settles who decides what, so consistency does not depend on who asked last.
One route in, one route out
Requests arrive from sales, product, support and leadership, usually informally and often urgently. Without a single intake route, the schedule is set by whoever is most persistent rather than by what the audience needs.
Publish through one route as well. Multiple people with publishing access and no shared standard produces visible inconsistency, and it makes any later question about why something was posted unanswerable.
The workflow
- One intake route for requests, with a simple written form.
- A plan agreed per period, against which requests are prioritised.
- Briefs written before production.
- A claims boundary agreed with whoever is accountable for it.
- Approval scoped by risk rather than applied uniformly.
- One publishing route with a documented standard.
- Response cover arranged for anything likely to generate questions.
- Reporting on a fixed rhythm.
Scoping approval by risk is what keeps the process usable. A routine post and a statement about a product issue should not travel the same path, and treating them identically means the process gets bypassed for both.
Say no with a reason
Not every internal request should be published. A polite refusal explaining why — it does not serve the audience, it competes with something already planned — protects the account and is easier to accept than silence.
Keep a record of what was declined and why. It saves relitigating the same request quarterly, and it demonstrates that the plan is being applied consistently rather than according to preference. Approval structure sits in the content approval process, and documentation in the workflow documentation guide.
Common questions
Who should own the accounts?
The business, at asset level, with a small number of named administrators.
How are urgent requests handled?
Through a defined fast path with a named approver. Without one, urgency simply bypasses the process.
Should other teams publish directly?
Rarely. Direct publishing without a shared standard is the main source of inconsistency.
How should internal disagreements be settled?
By whoever owns the plan, referring to it. Settling by seniority makes the plan meaningless.
Should the plan be shared internally?
Yes. Visibility reduces ad hoc requests considerably, since people can see what is already coming.
What about employee advocacy?
Encourage it with guidance rather than scripts. Scripted staff posts are recognisable and undermine the intent. See the services page.
How is the plan agreed?
With the teams that generate requests, before the period starts. A plan written in isolation is treated as a suggestion by everyone who was not consulted.