Most creators put a number in their terms. Two revisions included, then it is chargeable. It sounds professional and it settles nothing, because the number tells you how many times something was sent back and never why.
Two rounds caused by the same misunderstanding are one problem, and you should fix it for free. Ten small changes from ten different people are not a revision policy issue, they are a brief that never existed.
The four causes, and who pays for each
The brief changed
The product changed, the campaign moved, someone senior saw it and wants a different angle. That is new work, it is entirely legitimate, and it is chargeable without any awkwardness. Say so calmly and quote it as an addition.
The wording was never approved
You wrote or adapted a script, filmed it, and now the brand wants different words. This is the most common cause and it is almost always avoidable. Send the script or the spoken lines for approval before shooting, and this whole category disappears.
The client simply does not like it
No error, no change of plan, they just wanted a different feel. One round of that is normal and should be included, because taste is real and the first version is a proposal. A second round on the same grounds means the reference was never shared, so ask for an example of what they like rather than guessing again.
You made a mistake
Wrong framing, bad sound, the logo upside down. That is fixed immediately, at no cost, without negotiation and without explanation. Being fast here buys more goodwill than any number in a contract.
| Cause | Who pays | How to avoid it next time |
|---|---|---|
| The brief changed | The brand, as an addition | Note the agreed version in writing |
| The wording was not approved | Nobody, but it costs time | Get the script signed off before filming |
| Taste, first round | Included | Ask for one reference before writing |
| Taste, second round | The brand | Request an example instead of guessing |
| Creator error | The creator | Watch the file once, in full, before sending |
The last row is the cheapest habit in this job. Watching your own delivery end to end, with sound, catches most of what comes back.
What a small market does to this
Portugal is small enough that the same clients come round again. A rigid revision counter protects a relationship badly, because the client remembers the argument long after they have forgotten the invoice.
The discipline that actually works sits upstream. Agree the script, agree the format, agree who gives feedback, and agree that feedback arrives once, consolidated, from one person. That last point removes more revision rounds than any clause, because most of them come from three people commenting separately over four days.
How to answer when a revision arrives
The reply is three sentences and it always has the same shape.
Thank them and say you will look at it. Name the cause in neutral words, which is the part everyone skips: this one is on me, or this is a change to what we agreed. Then say what happens next, with a date.
Written that way, a chargeable revision stops sounding like a dispute and starts sounding like project management, which is what it is. The message that causes arguments is the one that says yes without naming the cause, because the next request arrives assuming the same answer.
What is never a revision
Some requests arrive worded as a small change and are a second deliverable.
A second language is a new shoot, not an edit. A different aspect ratio with different framing is a new export at minimum, and often a new cut. A new opening hook is a new video wearing the old one's clothes. So is adding captions in another language, or a version for an ad account with different rules.
None of that is a refusal. It is a quote, sent in the same friendly message, itemised so the client can choose. Clients say yes to this far more often than creators expect, because they were never trying to get it free, they simply did not know it was separate.
