You're facing conflicting stakeholder revisions. How do you ensure your writing maintains its core message?

The founder and the sales head clashed because they had very different ICPs in mind. The founder targeted tech startups, craving bold, edgy messaging to stand out. Meanwhile, the sales head focused on enterprises. The disconnect was clear: one wanted to be provocative, the other cautious. I organized a session where they outlined their ICPs in detail. To bridge the gap, I proposed a dual-tone strategy: bold, attention-grabbing headlines to appeal to startups, with detailed, reassuring content underneath to build trust with financial institutions. This way, we maintained the core message while tailoring it to both audiences. My advice? Always dig into the specific ICPs driving stakeholders’ concerns.

The first and foremost thing to remember is that you are doing everything for your stakeholders. You have to take care of the requirements. However, sometimes, stakeholders need to pay more attention to their suggestions. In this case, we must clarify to them why the changes will work for them. You have to ask for feedback on the reason for the changes and then decide whether they matter to them. Never say directly to them that it will not work. You have to ask questions and see if you need to include something from your side. Working on things requires collaboration and peace from both sides. You need to be on the same page. Otherwise, you will always conflict with the stakeholders. Remember, it's challenging to adjust sometimes.

When managing conflicting revisions from stakeholders, focus on preserving your core message. Identify key non-negotiable elements that must remain intact. Synthesize feedback to find common ground and prioritize changes that enhance clarity. Communicate with stakeholders to clarify the impact of revisions and negotiate where necessary. Finally, review the document holistically to ensure your original intent is maintained.

Every seasoned content writer encounters the challenge of navigating conflicting stakeholder revisions. The key is to remain steadfast in preserving the core message while being flexible enough to accommodate diverse perspectives. When faced with multiple, often conflicting revisions, I prioritize understanding the underlying intentions behind each piece of feedback. This helps me to identify which suggestions enhance the content and which might dilute its purpose. A vital part of this process is engaging in open dialogue with stakeholders to ensure that adjustments do not compromise the content's integrity.

When caught between conflicting stakeholder feedback, the key is to talk it out. Always start by reminding the main goal—the purpose of the article. For example, say they want more tech jargon but the goal is to make the document easily accessible to everyone, then do the following: - Let them share why they want certain changes - Show how they might impact the overall message. There's no further discussion if they're okay with the impact or if that's what they want. However, if their goal is the same as yours, then: - Propose a compromise that balances technical detail with clarity (e.g., a detailed sidebar for complex info) The goal is to find common ground that keeps the content strong and everyone happy.