Joint Campaigns
Part of Partner marketing operations
Preparing a joint campaign retrospective
Prepare a shared account of delivery, decisions and customer response, then leave a joint campaign review with owned improvements.
Prepare a joint campaign retrospective by giving both partners a shared account of the plan, what was delivered and what remains uncertain. Ask why results differed only after the factual record is checked. Finish with a few changes that have owners and a point for review.
Assemble the record
Define the activity and period under review. Bring the original brief, accepted commitments, actual release record, major changes and outcome definitions agreed before launch. Ask each partner to verify its own delivery account before the meeting.
Show planned and actual dates separately. If an asset missed its intended send window, record which reviews and distribution steps moved. Include corrections and withdrawals. Replacing the original plan with the final schedule would hide how delivery changed.
Label customer responses at the level the records support. Registrations, questions, enquiries and opportunities are different events.
If a combined distinct count cannot be established, show each partner’s count and any verified overlap without inventing a total.
Detailed counting methods belong in the partnership’s measurement work; this review needs clear labels for the figures it uses.
Discuss what happened, then why
A short agenda can follow five questions:
- Customer promise:Did the finished activity address the question in the brief?
- Delivery:Which accepted inputs, reviews and distribution steps happened or changed?
- Decisions:Where did an unclear owner, version or approval create rework?
- Evidence:What does the recorded response show, and what remains unknown?
- Next activity:What should be repeated, changed, tested on a smaller scale or stopped?
Ask for an example behind each lesson. “Communication was poor” is difficult to act on. “The claim reviewer received the assembled layout after the booking decision” identifies a handover to move earlier.
Keep an observation separate from an explanation. A late release followed by fewer enquiries does not establish that the delay caused the result. The offer, audience, channel or other activity may also have mattered. Record a proposed cause as a hypothesis when the review cannot test it.
Let each partner challenge the account. A withheld send may reflect an unverified landing-page condition, changing the lesson from “publish faster” to “provide the reviewer with the full claim earlier”. The ACCC says it can require businesses to back up claims they make about their products or services, and it accepts reports about possible misleading or false claims.
Use customer examples only at a level both teams may access. Where sharing would disclose personal information and the organisation is an APP entity, assess the purpose and applicable basis under the OAIC’s APP 6 guidance. A summary of recurring questions may meet the review need.
Leave with decisions
For each selected improvement, record the observed problem, proposed change, owner, due point and evidence that the change was adopted. Send both partners the dated factual summary and action record, then correct any identified error in the delivery account. Carry accepted changes into the next brief or operating record and check them at the next relevant decision point.
