Most brand teams focus on getting a visual aid designed, approved, and into the field as fast as possible. That is understandable. Cycle meeting deadlines, product launches, and field force demand create constant pressure.
But speed without scrutiny creates a different kind of problem. Collaterals go through multiple revision rounds. Approval timelines stretch. Sometimes a visual aid reaches the field and fails to do its job in a two to three minute doctor conversation.
Over the years, I have found that the collaterals that move fastest through the review process are the ones where the brand team asked themselves a few difficult questions before submitting. Not after. Before.
Here are five questions that are worth spending time on before any visual aid goes for internal review and approval.
Is every clinical reference from a study that is still current and relevant?
It is surprisingly common to find references from studies that are eight or ten years old sitting in a visual aid for a brand competing in a fast moving therapy area. The data may still be valid. But if a newer, larger, or more relevant study exists for the same endpoint, the reviewer will ask why the older one was used.
The harder version of this question is not just whether the study is recent, but whether it is the strongest available evidence for the claim being made. A 2018 study with 200 patients may have been the best option three years ago. Today there may be a 2024 study with 2,000 patients saying the same thing more convincingly.
Before submitting, check whether each reference is the strongest currently available evidence for the claim it supports. If it is not, replace it before someone else asks you to.
Does the key message match the approved label language, or has it been stretched?
Brand teams often paraphrase label language to make it sound more compelling. Sometimes the paraphrasing is harmless. Sometimes it subtly changes the meaning.
“Significant reduction in symptoms” is different from “rapid relief.” “Well tolerated” is different from “safe.” “Indicated for” is different from “recommended for.” These distinctions matter because reviewers and regulators read precisely. A word that feels like a synonym in everyday language can be a different claim in a regulatory context.
Read the key message on your visual aid. Then read the approved label. If the two do not match closely, ask yourself whether the gap is intentional and defensible, or whether it crept in during the creative process.
If a competitor visual aid for the same molecule makes a stronger claim, can you defend yours?
This is the question most brand teams never ask themselves, but every good reviewer will.
In a therapy area with multiple brands of the same molecule, competitive visual aids are often floating around in the field. Doctors see them. MRs see them. If a competitor claims “superior efficacy” and your visual aid claims “comparable efficacy” for the same molecule, someone will eventually ask why.
The answer might be perfectly reasonable. Different studies, different endpoints, different patient populations. But the brand team should know the answer before the reviewer asks, not after.
Have you checked whether the regulatory environment for any referenced claim has changed since the collateral was last updated?
Regulations evolve. Guidelines get revised. What was acceptable under previous norms may no longer be compliant.
This is especially relevant for collaterals that are being refreshed or updated from older versions. The temptation is to keep existing claims and references intact and only update the new sections. But if a regulation or industry code has been updated since the last version was approved, the entire collateral needs to be reviewed against current standards, not just the parts that changed.
A visual aid that was compliant in 2023 may have observations under 2024 guidelines. The brand team that checks this proactively saves itself a revision round and demonstrates rigour that reviewers appreciate.
Would your visual aid hold up under pointed questioning from a specialist who disagrees with your positioning?
This is the stress test that separates a good visual aid from a great one.
Imagine a senior doctor in the therapy area who is sceptical of your brand. They have seen the competitor data. They have their own clinical experience. They are looking at your visual aid with a critical eye. Does every claim have a clear, traceable reference? Is the data presented fairly, without selective emphasis? Are the visuals honest, or do they exaggerate differences through misleading scales or selective data presentation?
If the visual aid can survive that conversation, it will almost certainly survive the internal review process. If it cannot, the review process will find the same gaps the doctor would have found, just at a less convenient time.
The uncomfortable truth
Most brand teams will find that answering even one of these questions thoroughly takes more effort than expected. Checking whether a reference is truly the strongest available evidence means searching current literature. Matching key messages to label language means reading the label carefully, not from memory. Defending against a competitor claim means knowing what the competitor is actually saying in the field.
That effort is exactly what separates collaterals that sail through review from ones that go through three or four revision rounds.
These five questions do not cover everything a thorough review would examine. Visual design, messaging clarity, and content structure are equally important dimensions that most brand teams do not have the frameworks to evaluate on their own. But starting with these five will already put your next submission in a stronger position than most.