"Why is it double?" is the first thing a Belgian client says about a quote. The answer is in the third column.
What you are really selling here
Three distinct objects, often merged into one price.
The shoot: the time on site, the light, the number of shots, the product to handle.
The versions: each language is an extra recording, edit and check, not a simple translation of subtitles.
And the use: what the brand is entitled to do with the video, for how long and on which channels.
One direct consequence for negotiation: when a client finds the price high, ask which of the three columns they want to reduce. Nine times out of ten they reduce the use, which is the right trade-off for everybody.
The ranges, and the figure that counts
Three market benchmarks, to adjust for the product and the complexity.
A simple video, one language, organic use on the brand's accounts: that is the floor price, the reference for everything else.
The same video with advertising rights limited in time: expect a substantial uplift, generally of the same order as the production itself.
And a batch of three videos, one language, shot in the same session: the unit price drops markedly, because travel and setting up are paid for only once.
The figure that counts is none of those three: it is your real hourly rate, once you count scouting, exchanges, shooting, editing, revisions and invoicing. If that figure falls below what you would accept elsewhere, the quote is badly built, not badly paid.
The two levers that exist only in this market
The second language
That is the lever creators exploit worst.
A brand selling across the whole country needs two versions, and it rarely knows that when ordering. Offer it yourself, with a clear price and an honest reservation: a language you do not speak natively is subcontracted or declined, never improvised.
Three ways of selling it: two versions by the same bilingual creator, two creators coordinated on the same script, or a main version plus a subtitled version, cheaper and clearly presented as such.
The pack across both communities
That is the lever raising the basket without raising the work.
One shoot, two versions, two sets of subtitles, and a rights price calculated once for the whole. The brand gets national coverage, you get an order twice as big for a single trip.
One condition for it to hold: write both versions into the brief. Adding the second language after the shoot costs more than having planned it.
What each line of a price covers
| Component | What it pays for | How it is billed |
|---|---|---|
| Preparation | Script, location check, any purchase | A flat fee per order |
| The shoot | Time on site and the gear | Per video |
| The edit | Cutting, subtitles, exports | Per version |
| The licence | Media, duration, territory | As a separate extra |
What weighs on prices in a bilingual market
A second delivered language is not a free variant: it needs a voice, subtitles and a proofread. That line is billed, or it is declined.
What is re-read before sending a quote
What is included, what is not, the validity date and the payment date. Four lines that remove half the exchanges that follow.
What not to do
Four mistakes coming up constantly.
Announcing a price per video without stating the use: that is what produces the painful discussions three months later.
Offering the second language to win the order: it becomes a free standard, for you and for everybody else.
Charging rights as a percentage of the media budget: you will never see that budget, and the line becomes unverifiable.
And accepting sector exclusivity without pricing it: no longer being able to work for a competitor for a year is a real loss, and it is paid for.
One last marker, useful when the discussion stalls: offer a shorter period of use rather than a lower price. The client gets their budget, you keep your rate, and renewal at the end becomes a natural conversation.
