A campaign budget has four parts and only one of them moved much: strategy and concept, production, versioning, and usage rights. Generation compressed production, left versioning roughly where it was, and did nothing at all to strategy or rights. So a 2026 campaign quote that came down 20% is plausible, and one that came down 70% is quoting a different job. We are not publishing agency rates, which vary by market and scope with no checkable average, but the structure below is what you are actually buying.
The four parts
Strategy and concept. The brief, the platform, the idea, the direction. Unchanged in cost and arguably now the larger share, since it is what distinguishes campaigns whose production everyone can afford.
Production. Making the assets. The part that fell. What used to require a shoot day, crew, location, and talent for a set of environment and lifestyle shots is now largely generated, with the real product and real people still filmed.
Versioning. Every format, cutdown, caption variant, and localisation. Priced per version, and it did not fall much because reframing and re-timing is human work. On volume campaigns this is frequently the largest line after strategy.
Usage and rights. Talent, music, and licensed assets, priced by media, territory, duration, and exclusivity. Entirely unmoved by production method. See what is a usage licence.
The generation line, in real numbers
Canon 8frame prices, a credit is $0.01 in a top-up pack. A mid-size campaign:
| Item | Credits |
|---|---|
| 3 concept directions, style frames (Nano Banana Pro at 21) | 63 |
| 15 tested variants drafted (Veo 3.1 Lite at 54) | 810 |
| 3 premium finals (Veo 3.1 Standard at 448) | 1,344 |
| 8 supporting shots (Kling v3 Standard at 86) | 688 |
| Music bed + narration (Lyria 2, ElevenLabs TTS) | ~26 |
| Total | ~2,930 credits, about $29 |
Twenty-nine dollars. That is the entire generation cost of a campaign that would previously have needed a production budget, and it is why "what does the AI cost" is the wrong question. The line is now a rounding error against the people around it.
What that means for reading a quote
If a supplier's price barely moved, ask which of the four parts they are charging for. A quote that is mostly strategy and versioning is defensible; a quote that is mostly production for work that was generated is not.
If a quote fell dramatically, ask what was removed. Usually it is rounds, deliverable count, or usage term, and those reappear later as change orders.
Ask for the split: strategy, production, versioning, usage. Single-number campaign quotes are not comparable to anything, which is frequently the point.
What still costs real money
People who can judge. Fifteen variants need someone to decide which three ship. Production scaled; the number of people who can make that call did not, and that is now the binding constraint on most campaigns.
Talent and music rights. Unchanged, and a large share of many budgets.
Media. Not creative cost at all, and usually multiples of it. A campaign discussion that focuses on production savings while ignoring media efficiency is optimising the small number.
Localisation. Per market, per level. See how to localize creative for multiple markets.
FAQ
Did AI make campaigns cheaper? Production, yes and dramatically. Total campaign cost, modestly, because production was never the majority of a well-run campaign budget.
Where should the savings go? Either into margin or into volume: more tested variants for the same fee. Both are defensible; quietly billing the old number for the old volume is the one that gets found out.
How do I compare two campaign quotes? Force both into the same four-part split, with rounds, deliverable count, and usage term stated. Most apparent price differences are scope differences.
Production got cheap; deciding what to ship did not. Budget for the judgment. The 8frame canvas is free and unlimited, and generation is paid from $19/month.