Corporate video production London vs in-house: cost comparison for startups
Corporate video production London vs in-house cost comparison for startups. In-house costs £55k-£65k/year vs £1,500-£3,000 per project outsourced. Break-even at 8-10 videos/month
This question usually pops up around Series A. Or that moment when content output starts ramping up and the founder suddenly realises they’re spending half their week briefing freelancers. “Should we just hire someone in-house?”. It's the classic corporate video production London vs in-house debate. The logic makes sense...
We're spending £3,000 a month on video production agency London teams. A full-time videographer salary London is maybe £35k–£45k. So... we'd break even in a year and have someone dedicated full-time, right? Sometimes. But usually the maths is more complicated than that. And the hidden costs - management time, creative fatigue, equipment, software, coverage when they're off - add up faster than most startups expect.
We're spending £3,000 a month on video production agency London teams. A full-time videographer salary London is maybe £35k–£45k. So... we'd break even in a year and have someone dedicated full-time, right? Sometimes. But usually the maths is more complicated than that. And the hidden costs - management time, creative fatigue, equipment, software, coverage when they're off - add up faster than most startups expect.
- Here's the actual cost comparison, what you're really paying for on both sides, and how to figure out which makes sense for your stage.
The real cost of in-house video production in London
A videographer in London costs £35k–£50k depending on experience. That's the number most startups start with. But it's not the full picture.
And you also need…
- Editing softwareAdobe Creative Cloud runs £50-£60/month per license. Not huge. But it's ongoing. And if you want stock footage, music libraries, or assets... those add up.
- EquipmentCamera, lenses, audio, lights, tripod, gimbal - the whole “small production company in a bag” situation. And if you want it to actually match the quality you’ve been outsourcing, you’re looking at what… £8k-£15k upfront. Then add maintenance, insurance, and the fact that something will eventually break or need replacing. It’s not a one-time purchase, basically.
- Office spaceDesk space. Quiet space, ideally - because trying to edit audio in an open-plan office is… not a serious plan. Minor cost, but it's still a cost.
- Training and developmentVideo production changes fast. New tools. New formats. New platform specs. If your person isn't keeping up, the work starts looking dated. That means training budget or time off for courses.
- Management timeThis is the big one. Someone needs to brief them. Review their work. Give feedback. Approve edits. That's probably you or your head of marketing. Call it 3-5 hours a week. Maybe more if they're new to the company or junior.
Add it up and the first-year cost isn't £40k. It's closer to £55k–£65k once you factor in equipment, software, management overhead, and recruitment.
What startups usually underestimate
The costs above are tangible. But there are a few things that don't show up in spreadsheets until later.
Creative fatigue
One person making all your video content, week after week, for months. That's hard. We've seen companies hire in-house and within six months the founder's asking, "Why does everything feel a bit samey?" Not because the person's bad. Just because creativity compounds better with variety. And one person doesn't have that.
Coverage gaps
Holidays. Sick days. Parental leave. When your videographer's off, production stops. Or you scramble to find a freelancer who doesn't know your brand or your workflow. That gap is expensive. Either in lost time or in paying someone else to fill in.
Scalability limits
One person can handle maybe 3–5 projects a week if they're filming and editing everything themselves. If demand spikes - product launch, big event, sudden campaign push - they're maxed out. You either delay things or bring in external help anyway.
Fast turnaround challenges
Same-day edits? 48-hour delivery? That's brutal to maintain internally. It requires your videographer to drop everything else. And if they're already managing three other projects... something breaks.
Agencies with producer-led production can absorb those spikes because they have systems and capacity. In-house teams... usually can't. Not without burning out.
When in-house actually makes sense
This isn't a "never hire in-house" piece. Sometimes it's the right move.
In-house usually makes sense in a few situations. If you've got consistent, high-volume work - like 10+ pieces a week. Or if you need someone embedded in the culture who deeply understands the product. If you're okay with slower iteration and you've got management capacity to own creative direction. For startups at Series B or later with established content calendars... yeah, in-house often makes sense.
This isn't a "never hire in-house" piece. Sometimes it's the right move.
In-house usually makes sense in a few situations. If you've got consistent, high-volume work - like 10+ pieces a week. Or if you need someone embedded in the culture who deeply understands the product. If you're okay with slower iteration and you've got management capacity to own creative direction. For startups at Series B or later with established content calendars... yeah, in-house often makes sense.
What corporate video production London agencies actually give you
When you hire corporate video production London teams, you're not just paying for filming and editing. You're paying for infrastructure.
Producer-led structure. You don't manage the crew. The producer does. You brief once. They handle the rest. That saves you 3–5 hours a week. Which is... a lot when you're a founder.
Fast turnaround systems. Agencies that do same-day or 48-hour delivery have editors on standby, workflows tested, and backup capacity. That's hard to replicate internally unless you hire multiple people.
