CGP Feedback Process Analysis & Performance Tracker — Content Studio

Role: Content & Adaptation Lead Client: Mercedes-Benz (RO.COS team) Agency: Omnicom Media Group Type: Process & Operations · Solo project Date: December 2024

Problem

The Content Studio’s Content Guidance Process (CGP) — the structured approval workflow through which regional markets submitted campaign content for feedback — had no systematic way of measuring how long feedback and approvals were actually taking. Without visibility into review timelines across markets, tiers, and campaign types, it was impossible to identify bottlenecks, hold stakeholders accountable, or demonstrate process improvements to the MB client (RO.COS team).

Approach

1. Production ticket extraction from Asana

Manually reviewed and extracted data from individual CGP project tickets in Asana, capturing key dates across each feedback phase — submission, review rounds, and final approval — for all markets participating in the CGP process throughout 2024.

2. Data cleaning & gap analysis in Excel

Structured the raw ticket data in Excel and calculated time-to-feedback at both phase level (individual review rounds) and whole campaign level (full approval lifecycle). Identified gaps and anomalies in review timelines — such as delays caused by multi-stakeholder HQ involvement or concurrent campaign reviews — and segmented results by market, campaign tier (1–3), and campaign type.

3. Q4 vs full-year benchmarking & reporting

Compared Q4 2024 performance against the full 2024 baseline (January–November) to surface trends and improvements. Packaged findings into a structured report presented directly to the MB RO.COS client stakeholders, with clear insights and context for each data point.

Output & Key Findings

A CGP Feedback Tracker report delivered to MB RO.COS stakeholders, covering Q4 2024 performance benchmarked against the full year.

Key findings

• Q4 was the busiest quarter for CGP submissions, indicating growing market trust in the process — yet review times improved significantly, demonstrating operational efficiency gains.
• Tier 3 campaigns were fastest to approve as they required only COS stakeholder review with no HQ involvement. Tier 1 campaigns took the longest due to multi-stakeholder HQ review requirements.