#general

Personally, I think it's still a nice-to-do, but not necessary.

One reason why it might be good to go back is to make sure that you have, in fact, stripped out anything identifiable. Sometimes you might change a company descriptor to be something like "A large US-based manufacturing company" but the customer still thinks that's too identifiable.

My POV would be to send it back with a clear deadline for review and a publish date set there for them, so it’s a forcing function to make sure it doesn’t miss that mark and drag out longer now that you’ve completed the request to be a good partner to them and their organization.

I’d phrase it nicer, of course, but that’s my positioning and thought process on it.

It’s a “closing the loop” sort of activity for that team.

Can't hurt to send an email and let the customer know the date when the new case study will be published, ask them to contact you by X date should they have any questions. CYA. 😉

It's inconvenient, but a nice-to-do for future relationship purposes.

I definitely like Joel's and Amy's advice to put a timeframe on it. Otherwise it can drag on unnecessarily

Yes! I do what Joel and Amy do -- tell them I've anonymized it and we're planning to publish on X date and share the final version with them.

What everyone else says … and I’ve had MAJOR push back from public sector customers even when anonymizing.

I've had great experience with getting to a "Yes" with Public Sector customers over the past 3-4 years. Happy to chat about what has worked for those that might find that helpful.

I'd love to hear @Evan Jacobs any chance you'd get on a call with us on a Friday for an open discussion?

Hey @Mary Green (Owner CMAweekly), absolutely! Totally for it. Let me know which Fridays are best and we can go from there. Thanks and talk soon.