Most video-team dysfunction is not a skills problem - it is a structure problem: two people who both think they own the cut, a producer who approves by proxy, or an external client talking notes directly to a freelance editor with no one consolidating. This post lays out the standard roles, what each one owns versus reviews versus approves, and three org patterns that cover most teams. It is the video-side answer to the org-structure content design teams have long had, and it extends our career cluster (staff vs freelance, post-production supervisor) from roles to structure.
The roles and what each one actually owns
| Role | Owns | Reviews | Approves |
|---|---|---|---|
| Creative director / CD | The creative vision; the reference bar | Internal cuts before client sees them | Internal gate only - not the client round |
| Producer | Schedule, budget, scope, the round rules | Round readiness (is this cut sendable?) | Never by proxy - routes to the decision owner |
| Editor | The cut; version integrity; the story | Own work at timestamp level | Nothing outside the edit |
| Assistant editor | Media, proxies, transcodes, version hygiene | Technical QC passes | Nothing; escalates to editor |
| Motion designer | Graphics, supers, animation segments | Own segments inside the round | Nothing; supers content needs legal/client lane |
| Colorist | The grade on a locked cut | Grade on the actual display chain | Not creative direction - flags out-of-gamut scope |
| Sound mixer | The mix on a locked picture | Stems, loudness spec | Nothing; loudness conformance is a spec check |
| Post supervisor | Delivery specs, vendors, the pipeline itself | Spec compliance, schedule drift | Gate-keeps delivery, not creative |
The table encodes the rule that prevents most round chaos: reviewing and approving are different acts. Editors review cuts; a named decision owner approves them. Producers route approvals; they do not make them by proxy for a client. When those lines blur, you get the two-classic failures: approval-by-silence (nobody was named, so nobody was waiting) and double-ownership (CD and client both "approving" different versions of the same cut).
Three org patterns
Agency (project-based, 5-15 people): producer at the hub, editor + AE + motion per project, CD at the internal gate, client as the named decision owner for client rounds. Review infrastructure: one link per round, reviewer lanes by stakeholder group (brand, legal, agency CD), threads resolved before re-export.
In-house team (embedded in marketing, 2-8 people): the marketing lead or brand manager is the decision owner, an internal producer/coordinator runs the pipeline (this is the creative ops function in miniature), editors and a shared motion resource produce. The trap here is stakeholder sprawl - five internal VPs commenting means five lanes and one owner, or the round never ends.
Production studio (client-deliverable focused): post supervisor gate-keeps delivery specs, editors own cuts, specialists (color, sound, mix) engage on locked picture. Approvals flow client → producer → supervisor, and version discipline is absolute because delivery specs (the delivery checklist) attach to specific versions.
Naming the decision owner (the one rule)
Whatever the org chart, the working rule is the same one from the approval guide: every project has exactly one named decision owner for client rounds, stated in the kickoff, with everyone else in reviewer lanes. Size does not change the rule - a two-person shop still needs to know whether the client, the founder, or the CD owns "approved". The client onboarding checklist makes it step one, because the owner is much easier to name before the first round than after the second.
How structure maps onto review tools
The reason this post lives on a review blog: every role above maps to a concrete review-tool configuration. Decision owner = approval rights on versions. Reviewer lanes = stakeholder groups on the link. Producer = the person who opens and closes rounds (and reads the round metrics - video review best practices is their playbook). AE = version hygiene, which in tool terms is the file naming convention applied to uploads. Structure is not an HR abstraction; it is what makes the reviewer lanes on your next link actually match reality.
FAQ
What are the standard roles on a video team?
The core set: creative director (vision), producer (schedule, scope, rounds), editor (the cut), assistant editor (media and version hygiene), motion designer, colorist, sound mixer, and - at delivery scale - a post-production supervisor for specs and vendors. Small teams combine roles; the ownership table stays the same.
Who should approve a video - the client or the creative director?
Both, at different gates: the CD approves the internal gate (is this cut ready for the client?), and the named client decision owner approves client rounds. The failure to avoid is either one approving by proxy for the other - the CD signing off "for" the client, or a producer marking approval without the owner.
What does a producer own versus an editor?
The producer owns schedule, budget, scope, and the round rules - and routes approvals without making them. The editor owns the cut and its version integrity. The clean dividing line: producers decide when rounds happen; editors decide what is in the cut.
How do you stop two people both thinking they own the cut?
Name one decision owner per project in writing at kickoff, put everyone else in reviewer lanes on the review link, and record approval states on versions so "approved" always means one person, one version, one timestamp. Structure plus tooling, not a bigger meeting.