Copywriters vs. proofing

Hi! Our copywriters are using it to review and make changes to PDF proofs but they do not like how the comments record compared to Adobe. When we need to route a word doc we route as a document for approval not a Proof. The reviewer downloads the document to make comments and then uploads it. I have heard lots of complaints overall from them I'd also like to hear how others do it. Dawn Carlson Hazelden Betty Ford Workfront Admin/Creative Services Mgr Dawn Carlson Hazelden Betty Ford

Hi - Ultimately, I think it depends on how much copy we're talking about. Our writers will generate copy on a word or google doc, and then our designers will flow that into whatever they are designing. We do many many different kinds of work... scripts, social media posts, infographics, product sheets, welcome signs, emails, white papers, articles, web pages, etc... Our flow is that the partners only ever see copy (outside of just a script) when it's in layout. At that point edits are made in WF Proof, comments are logged, and proof decisions are made by our partners. All subsequent edits to copy are (generally) made with the designer and copywriter working together on the design files... and that work is done via proof comments or working side by side... My team (and partners) also find the auto compare feature very helpful (provided the versions are the same size and dimensions). Hope this is somewhat helpful. -- "https://www.capitalone.com/" style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-weight:inherit;font-style:inherit;font-family:inherit;vertical-align:baseline;color:rgb(4,53,97)" Jeremy Newman Creative Project Management Lead • Brand 299 Park Ave, New York, NY 10171 347-638-3971 646-528-4949

---

The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and/or proprietary to Capital One and/or its affiliates and may only be used solely in performance of work or services for Capital One. The information transmitted herewith is intended only for use by the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, retransmission, dissemination, distribution, copying or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon this information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from your computer.

Ha. I am at 100% fail and 100% complaining with the primary response being "we are not a factory." They won't even upload their copy from Word into the Documents tab, the marketing managers have to do it. One copywriter for email, we've come to an agreement where we create a OneDrive shared doc and the link is put into a custom tab (by the marketing manager not the copywriter!) but the copywriter will click on it and type in it. Good luck!!

No sure entirely how you are structured, but I think this is time to talk to the executive and get their support or not. For us, once we got the ability for reviewers to apply actions onto a comment, that really helped. Editors/Proofreaders & Account go back and forth several times discussing changes and then when a decision is made, the account person can tag it To Do or STET (those are our two actions). The copywriters now like they can just go in, filter To Do, and then make the changes for the next version. That has been a big sale. But really, for us, it came to the Executives saying you have to use it. (It also helps that we have a lot of stuff happening so we can give stats to our executives. In 2019 alone, we had 99,771 proof version route through our company with over 3.3 million comments. With info like that, it is easy to point out that track changes isn't reliable or even possible and that the executive made the right decision) Anthony Imgrund FCB

Our copywriters are very happy to proof a PDF of the actual piece and to make comments and approve there – they have gotten used to that part and I think can't live without it. It's the actual copywriting and the drafts/proofs of the initial Word documents, marking tasks as done, and assigning staff that they object to and refuse to do. And, in my organization, the executive and the creative director and head copywriter are all the same person ☹

Yeah, if the executive is against it, there is really nothing you can do. We have several business units with that issue when it comes to having them long in and look at tasks. They would rather drive the Creative Resource Manager crazy by having her tell everyone all the time what they are working on. Anthony Imgrund FCB

I trained the designers to help them better understand the functionality, especially the version control and version comparison the proofing tool provides. I also made sure they knew how to direct it to the right person. We're seeing some improvement in adoption. Our copywriters settled on using Word or Google Docs for editing/revising copy. The editors were finding the proofing tool too cumbersome for heavy edits, even in a two-page document. We use the proofing tool for sponsor approval as well as proofing once the piece is in design. We typically use a PDF at that point. Dave Parker Seed Company

Thank you for the inputs! :) I've creached out to our CSM to explain what kind of solution could make the Copywriters' adoption a lot better: however it was told proofing is not designed for editing it can still read the content, otherwsie it could not identify what needs to be replaced while using the Replace function if so, WF could probably render an "after change picture" of the copy which could do be copied simply and this could do the job I think that was a new angle on how this could be handled and this will be discussed with WF Product team. ImreMagyar VODAFONE Group

We have agreed that copy documents (Word) like a message map, remain as documents. I totally get that Word and Adobe tracking are much easier than proof for heavy copy. They are send for document approval. The client marks it up and then uploads their documents with _initials. The copywriter downloads it to work off of, makes the updates and then uploads a new version their document. So the document that is routed several times is always versioned, allowing some visibility into pending document approvals - i.e. is it pending?, with who?, how long?, what version. The next phase I am considering is giving reviewers that often review and mark up the routed copy (ex: legal) Work licenses, so they can actually version it as well --> allowing for a back and forth with one single document source of truth. I am also hoping to start assigning those users to the review tasks and give them a dashboard so they can be more "in Workfront" and can keep tabs on what they are supposed to do better than routing a doc approval to them. Anyone else think that would be successful? Susie Lage Western Digital Corporation

Correct me if I'm wrong, but will the users be uploading new versions of the same file (instead of uploading a new file with their initials)? If so, you would have to give them Plan licenses and make sure their proofing permissions (found in WF user setttings, not ProofHQ) are set to Supervisor or above. To my knowledge, that's the only way a user can upload a new version of a file owned by someone else. If that's changed, please let me know! We'll save a lot of money on licenses in that case (lol), since the majority of our users require this ability. Maddy Martin