Name one person before the design starts, say it out loud to everyone who’ll otherwise comment, and let that person’s yes be final. Projects with two or more approvers routinely take two or three times as long, and the extra time buys nothing.
The moment it happens
Who on your side is allowed to say “final” is a question the developer is silently asking by round three. You approved the design. Then your brother saw it and had views. Then your wife noticed the photograph. Each round of feedback contradicts part of the last one, and the project has no way to end.
From the developer’s side this is the hardest kind of client to serve — not difficult, just unresolvable.
What a named approver actually decides
Be specific, because “approver” sounds grander than it is:
They decide: the design, the wording, which photographs, the page order, and when a round is closed. That’s it.
They don’t decide: the budget (that’s whoever bears the cost), the facts about your business, or whether to buy at all.
Everyone else may: comment on factual errors, suggest content before design starts, and point out things that are broken. That’s genuinely valuable and shouldn’t be shut down.
The distinction is between error-checking, which you want from everyone, and taste, which you want from one person.
Who it should be
| Candidate | Suitability |
|---|---|
| The owner | Usually right, if available daily |
| Whoever knows the customers best | Often the better choice — they know what buyers ask |
| The family member driving the project | Good, if the owner genuinely delegates and doesn’t reopen decisions |
| A committee | Never. This is the failure mode |
| Whoever is loudest | Watch for this happening by default |
One requirement matters more than seniority: availability. An approver who’s travelling for a week stops the project for a week. If the owner can’t reply within a day, delegate to someone who can.
How to announce it
The announcement is what makes it work, and most people skip it. Say it to the people who’ll otherwise comment, before the design exists:
I’m getting the website done. [Name] and I are handling the design decisions. If you spot anything factually wrong — a price, a service, a phone number — please tell me. I’d rather not take design opinions from everyone or it’ll never finish.
Said upfront, this is uncontroversial. Said in week four, after your brother has already sent three suggestions, it’s a rebuff. The timing is the whole difference.
How to use everyone else properly
Their input has real value, at the right point:
Before design starts — ask what customers ask about, what competitors do badly, which photographs to use. This is the moment their input costs nothing and improves the outcome.
Once, mid-build, framed narrowly — “Have a look and tell me anything that’s factually wrong or missing. I’m handling the design.” This distinguishes the two categories explicitly.
Not at all during a revision round. Contradictory instructions arriving mid-round is what produces the loop.
What “final” needs to mean
Attach a definition, or “final” keeps moving:
Design final means: I’ve approved the layout, we’re not revisiting it, and remaining changes are content only.
And for launch:
Live means: on my domain, contact form tested and reaching my inbox, WhatsApp button working with the country code, and all three logins handed over to me.
Both definitions are worth a sentence each in writing. They give the project a finish line, which is the thing it otherwise lacks.
The three-round structure
If your agreement includes revision rounds — and it should — use them like this:
Round 1: everything. Layout, wording, photographs, structure. Send one numbered list.
Round 2: refinements to what changed in round 1. Not new ideas.
Round 3: factual corrections only. Prices, spellings, numbers.
Then live. New ideas go on an “after launch” list, which is a normal and healthy thing to have rather than a delay. Almost everything can be changed in minutes once the site is live.
The failure worth naming
The most expensive version of this isn’t a slow project. It’s a project that never launches because approval never closes — a finished site sitting on a staging address for eighteen months while opinions circulate.
If you recognise that pattern, the fix is the same: one named approver, a stated definition of final, and a launch date told to someone who’ll ask about it.
What to do this week
- Name one approver, chosen for availability as much as seniority.
- Announce it to everyone who’ll otherwise comment — before design starts.
- Ask others for input now, before there’s anything to critique.
- Write down what “design final” and “live” mean.
- Set a launch date and tell one person outside the project.
If you want it done the certain way
We ask who approves before we start, and we’ll say plainly that a project with three approvers won’t land on the date. Revision rounds and a definition of “live” agreed in writing upfront. WhatsApp us; we reply in about five minutes between 9am and 7pm.
Related reading
- When the whole family reviews your website design
- Who should approve the website budget?
- Is your own perfectionism keeping the site offline?
- Who wins when you and the designer disagree?
FAQ
Who should approve a website design?
One named person, chosen partly for being available to reply within a day. They decide design, wording, photographs and page order; the budget and the facts about the business sit elsewhere.
Can more than one person approve a website?
It’s the most reliable way to double or triple the timeline, since each approver’s feedback can contradict the last. Others should comment on factual errors; one person should decide taste.
What should “final” mean on a website project?
Define it in a sentence: design final means the layout is approved and won’t be revisited, and live means on your domain with the contact form tested, the WhatsApp button working and all logins handed to you.
