Guide
Public tiers, then a quote: localisation decides which
The public plans meter video minutes and editor seats. The top tier is a quote rather than a number. Nine languages means nine times the minutes for roughly the same effort, so localisation is what moves a team off the published plans and onto a phone call. This page covers both meters, how to get two quotes you can actually compare, and what a short vertical ad costs on a table with no quote in it. By the end you will know which meter binds you and what to negotiate on.
- The two meters on the public tiers
- Minutes and seats
- Minutes consumed by a nine-language library, for one effort
- 9x
The public tiers and the quoted one answer different questions
Read the live page for the current allowances. The published tiers meter minutes of generated video and the number of people who can edit, and both get revised.
The top tier is priced on request, which frustrates people and is defensible. At that size the deal includes what a page cannot express: contract terms, a security review, support commitments and volume negotiated against your usage.
It does mean you cannot forecast enterprise cost from public information. What you can do is arrive with your own numbers so the quote is about your usage rather than about their template.
The public tiers matter even to an enterprise buyer, because they anchor the conversation. Arriving without having read them means negotiating against a number you have never seen.
Bring three: minutes per month after localisation, editors as distinct from reviewers, and the compliance requirements that will appear in procurement anyway.
Which meter binds first depends on how many languages you ship
A single-language team usually hits the seat limit first, because minutes go further than people expect when videos are short and the library grows slowly.
A localising team hits the minute limit first and hits it hard. The same forty-five minute library in nine languages is four hundred and five minutes, produced by the same two people who made the original.
That asymmetry is the whole reason this category exists. Traditional localisation multiplies cost by studio bookings, voice talent and scheduling. Platform localisation multiplies minutes and leaves the effort roughly flat.
So work out which meter binds before you compare tiers. The two teams above should buy differently. Anybody who has not asked will give them the same advice.
Minutes consumed by a 45 minute library
One production effort, four different bills. The minute meter is where localisation shows up.
- One language45 min
- Three languages135 min
- Six languages270 min
- Nine languages405 min
This is the whole editor
Highlight a phrase and a clip lands on those exact words. No timeline, no keyframes, no layers.
Localisation is where the arithmetic turns in their favour
Compare against what the same work used to cost rather than against another software plan. That is the comparison that decides whether a platform is worth a quote at all.
Nine language versions of a training module traditionally means nine bookings, nine voice artists, nine rounds of scheduling and nine sets of revisions when the product changes in March.
On a platform, the March change is one script edit and a regeneration in nine languages. The revision cost is where the saving lives, and it is invisible if you only price the first production.
Count the reshoots you avoided rather than the videos you made. That is the line a platform actually replaces, and it is the one that repeats every year.
Ask about regeneration explicitly. If a script edit rebills the full minutes in every language, your ongoing cost is a multiple of your launch cost and the tier has to carry that.
Get two comparable quotes by writing the same numbers down
Vendors quote against what you tell them, so two vendors given two different framings will produce two incomparable numbers.
Write one brief and send it to both. Minutes per month including localisation. People who edit, people who only approve. Retention, security and accessibility requirements. Expected revision frequency per asset.
Then ask both for the same three answers: price at your stated volume, price at double it, and what happens to unused allowance. The second number tells you how the deal ages when you succeed.
Do not negotiate on the sticker. Negotiate on the meter that binds you, because a discount on seats is worthless to a team constrained by minutes.
- Bring minutes after localisation, not minutes before it.
- Separate editors from approvers before anybody quotes seats.
- Ask what a script edit costs in every language.
- Ask for the price at double your stated volume.
One brief, two vendors, comparable answers
The same four inputs to both. Anything else and you are comparing two proposals that priced different jobs.
Localised minutes
Library size times language count
Editors and approvers
Counted separately, always
Revision frequency
How often the script changes
Compliance requirements
They surface in procurement anyway
At the other end, a table with no quote anywhere in it
For contrast, a tool where the entire bill is printed before you sign up.
A batch is 100 credits and covers transcription, the director pass and the b-roll search. Export is 20 credits per output minute, so a thirty-second ad costs 110 credits end to end. Nothing is priced per person and nothing is priced on request.
The trial is 7 days and 300 credits with no card. Basic is $39.99 a month for 2,500 credits, Premium is $79.99 for 5,000, and a top-up is $15 for 1,000.
Where it wins is the short vertical ad aimed at somebody who did not ask to see it. One filmed take goes in and a finished 9:16 MP4 comes out. The hook is directed, cutaways land on the words that need them, and captions are burned in for mute.
The facts a buyer needs beside that: one language per take, three minutes maximum at upload, 9:16 only, no approval workflow and no template library. Somebody films.
The trade is range against legibility. One language, one shape and one type of video, in exchange for a bill you can compute before you sign up.
Synthesia and Cutroom, meter against meter
Two rows go to Synthesia, and for an internal video programme they settle it. The other six are what a paid feed asks for.
| Synthesia | Cutroom | |
|---|---|---|
| Many languages | The reason to buy it | One take, one language |
| Approval workflow | Built for governance | No workflow at all |
| Cutaways on the words | Slides, not cutaways | Clip lands on the phrase |
| Captions burned in for mute | Styled separately | Six packs, one tap |
| Music under the voice | Bring your own file | Generated, 20 credits |
| Price you can read up front | Top tier on request | Published credit table |
| Feed-native short ads | Reads institutional | Hook, cutaways, pacing |
| Cost of one more reviewer | Often another seat | Nothing is billed per person |
Questions people ask
- Why do enterprise plans hide their price?
- Because the deal contains terms a page cannot express: security review, contract length, support commitments and volume negotiated against your usage. It is a real constraint on forecasting rather than a sales trick.
- How do I get a comparable quote from two vendors?
- Send both the same brief: localised minutes per month, editors separated from approvers, revision frequency and compliance requirements. Ask each for price at your volume and at double it, so you can see how the deal ages.
- Does regenerating after a script edit cost the full minutes?
- Usually yes, and across every language version. Ask explicitly, because a library revised twice a year has an ongoing cost that dwarfs the launch cost and it decides which tier you need.
- Is a seat needed for people who only approve videos?
- Rarely, and it is worth pushing on. Approvers can often work from shared links. Separating editors from approvers before the quote is the cheapest negotiating move available on a seat meter.
- Is there anyone who should ask for the quote instead?
- Any team whose video has to exist in several languages, pass an approval chain, or stay consistent across a library for years. Cutroom serves none of those. Localisation alone usually justifies the platform on its own arithmetic.
Work out which meter binds you, then negotiate on that one. Or take the table that needs no negotiating: 100 a batch, 20 an exported minute.