Video production is uniquely susceptible to scope creep – and it is nearly always subtle. It does not show itself as a single dramatic moment. Instead, it is a series of small requests: “can we include a 15 second cut-down for social media Stories?” it is a client reviewing your final cut and requesting “just one more pass,” with the caveat “to cover ourselves.” while each individual request seems innocuous, collectively they can lead to scope creep. Collectively, they can cause a project to grow from a quote of twelve billable hours to nineteen. They can result in an editor having to work on a Saturday to meet a deadline that has not been adjusted.
This is not simply a matter of project management. This is a specific video production issue with video production specific causes, effects and cures. Treating it as generic “scope management” is part of the reason that there are so many non-useful articles written on the topic. An article about managing change orders in construction or scope in software development sprints will give little insight into how to respond to the client’s statement “can we just try it with the other music again” for the fourth time. It is worth knowing that 42 percent of all businesses use either an outside editor or agency for some portion of their video production, as opposed to producing entirely in-house (Wyzowl, Video Marketing Statistics). Therefore, scope control has to extend beyond the internal boundaries of an organization and extend into the relationships with clients.
What Scope Creep Looks Like on a Video Project
A project experiences scope creep when additional work is performed during the course of a project after both parties have agreed upon the scope of work, timelines and fees. In fact, the Project Management Institute (PMI) has tracked this phenomenon over the years and reports that 52 percent of all projects completed in any given year experience some level of scope creep or uncontrolled changes to scope. Furthermore, PMI indicates that this percentage increased by nine points since five years prior (PMI, “Scope Patrol”).
These findings demonstrate that while 52 percent of all projects experience scope creep, this phenomenon disproportionately affects video production due to its subjective nature and collaborative process-based workflow. Additionally, video production lends itself well to creating open-ended workflows. As such, agencies are more likely to move towards using white label video editing services in lieu of developing in house capabilities to absorb each unscoped request.
Controlling scope creep in project workflows begins with establishing an active requirements management plan inside your central project management software. Maintaining rigorous project documentation allows producers to proactively manage stakeholder expectations and enforce a formal change management process whenever edits stray beyond baseline agreements.
The financial implications of scope creep are significant. Agencies that experience scope creep typically incur lost profitability in excess of 15 percent to 25 percent per project. Alto Accounting analyzed agency accounting records related to scope creep and reported that a model £50,000 (about $63,000) project with moderate creep (an estimated 25 percent increase in hours billed relative to the original estimate) resulted in a loss of profit margin from 30 percent to 12.5 percent.
More specifically, this represents a loss of approximately 58 percent in profitability relative to the initial scope estimate for the exact same project (Alto Accounting, “scope creep and agency profitability.”) the resulting 25 percent overrun for the above referenced project did not occur as a result of a single large change. Rather, it occurred as a result of five smaller, but more common changes.
The Five Places Scope Creep Starts on a Video Job
While small changes individually seem insignificant within the context of a project, collectively they become significant contributors to scope creep.
There are five primary areas where small changes accumulate into larger problems:
1. Vague briefs. A vague brief is essentially an invitation for multiple stakeholders to provide varying interpretations regarding how best to complete the assigned task. Specifically, a brief that states “it should feel premium and exciting” versus one that clearly defines Format, length, number of scenes, whether or not voiceover is included and platform destination creates confusion among stakeholders regarding what constitutes “completion” of the project. Without clear direction regarding completion criteria, all stakeholders bring their respective definitions of “completed” to reviews, thereby requiring reconciliation. Reconciliation requires additional billable hours that neither party originally anticipated nor budgeted for.
Just as an engineering or software development team relies on standards outlined by a leading project management body, video studios must decisively address scope creep at intake. When briefs suffer from unclear project objectives or an unclear scope definition, creative alignment breaks down before production even starts.
2. Uncapped revision rounds. The largest contributor to scope creep is the lack of clarity regarding the number of revision rounds. A proposal lacking specificity regarding the number of revision rounds leaves no definitive boundary to define when the project concludes. Projects conclude when clients exhaust their ideas, not when the contractor completes the assigned tasks.