Scalability. Need one video this month and five next month? Outsourcing flexes. In-house doesn't. You're paying the salary whether you use them or not.
When you hire corporate video production London teams, you're not just paying for filming and editing. You're paying for infrastructure.
Producer-led structure. You don't manage the crew. The producer does. You brief once. They handle the rest. That saves you 3–5 hours a week. Which is... a lot when you're a founder.
Fast turnaround systems. Agencies that do same-day or 48-hour delivery have editors on standby, workflows tested, and backup capacity. That's hard to replicate internally unless you hire multiple people.
Scalability. Need one video this month and five next month? Outsourcing flexes. In-house doesn't. You're paying the salary whether you use them or not.
Experience variety. Agencies work across industries, clients, and formats. That cross-pollination brings ideas and techniques your in-house person might not have. Not because they're less talented. Just because they're working in one context all the time.
No coverage gaps. If someone's on holiday, the agency handles it. You're not left scrambling or delaying work.
The trade-off? Less control. Less brand immersion. And you're coordinating with external teams instead of tapping someone on the shoulder.
But for early-stage startups, those trade-offs usually beat the alternative.
No coverage gaps. If someone's on holiday, the agency handles it. You're not left scrambling or delaying work.
The trade-off? Less control. Less brand immersion. And you're coordinating with external teams instead of tapping someone on the shoulder.
But for early-stage startups, those trade-offs usually beat the alternative.
The cash flow question
Here's the thing that matters most for VC-backed teams watching burn rate. Hiring in-house is a fixed cost. £40k salary. £10k equipment. Ongoing software and overhead. That cost hits every month whether you're filming or not. Outsourced video production is variable. You pay when you need it. Nothing when you don't.
That flexibility matters when runway is tight. Because hiring someone full-time increases your monthly burn by £3k–£4k minimum. And if six months later you realise the volume doesn't justify it... you're stuck. Or you're letting someone go. Which is expensive and demoralising.
Outsourcing lets you test volume first. Film regularly for six months. Track what you’re actually spending. Then you’ll see pretty quickly if the workload genuinely justifies a full-time hire. Then hire if it does. Starting with in-house means committing before you know. And for startups, premature commitment is risky.
That flexibility matters when runway is tight. Because hiring someone full-time increases your monthly burn by £3k–£4k minimum. And if six months later you realise the volume doesn't justify it... you're stuck. Or you're letting someone go. Which is expensive and demoralising.
Outsourcing lets you test volume first. Film regularly for six months. Track what you’re actually spending. Then you’ll see pretty quickly if the workload genuinely justifies a full-time hire. Then hire if it does. Starting with in-house means committing before you know. And for startups, premature commitment is risky.
How we've seen this play out
We work with a lot of startups. And the pattern is pretty consistent.
One Series A fintech we worked with tried hiring in-house at 4 videos a month. Within six months they realized the workload didn't justify it and the person was spending half their time on non-video tasks. They went back to outsourcing and only hired when they hit consistent 10+ videos monthly.
Early stage (pre-seed, seed): They outsource everything. Content volume is low. Budget's tight. Flexibility matters more than having someone in-house.
Series A: Volume picks up. They start thinking about hiring. Sometimes they do. Sometimes they do the maths and realise outsourcing still makes more sense - because the workload isn’t consistent. It spikes randomly, then goes quiet, then spikes again.
One Series A fintech we worked with tried hiring in-house at 4 videos a month. Within six months they realized the workload didn't justify it and the person was spending half their time on non-video tasks. They went back to outsourcing and only hired when they hit consistent 10+ videos monthly.
Early stage (pre-seed, seed): They outsource everything. Content volume is low. Budget's tight. Flexibility matters more than having someone in-house.
Series A: Volume picks up. They start thinking about hiring. Sometimes they do. Sometimes they do the maths and realise outsourcing still makes more sense - because the workload isn’t consistent. It spikes randomly, then goes quiet, then spikes again.
But once they hit Series B and beyond, and the volume’s properly steady - like 8+ pieces a month - that’s usually when in-house starts to make sense for the day-to-day stuff. But they still outsource for big projects, events, or anything that needs fast turnaround video under pressure. That hybrid model works well. In-house for predictable, ongoing content. Agencies for spikes, events, or anything where speed and producer oversight matter.
The companies that struggle are the ones who hire too early. Before volume justifies it. Before they've figured out what content actually drives results. And then they're managing someone who's underutilised or working on things that don't matter.
That's expensive. And it slows everything down.
The companies that struggle are the ones who hire too early. Before volume justifies it. Before they've figured out what content actually drives results. And then they're managing someone who's underutilised or working on things that don't matter.
That's expensive. And it slows everything down.
Corporate video production London vs in-house: the stage question
Most founders think, “Ok, we’re taking video seriously now… so we probably need someone in-house.”
