Reading time: 10 minutes
How to reduce training content production costs without sacrificing quality
The production model determines the cost of training content more than volume or final quality.
Training budgets are not increasing, but the demand for content is: new products, regulatory changes, continuous onboarding, international expansion, and more. Every month there is something new to explain to the team, and less time and fewer resources to do it.
Most companies assume that reducing costs means reducing quality. Less production, worse materials, less impact. But that is only true if you always produce in the same way.
Today there are three production models for training content with very different costs, timelines and outcomes. Choosing the right model for each type of content has more impact on your budget than negotiating rates or cutting volume.
In this article, we offer a practical comparison of the three production models, with real cost data from the Spanish market, so you can decide which one fits your team, your volume and your budget.
Before comparing models, it is important to understand where the budget actually goes. Because the cost of a training module is not just “the video” or “the course.” It is the sum of several cost items that are rarely broken down.
The main ones are:
Producing one hour of eLearning content requires between 100 and 160 hours of work, depending on complexity.¹ To put that into perspective: a 5-minute module can require between 8 and 13 hours of development.
The issue is that most of that time is not spent on the content itself, but on the production process. And that is where the models differ.
There is no single “correct” model. Each one makes sense in different contexts. What matters is knowing how much each costs and what you get in return. Below are the three models we consider most relevant.
The classic model. You hire a production company or eLearning agency that handles everything: script, production, editing and delivery.
In Spain, a corporate video of 1 to 5 minutes can cost between €1,000 and €5,000, depending on complexity.² If production includes travel, professional voice-over or advanced motion graphics, it can exceed €4,000. For a full hour of interactive eLearning content, the average is around €20,000, with a range between €8,000 and €35,000.¹
Typical timelines for a training series range from 6 to 12 weeks, including revisions.²
Who is it for? High-value, long-lasting content: corporate videos, employer branding, leadership training. Where cinematic quality justifies the investment.
You build an internal team with an instructional designer, a video editor and possibly a graphic designer. You use authoring tools such as Articulate or Captivate (€1,000–€3,000 per year in licenses) and produce content yourself.
The unit cost decreases, but a significant fixed cost appears: salaries. And one bottleneck remains: audiovisual production. Filming, editing and post-production are still slow even when done internally. A module can take weeks from script to publication.
Who is it for? Companies with enough volume to justify a dedicated team and with content that does not change frequently.
The most recent model. You use professional AI video creation platforms that allow you to generate audiovisual content from a script or by importing an existing presentation. No camera, no studio, no editing team required.
Investment in a professional AI video platform ranges between €5,000 and €20,000 per year, depending on volume and features. It may seem significant until you compare it to what you actually save: production time for a 5-minute module drops from weeks to hours, updates are almost instant, and translation into multiple languages is automatic. The return is not in the tool’s price, but in the team hours and external production costs you eliminate.
**74% of training departments using AI video have reduced their audiovisual production budgets by up to 49%.**³
Who is it for? Especially companies with high turnover (continuous onboarding), international presence (standardization and automatic translation) or frequently updated content (compliance, product, processes). In these contexts, savings in team time and production costs far outweigh the platform investment.
| Indicator | Outsourced (agency) | In-house without AI | In-house with AI |
|---|---|---|---|
| Typical annual investment | €20,000–€100,000 (depending on volume) | €40,000–€80,000 (salaries + tools) | €5,000–€20,000 (platform) |
| Real cost per 5-min module | €1,000–€5,000 | €300–€800 (salary cost) | Included in platform |
| Production time | 4–12 weeks | 2–4 weeks | 2–8 hours |
| Required profile | None internally (fully outsourced) | Instructional designer + video editor | Content owner (no technical profile) |
| Scalability | Limited by budget | Limited by team capacity | High (same person, more volume) |
| Updates | Re-contract production |
AI does not replace human judgment in training. It replaces the production bottleneck that prevents that judgment from reaching the team.
No model is perfect. The key is being honest about trade-offs.
Outsourced production offers cinematic quality but sacrifices agility. Every change goes through the agency, every update has an additional cost, and content risks becoming outdated before it is fully amortized. For fast-expiring training (compliance, product updates, processes), it is the least efficient model.
In-house production without AI gives you full control, but the audiovisual bottleneck remains. Filming and editing video is slow. Many internal teams end up producing slide-based content simply because they lack the capacity for more.
