Looking for a Cohley alternative

Most comparisons on this site are between different species. This one is not. Cohley commissions content through briefs, charges no markup on what creators are paid, and hands over perpetual content rights, which is very close to how we think the category should work. The differences are narrower and therefore more useful: how much you must commit before you find out whether it suits you, whether the price is on a page or in a proposal, and what is written down about the case where an asset comes back unusable. If you are choosing between them and us, you are choosing between two reasonable answers, and the deciding factor is usually the size of the first commitment.

What Cohley is actually good at

The commercial structure, first of all, which is more honest than most of this category manages.

• No markup on creator compensation. Creators are paid directly at rates the brand sets, so there is no hidden spread between what you pay and what they receive.
• Perpetual content rights, which removes the expiry problem that catches brands out on several competing platforms.
• Volume per brief. Ten to twenty assets from a single brief is more throughput than our six-asset entry package.
• Breadth of creator supply, which lets a brief fill quickly across categories and locations.

At the upper end of a brief, twenty assets for three thousand dollars is around a hundred and fifty dollars each, which is below anything we can offer. That is a straightforward point in their favour and we are not going to argue it away.

Where the model differs

Both of us commission rather than resell, so the difference is in the commercial wrapper rather than the production philosophy.

The first difference is who sets the rate. Cohley has the brand set it and takes nothing from the creator side, which is clean. We agree a fee with each creator in writing, pay it ourselves and sell you the finished work at one package price that includes our margin. If you ask what the creators were paid, we will tell you. Cohley shows you the creator rate up front and we show you one total, and which you prefer is a matter of taste rather than ethics.

The second difference is the size of the first step. A three-month pilot is a reasonable way to run a programme and a large ask for a brand that wants to test the channel once. Our smallest package is a single purchase at twelve hundred and fifty dollars with nothing to renew, which is a smaller bet and a smaller quantity of content.

What it costs, both ways

Their figures are indicative because pricing is quoted rather than published. Ours are on the packages page and do not move.

Read the volume row carefully when you compare. A brief that fills at twenty assets is excellent value, and the same brief filling at ten is close to our price with a longer commitment attached. Ask what the fill rate has been on briefs like yours before you assume the top of the range.

The questions worth asking either of us

Five, in this order. They apply to us as much as to anyone and we will answer all five before you spend anything.

1. What happens to the price if the brief only fills halfway? A per-asset rate and a per-brief rate behave very differently there.
2. Where exactly does a revision end and a reshoot begin, and is that distinction written down or decided later?
3. Does perpetual cover the soundtrack as well as the footage, in writing, on every asset?
4. What is the total first-year commitment including any pilot, and what does month four cost if you stop?
5. Who is liable if a creator makes a claim your product cannot support, and who reviews the caption before it posts?

Any supplier worth hiring will answer all five without hesitation. The order matters because the first two decide the price you actually pay and the last three decide what you own afterwards.

When Cohley is the better buy

Where their structure suits you better than ours.

• Your brief fills at the top of its range. Twenty assets for around three thousand dollars is roughly a hundred and fifty apiece, which is below our best per-asset price.
• You prefer to set creator rates yourself. Their structure pays creators directly at your stated rate with no markup, and some brands want that visibility.
• You are committing to a quarter anyway. A three-month pilot suits a funded programme, and a single package is the wrong shape for that plan.
• You need more creators than our roster holds. A larger supply pool fills a big brief faster than we can, and we will say so rather than overpromise a date.

Which one suits which brand

A straightforward split, and there is no shame in either column.

• You want volume and can commit to a quarter: their per-asset economics improve with scale and a pilot is a reasonable structure for a funded programme.
• You want to buy once and see: our smallest package exists precisely for that and there is nothing after it unless you want there to be.
• You want a number before a call: ours are published, theirs are quoted, and some buyers strongly prefer one or the other.
• You need written recourse on a bad asset: ask both and compare the actual clause rather than the reassurance.