They asked for a 60-second advert. We told them 60 seconds probably would not work.
We proposed a shorter advert and two formats, then wrote the agreed deliverables into the contract.
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 questioned the number in the brief:
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, one investment
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 investment, no second invoice.
The fifteen-second suggestion in our reply was a starting point. With the partner, we agreed a 24-second introduction and a full-minute retargeting version so each could carry the context its intended viewer needed. Those treatments were hypotheses to test.
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
Four months, and the reason in writing
The project ran four months, with three extensions, before delivery on 21 July 2024. Team leave, public holidays and several calendars affected the schedule. We documented the changes, held the scope and did not charge an additional waiting fee.
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. Nothing in the record says why.
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. Request yours.