Written by DROPS.ST.
When a cannabis retailer and another business prepare a shared message, name an authorized reviewer for each side. Give both the same final wording, assets, audience and channel to review. One party’s approval should not be mistaken for the other party’s permission.
DROPS supplies a common product foundation: descriptions, units, prices, stock and customer-linked orders help identify what a proposed message concerns. Website and connected Telegram shopping share catalogue and order context. Use those records for factual checks while keeping external approval and publishing responsibility explicit.
This guide uses a US cannabis-business context. The actual state, local, federal, rights-holder and channel requirements still need review for the proposed activity.
Separate the two businesses’ decisions
Identify what each party can approve. A retailer may know its actual service conditions; a brand may provide source information or authorize specific assets. Neither contribution automatically settles the complete publication decision.
Name the real approving person and any qualified review needed. Do not substitute a salesperson’s enthusiasm, access to a file or an earlier informal conversation for approval of the final version.
State which business coordinates the process and which person publishes. Coordination helps collect decisions; it does not create authority to approve another organization’s rights or obligations.
Keep one shared approval brief
Use this original brief in the approved working process. It is not a native DROPS co-marketing workflow.
| Brief entry | What both parties receive | Release check |
|---|---|---|
| Intended activity | Specific purpose and actual businesses involved | Responsibilities are separate |
| Final content | Identifiable wording and asset version | Both review the same material |
| Factual basis | Product references, sources and relevant conditions | Claims stay within evidence |
| Audience and channel | Intended recipients, placement and use | Review covers this actual context |
| Rights and conditions | Necessary asset permissions and limits | Unresolved rights remain visible |
| Separate decisions | Each authorized reviewer, outcome and date | Neither approval is assumed |
| Publishing and review | Publisher, checked release and change trigger | Released material matches the approval |
If one side approves with a condition, carry that condition into the shared version. “Approved once the date changes” is not an unconditional release.
Check actual regulatory and channel scope
The FTC’s endorsement guidance explains responsibilities around endorsements and relevant relationships. An approval brief does not remove those obligations or establish that an endorsement is appropriate for a cannabis activity. FTC endorsement guidance.
For commercial email, the FTC’s CAN-SPAM guide addresses messages involving multiple marketers and explains that outsourced work does not remove responsibility. Identify the actual sender and applicable duties rather than assuming the other business handles everything. FTC commercial-email guidance.
Cannabis requirements are an additional review. California’s DCC publishes guidance for its licensees, including product-specific advertising requirements; that is not a rulebook for every state or another country. Check the requirements governing the actual activity. California DCC guidance.
Do not treat this worksheet, a shop account or a working channel as legal, contractual or provider approval.
Hypothetical example: the version changes after one approval
Two fictional businesses review version A of an administrative shop message. The first approves it, while the second requests a wording change. Version B also changes the stated service date.
The coordinator records the revised content and obtains each required decision on version B. They do not carry the first party’s approval of version A forward without checking its scope.
This example demonstrates version and authority control. It authorizes no actual promotion, testimonial, event or product claim.
Separate preparation from publishing powers
An employee can prepare evidence and wording without receiving every shop-editing power. Current DROPS catalogue editing also permits customer-account edits and wallet adjustments. Separate order-action controls and administrator-only settings do not establish authority to sign an external business agreement.
Use the staff permissions guide to review the actual grant. Independent message tools and websites need their own permitted publishing route.
The product-claims guide helps keep wording tied to source evidence. Evidence approval and permission for the intended use remain separate checks.
Verify the release and reopen material changes
After an approved publication, inspect the actual content and relevant conditions. Record unfinished external copies or mismatched versions with their owners. A common catalogue does not update every independent asset automatically.
Choose DROPS when shared product and customer-linked order context should anchor your factual shop communication. Pair that foundation with separate, attributable business decisions on the final version.
Explore DROPS.ST and the shop demos. Bring a fictional shared message, identify its source records and demonstrate how each required approval remains tied to the version actually released.