Real people, real footage, judged on results.

A marketplace sells you deliverables; the difference here is the thinking either side of the shoot. Before it: choosing which objection each video exists to defeat, writing the hooks, casting someone your customer will believe, and getting the rights right. After it: testing the footage properly, reading hook, hold, click and conversion per concept, and briefing the next wave from what the numbers showed rather than from taste. Marketplaces are genuinely useful for volume once that system exists. Without it you tend to buy the same mediocre video repeatedly and learn nothing.

Often, and not always — the honest answer is that they do different jobs and the mix wins. Native footage tends to earn attention more cheaply in feed placements and carries credibility that a studio spot cannot buy. Emplifi's benchmarks reported user-generated content delivering 10x higher conversion rates than non-UGC posts, and Meta's own data reported by EMARKETER puts partnership ads at 19% lower cost per acquisition and 13% higher click-through. Polished work still earns its place for launches, brand campaigns and anything where craft is the message. We plan both and let the account decide the ratio.

Enough to keep testing without repeating yourself, which is a function of spend rather than ambition. A modest account can run on a handful of new concepts a month plus hook variants on whatever is winning; a heavy spender burns through creative faster and needs weekly delivery with a reserve of tested material ready. The distinction that matters is concept versus edit: twenty cuts of one idea fatigue together, while five genuinely different angles give you somewhere to go when one dies. We agree the monthly number in writing at the start and adjust it against results, not against enthusiasm.

You do, and the terms are written down before anything is shot. Every engagement includes paid usage rights with a defined duration and territory, named-talent consent for the platforms involved, and partnership or whitelisting permissions where we intend to run ads under a creator's handle. The paperwork is stored with the asset, so a winning ad never has to be paused because nobody can find the agreement. Where a creator wants a shorter term or a narrower territory, we price it and tell you plainly, because discovering a limit after an ad scales is the expensive way to learn it.

Yes, and it is often the strongest material you can get, because a real customer can describe the problem in the words your buyers already use. It takes more coordination: recruiting from your reviews or support list, coaching people who are not on camera weekly, keeping the ask small enough that they say yes, and getting consent in writing for paid use. We run that programme where the base supports it and pair it with hired creators for volume and speed. The mix also protects you: customer footage carries the credibility, creator footage keeps the testing pipeline full.

By deciding the language before the shoot rather than editing hope out afterwards. The brief carries the claims that are permitted, the wording that must appear verbatim, the disclosure requirements, and an explicit list of what may never be said or implied. Claims trace back to your own approved materials, so nothing arrives that your legal or medical reviewer has not already seen in principle. Where a category needs it, we build a review step into the schedule so approvals do not become the bottleneck, and we keep the approved script with the asset for the record.

In the ad account, on five numbers per concept: hook rate, hold rate, click rate, conversion rate and cost per acquisition. Read together they diagnose rather than just score — a weak hook is a scripting problem, a good hook with an early drop is pacing, watch time without clicks means the ad entertained without offering a reason to act, and clicks without orders points at the landing page. We also track how long a concept stays efficient, because a video that wins for six weeks is worth several that win for four days, and that lifespan is what makes a pipeline affordable.

Yes, and you should — it is usually the cheapest performance gain available. The same assets earn on product pages, in email and retention flows, in onboarding, on landing pages and in organic social, and Emplifi's benchmarks found UGC posts driving more website visits and higher average order values as well as 10x higher conversion rates. We plan for it at the briefing stage by capturing extra coverage and shooting for more than one ratio, and we clear rights for the placements you actually intend to use rather than for paid social alone. That decision costs almost nothing up front and a fortune to retrofit.

We price a monthly programme rather than per clip, because the value sits in the loop rather than in the file. A month covers concept development, casting and creator fees, production, editing to the placements you need, rights, and the testing read that briefs the next wave. Creator fees vary with the ask, the category and the usage term, so we quote them separately and transparently rather than burying them in a blended rate. A first wave is scoped as a fixed piece of work so you can judge the output before committing to a monthly cadence.

We can, and it shortens the loop considerably when the team briefing the creative is reading the results daily. Our paid social, TikTok and Meta buyers work from the same scorecard as the producers, so a winning hook gets variants within days. It is equally fine to buy the creative pipeline alone: we deliver cuts, briefs and the testing plan to your in-house buyers or your other agency, and we will happily read their results with them so the next wave still learns something.