The real reason agencies underprice revision rounds
Most agencies quote "two rounds of revisions included" and treat round three as a favor, a change order, or a quiet loss they don't mention out loud. Ask why the line is drawn at two, and the honest answer usually isn't about the client — it's about what round three costs you to produce. That number was set by your tools, not by the work itself, and it's worth doing the math on directly.
What round three actually costs today
Say a client asks for a small note on round three: "make the logo bigger, slow down the intro." In a typical motion workflow, that means reopening the project file, finding the right layer, nudging it, and re-exporting — easily 30–45 minutes once you factor in finding your place again in a file you closed two days ago. Multiply that by however many small notes land in round three, and it stops looking like "a quick tweak" and starts looking like half a billable hour you can't invoice for, because you already quoted "revisions included."
That's the real quote you're making when you say two rounds: I am willing to eat about 30–45 minutes of re-editing, twice, per project. Everyone involved thinks the constraint is goodwill. It's actually a time-and-tools constraint wearing a goodwill costume.
What changes if round three costs ten minutes instead
If describing "make the logo bigger, slow down the intro" in a sentence patches just that part of the existing animation instead of requiring you to reopen a project file, round three stops costing 30–45 minutes and starts costing whatever it takes to type the note and preview the result — a few minutes, not a fraction of an hour. The constraint that was quietly capping your revision count at two didn't come from clients being demanding. It came from the 30–45 minute tax on each round. Remove the tax, and the cap you were defending was never really about the client at all.
Price the count, not the hours — once the count is actually cheap
This isn't an argument for unlimited free revisions — open-ended scope is its own problem. It's an argument for naming a bigger, specific number with confidence instead of quietly rationing two. "Three rounds included, additional rounds at a flat rate" reads as generous to the client and costs you less than the old two-round version did, because each round no longer carries the re-editing tax that set the old ceiling. The number you put in the contract should reflect what a round costs now, not what it cost when the only way to change a logo size was to go back into the timeline and re-export.