3. “just one more cut”: just like unlimited revisions, “just one more cut” allows for unlimited minor tweaks under the guise of being minor. While technically not a full revision round, each tweak still consumes 10-20 minutes. Ten tweaks consume most of an afternoon, yet because they arrive individually as opposed to a grouped revision round they rarely receive documentation.
4. Format add-ons. The client commissioned a single 90 second video based on the brief. However, two weeks later, he asked for:
* square crop for Instagram,
* six second bumper for pre roll and,
* captioned version for LinkedIn – “because we’ve already shot the footage.”
Recreating existing footage into new formats/durations is real production work: reframing/re-timing/pacing/ re-exporting/captioning and/or grading differently depending on compression requirements for each platform (vertical video edit). It is not free because although the footage exists, processing it into new formats and timing is still labor-intensive work.
5. Rush re-edits: any change that would normally require only standard amount of time becomes a scope event if it occurs within compressed deadlines. Changing a music track two days prior to a hard release date is very different than changing it with six days of runway. Depending on circumstances, making this change may necessitate the editor working extended hours or moving colorists off other jobs to expedited re-color grades. What appears to be similar edits to what would be considered standard operating procedures for timely deliveries are actually significantly more costly.
Each one of these items presents opportunities for clients to ask questions and seek answers which appear legitimate. The way to manage this is not to refuse requests but to charge for them and define in writing what is included and therefore excluded from original quotes
How Project Managers Manage Scope and Price Requests Beyond the Original Scope
You can’t charge scope-creep once it’s happened. When a customer has had three rounds of free revisions, charging for four will look like a bait-and-switch, regardless of whether your agreement technically permits such action. The way to build pricing is into the proposal, frame pricing as a part of how you do business, not as a penalty.
Revision Capping
In advance of your proposal, determine exactly how many times you’ll allow the customer to revise your project. Define in your proposal what constitutes “one round”. one “round” means one comprehensive collection of notes (that you’re going to use) all delivered to you at the same time. A functional format for structuring a video based upon revisions could be:
Round 1: story pass: structure, pacing, narrative choices & what made the cut
Round 2: polish pass: tone, music, graphics, color, sound mix
Round 3: quality control (QC): typos, logo placement, legal/compliance notes, technical delivery specs
By providing a structured opportunity for the client to review your work and provide feedback at each stage (and by limiting their ability to make changes), you are preventing them from leaving the door open. Also, framing it as an inclusion rather than a limitation makes a difference as well: “your project includes three structured revision rounds” appears as a generous offer; “you only get three revisions” appears as stingy even though they state the exact same policy.
Codifying these stages inside an explicit project scope statement protects all project team members from preventable burnout. Confirming milestone sign-offs directly with the executive project sponsor prevents compounding project delays, eliminating the threat of silent cost overruns and unbudgeted budget overruns.
Per-Round and Per-Request Fees
When you’ve gone through all of your included rounds, each subsequent round (in addition to those) will have an agreed upon, flat fee. Flat fees are easier to sell and administer than hourly charges. In this case, clients know how many additional edits cost them beforehand when they make their request. Your fee should also reflect costs other than editor time; i.e., project management overhead and a complete edit cycle (not just editing), but a full cycle including a final review.
The “one tweak here and there,” which do not constitute a full edit/round will require a different approach than adding to a fee. These fixes will be handled via a batching system. Small tweaks are documented and addressed as part of your next scheduled update/appointment with the client. This batching system addresses the “a thousand cuts” issue, since these small changes can easily become lost due to lack of documentation and tracking.
Format Change Orders
Any deliverables outside of the original contract agreement (i.e. new video format, new image size, longer/shorter duration) will require a simple change order. The order will include the name of the new item being requested, the price for said item, and the revised delivery date. While this can be a formal process, it doesn’t necessarily need to be. For example, a simple e-mail stating the items required to be delivered, along with the associated prices and the revised delivery date can serve as a sufficient change order. However, it cannot be a “no problem”, or similar reply from the client regarding the new requests. When a client verbally agrees to accept additional work prior to receiving a written estimate/contract, the client may ultimately refuse to pay for said work. As such, the client must agree to accept additional work in writing prior to receiving the services.
