You know which asset is approved when the approval names a deliverable ID, a specific version, a reviewer and a decision date. Keep that record separate from the creator's relationship status. A creator can be under contract while one video is approved, another needs changes and a third has not arrived.
An influencer deliverables tracker should answer two questions without opening a message thread: what is the latest submission, and what version may we publish? Those answers can differ. The following spreadsheet structure is an editorial recommendation, with hypothetical examples you can adapt to your agreed workflow.
Give each deliverable a permanent identity
Create one row for each item that can be accepted independently. A video and a separate still image get separate IDs. If a sequence must be reviewed and published together, give the sequence an ID and list its included files.
Keep the creator ID and campaign ID on each row so you can group the work. Leave relationship stages such as negotiating, contracted or paused in the creator record. Changing a relationship stage should never approve an asset.
Modash's spreadsheet guide separates recruitment information from content records and includes approval dates and publishing dates in its content sheet. For revision control, go further and connect a deliverable register to a version history.
If your current tracker mixes conversations and production, use the creator CRM guide to separate relationship decisions and next actions before adding more status columns.
Use a register and a version history
The register has one row per deliverable. The history has one row per submitted version. Join them with the deliverable ID. Give each version a file-specific link or a saved, identifiable copy; a folder link does not identify the reviewed file.
Use these fields in the register:
| Field | What to record |
|---|---|
| Identity | Deliverable ID, creator ID, campaign ID, format and intended channel |
| Agreed scope | Brief version and the exact item owed |
| Latest version | Most recent submitted version and its file link |
| Accepted version | Version with recorded acceptance; blank until accepted |
| Review owner | Named person accountable for collecting required decisions |
| Deadlines | Submission due, review due and planned publication, each with timezone |
| Current state | Awaiting submission, in review, changes requested, accepted, on hold or cancelled |
| Next action | Action, owner and due date |
| Publication record | Live URL, publication time and verification result |
The history records each submission's version ID, receipt time, asset link, caption version, change summary, feedback link and decision. Also record the decision-maker, decision time and any unresolved conditions. Add a new row for a revision instead of replacing the earlier row.
Keep review deadlines separate from creator deadlines. If the creator submits on time but the brand misses its review slot, the tracker should show who owes the next action. Preserve the original due date when a deadline changes, alongside the revised date and reason.
File approval tools also distinguish these details. Google Drive's approval guidance documents approvers, due dates and settings that determine whether edits reset approvals. Your own process must specify what happens after an edit, even when the software allows an approval to remain.
Read a completed revision trail
This hypothetical example uses invented IDs, people and files. All times are UTC; the filenames represent separate stored assets, not working downloads that someone can silently replace.
Hypothetical deliverable register
| Deliverable | Latest | Accepted | Review owner | Current state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| AUT-C014-VIDEO | v03 | v03 | Dana | Accepted |
| AUT-C014-STILL | v02 | None | Dana | Changes requested |
Hypothetical video revision history
| Version | Submitted | File and caption | Decision | Decision evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| v01 | Oct 5, 09:00 | AUT-C014-VIDEO-v01.mp4; caption v01 | Changes requested | Dana, Oct 5, 14:00; feedback R01 |
| v02 | Oct 6, 10:00 | AUT-C014-VIDEO-v02.mp4; caption v02 | Changes requested | Dana, Oct 6, 15:00; feedback R02 |
| v03 | Oct 7, 09:00 | AUT-C014-VIDEO-v03.mp4; caption v02 | Accepted | Dana, Oct 7, 11:00; decision A03 |
In this example, R01 requests a corrected product name. R02 requests a longer display of the disclosure. A03 records acceptance of the video file together with caption v02. In a working tracker, each evidence reference links to the actual saved decision or feedback.
The video and still belong to the same creator. Their acceptance states remain independent. Sending both files in one email does not give them a shared approval.
Record what acceptance covers
Decide the acceptance criteria before the first submission. A reviewer needs a brief they can check, rather than a shifting list of preferences. For each version, record pass, fail or pending against each required criterion, with a note or evidence link.
Hypothetical acceptance record for AUT-C014-VIDEO v03
| Criterion | Result | Evidence recorded |
|---|---|---|
| Agreed content | Pass | Dana checked against brief v02 |
| Correct product name | Pass | Correction from feedback R01 confirmed |
| Disclosure | Pass | Dana reviewed placement and readable duration in v03 |
| Caption | Pass | Caption v02 accepted with this video |
| Intended use | Pass for creator's organic post only | Agreement reference AGR-C014; paid reuse excluded from this decision |
| Release decision | Accepted | A03, Dana, Oct 7 at 11:00 UTC |
Define a separate release decision if creative acceptance can precede other required checks. An asset waiting for a rights review should remain on hold for publication even if the editor likes the cut. A conditional response such as "approved once the caption changes" stays changes requested until someone verifies the replacement.
For endorsements affecting US consumers, the FTC's disclosure guide says disclosures should accompany the endorsement and be hard to miss. For video endorsements, the disclosure belongs in the video, beyond its description. Review that detail in the actual submitted version. A checked box from an earlier cut does not show that the current cut includes it.
Creative acceptance also needs a defined use. The U.S. Copyright Office advises seeking permission from the copyright owner. Link the agreement or permission record covering the intended use rather than treating the reviewer field as permission to reuse the work. Refer questions about ownership, licensing scope or other jurisdictions to qualified counsel. For the ongoing record, see how to track content rights before expiry.
Handle changes after acceptance
Keep the accepted version intact. A later submission becomes a new version in review; it does not inherit the earlier decision.
If that submission replaces the planned release, put the deliverable on hold until the replacement receives acceptance. Retain the earlier acceptance in history, with a note explaining why it is no longer the release candidate. If you still intend to publish the older version, record that choice explicitly.
Record caption, audio, crop and disclosure changes too. Where a change affects only one part, name both the changed part and the unchanged accepted files. This prevents a reviewer from approving a caption while a publisher assumes the whole video was rechecked.
Use one review owner to collect conflicting comments and name the decision that applies. The approval-process guide explains how to assign that responsibility.
Before the next asset goes live, open its register row and follow the accepted-version link. Confirm the file, caption, acceptance evidence and intended use. If any one is unclear, assign that missing check an owner and deadline before releasing the asset.
