Stock footage costs a fraction of a creator video per file and proves nothing. That is the whole comparison, and knowing which side of it a campaign sits on saves a lot of wasted budget.

What stock is genuinely good for

Establishing shots, backgrounds, abstract concepts, and anything where the viewer is not being asked to believe a specific claim about your product. If you need a city at dusk or hands typing, buying it is faster and cheaper than filming it.

What it cannot do

Show your product. The moment the video needs to demonstrate that this thing works, fits, lasts or looks like the photo, stock has nothing to offer. And a viewer who recognises a stock clip they have seen elsewhere reads the whole video as advertising, which is the one thing UGC exists to avoid.

The Canadian tell

Most stock is filmed elsewhere. Snow that behaves wrong, houses that look American, plugs that are not ours, seasons that do not match. A Canadian viewer notices without articulating it, and the content reads as imported even when nothing specific is identifiable.

The honest budget split

Stock for the parts nobody is judging, creators for the parts that carry the claim. A brand that puts its entire budget into stock has bought a video that looks like everybody else's, and a brand that films establishing shots with a creator has paid a premium for something it could have licensed.

The test

Ask whether the shot is making a promise about your product. If it is, it has to be real. If it is not, buy it and put the saving into the shots that are.

Keep reading

Find creators for your campaign →

Frequently asked questions

What is stock good for?

Backgrounds and shots that make no claim.

Why can stock not carry a claim?

It proves nothing about your product.

What is the Canadian tell?

Snow, houses and seasons filmed elsewhere.

How do I split the budget?

Stock for the neutral shots, creators for the claims.