♾️ The Revision Historian
✅ Summary
A client who approved the third draft of a sales page then came back two months later with extensive revisions.
📜 Full Story
Sarah Chen, a seasoned copywriter with eight years of experience crafting sales pages for tech companies, thought she'd seen every type of client feedback possible. Then came the project for XYZ Solutions, a mid-sized software company launching a new project management platform.
The initial scope was clear: create a compelling sales page that would position their product against established competitors like Asana and Monday.com. Sarah delivered a first draft that took a bold, disruptive approach—exactly what the client had initially requested. The feedback was mixed; the marketing director loved the energy but wanted a more conservative tone to appeal to enterprise clients.
Through two subsequent revisions, Sarah carefully refined the messaging. The second draft balanced professional authority with innovative spirit. The third and final version, approved enthusiastically by both the marketing director and the CEO, found the sweet spot: sophisticated yet engaging copy that highlighted InnovateTech's unique value proposition while maintaining enterprise-level credibility.
The page went live in late March. By all metrics, it was performing well—conversion rates were up 23% compared to their previous page. Then, on a quiet Friday afternoon in June, Sarah received an email that made her question everything about her project management process.
"We've been reviewing the sales page," wrote Marcus, the new product marketing manager who'd joined InnovateTech a month prior, "and after comparing it to some earlier versions, we feel the first draft had a raw energy we've lost. We need to go back to square one and incorporate what was good about that initial version. The current page is too... polished."
Marcus had apparently discovered the first draft during a marketing assets audit and, without any context about the strategic evolution of the page or the careful decisions that led to the final version, decided to champion a complete rewrite. He dismissed the two months of positive performance data and the documented approval process, instead fixating on the very elements the company had specifically asked to tone down.
When Sarah pointed out that this would essentially mean starting a new project, Marcus responded that this should be covered under the original agreement's "revision policy." He seemed genuinely surprised when she explained that post-approval changes of this magnitude weren't considered standard revisions.
This is a fictitious case study developed for educational purposes only. Any resemblance to actual people or organizations is purely coincidental.
🛠️ How to Fix This
Prevention Strategies
- Implement Version Control Protocol: Maintain a detailed changelog documenting each revision's key changes, client feedback, and explicit approvals. Date-stamp everything.
- Clear Contract Language: Include specific language stating that post-approval revisions constitute new work, complete with fresh timelines and additional costs. This isn't about being difficult—it's about respecting the agreed-upon creative process.
- Revision Summary Documents: After each major revision, provide a detailed summary highlighting:
- Changes implemented from previous version
- Rationale behind major adjustments
- Elements specifically approved by the client
- Next steps in the process
Professional Safeguards
Consider implementing a formal sign-off procedure that includes a cooling-off period. This gives clients time to thoroughly review and commit to their decisions while protecting both parties from the "revision time machine" phenomenon.
Document all communication meticulously, particularly when clients approve versions or request changes. A simple email thread isn't enough—maintain a dedicated project log that tracks the evolution of the work product, complete with decision points and approvals.
Most importantly, establish clear boundaries between revision rounds and new work. When clients attempt to resurrect old versions after approval, having this distinction clearly defined in your contract provides the necessary framework for professional discussion about scope and compensation.