Curious how you all deal with permissions when it comes to atomizing or repurposing a customer story. For example, you get sign off on the core customer story, video and two LinkedIn posts. But then, a month later, you want to create some other snippets and assets from that original story. Do you then go back to the customer each time you want to publish another snippet? Or do you have language in your contract that covers the core asset and any subsidiary assets you create from it?
If all new content is derived from the original approved content there's no need for additional permissions. Especially if you're driving traffic back to the original, approved asset.
If you're creating net-new content (featuring new quotes or metrics, for example), you would want to go back for additional permission.
Atomized or modular content is pulled directly from the original approved content normally. So in the instance that the content is featured on LinkedIn, for example, I would just send through a quick note to the main advocate associated with the content to let them know we're featuring their story again.
Customers don't tend to have concerns about the content being "out of context" when atomizing (in terms of permissions)?
I guess it depends on how you're positioning it? The customers I work with are generally excited to see their story have legs and reach new audiences. I've never encountered an issue with a customer claiming the content is out of context when it's been repurposed as a social post or something similar. Again, where possible, the atomized content should be pointing back to the original, approved asset.
The contract terms on our release forms at my last company included a sentence or two on having permission to create derivative works. We rarely got pushback from customers on that
