The client approves the main video. Your team still needs the vertical cut, two alternate hooks, a clean version, and an export with revised captions.
A file named “final revised new” appears in the delivery folder. Nobody is certain which opening it uses or whether the caption changes are included.
Video version control gives each edit a clear identity and connects it to its feedback, approval, and delivery status. For agencies producing multiple campaign variations, that traceability helps the team confirm exactly what is ready to use.
Here is how to organize versions from the first cut to the final package.
A campaign variation and a revision are different things.
A variation might use another hook, language, duration, or aspect ratio. A revision changes one of those variations after feedback.
Treating both as an unexplained version number can make the project difficult to follow. “V3” does not tell you whether a file is the third review of the main edit or the third campaign concept.
Define a naming structure that reflects both dimensions. Keep it short enough for the team to use consistently.
For example: “Client_Campaign_HookA_9x16_EN_R02.” The fields identify the client, campaign, creative variation, format, language, and revision. This is an example convention; adapt it to your workflow.
List every required output and its essential specifications. Assign each deliverable a unique ID that stays with it throughout production.
Include the message or hook, intended placement, duration, aspect ratio, caption treatment, and approval owner. Note whether work on that deliverable depends on another edit being approved.
For example, a campaign’s deliverable list might include:
Add the exact specifications required for each placement. Do not assume approval of one output automatically covers every variation.
Update the list whenever the scope changes. Each new deliverable needs a corresponding decision about effort, cost, and timing.
Use a folder structure that reflects the stages of work: assets, working projects, review exports, approved deliverables, and archived material.
A review export should not appear in the folder used to upload campaign assets unless its status is unmistakable. Likewise, an approved export should not be overwritten by an unapproved revision with the same name.
Keep one agreed source for current project information. Other tools can link to it, but the team should know where to check the latest status.
Define who can move files into the approved delivery location. Access alone does not establish approval authority.
Every review should identify the file or review version being discussed.
Keep timestamps and comments associated with that cut. If feedback arrives by email or chat, the project owner should reconcile it into the agreed review record.
When a revision is delivered, note what changed and which comments remain unresolved. A short change summary can help reviewers assess the right decisions without guessing.
If the client introduces a new direction, preserve the record of the previously approved cut. This makes the change traceable and helps distinguish new work from a missed instruction.
Approval should identify the deliverable, revision, approver, and date. It should also state what has been approved when review happens in stages.
Story approval may allow the team to proceed with graphics and finishing. It does not necessarily mean the final export is approved for publication.
For related outputs, agree whether the client needs to review each separately or can approve a defined set together. Record the scope of that approval explicitly.
Avoid relying on a message such as “looks good” if it is unclear which files it covers. The project owner should confirm the intended approval before delivery.
Before delivery, compare the exports with the agreed deliverable list.
Confirm the correct story, hook, language, captions, graphics, and technical format for each file. Check the video itself rather than relying only on its name.
Make sure final changes have reached the relevant variations. A corrected product name in the main edit may still be wrong in an earlier cutdown.
Provide a delivery list linking each ID to its file and intended use. This gives the client or media team a practical way to find the right asset.
Sometimes an approved asset needs to be replaced after delivery.
Issue a new identifiable revision, explain what changed, and name the files that are superseded. Notify the person responsible for publishing or distribution through the agreed channel.
Confirm whether the replacement affects files already uploaded or scheduled. Delivering a corrected export does not automatically replace an asset in a campaign platform.
Keep the previous file traceable in the archive, with its status clear. This can help the team understand what was used and when.
For more on the supporting process, read about the back-end editing workflow.
Use a consistent structure that identifies the project, variation, format, and revision. Add language or caption treatment when those fields distinguish otherwise similar files.
They can share a process, but each required output needs a clear approval status. Agree whether related versions can be approved together and record which files that decision covers.
Replacing files without a traceable revision can create confusion. Use an identifiable replacement and tell the publishing owner which previous asset it supersedes.
Video version control works when the team can connect a file to its creative requirement, review history, and approval. Clear names and a maintained delivery matrix make that connection practical.
At Razor Post, we support agencies, brands, and production companies with post-production services that integrate into their delivery workflows.
Managing a growing number of campaign versions? Book an intro call with Razor Post to discuss your deliverables and post-production support needs.
