Built around how you actually work

Two people in the same industry can need completely different editing systems. A SaaS founder posting from their phone between investor calls and a SaaS marketing team running a quarterly campaign calendar are both 'B2B software', but the raw material, the approval path, the tolerance for polish and the definition of success have almost nothing in common. Industry pages describe the market and its compliance profile. These pages describe the person: their week, their constraints, and the workflow that survives contact with their actual calendar.

If you recognise yourself in one of these roles, start there — the format recommendations will be closer to right than the industry page. If you sit between two, read both; the overlap is usually the plan.

In our production data the bottleneck for most clients is input, not output. Editing thirty shorts a month is a solved problem. Producing enough raw material worth cutting, getting it approved, and posting it on a schedule is where programmes die. That is why every role page below specifies what to record and how often, not just what we deliver.

The practical version for most roles is a single recurring recording block — ninety minutes to two hours a month, one camera, one decent microphone, a list of questions prepared in advance. That reliably yields fifteen to thirty short-form pieces plus a long-form asset. Everything else in the system exists to make that block happen without negotiation.

A description of what that role is genuinely buying, which is rarely 'video editing' and usually pipeline, authority or time back. A content system sized to their calendar. A recording brief. The metrics that matter to that role specifically, since a recruiter's success metric and a course creator's are unrelated. A cost and phasing plan. And an honest section on the signals that mean you should not start yet.

Every page also carries a benchmark slice and a format profile so you can compare what you are currently publishing against a working reference, plus a live planner so you can size the programme yourself before you talk to anyone.

Month one is calibration. We build the format spec, agree the recording cadence, produce the first batch and revise it harder than any later batch, because everything after this compounds off the standard set here. Expect more of your time in this month than any other: roughly one recording block, one detailed feedback pass, and one call to agree what good looks like.

Months two and three are pattern-finding. We publish enough volume across enough formats to see which structures your specific audience actually holds attention on, then start deliberately repeating the winners instead of guessing. By the end of month three most clients have two or three proven formats and a clear list of what to stop making.

Founders stall on recording time: the content is fine, the calendar empties because nobody blocked ninety minutes. The fix is a recurring calendar slot treated as immovable, not more enthusiasm. Marketing managers stall on approvals, where a three-person sign-off chain turns a two-day turnaround into a two-week one. The fix is naming one approver with authority to publish.

Coaches and consultants stall on repetition anxiety — the belief that saying the same thing again is boring — when in reality almost none of the audience saw it the first time and repetition is how positioning gets built. Agencies and in-house teams stall on capacity, which is exactly the case white-label or overflow support exists to solve.