Our purpose
To-Do Growth publishes practical guidance about positioning, value propositions, messaging, brand voice, customer research, launches and rebrands. Our aim is to help readers understand a business question, examine the evidence and decide on a useful next step.
We write for founders, leaders and teams. We favour clear explanations, relevant examples and honest limits over certainty, jargon or inflated claims.
What this policy covers
This policy applies to editorial articles, topic collections, guides and other learning content published on todogrowth.com. Sponsored, partner or affiliate material, if published, is labelled separately and is not presented as independent editorial coverage.
Our editorial principles
Useful before impressive
Content should help a reader think or act more clearly. We do not add complexity simply to make an idea appear sophisticated.
Evidence before assumption
Material factual claims should have an appropriate basis. Depending on the subject, that may include primary documents, official guidance, recognised research, direct observation, attributable expert input or clearly described customer evidence.
Specific about limits
Business advice is contextual. We distinguish general guidance from legal, financial, medical or other regulated professional advice. We avoid promising outcomes that depend on execution, market conditions or facts we cannot know.
Clear about perspective
Interpretation is not the same as fact. When an article draws a conclusion, proposes a framework or makes an inference, the writing should make that judgement visible rather than presenting it as universal truth.
Respectful of the reader
We use plain language, explain necessary terms and avoid stereotypes, manufactured urgency and fear-based persuasion.
How we develop content
The depth of research depends on the claim and the consequence of getting it wrong. Our process may include:
- defining the reader’s question and the decision the content should support;
- reviewing relevant primary and authoritative sources;
- comparing material sources where claims are contested, changing or context-dependent;
- checking examples, links, dates, names and quoted material;
- separating established information from interpretation or practical recommendation; and
- reviewing the finished piece for clarity, usefulness, accuracy and appropriate limitations.
Where a topic could create significant legal, financial, health, safety or regulatory consequences, readers should seek advice from a suitably qualified professional who can consider their circumstances.
Sources and attribution
We prefer original or authoritative sources where they are available. These can include legislation, regulators, standards bodies, official statistics, original research, first-party documentation and direct interviews.
We link to or name material sources when they help the reader verify a claim or explore the subject further. Short quotations are attributed. We do not reproduce another publisher’s work beyond what is necessary and permitted for commentary, reference or quotation.
Anonymous sources are not a routine part of To-Do Growth publishing. If anonymity is necessary to protect a source and the information is important, the editorial decision should consider the source’s access, motivation and corroboration. The reason for anonymity should be explained to readers as far as it can be without exposing the source.
Contributors and expertise
Author or contributor information is included when it has been supplied and verified. A byline should identify who is responsible for the work; it should not imply qualifications, experience or affiliations that have not been substantiated.
Contributors should disclose relevant financial, professional or personal interests that could reasonably affect the work. Where such an interest matters to the reader’s understanding, it should be disclosed with the content or the contributor should not cover the subject.
Commercial relationships
Editorial conclusions are not for sale. Payment, referral arrangements, partnerships, free products or access must not determine a favourable conclusion.
Sponsored, partner or affiliate content must be clearly labelled before the reader engages with it. Any material commercial relationship relevant to a recommendation should be disclosed in plain language. Advertisers, sponsors and partners do not determine the conclusions of independent editorial coverage.
Use of automated and AI-assisted tools
Automated tools may support tasks such as transcription, organisation, editing, analysis or drafting. They do not remove editorial responsibility.
Content intended for publication should be reviewed by a responsible person for factual accuracy, source quality, context, originality, confidentiality, bias and clarity. Sensitive, confidential or personal information should not be entered into a tool without an appropriate basis and approved safeguards. AI-generated citations, quotations and factual claims must be checked against the underlying source before publication.
Where automated generation materially affects the nature of a piece and disclosure would help readers assess it, the use should be disclosed.
Illustrative photography and synthetic visuals
Some editorial photographs used for visual pacing and atmosphere are synthetic concept images created with generative tools. They do not depict To-Do Growth staff, contributors, customers, case studies or real To-Do Growth premises. Captions identify illustrative photography where a reader could reasonably infer a real relationship, and the images must never be used as evidence for a factual claim.
We keep generated visuals free from invented quotations, results, credentials and endorsements. Images that explain an article's argument should be labelled and described according to their actual function; decorative images use empty alternative text so they do not add noise for screen-reader users.
Dates, updates and review
Articles should show a publication date. Where a substantive review or change affects the accuracy or meaning of the piece, an updated date should also be shown.
Content is reviewed when there is a reason to believe it is outdated, incomplete or materially unclear. A review date does not mean every linked source or minor detail was rechecked unless the page says so.
We may archive content that no longer reflects the publication’s standards or the current state of the subject. When an archived page remains accessible, it should be clearly identified and should not be presented as current guidance.
Corrections
We correct material errors as promptly and transparently as the circumstances allow.
- Minor spelling, formatting or style changes may be made without a correction note when they do not change meaning.
- A material factual correction should include a clear note explaining what was wrong and what changed.
- A substantial change to an analysis or conclusion should be identified as an update, with enough context for the reader to understand the revision.
- Removing content is reserved for circumstances such as legal risk, privacy, safety, duplicate publication or a problem that cannot be corrected responsibly in place.
To raise a potential error, use the editorial enquiry route on the Contact page. Please include the page address, the statement in question and any supporting source that would help us review it.
Feedback and complaints
Constructive challenge is welcome. Editorial feedback is assessed on the evidence and the substance of the concern, not on whether it agrees with our point of view.
If you believe content is inaccurate, improperly attributed, unsafe, discriminatory or affected by an undisclosed conflict, use the Contact page and choose the editorial enquiry option. We will review the concern and decide whether a correction, update, clarification or no change is appropriate.
Accessibility and inclusive language
We aim to make articles readable with semantic structure, descriptive link text, meaningful image alternatives and plain language. We avoid unnecessary assumptions about identity, ability, culture, geography or business model. When a person or community has an established and relevant preference for how they are described, that preference should guide the wording.
Changes to this policy
We may update this policy as the publication develops or editorial standards change. The date at the top of the page will show the latest published version. Material changes should be reflected in editorial practice, not only in this document.