Cheaper to make, not cheaper to control

As the concept videos of R03 became more ambitious, the production side produced lessons of its own.

Music. Suno played an important role. Generating an acceptable track is easy; making a coherent body of work is not. Every track required choices: which melody works, which voice fits, which line is too generic, which production too smooth, how much humour a track can take before it becomes novelty. The creative labour shifted to writing and rewriting, arranging, selecting, combining, rejecting and trying again.

Video. Generative video is probabilistic. You can steer, iterate and give references, but you do not direct it the way you direct a shoot. We used Neural Frames for longer, storyboard-style concept videos and Kling for short, strong shots and Canvas formats. A visually good shot can still become unusable. Other risks we met: loss of control, inconsistency, continuity breaks and expensive re-renders.

Cost. A simple clip could be made for around €15. A strong concept video could reach €100 or more, with tens of euros going into extra generations. That is still very cheap next to a conventionally produced video, but for a prototype it is real budget. The working question is when an extra render justifies its marginal gain in quality.

Artwork and rights. Artwork can be conceptually right and still be rejected for technical reasons. We now hold every cover to 3000 × 3000 px, JPEG, RGB; generation platforms do not check distributor specifications for you. Separately, an ad platform asked us to confirm the rights in one of our own campaign assets, and Amini Music B.V. documented its rights position. More generative workflows mean rights administration has to become more rigorous, not less.