The campaigns we turn down

When the material isn't enough

This is the first reason for refusal, and the easiest to check before signing.

A clipping campaign consumes source material at a speed most advertisers underestimate. An active network produces several hundred clips a month, and they need feeding. Below ten hours of usable content, the material runs out in three to four weeks: clippers re-cut the same sequences, formats start to look alike, the algorithm stops distributing and returns collapse. Count twenty to thirty hours to last several months without running out of steam. The trap is that the problem doesn't show at the start. The first weeks work, because the best sequences go out first. The drop comes in the second month, and it is almost always blamed on the clippers when it was written into the brief from day one. That's why we always ask for the volume of available content before any budget discussion, and why we say no when it's not enough.

When the framework stifles production

Every approval removes a rough edge, and rough edges are what circulate.

The second reason for refusal is a brand framework that is too restrictive. It mainly concerns large organisations, where the reflex is to secure everything. Thirty banned phrasings, mandatory approval on every clip before posting, imposed vocabulary: each rule seems reasonable on its own, together they kill the campaign. Mechanically first, because an approval loop divides the volume posted by ten, and clipping relies on the number of shots on goal. Editorially next, because the hooks that break through are precisely the ones that take a risk. A clip approved by committee doesn't circulate. The right balance exists, and we always propose it: a short, written framework that lists what can't be taken out of context, confidential figures, client mentions, sensitive topics, together with a fast takedown procedure. What is forbidden must be explicit, everything else must be free. When an advertiser refuses that principle, we would rather not launch than bill a campaign whose outcome we already know.

When budget or patience is lacking

Two symmetrical mistakes: testing too small, and judging too early.

A campaign below the critical threshold fails by design. Below roughly €1,500 excl. VAT per month, the volume of views to share out is too low to interest clippers, who choose each week between the campaigns available and go where there is material and earning potential. An underfunded campaign doesn't find its producers, and the advertiser concludes the channel doesn't work when it never started. This is our third reason for refusal, and better to hear it before than after. The symmetrical mistake is judging after three weeks. Organic distribution isn't linear: nothing happens, then one clip unlocks an account and pulls the next ones along. A campaign is read over two to three months, not over one monthly reporting cycle. When an advertiser tells us they'll decide on renewal after four weeks, we say it plainly: that's too short to conclude anything, and it's better to wait until you have the budget and the time than to burn a first attempt.

The fourth reason is simpler to state: the content wasn't clippable from the start. No identifiable face, no stakes, no surprise, a message that went through several internal approvals. No clipper network can spread content nobody wants to share. It's the subject of a dedicated article, and it's the test to run before all the others.

To see how a campaign we accept unfolds, from framing to final review, read our article on the steps of a clipping campaign.