It varies, and the lack of a clear, current answer is itself one of the most common governance problems we find — marketing usually owns day-to-day content, IT often owns infrastructure, and medical/regulatory owns approval, but without an explicit governance document, ownership tends to become informal and gets lost in reorganisations.
Marketing usually drives content strategy and day-to-day publishing, IT frequently owns infrastructure and security, and medical, legal and regulatory functions own content approval. None of them typically owns the whole thing end to end unless it is made explicit.
When ownership is informal, responsibility can be lost during a reorganisation, leaving a property without clear maintenance accountability. This is one of the most common findings in our audits — see how to audit a pharma website.
An explicit governance document naming current owners per property and per decision type — see website governance for how we build that structure.
Content sign-off usually sits with a different function than overall site ownership, typically involving medical, legal, and regulatory reviewers working through an MLR process. See who signs off website content in pharma for that specific question, since ownership and sign-off are related but distinct responsibilities that are often confused within larger organisations.
That’s more common than it might seem, especially after reorganisations or agency transitions where responsibility quietly shifted without formal documentation. An audit is the practical starting point — it establishes what pages and systems exist, who currently has access, and who’s making decisions today, which gives you a factual basis for assigning clear ownership going forward.
Yes, affiliate sites add a global-local dimension, since ownership often splits between a global brand or digital team setting standards and a local affiliate team managing country-specific content and compliance. See local affiliate websites for how that global-local ownership split typically gets structured and where friction commonly arises between the two levels.
Often, yes — during a build, an agency or project team may hold day-to-day decision-making, but once live, ownership typically shifts to an internal team responsible for content updates, compliance monitoring, and ongoing maintenance. Defining that handover clearly before launch, rather than assuming it will resolve itself, avoids a gap where no one is actively responsible for the site.
Tell us your structure and we will help you define clear, current ownership.