They asked for a 60-second advert. We told them 60 seconds probably would not work.

The brief

A storyboard already attached, and a number inside it

The brief arrived with a rough storyboard already attached: a 60-second video explaining why training matters, its advantages, and a call to action, for the training arm of an IBM SPSS software and solutions business. The partner describes itself as the UK and Ireland's market leader in IBM SPSS software and solutions.

Our reply did not just accept the brief. It questioned the number in it:

Whilst having a 60-second video is desirable on such informative content and educational service, our data and business experience show that people tend to skip lengthier adverts, without reaching neither to the landing page nor to the product page. As such, we tend to advise to make the advert as close to 15 seconds as possible... In this case, our suggestion would be to have 2 versions of the same video.

What happened next

One brief became two videos, at one price

They listened. The 60-second brief became two videos: a 24-second version built to earn attention from an unfamiliar audience, and a full minute version for retargeting, for viewers who already knew the brand. Both went into the contract at a single price, no second invoice.

The fifteen seconds in that reply was a rule of thumb, and this is where it bent. IBM SPSS training is an unusually detailed thing to sell, and a stranger meets it cold, so a hook alone earns a look without the context to act on it. The number was not ours to hand down: worked out with their team, twenty-four seconds became the agreed middle, long enough to give an unfamiliar viewer something to hold, short enough to keep the attention a full minute tends to lose. And for a partner who has not run many ads before, the two lengths are a test rather than a rule: which one actually earns its keep, and the next ones briefed on the answer.

Before anything was owed

A free meeting, before the order existed

Because the order process had not started yet, we did not charge for the first conversation, a detail that answered their own hesitation about pre-sales costs before they had to ask. What followed was a proper corporate process: a multi-person team call, technical language corrected on their side, a CTA email address requested before a single frame was cut.

Under strain

Not fast, but honest about why

The project ran four months, with three extensions, before delivery on 21 July 2024. The delay sat on their side: team leave, public holidays, a schedule that depended on more than one calendar. We said so in writing at the time, held the scope, and did not send a second invoice for the wait.

In their words

The four-star review with a tip attached

thank you - you understood the scope of the work and delivered what we were looking for - thank you.

Four stars, not five, and a tip on top. We are not going to pretend that is not a slightly odd combination, or smooth it into a five-star story. Nothing in the record points to a specific complaint; the most likely explanation is the four months it took, which was never really within our control to shorten. We would rather show you the honest number than round it up.

The correspondence record for this engagement runs from September 2023 to August 2024 and is our own archive. The partner's description of itself is taken from its own public site, captured 26 July 2026. The review is public and quoted verbatim, star rating included. Individual names are withheld pending consent, and the videos' publication status is unknown, so no link is claimed.

What you would get

The same start, before anyone talks about money

The first conversation on this engagement was free, and the number in the brief was questioned before it was billed. That is the standard, not the exception: the free preliminary audit is where every partnership starts, and we do not quote before we have looked. Request yours.