Scope Creep Examples — SEO & marketing
A second campaign concept, after the first was already approved
The client signed off on a campaign content strategy in writing. With content already in production, they ask for a completely different concept to be developed as a comparison.
Two campaign content strategies were presented for the quarter, and the client approved one in writing — target keywords, content pillars, and publishing calendar all set from that direction. With articles already in production against that approved strategy, the client asks for the second, unchosen strategy to be developed as well "to compare performance," which means starting an entirely separate content pipeline from scratch, not adjusting the one already underway.
Clause typically implicated
Clause typically implicated
Acceptance testing clause→ — The written strategy approval is what the current production calendar and retainer hours are built around — reopening the alternative afterward is new scope.
Suggested change-order wording
Suggested change-order wording (illustrative, not legal advice)
Strategy A was approved on [date] and this quarter's content calendar and retainer hours are built around it. Standing up Strategy B in parallel would mean a second full content pipeline — research, briefs, writing, review — on top of the current one. I can scope that as an additional workstream at [X]/month if you'd like to run both, or we can hold the second strategy for next quarter's planning.
How this usually resolves
Framing it as "run both" versus "revisit next quarter" rather than a flat decline usually works well here, since running two content strategies in parallel is a legitimate (if more expensive) choice some clients genuinely want to make — the key is pricing it as the doubled workload it actually is.
Related reading