Updated: July 27, 2026
"Can you make it pop?"
Every editor has received this note. It holds significance for the person who wrote it, but it does not convey any actionable information. The editor now has two options: make a guess, or go back and ask the writer, which would delay the process by a day.
Revision rounds often cause video projects to exceed both budgets and deadlines. This is rarely due to an editor's slowness. Instead, it's because the feedback received is often unclear, inconsistent, or comes from multiple sources. This feedback frequently describes a feeling or an abstract idea rather than a specific change that can be implemented.
Providing good feedback is a skill that can be learned in about ten minutes. Here's how it works.
Timecode or it did not happen
The most useful habit is starting every note with a timecode.
The transition feels abrupt" leaves an editor sifting through nine minutes of footage, searching for the specific transition. There are fourteen such transitions in total.
This single change likely saves more time across a project than any other. It is not about bureaucracy; rather, it is the distinction between a note and a mood.
Say what is wrong, not what to do
The second habit is counterintuitive. Describe the problem without proposing a solution.
At 1:15, add a whoosh sound" is a proposed solution. However, an editor who understands the underlying issue can often suggest a more effective approach. If the actual problem is that the cut feels weak, a sound effect might address only a symptom rather than the root cause.
At 1:15, the cut feels like it comes out of nowhere." This statement highlights the issue. Now, their experience is being utilized to address your problem rather than relying on your guesswork. You hired them for their expertise and judgement.
| Instead of | Try |
|---|---|
| Make it pop | At 0:20, the energy level decreases. Can we boost it back up? |
| I don't like the music | The music feels too intense for this message. |
| Make it shorter | We need it under 60 seconds for the ad |
| The colour looks off | At 1:30 the skin tone looks too orange |
| Add a whoosh at 1:15 | At 1:15 the cut feels abrupt |
| It's not what we discussed | We agreed on X and I'm seeing Y |
The "make it shorter" instruction warrants closer examination. Telling an editor to cut thirty seconds without specifying the reason leads to assumptions about what is important. However, informing the editor that the platform has a sixty-second cap provides a clear understanding of the constraint. This clarity helps the editor prioritize and protect the right content within the specified time limit.
One voice, or chaos
Here is the structural issue that causes more problems in editing than any creative disagreement: multiple people sending notes directly.
Marketing wants the product launch earlier. The founder wants more screen time. Sales wants a different call to action. Each department sends separate emails to the editor. Now, instead of editing, the editor is refereeing a meeting they were not invited to.
Worse, the notes contradict each other. Making the product appear earlier means cutting the founder's introduction, which is exactly what the founder just requested to extend. The editor cannot resolve this issue, as it is not an editing problem. It is a decision about the purpose of the video.
The fix is straightforward and effective: one person gathers all internal feedback, resolves any contradictions internally, and sends out a single, consolidated list. Debates should take place within your organization, where they belong, rather than during an editing timeline at hourly rates.
Consolidate before you send
- Collect everyone's notes into a single document.
- Resolve conflicts before they reach the editor.
- Distinguish between what is essential and what is a preference.
- Remove any notes that contradict the brief that has already been agreed upon.
- Send it all at once, complete rather than in a trickle.
The trickle itself is problematic. Notes arriving over three days cause the editor to make a change, then undo it with another change, and finally rebuild a section that is later affected by a subsequent note. Each dribbled note costs more than it would if part of a batch.
Understand what each round is for
Rounds follow a specific order, and skipping ahead in this sequence can be costly.
The rough cut is about structure. Is the story right? Is the order right? Is anything missing? At this stage, colour is untouched, audio is rough and graphics are placeholders. Commenting on those is commenting on things that do not exist yet.
The fine cut is about refinement within a structure everyone has agreed. Timing, pacing, specific shot choices.
Then colour, sound and graphics, which happen once the picture is locked. This is why picture lock matters: a graphic built to a specific frame has to be rebuilt if that frame moves.
Which produces the cardinal rule: do not restructure after picture lock. A note at the colour stage saying "actually, let's move the testimonial to the front" is not a small note. It unwinds the grade, the mix and every graphic, and it turns a finishing pass into a new edit. If a structural problem genuinely exists, say so at rough cut, when saying it is free. Our note on editing turnaround time covers how this affects a schedule.
Rounds are a number in your contract
Most editing agreements include a set number of revision rounds, typically two or three. This is not a trick; it allows for a fixed price, as unlimited revisions would make the work unbounded.
What counts as a round should be agreed upon in writing. Typically, one round consists of a consolidated set of notes and the subsequent pass to address them. Five emails over five days would constitute five rounds by any reasonable interpretation, even if the client perceives it as a single conversation.
This is another reason to consolidate. It is not only faster; it is literally cheaper, because you are spending your rounds efficiently instead of burning one on a note you thought of after sending. Our note on what drives editing pricing covers where this sits in a quote.
Watch it thoroughly before writing anything.
The final habit, and the easiest one, is to watch the entire cut from start to finish without pausing, before writing any notes.
Editors create content intended for viewers watching it in one pass. Notes taken while scrubbing back and forth describe an experience that nobody will ever have. A moment that feels slow when you are stopping every ten seconds often plays smoothly at speed. Additionally, a problem that is invisible in fragments becomes apparent when viewed in its entirety.
Watch it once as an audience to see if it works. Then, watch it again while taking notes to understand why it does or doesn't work.
We would prefer to set this up rather than fight it.
At the beginning of a project, we establish who provides notes, the number of rounds included, and the purpose of each round. This brief conversation, which takes about five minutes, is why projects stay on schedule.
If your organization has four stakeholders, please mention this at the outset. This will allow us to tailor the review process to accommodate this specific structure, rather than encountering four conflicting emails on a Thursday.
You can see how we work on our about page, and our note on social media video editing covers how deliverable formats affect the same process. Get in touch through the contact page, and bring the name of the person who signs off.