But honestly, being serious doesn’t always mean hiring a full-time person. It means consistency and quality. And you can get that through outsourcing if the systems are right. The decision isn't "are we serious about video?" It's "do we have the volume, management capacity, and predictability to justify fixed cost?"
If yes... hire.
If no... outsource and revisit in six months.
We've worked with ambitious startups that film constantly and still outsource everything. Not because they don't value video. But because outsourcing gives them speed, flexibility, and producer-led production without the overhead. And we've worked with companies that hired in-house too early, realised it wasn't working, and quietly came back to agencies while figuring out what to do with the underutilised videographer they'd committed to.
But honestly, being serious doesn’t always mean hiring a full-time person. It means consistency and quality. And you can get that through outsourcing if the systems are right. The decision isn't "are we serious about video?" It's "do we have the volume, management capacity, and predictability to justify fixed cost?"
If yes... hire.
If no... outsource and revisit in six months.
We've worked with ambitious startups that film constantly and still outsource everything. Not because they don't value video. But because outsourcing gives them speed, flexibility, and producer-led production without the overhead. And we've worked with companies that hired in-house too early, realised it wasn't working, and quietly came back to agencies while figuring out what to do with the underutilised videographer they'd committed to.
The corporate video production London vs in-house debate doesn't have one right answer. But one path is usually lower risk when you're early stage and still figuring things out.
What actually makes sense for your stage
Here's a rough guide:
- Pre-seed / Seed (1–3 videos a month)Outsource. The volume doesn't justify full-time. You need flexibility more than familiarity.
- Series A (4–7 videos a month)Probably still outsource. Unless you've got very consistent, repeatable content (like weekly product demos) that follows the same structure every time.
- Series B+ (8+ videos a month)Consider hybrid. In-house for routine work. Outsource for events, fast turnaround, or anything that needs producer oversight and experienced crews.
- High-pressure moments (product launch, big event, fundraise)Outsource. Even if you have in-house. Because the risk of something going wrong is too high, and agencies absorb that risk better.
The companies that get this right don't frame it as “agency vs in-house.” They frame it as “what's the most efficient way to get the content we need without overcommitting or underdelivering?” That’s the logic behind most effective corporate video strategies. And the answer to that question changes as you scale. You'll know when it's time to hire in-house. Because the volume will be obvious. The management bandwidth will exist. And the predictability will be there.
Until then… outsourcing usually just makes more sense. Not because it's better. But because it's appropriate for where you are.
Until then… outsourcing usually just makes more sense. Not because it's better. But because it's appropriate for where you are.
That's usually how the decision lands.
FAQ
Is it cheaper to hire an in-house videographer or outsource video production in London?
In-house video can look cheaper on paper, but once you include salary, equipment, software, management time, and coverage gaps, it often costs £55k–£65k per year. Outsourcing video production in London lets startups pay only when they need content, which is usually lower risk in early stages.
How much does an in-house videographer cost in London?
A full-time videographer salary in London typically ranges from £35k–£50k. When you add equipment (£8k–£15k), software subscriptions, training, and management overhead, first-year costs usually exceed £55k.
How much does corporate video production cost in London for startups?
Startup video production in London typically costs between £1,500–£3,000 per filming day, depending on crew size and turnaround. Ongoing outsourced work often ends up cheaper than in-house until a startup reaches consistent high volume.
When does it make sense for a startup to hire an in-house video team?
Hiring in-house usually makes sense at Series B or later, when content volume is predictable (8+ videos per month), internal creative direction is established, and management capacity exists to support a full-time hire.
Why do startups struggle with fast turnaround video in-house?
Fast turnaround video requires systems, backup capacity, and producer oversight. In-house teams often struggle to maintain same-day or 48-hour delivery without burnout, especially during launches or events.
What are the hidden costs of an in-house video team?
Hidden costs include creative fatigue, reduced output during holidays or sick leave, slower scaling during busy periods, and founder or marketing time spent managing production rather than strategy.
Why do startups outsource video production instead of hiring early?
Outsourcing protects cash flow, offers flexibility, and provides experienced producer-led teams without long-term commitment. This lets startups test what video content actually works before locking into fixed costs.
Can startups use both in-house and agency video production?
Yes. Many growing startups use a hybrid model - in-house for routine content and outsourced video production for events, campaigns, or fast turnaround projects where risk and pressure are higher.
What's the break-even point for hiring in-house vs outsourcing video production?
Most startups break even around 8-10 videos per month of consistent output. Below that volume, outsourcing usually costs less when you factor in equipment, software, management time, and coverage gaps. Above it, in-house starts making financial sense - but only if you have the management bandwidth.
Can a startup scale video content without hiring in-house?
Yes. Many startups produce 10+ videos monthly through outsourced teams. The key is working with agencies that have producer-led systems and fast turnaround capabilities. Scaling through outsourcing offers more flexibility than hiring when content volume fluctuates.
© All rights reserved. We stream
team@westream.uk
team@westream.uk