Marketing review: what the decision maker looks at

Marketing review is the stage where a designated compliance decision maker reads every public-facing text about the token before it goes out. The reviewer checks claims against the whitepaper, flags language that implies returns or guarantees, and either clears the material, sends it back for edits, or blocks release outright.

What changes once review starts

Once a marketing package enters review, the publishing clock stops. No banner, post, or landing page tied to that package goes live until sign-off arrives in writing. Teams that treat review as a formality lose time twice: once waiting for the first pass, and again when the same claim resurfaces in a second channel without having been checked at all.

The risk is not abstract. A single unreviewed line — a projected price, a comparison to a competing token, a promise of guaranteed liquidity — can force a retraction after the material is already public. Retraction costs more attention than the original delay would have.

What to do

The marketing lead compiles every planned piece — site copy, social posts, deck, one-pager — into a single package before submission. Partial submissions get returned unread.
The legal team maps each claim in the package against the approved wording in the whitepaper, sentence by sentence.
The decision maker flags any forecast, comparison, or guarantee-adjacent phrase for removal, regardless of how it is worded.
The marketing team revises the flagged sections and resubmits the full package again, not the edited fragment alone.
The decision maker issues written sign-off before any element of the package is scheduled to publish.
Compliance archives the signed-off version as the reference copy for any later update to the same campaign.

Who decides

The compliance decision maker is the person named in the internal approval chain for the issuance — not the marketing lead, not the founder writing the copy. Sign-off is written, not verbal, and it references the specific version of the package reviewed. A typical first pass runs a few working days; a package with heavy revision needs often returns for a second or third round before it clears.

Stage	Who is involved	Typical output
Package compiled	Marketing lead	Single file, all channels included
Claim mapping	Legal team	Line-by-line comparison against the whitepaper
First review	Decision maker	List of flagged phrases, or clean pass
Revision	Marketing lead	Full package resubmitted
Sign-off	Decision maker	Written approval, dated and versioned

Where the paths split

If the package includes a performance projection or a return figure, the decision maker returns it before checking anything else — this class of claim is the fastest route to a full rewrite.

If the same claim appears in several languages, each translated version needs its own sign-off. A cleared English text does not clear its French or Lithuanian counterpart automatically.

If the team wants to reuse material from an earlier campaign, it still goes through the full cycle. Prior approval does not carry over once the surrounding context has changed.

What this page does not decide

This page describes the review sequence, not the wording that will pass it — that depends on the specific claim and the specific channel. It also does not cover the parties around the issuance who are not writing the marketing copy themselves. Before onboarding a distributor who will run part of the campaign, a separate check applies: Counterparty report before onboarding a distributor. When a supporting document in the package looks off — a scan that seems generated rather than photographed — the question belongs to a different check: Document report when a scan looks generated. And if the campaign involves moving the issuing entity between jurisdictions mid-review, that decision sits outside marketing review entirely: Jurisdiction report before moving an entity.

Verified

Last checked: 14 March 2025. This description reflects the internal review sequence as currently mapped for token issuance projects; it does not cite external sources because the procedure itself, not a specific rule, is the subject of this page. For how often this kind of review point recurs across live files, see Delivery statistics, published automatically in practice.

FAQ

How long does marketing review take in practice?

A clean package with no flagged claims often clears in a few working days. A package with return-adjacent language or unmapped claims typically needs a second round, which adds the same number of days again.

Which documents are needed to start?

The current approved whitepaper version, the full marketing package in one file, and a note on which channels each piece will run on. Missing the whitepaper version is the most common reason for a package to bounce before review even begins.

What happens if the marketing team does not respond to review comments?

The package stays in the flagged state and nothing in it publishes. There is no default approval after a period of silence — the decision maker's sign-off is the only thing that moves a package forward.