A Quick Way to Decide What Should Change (Scope-Change Decision Table)
This table is an easy way to evaluate what you get against your original project plan.
|
Request Type |
Example |
In Scope? |
Action |
|
Minor tweak, no new deliverable |
Nudge a lower third, adjust one cut point |
Yes, if within revision round |
Log and batch into current round |
|
Full revision round |
New round of story/pacing notes |
Yes, if rounds remain |
Deliver per round structure |
|
Revision beyond included rounds |
4th round of notes when 3 were included |
No |
Quote per-round fee, get approval before starting |
|
New format/aspect ratio/length |
Square crop, 6-second cutdown, captioned version |
No |
Issue change order with price and new date |
|
Compressed timeline on existing work |
Deliver Friday’s edit by Wednesday |
No |
Quote rush fee, confirm resourcing before committing |
|
New creative direction after lock |
Different concept than approved storyboard |
No |
Treat as new project or major change order, re-scope and re-quote |
Every “No” in the action column represents the rule that price and approvals occur prior to beginning the job; they don’t occur after you’ve delivered. One simple practice will help reduce almost all of your scope creep losses as this takes the power out of the hands of your clients and puts them back into yours before you open up your project file, rather than after they have already seen their finished video cut that they like and do not want to pay extra for.
How to Manage Scope Creep, Protect Project Goals, and Avoid Scope Creep Early
Your Pricing Structure Addresses The Requests That Can’t Be Avoided; Your Process Handles All Of The Ones That Can be Totally Prevented
Create a Short Video Specific Project Brief Template Every Time
If your team uses a video specific project brief template, it will force answers to the questions that most generic project brief templates do not include: exact runtime, which aspect ratios are required and how many are required, whether voice over (VO) or on camera talent is required, how many locations or sets are involved, how many revisions are anticipated, and the name of the person responsible for providing all of the necessary feedback for the project. If a client cannot provide an answer to any one of those areas, that is an indication that you need to address that issue prior to sending the client a quote for work, versus having to deal with that issue after you start working on the project. Most high volume teams track this information in their video project management tool so the brief lives along side the job in their tool, not as a document somewhere that has been abandoned.
Establish Your Definition of Done In Writing
The term “definition of done” comes from software development, but applies equally well to video projects. Essentially it is establishing a written and specific description of what constitutes completion of the final product. Resolution, format, length/range of length, number of asset files provided, delivery platform and technical specifications (codec, aspect ratio, captioning method i.e. burnt into the frame vs. as a separate file) associated with the final product should be documented at least by the time the proposal/contract has been issued. If the definition of “done” exists solely within someone’s mind, then definitions tend to grow exponentially larger with each new individual reviewing the file since there is no basis for comparison.
Name One Approver Per Stage: Script, Rough Cut, Fine Cut, Delivery
Identify via written agreement who is approving each stage of production, in what order (script/story board, rough edit, fine cut, final delivery), and indicate that any feedback related to approval of any given stage must originate from only one designated entity per stage. Establishing this type of approval flow accomplishes two objectives. First, it ensures that if either the marketing director or the CEO want to give different approvals or instructions at the same time regarding some aspect of the project, they both cannot do so simultaneously. Second, such an approval process creates a definitive point where any changes requested by a stake holder that were made prior to them being informed about such changes would be considered a change request verses an error. By creating a collaborative review and approval process that stamps each comment against a particular version of the project you make such approval processes enforceable instead of merely aspirational.
Don’t let unchecked change orders eat your margin
A contract clause that simply states “we’ve got a few rounds of revisions covered” is much better than all the goodwill in the world. Below is a sample of what you could use, based on your own terms. This may be a good place to start.
“this project includes [three] rounds of revisions as defined in the attached scope document. Each round is comprised of one consolidated group of comments to address within a single delivery. Any changes made to the original scope other than the provided rounds will be quoted separately at [$X] per additional round and will need to be approved via a written agreement prior to beginning.”
