I just wrapped a UGC deal where I delivered content, got back feedback that completely reframed what the brand wanted, delivered new content, got feedback again on a different angle entirely, and now we’re on round four of deliverables.
The original rate I quoted was based on what I thought was ‘two rounds of revisions included.’ By round four, I’ve essentially tripled my hours for the same pay. I didn’t say anything because:
- They’re a larger brand I want to keep working with
- I wasn’t sure if I was being unreasonable (like, maybe this is just how it works?)
- I didn’t want to seem difficult when they were paying on time
Obviously I messed up not being clearer upfront. But now I’m trying to figure out the standard. Is it actually two rounds standard? Three? Do bigger brands just expect unlimited revisions? Should I have included revision rounds in my original contract?
I’m going to handle this differently next time, but I’m curious what other creators actually do. What’s your default revision policy, and have you ever had to enforce it with a brand that pushed back?
This is so common, and I’m glad you’re asking now. Most professional UGC creators operate on 1-2 rounds included, then charge per additional round. The key thing? It needs to be in writing from day one. When I’m connecting creators with brands, I actually recommend a contract template that specifies: ‘2 rounds of revisions included, additional rounds $X.’ Protects everyone. For your existing relationship, I’d suggest a gentle conversation: ‘Hey, I loved working on this. For clarity on future projects, I want to make sure we’re aligned on revision expectations.’ Most brands will respect that professionalism.
Let’s look at this economically. If you spent 40 hours total and were paid $800, you’re now at $20/hour. If you’d charged $150 per additional revision past 2 rounds, you’d be at $1,100 for maybe 2-3 hours of additional work. That’s the difference between sustainable and unsustainable. Track your actual hours—not as punishment, but as data. That’s what matters for pricing your next deal. For future contracts, I’d suggest: ‘revisions beyond 2 rounds are billed at $X per hour or $X per round.’ Make it so clear there’s no ambiguity.
From the brand side, here’s why that happens: we’re usually trying to get approval from internal stakeholders who all have different opinions. By round three, we’re just making changes because someone at a meeting suggested it, not because we actually know if it’s better. As a creator, you could actually help with this by asking: ‘Who needs to approve this, and can we get them aligned on the brief before I start shooting?’ That’s not pushy—that’s efficient project management that benefits everyone.
Standard in my world: 2 rounds of revisions included, then $100-200 per additional round depending on complexity. I also have a ‘revision scope’ clause—meaning, if they’re asking for something that fundamentally changes the brief (like, ‘actually we want a different product angle’), that’s a new project, not a revision. Protects you from infinite scope creep. For your immediate situation: just send an invoice amendment. Professional, not accusatory. ‘Based on the scope of work, here’s updated pricing.’ Half the time they’ll quietly approve it because you’re right and they know it.
I honestly struggle with this because I want to be flexible, but I’m also learning that flexibility gets taken advantage of sometimes. What I’ve started doing is: after round 2, I send a message like ‘I want to make sure we nail this—what’s the final decision so we lock it in?’ It’s friendly but also signals that I’m not doing infinite tweaks. Sometimes just naming it directly helps brands realize they’ve been indecisive.
This is a contract and communication issue masquerading as a rate issue. Two observations: (1) Never leave revision rounds undefined. Ever. That’s like accepting a project without a scope. (2) Use revision requests as diagnostic data. If they’re asking for big changes in round 3, your initial brief was unclear—that’s on you to fix next time by asking harder questions upfront. For this engagement, I’d frame it constructively: ‘I’m grateful for the opportunity to iterate. Going forward, I want to make sure we’re efficient—what’s the ideal workflow you’d like to see?’ Professional, not resentful.
Also, I want to tag you in a contract template we just added to the platform that includes revision policy language. It’s written in a way that sounds collaborative instead of restrictive. Check it out, and feel free to adapt it for your next pitch.