A campaign that attracts entries creates a review workload, and reviewing badly is expensive in both directions: waving through bad entries drains the pool, and rejecting good ones costs you the clippers you want back next round. A fixed order makes it quick and defensible.
Review in this order
- →Rules first: right platform, tag present, minimum length, posted inside the window. These are objective and settle most entries in seconds.
- →Then originality: is this the clipper's own edit, and has the same edit been submitted from another account.
- →Then the post itself: is it public, and is it still up.
- →Only then the numbers, which are the slowest thing to assess.
Checking rules first matters because it is fast and unambiguous. Assessing view plausibility on an entry that was posted to the wrong platform is wasted effort.
Have one rule for held entries
Unusual view patterns need a human look, and that look should have a deadline. An entry held indefinitely is functionally a rejection without the courtesy of saying so. Decide within a fixed number of days and tell the clipper either way.
Say why, briefly
A one-line reason turns a rejection from an insult into information. "Posted to a platform this campaign does not cover" is a fact the clipper can act on next time. Silence produces the assumption that you are avoiding paying, which is how campaigns get a reputation.
Do not renegotiate after the fact
The rules you published are the deal. Adding conditions during review — deciding you do not like a caption, or that the clip is not what you had in mind — is the fastest way to lose the clippers who did exactly what you asked. If the brief was wrong, fix the brief for the next round and pay out on this one.
Track who is good
The real output of reviewing is a list of clippers worth inviting directly next time. That list is worth more than the campaign itself, and nobody builds it unless they write it down while reviewing.
Review entries and settle payouts in one place.
See how campaigns work