Reference

Advanced Playbook

The judgment calls that don't fit a simple rule, taught through real client situations. When a conversation gets weird, find the closest pattern here and follow how Mark actually handled it.

#"Show Me, Don't Ask Me" Clients

Some clients have given everything you need. They don't want more questions - they want a deliverable.

Signs:

• Answered all questions
• Provided footage + references + direction
• Conversation has been going on too long
• Said "use your creativity" or "just make me one."

#Volume Discounts Only for Actual Volume

"I plan to do 50 videos a month" means nothing until there's actual footage in a Google Drive folder. Volume pricing kicks in when volume actually arrives, not when it's promised.

#Language Barriers

When content is in a language Mark doesn't speak: Client MUST provide a full English translation of the script with timestamps. Non-negotiable.

#Copyright Nuance with Game Footage

The issue is NOT the game publisher - it's the person who screen-recorded the gameplay. That person owns their recording.

#Don't Build Protection Through Awkward Questions

Don't ask "Are you difficult to work with?" Instead, build protection into the process:

• Require English translations with timestamps
• Set clear starting point"Start with core toolkit and build from feedback"
• Ask about feedback style diplomatically
• Limit creative exploration in the offer"1 creative pass + 1 revision round included"

#Simple Projects - Don't Overcomplicate

Some clients tell you exactly what they want. When that happens, stop asking questions and deliver. If they said "simple training video, no text animations, subtitles, or sound effects" - just clean cuts, smooth audio, title cards. Done.

#Put Business Decisions Back on the Client

When a client asks Mark to make a business decision (which product to promote, which city to feature), push it back. Mark is the editor, not the marketing strategist.

#When Clients Send Too Much Footage

If a client sends way more footage than needed:

#Multi-Phase Projects - Always Separate VO from Editing

Why: The voiceover is the blueprint for the entire edit. If you build the video first and the client doesn't like the voice, you have to rebuild everything.

Phase 1 offer should ALWAYS include:

• What's includedvoice generation, 1 round of revision on tone/pacing
• What's NOT includedvideo editing, music, effects, stock footage - all Phase 2
• Deliverable formatMP3 files
• Clear statement"Once approved, I'll send the Phase 2 offer for the video production"

#The "Test Edit" Trap

Some clients want free test edits or "competitive editing tests" where multiple editors work on the same footage for free.

#Declining a Free Test Edit, Offering a Paid First Video

I don't do free test edits, but I'm happy to do a paid first video at my standard rate ($100). If it goes well and you move to regular volume, you'd qualify for bulk pricing from there.

#The Pre-Offer "Sounds Good" Confirmation (For Risky / Moving-Target Clients)

When a client is high-risk or keeps reopening a "closed" deal - renegotiating price, adding scope, asking to "fatten the description," reopening the core number - do NOT keep firing revised offers into the churn. Instead, send the complete locked scope as a chat message first and require a clean "sounds good" before you send the formal offer.

This does two jobs at once:

Real example - rockstar_butler: Chronic moving target (reopened price, his own template, an assessment, the description, the core number - repeatedly, often at 3am). The correct move was to stop accommodating each reopening, send ONE final locked scope ($250, both ratios, DOAC-inspired not DOAC-match, 2-revision cap, "per our conversation"), and ask him to reply "sounds good" before the formal offer went out. The confirmation step is both the lock and the test.

Pair this with the risk filter (see Expansion Potential and Risk Are Two Separate Axes) and a hard revision cap for any client who shows this pattern.

#Expansion Potential and Risk Are Two Separate Axes

A client can be high-expansion AND high-risk at the same time. "Ongoing needs," "fast communication," and "decision authority" (the expansion signals in Section 33) do NOT cancel out red flags (Section 20.3). Evaluate both axes independently:

#Hold the Invoice Until All Materials Are In Hand

Even when a client is pushing you to "send the invoice," do NOT start the order clock if the central deliverable's materials or creative direction aren't locked. Starting an order you can't actually execute - because the key content is days out or still shifting - sets up a stalled, messy order.

