Is It Out of Scope? — Web design
Is adding motion graphics to an existing video out of scope for a web design project?
Usually yes. Motion graphics — animated titles, lower thirds, transitions — are additional production work beyond the video that was scoped and delivered, not a small polish pass.
The video was scoped, shot, and delivered as a straightforward edit — talking head, b-roll, maybe simple text overlays. After seeing it, the client asks for animated titles, lower-thirds, or transition effects to make it feel more polished. It's a reasonable creative instinct, but motion graphics work is a distinct skill set and a real time investment layered on top of an already-finished edit.
Is it out of scope?
Usually yes. Motion graphics weren't part of the original deliverable's spec, and adding them means re-opening the edit and doing meaningful new animation work, not applying a filter.
Clause typically implicated
Clause typically implicated
Deliverables clause→ — Defines the video as delivered (a straight edit) — motion graphics are an additional production element outside that definition.
Example contract wording
Example contract wording (illustrative, not legal advice)
The scope covered the video as a straight edit, which we delivered. Adding animated titles and transitions is additional motion design work — I can quote it as an add-on, either for this video or as a template we could reuse for future ones.
How MarginFlow flags it
MarginFlow checks the request against the deliverables list's description of the video (edit only, vs. edit-plus-motion-graphics if that was ever scoped) and flags requests for animation work not in that description as outside_scope, with a suggested charge based on the contract's production rate.