Especially with bigger content efforts, creatives might get feedback from 10 different parties - some if it conflicting. It's impossible for them to accommodate everyone in these cases, so make your feedback stand out. You can do so by keeping it actionable and scalable. Ask yourself: Can the writer apply my suggestion intuitively, without asking for clarification? And can it apply in the future, in some form? The best feedback I've gotten in my career is that which promotes long-term growth and improvement, regardless of audience, medium, or subject matter. Most writers will remember who gave them that extended-shelf-life feedback, too, long after they stop working directly with them.
As a startup with limited resources, we leveraged our coaches' expertise for content creation. This revealed a wide range of writing abilities, with some drafts requiring extensive editing. Compounding this challenge was the fact that many of our coaches, like myself, have ADHD, which often comes with some level of rejection sensitivity. To address these challenges, I implemented a two-pronged approach. First, I created a comprehensive writing guide with step-by-step instructions, in both text and video formats; clear examples and outlines; and a focused checklist. With this guidance in place up front, I was able to develop a clear, concise feedback method. Utilizing the checklist as an objective "rubric" and framing feedback against pre-established criteria resulted in immediate and dramatic improvement in first draft quality - even from novice writers. It also reduced the impact of perceived criticism, and as the feedback felt less "personal." Writers were much more receptive to feedback, and were motivated to check off any boxes they didn't 'earn' in the first draft. In addition to providing a structured, detailed process for writers up front, my top tip for giving feedback is to emphasize strengths as much as possible. When writers see their mistakes as minor aspects of otherwise excellent work-and have a clear path to improvement-they're more likely to embrace the feedback, regardless of ADHD or rejection sensitivity challenges.
My approach to giving feedback to writers starts with the identification of their appropriate strengths and where they do well. There is an order that follows this; most are positive first. I start with the positive because it helps in creating motivation and shows them that their efforts are appreciated. I then shift toward the negative, giving constructive feedback on the types of recommendations that can be made in relation to the particular work. For instance, instead of saying, "There is some way to improve this section," I would say, "Maybe you should try and shorten long sentences in this paragraph if you really want to make your argument stronger." I also try to provide the rationales and 'why' for that rewrite whenever the authors are told to rewrite or analyze a part. It helps to reframe the view of writers who receive such feedback in a positive light through education. My number one advice when it comes to answering the feedback is to receive it in a congruent and particular way. Tell what has worked and what can be done better, and provide specific evidence to support each claim. It also encourages practitioners to enhance and develop their writing skills and fosters confidence and collaboration.
My process focuses on the core belief that as a Content Director, I am there to help ensure growth, creativity and high-quality, consistent messaging. My approach is rooted in empathy, but guided by the notion that the writers I work with are able to understand what I am saying and to take action as the end goal. My number one tip for giving feedback is to always focus on the work, rather than what you think about the writer. This has always ensured that I am able to give objective feedback that allows the writer to to improve and learn for the future.
One of the best ways to encourage improvement is to provide writers with specific, actionable feedback. Rather than leaving vague comments or marking up their work with no context, I highlight precise areas that can be improved and explain why. This approach creates a more collaborative editing process and improves the final product. For example, instead of saying "This section could be clearer," I ask specific questions to identify what is unclear, like "What is 'it' referring to here?" For edits to style or tone, I often refer to the brand voice guide to explain where that feedback came from and remind the writer of the resources at their disposal. Constructive feedback should also highlight the writer's strengths. By praising what a writer has done well or improved from previous drafts, I reinforce the positive, show appreciation for their work, and build their confidence.
I once heard a somewhat hokey phrase called "a compliment sandwich" that describes a way of giving constructive criticism that wedges difficult (or "negative") feedback between two pieces of positive feedback. Hokey it may be, but it works. I am the editor of a literary journal as well as the final stop for thousands upon thousands of content marketing words, and so I deal with a lot of writers, and a lot of editing. Writers are sensitive. Essentially, feedback is a conversation and if it's going to be constructive and useful, it has to be balanced between critique and encouragement. If you only focus on what needs to be improved without ensuring that the writers feels good about their work, then you'll crush their fragile spirit and the work won't get better. If you make sure they know you are providing feedback for improvement and not as a personal attack, they will be able to fix the work in revision.
I work closely with writers to produce content for our brand, and I've found that providing constructive feedback in a way that encourages growth and improvement is important. I identify areas we can do better while also highlighting the writer's strengths. The number one tip I would give for giving effective feedback is to focus on being specific and actionable. Instead of vague criticisms like "this section needs work," I provide detailed, constructive comments that explain exactly what needs to change.
At Quoleady, we train our managers to start feedback with positive motivation-always highlight what's working well first. Whether it's a strong hook or a well-structured argument, recognizing strengths helps writers feel more confident and motivated to improve. When it comes to constructive feedback, we make it specific. Instead of saying, "this needs more detail," we'll point to a specific section and explain how it could be more effective. Finally, we like to suggest, not demand: "What if we tried this?" This keeps feedback collaborative and helps writers take ownership of their growth. Constructive, actionable, and encouraging-that's our approach.