How many videos go into a package, and what separates it from the next one? That is the question that stalls most creators when they publish their offers, and it is the wrong question. A package is not distinguished by a quantity. It is distinguished by what it allows the brand to do with what it receives.
Price comes afterwards, and it has its own guide: UGC creator rates in France. What follows decides what you sell, not how much.
What an offer settles before price comes up
Three things must be decided before writing a single amount: what the brand receives, what it is allowed to do with it, and for how long.
The first is easy, everyone handles it. The other two are what make the same delivery worth three times as much, and they are the ones offer pages leave blank. A package that announces videos without saying what can be done with them forces the brand to ask, and a brand that has to ask is comparing while it waits.
Three packages, and why not five
A grid is read in seconds. Past three lines, reading turns into comparison, and comparison slows the decision instead of speeding it up.
Three packages are enough when they answer three different buying intentions: trying, equipping a campaign, settling in for the long run. That is the difference between a grid and a catalogue. A catalogue leaves the brand to build its own need; a grid hands it over already built.
The classic mistake is varying quantity alone: one video, three videos, five videos. That does not create three offers, it creates the same offer at three prices. A brand hesitating between three and five videos is not hesitating about what it is buying, it is hesitating about its budget, and you have just turned your grid into a price discussion.
What is sold along with the video: the usage window
Here is the axis that genuinely separates three packages. A delivered video is not an object, it is a right of use, and that right has three dimensions.
Duration
How long the brand can run the video. A few months and several years do not commit the same thing on your side: for the whole period your face or your voice carry the product, and you cannot film the same thing for a competitor.
Territory
Where the video runs. A brand selling in France and a brand pushing the same video across five markets are not buying the same thing, even though the delivered file is identical.
Placements
This is the most often forgotten dimension and the most expensive when it is. A brand account, a product page, a paid campaign, in store display: those are different uses, with different audiences and different values. A package that only says "social media" leaves the question open the day the video goes into advertising.
| Package | What it contains | What it does not contain | Usage window announced |
|---|---|---|---|
| Trial | one video, one edit, one revision | paid distribution, extra cuts | organic, a few months, one country |
| Campaign | several videos, format variants | in store display, exclusivity | organic and paid, one year, one country |
| Retainer | shoots spread over time, varied formats | unlimited assignment | organic and paid, one year, several countries |
By contrast with a grid built on quantities, a grid built on the usage window defends itself without negotiation: the brand sees what it is paying extra for, and it can choose not to pay it.
What the announced window then has to become in the contract is a subject of its own, covered by assigning copyright in a French UGC contract. An offer announces a commercial intention; the contract writes it in law, and the two must say the same thing.
What stays an option, and what never is
An option is something the brand may or may not want without the order changing nature. Everything else belongs to the package.
Revisions, which are counted
An announced number of revisions protects both sides. Without it, the limit gets negotiated at the worst possible moment, which is once the video is already shot. Two rounds included and the rest billed is a readable rule; "until satisfied" is not.
What is billed separately
Format variants, voice over in another language, burned in subtitles, travel, long term use of the product, extending the usage window. Each has a real cost on your side.
By contrast, two things must never become options: delivering files in a usable quality, and honouring the announced window. Those are the foundations of the offer. Turning them into add ons suggests the base package is incomplete.
Writing an offer a purchasing department can approve
Once the order is decided, the video does not pay for itself: somebody has to turn your label into an internal order line. The more precise that label, the less the file comes back to you.
A label that works contains four elements and fits on one line: the nature of the service, the quantity, the usage window, the deadline. "Production of three vertical videos, organic and paid use, France, twelve months, delivery within fifteen days" can be copied as is. "Campaign Pack" cannot.
It is a free habit that changes how fast an order gets processed, and it has a useful side effect: writing the label makes you check that your own package is complete.
Changing your packages without breaking orders in progress
Published offers are not carved in stone, but they bind what has already been accepted. Three rules are enough.
First, an order in progress stays governed by the offer as it stood when it was agreed, even if the grid changes the next day. Second, an increase applies to new enquiries, never retroactively to a quote already sent and still valid. Third, a recurring client is told before, not after: the relationship is worth more than the gap on one order.
The objection here is that announcing a change scares people off. The opposite usually happens: what scares people off is discovering a new rate in a quote with no explanation. A message sent a fortnight ahead turns a surprise into information.
