Partner Onboarding and a Creative Library That Clears Review

A partner who waits nine working days for an asset to clear medical, legal and regulatory review has already filled the placement with somebody else. That delay, not recruitment, is what keeps regulated programmes small. This engagement takes review off the critical path. I build a claim set that has cleared review once, and a creative library assembled only from claims inside that set, so a partner who joins on Monday is live on Wednesday and nothing routes back to reviewers unless the partner writes copy of their own. What arrives: A claim library, held as a sheet and mirrored into the network's asset manager, where every claim carries its substantiation reference, the markets it is approved for, its expiry date and the reviewer who signed it. Display, native and email creative built by assembling those claims and nothing else. Landing page templates, one per partner type, with consent, disclosure and safety copy already positioned. A tracking and disclosure specification the partner implements once. A partner rulebook stating what may be edited and what may not. How the library gets built: I sit with your regulatory reviewer and take apart two years of approved material. Most of what a partner needs is already approved somewhere: in a sales aid, an instructions-for-use document, a patient leaflet, a careers page that employment counsel signed. The work is finding it, restating it inside the approved wording, and buying one review pass over the set instead of forty passes over individual banners. Prescription and device work: Fair balance and safety information sit in the template, not in the partner's hands. Every asset for a prescription product carries an asset ID so a withdrawal reaches every partner in one action. Devices are held to the instructions for use: if a claim is not in the IFU it does not enter the library, whatever the product manager believes about it. Legal services: Creative is gated by jurisdiction, because a page that is unremarkable in one bar jurisdiction is a complaint in the next. Results language, testimonials and specialisation claims are handled per jurisdiction, and partners who cannot geo-gate do not receive those assets at all. Recruiting: Copy is written so it cannot be read as preferring a protected characteristic, and I strip the age, gender and culture-fit signals that recruitment writing accumulates without anybody intending them. Expiry and withdrawal: Every asset has an owner and an expiry date. Expired assets are pulled from the network and the partner sees a replacement rather than a dead link. There is a written withdrawal path with a stated time to removal, which is the part most programmes discover they do not have on the morning they need it. Not included: I do not write partner editorial. I will not draft a review, a ranking or a comparison table that a partner then publishes as their own opinion, and I will not supply copy that obscures the commercial relationship. Photography, video and translation beyond English and Portuguese are bought separately; I write the brief and approve the result. I do not chair your review meeting or sign anything off. Your reviewer keeps that, and should. Who should not buy this: Programmes with no review function yet. If nobody at your company can approve a claim there is nothing to build a library from, and the first month would go on building your review process instead. Also anybody who wants the library sized by asset count. The number of assets is not the deliverable. The number of things a partner can do without asking anyone is.