Hiring somebody to film in house looks cheaper the moment you divide their salary by the number of videos. That calculation is almost always wrong, and it is wrong in a specific and predictable way.

What the per video maths leaves out

Salary is the small part. Equipment, software, the space to film in, the employer contributions, holiday, and the months where the person has nothing to shoot. Divide by the videos actually produced in a year rather than by the videos you hoped for.

One person means one face

An internal videographer produces content that always looks like the same person in the same room. UGC works because the viewer sees somebody like themselves, and a single employee cannot represent a market as varied as Mexico.

What in house is genuinely good at

Speed and access. Same day turnaround, filming inside the warehouse, capturing something that happens without warning, and total confidentiality on unreleased products. No external creator can match those.

The volume threshold

Below fifteen or twenty videos a month, in house rarely pays for itself against a bench of creators. Above that, and especially where the product changes constantly, an internal producer starts to make sense as a coordinator rather than as the only camera.

The version that usually works

An internal person who briefs, coordinates and films the urgent things, plus a bench of external creators for variety and volume. That combination gets both the speed and the range, and it is what most brands settle on after trying each extreme.

Keep reading

Find creators for your campaign →

Frequently asked questions

Is in house cheaper per video?

Rarely, once real costs are counted.

What is the main limitation?

One person means one face, one room.

What is in house best at?

Speed, access and confidentiality.

Where is the threshold?

Around fifteen to twenty videos a month.