Frame the hold as protecting the client:

This matters even more for sensitive or emotionally heavy subject matter, where a clean, unhurried start is part of doing the work justice and where the client may also be stretched or grieving.

Real example - sterlingaj (Crowning Glory): Client said "send the invoice," but the core section's content (the Recovery notes) wasn't in yet, the medical links were unconfirmed, and the food direction was still shifting - and she'd said "this seems like a lot." The correct move was to warmly HOLD the invoice, acknowledge her overwhelm, list what was still needed vs. already locked, remove all time pressure, and set a clean trigger to start ("the moment the Recovery notes land, I'll invoice and begin"). Do not start the clock on an order whose heart isn't ready.

#Never Source Licensed Images of Real People / Athletes / Celebrities

Mark cannot source or composite licensed images of real, identifiable people - athletes, celebrities, public figures. Those rights belong to the individuals, their clubs/federations, and licensing bodies (e.g., FIFA and players for footballers). Using them without licensing is a copyright and likeness violation, and it's especially risky for regulated brands (betting/gambling, alcohol, pharma).

How to handle: Flag it honestly, then steer to a clean alternative:

Real example - betinum (betting brand banner): Client wanted "World Cup footballers." The correct move was to explain plainly that licensed real players aren't possible (and are extra risky for a betting brand), then recommend his own fallback - a trophy/generic-football look - as the clean, safe direction. (This sits alongside the game-footage copyright nuance in Copyright Nuance with Game Footage and music copyright in 7.3.)

#Motion Is Its Own Required Reference for Video Work

The references gate (3.2) is not satisfied by a look reference alone when the deliverable is video. Static layout references tell you how a FRAME should look (typography, spacing, color blocking). A video project also needs a MOTION reference - how the transitions and pacing should actually feel - because "smooth slides and fades" can still be interpreted several ways, and guessing on motion burns revision rounds.

A client being well-prepared, sophisticated, and eager does NOT waive the references gate. If they've given you everything except a motion reference, you still need the motion reference before firing a video offer. Ask for it as a genuine requirement (framed warmly, tied to nailing V1), not as an optional bonus.

Real example - glossentialuk: The client provided static layout references, a frame-by-frame script, typography, brand colors, and a clear written motion spec - and was ready to accept. It was still correct to hold the offer until a 1-2 example motion reference landed, because the deliverable is video and motion was the one piece not yet referenced.

#Don't Editorialize on a Client's Unrelated Decisions

Keep private judgments about a client's other spending or choices to yourself. If a client mentions hiring a coach you think was a waste of money, or any unrelated decision, do not comment on it - stay focused on your piece of the work. Editorializing on their decisions is unprofessional, pointless, and can sour a hard-won relationship. (Extends the tone rules in Section 16.)

#Screen for Difficult Clients With Deliberate Questions

Before committing to a larger or recurring engagement, it's legitimate - and smart - to include a couple of questions specifically designed to surface whether a client will be difficult, picky, or high-friction. This is one of the most common judgment calls in practice. Don't ask bluntly ("are you difficult to work with?"); instead, ask practical questions whose ANSWERS reveal the working relationship:

The goal is to feel out the relationship before you're locked into volume. A client who bristles at reasonable async expectations or can't name an approver is showing you something. (Pairs with the risk axis in Expansion Potential and Risk Are Two Separate Axes and red flags in 20.3.) This is the gentler, process-based version of Don't Build Protection Through Awkward Questions - the protection is baked into normal-sounding onboarding questions.

#Brevity Is the Default - Stop Over-Writing

The single most frequent correction in practice is "keep it short / that's too much text." Client messages should be as short as the situation allows. Over-writing is a real, recurring failure mode (see 2.6, 16.1, 16.6, 32.3).

#Scope Traps - Lessons Learned

The recurring word-and-phrase traps that quietly expand scope. Spot the trigger word, run the move.

#Real Client Examples (Teaching Reference)

These real examples illustrate how rules apply in practice: