Approvals fall apart when the draft sits in one place, the feedback sits in Slack, the screenshot sits in someone's downloads, and the final yes sits in a memory nobody can quote later. Maeve keeps all of it attached to the post: who needs to approve it, what they said, which version they were looking at, and whether it is ready to move into scheduling.
3 days free. Cancel anytime.
Your team has a login. Your client doesn't. So Maeve keeps internal approval and client review as two loops, because the audiences are not the same. Run an internal round when the team needs to catch the typo first, send a client review link when the batch is ready, or chain them so the team signs off before the client ever sees it.
Either way, the feedback, the decisions, and the version everyone was looking at stay stuck to the post they belong to, and the approved post moves into the queue without being rebuilt anywhere else.
Every review starts with one decision: who needs to see it. Send the post to the team for internal signoff, out to the client as a no-login link, or run both in order. From the same box you set whether one approval is enough, everyone has to agree, or approvers go in a fixed sequence, and drop the post into a review batch.
A client review batch goes out as one shareable link. The client opens it in a browser, sees each post as a native-style preview of the platform it will publish to, and approves, requests changes, comments, or reacts, without a seat, a password, or a tour of the workspace.
Batches can carry an expiry, decisions are recorded per version, and when an admin overrides a stuck review, the override goes on the record too.
Posts change during review. That is the point of review. So editing a post changes its version: the review pauses while the team updates the content internally, then reopens on the latest version, and the old decision stays tied to the version it was made on. Nobody approves a draft that has already moved on.
The table view lays out every post and where its review stands, and the resolved view is the audit trail: who approved, what they decided, and when.
From the review request to the decision on record and the handoff into the queue, each piece as it works today.
Approval is not a side tool bolted on. It runs on the same posts you write in the composer and schedule on the calendar, so a draft can move from review to client signoff to the queue without leaving the workspace.
It is a workflow for reviewing drafts, leaving feedback, running internal signoff, sending client review links, and marking content as approved before it enters the publishing queue. The point is to keep signoff attached to the post instead of spread across messages and last-minute handoffs.
Agencies, in-house marketing teams, and any lean team that shares drafts with other reviewers. The need usually shows up when content starts moving through more than one person before it can be scheduled.
Internal approval is for staff with Maeve logins, who sign off inside the workspace before content moves toward the calendar. Client review is for stakeholders who do not have a seat, who get a shareable link to a batch of posts, preview each one, and approve or request changes from outside the workspace. Many teams chain the two: internal approval first, then the client review batch goes out. Both live on the Standard plan and above.
At a minimum: a draft stage, contextual feedback, clear reviewer assignment, a visible approval status, and a clean handoff into scheduling. If clients are involved, secure review links and decision tracking make it much easier to manage.
Slack and email handle quick comments, but they rarely keep the live post preview, the current version, reviewer progress, and the publish-ready draft in one place. Approval software reduces that drift, so the version someone approved is the version that publishes.
Yes. Maeve sends secure client review links so reviewers can preview posts, leave comments, approve, or request changes without needing an internal seat.
The review can pause while the team updates the post internally, then reopen on the latest version, so a reviewer is never approving a draft that has already moved on.
Yes. A small team does not need a heavy enterprise process. It usually just needs a calmer way to move from draft to review to approved without losing context along the way.
Yes. Once a post is approved it stays attached to the same workflow and moves into the publishing queue, instead of being rebuilt in a separate tool.
Internal approvals and client review batches are on the Standard plan and above. The Basic plan covers solo publishing without review rounds. See the pricing page for the comparison.