What Video Teams Can Learn from Peter Ashby Smith About Stakeholder Alignment
Peter Ashby Smith is an information strategist, speaker, lecturer, founder of Stoic Futurism, and Associate Director at UNSW. His work focuses on how people and organizations make sound decisions when information, technology, and expectations are changing quickly.
That focus has a direct connection to video production. Large corporate video projects often involve executives, marketing teams, legal reviewers, producers, editors, regional teams, and outside partners. Each group needs different information, but they still need to understand the same decision.
Smith’s approach to stakeholder communication centers on shared understanding rather than universal agreement. His five formal practices are to start with reality instead of reassurance, explain the reasoning behind decisions, test understanding, adapt context without changing the story, and protect conversations that technology cannot replace.
Below, Beverly Boy applies Smith’s five practices and related interview insights to video production. The production scenarios are our illustrative examples, not projects he described.
Start With Reality, Not Reassurance
Smith challenges the idea that leaders should try to keep every stakeholder happy. Some decisions will disappoint people. What matters more is that people feel informed, respected, and able to understand what is happening.
His first practice is to start with reality rather than reassurance. When uncertainty rises, explain what changed, what did not change, what is known, what remains unclear, and what happens next.
For Beverly Boy, the production application is to explain constraints before promising an outcome. If budget, approvals, talent access, or the video production timeline changes, outline the available options and their trade-offs so stakeholders can decide how to proceed.
Explain the Reasoning Behind the Decision
Smith’s second practice is to explain the reasoning, not only the decision. Trust often comes from understanding how a choice was made, including the problem being solved, the alternatives considered, and the trade-offs involved.
Beverly Boy’s application is to explain the production reasoning behind a recommendation. A shorter script might remove repetition, while a location change might address interview audio concerns. These hypothetical examples show how stakeholders can evaluate the trade-offs rather than seeing only the proposed change.
Test Understanding Instead of Assuming It
Clear communication does not guarantee shared interpretation.
Smith recommends testing what people think is changing and what the decision means for their part of the organization. For important decisions, he sometimes repeats the agreement explicitly so different interpretations can surface before people act on them.
For Beverly Boy, this means defining what an approval covers. A rough-cut approval might address structure while leaving graphics or wording open. Close the review by confirming what is approved, what remains unresolved, who owns the next step, and when the next version is due.
Smith also notes that silence does not always mean agreement. Senior leaders in particular should be careful about assuming that people who do not speak up have understood or accepted the decision.
For producers, that means making it easy for people to raise a concern before the project moves forward.
Adapt the Context, Not the Story
Different stakeholders need different levels of detail.
Smith argues that the underlying reasoning should remain consistent while the context changes. Executives may need strategic implications. Frontline teams may need operational implications. Customers may need to understand how the decision affects them personally.
For video projects, Beverly Boy’s application is to tailor detail while keeping decisions consistent. Executives may need risks and budget status; editors need actionable notes; legal reviewers need relevant claims and usage information. Audience versions of the finished video can likewise vary in length and presentation without contradicting the underlying message.
Listen for Interpretation, Not Just Approval
Smith treats listening as a way to discover where different interpretations are developing. He prefers questions such as “What do you think is changing?” over easy confirmation questions that invite a simple yes.
That is useful during creative reviews.
A producer can learn more by asking a stakeholder what feels different from the video production brief than by asking whether they like the cut.
Review behavior also matters. Hesitation, reduced participation, or conversations that happen after the formal meeting can signal unresolved concerns. Smith describes these as weak signals that leaders should notice before they become larger problems.
Video teams can use that idea during approvals. If one department repeatedly delays feedback or a key stakeholder stops contributing, it may be worth checking whether the issue is schedule, clarity, ownership, or disagreement with the direction.
The goal is not to turn every hesitation into a major issue. It is to notice patterns early enough to ask a useful question.
Use the Right Channel for the Problem
Smith warns against treating every communication channel as interchangeable. His rule is simple: do not use a low-context channel for a problem that needs a richer human conversation.
Written communication works well for sharing information, documenting decisions, or allowing people time to review. Conflict, ambiguity, major change, and emotionally important issues are better handled through conversation because people need tone, questions, pauses, and immediate clarification.
That distinction matters in production.
A timecode note belongs in the review platform. A file-delivery confirmation can live in email. A disagreement about the entire creative direction probably deserves a call.
Trying to resolve a sensitive creative disagreement through a long chain of comments can make the issue harder to understand because each reply removes more context.
Use written tools to document the decision after the conversation, not to avoid the conversation itself.
Keep Communication Predictable During Change
When information is still developing, Smith recommends organizing updates around three questions: what do we know, what do we not know yet, and what are we doing next?
He also argues that communication should become more predictable during uncertain periods. People do not always need more updates. They need confidence that they will hear from the team again at a known time.
For video production, this can reduce unnecessary chasing.
If a project is waiting on executive approval, legal review, or a location decision, tell stakeholders what is pending and when the next update will come. Even a short update saying there is no new decision yet can keep everyone working from the same information.
That is more useful than silence followed by a sudden change in schedule.
Team Beverly Boy’s Takeaway
The strongest production lesson in Smith’s approach is that alignment does not require everyone to prefer the same outcome.
Video projects involve competing priorities. Marketing may want speed. Legal may want more review time. Leadership may want a shorter message. Production may need more time to protect quality.
The producer’s job is to create enough shared understanding that everyone knows what was decided, why it was decided, and what happens next.
His distinction between communication channels is equally useful. Project tools are excellent for notes, approvals, and documentation. They should not replace the conversations needed when trust, conflict, or major creative choices are involved.
Conclusion
Peter Ashby Smith’s approach gives video teams a practical framework for stakeholder alignment.
Start with the real situation. Explain the reasoning behind major choices. Test what people actually understood. Adjust context without changing the underlying message. Listen for early signs of misalignment. Use human conversation when the issue deserves it.
Those habits can help producers keep complicated projects clear without flooding stakeholders with unnecessary communication.
This article is based on an interview originally published by Authority Magazine. Read the full interview here.