There’s nothing particularly special about this language. It’s dull. The language itself doesn’t intimidate the client with fees. Instead, it simply states what happens when a client asks for something that wasn’t originally outlined. And when it comes time for the client to decide whether to pay for those extra changes, there are two options. Either the client decides not to make the requested changes, thereby avoiding the fee, or the client agrees to pay for the changes. In either case, the client receives exactly what they asked for. For most clients, they’ll read this language once during the initial contracting phase, and then again when they’re deciding how to proceed with their next request. That second reading is usually the difference between having an uncomfortable, unplanned conversation with the vendor and sending a five minute email asking permission to move forward.
It’s very similar to the same kind of clarity that we’ve seen throughout the case study examples. When clients know that the process will work the same way each time, they tend to like doing business with that company. They don’t care how great their final product looks. They care that they know what’s going to happen next.
At Volume vs. one project
When one project exceeds its scope requirements due to a minor addition or modification, it can be frustrating, but it is tolerable. However, if an agency or reseller is handling multiple video projects a month and experiencing repeated instances of scope creep; it can create a serious margin issue that is not merely an annoyance. As Alto Accounting pointed out in their research regarding creative agencies, if an agency is allowing uncapped revisions and/or un-priced format additions to consume 15 – 25% of their margins per project, it would be considered more than an annoyance. At scale, this becomes a fundamental part of how an agency makes money; therefore, whether that capability exists internally or is contracted through another entity, that same discipline helps protect the margin regardless.
In addition to providing a solution that scales with the problem, that same principle can be applied to defining those boundaries. The discipline needed to prevent excessive revisions and additions doesn’t necessarily mean telling the client “no,” or even attempting to negotiate a better deal for yourself. It’s about creating clearly defined boundaries around what is included upfront before any work commences. That creates a simple and straightforward path for when the client inevitably requests more because they always will. When that occurs, you can provide them with a clear answer along with a price tag.
Frequently Asked Questions
How many rounds of revisions should I allow per video project?
Typically 2 – 3 rounds of revisions are sufficient for most short form and mid length video projects. These revisions should each be focused on a different area (i.e., story, then polish, then QC). Longer or projects that involve multiple stakeholders might require an additional round of revisions, however any additional round should result in an increased cost. Therefore, “unlimited revisions” and “healthy margins” cannot exist together.
How do I define the difference between a revision and a change order?
Revisions are used to refine elements previously accepted into the project’s scope (i.e., timing of an approved edit, audio levels of an approved mix.) change orders introduce new elements that were not originally accepted into the project’s scope (i.e., new aspect ratio, new deliverable, new creative approach after approval of storyboard/script.)
Revisions are typically subject to capping rounds whereas change orders require separate approvals and pricing.
How do I tell a client ‘no’ without damaging our relationship?
Generally speaking, you wouldn’t have to say “yes” to something that’s out of scope. Instead, you could reframe their out of scope request as an available option for a charge. By reframing an out-of-scope request as a priced option you allow clients to collaborate in decision-making processes. Most clients are concerned less about paying a charge for something they want than being unaware of why a project took longer than expected with no explanation.
Are retained clients different than one-time projects regarding revision policies?
While retaining clients can take advantage of building revision allowances into their monthly scope rather than charging individually for each round of revisions, retained clients are also more susceptible to scope creep over time due to perceived relationship factors rather than purely transaction-based relationships. Ultimately, while retained clients offer the opportunity for revised scopes on an ongoing basis, retained clients still need to define what is included in that scope as well as document such scope in writing.
If a client insists on ‘unlimited revisions’ as part of signing their agreement what can be done to address this issue?
Treating ‘unlimited revisions’ as a pricing discussion rather than a policy exemption allows for selling unlimited revisions; however, this can only occur if pricing reflects true probable usage 15-25% margin erosion caused by scope creep. Agencies that accept unlimited revisions at fixed-scope pricing are those most likely to find themselves working weekends for free.
How does the Brand File help with scope creep specifically?
Many “one more note” requests arise from inconsistencies clients are unintentionally reacting to- i.e., slight font variations, pacing choices that are inconsistent with prior videos, tone or voice styles that seem unfamiliar. Having a brand file – an active reference guide of the client’s guidelines, style preferences, and prior-approved work provides every editor working on behalf of that client with an identical baseline; therefore reducing the number of “I don’t like this” notes that become unscoped revision cycles.