AI-based production removes the speed bottleneck and frees trainers to focus on what really matters: designing effective learning experiences, not fighting editing tools. That said, it requires something the other models do not: a strong script. AI produces what you feed it. If the content is well thought out, the result is professional and scalable. If not, speed only amplifies the problem.
Where AI already matches or exceeds other models: brand consistency, scalability, update speed, multi-language production. It fits best in companies with high turnover, international presence or fast-expiring content. Where it still falls short: high-emotion, high-production institutional pieces that require on-camera human talent.
There is one type of content where the difference between models becomes dramatic: training that expires quickly.
Compliance and regulations, product updates, safety protocols, onboarding for new processes. In regulated sectors, content can become obsolete within weeks. And the cost of not updating it is not just pedagogical; it is legal and operational.
With outsourced production, updating a module means re-contracting, re-producing, re-reviewing. Weeks and thousands of euros for every change. With in-house production without AI, it is faster but still requires re-recording and editing. With AI, you update the script and regenerate the video in minutes.
The savings are not just in initial production. They are in the accumulated maintenance cost over the content’s lifetime. A module updated four times per year with outsourced production can cost more in maintenance than in creation.
We have analyzed in detail how to keep internal training up to date and the benefits of digitizing corporate content to avoid this issue.
In Spain, companies have access to annual subsidized training credits through Fundae. The issue is that most companies do not use these credits: according to available data, only around 20% apply for their subsidies.⁴
It is budget already allocated that is lost if not used. Many companies are unaware that content produced with AI tools can be integrated into subsidized training programs, provided it meets Fundae’s tracking and evaluation requirements. Platforms such as Vidext allow export in LMS-compatible formats (SCORM/xAPI), which facilitates integration, although full compliance also depends on how the training program is structured.
The recommendation is to consult your training advisor to verify current requirements and maximize available credit. In any case, the real return of a professional AI production platform goes beyond subsidies: it lies in the team hours you stop dedicating to production and the external costs you eliminate.
If you want to estimate the concrete impact in your case, Vidext offers an ROI calculator that projects savings based on your content volume and team size.
The cost of training content does not depend only on how much you produce, but on how you produce it. Choosing the right production model for each type of content can reduce costs by 60% to 80% without sacrificing quality.³
The practical recommendation is to combine models: outsourced production for high-value institutional pieces, and AI-based production for everything else (compliance, product, onboarding, processes). Most corporate training content does not require cinematic quality. It needs to be clear, up to date and delivered to the right people.
The bottleneck in corporate training is no longer budget. It is the production model.
It depends on the type of content. For operational training, compliance or product updates, the difference is irrelevant for learning outcomes. For more complex pieces, such as advertising spots, professional production still offers a superior finish.
With an agency in Spain, the typical range is €8,000 to €35,000 per hour of eLearning content, depending on complexity.¹ With a professional AI video platform, annual investment allows you to produce a much larger volume of content. But the real savings are not only in unit cost: they are in the team hours you free up and the maintenance costs you eliminate over time.
Yes, provided the content is exported in SCORM or xAPI format and integrated into an accredited LMS. The production format itself does not affect eligibility for subsidized training.
No. Current platforms allow a training manager without a technical profile to create video content from a script or by importing an existing presentation. If you can write a document, you can produce a video. If you are evaluating options, we have published a guide on how to choose an AI tool for internal training.
This is where changing the model has the greatest impact. With AI, updating a module is as fast as editing the script and regenerating the video. With outsourced production, every update requires re-contracting and re-producing, multiplying maintenance costs.
Yes, and it is recommended. Reserve outsourced production for high-value, long-lasting content. Use AI-based production for operational content, compliance and anything that requires frequent updates. That way you optimize budget without sacrificing quality where it truly matters.
¹ eLearning Content Development Cost Guide - Blue Carrot ² How much does a corporate video cost in Spain - Avanza Video ³ AI-Generated Video Creation Statistics 2025 - Zebracat ⁴ Data on subsidized training in Spain - Smartmind / Fundae
@ 2026 Vidext Inc.
Newsletter
Discover all news and updates from Vidext
@ 2026 Vidext Inc.
| Partial re-production |
| Edit script and regenerate |
| Multi-language | Additional cost per language (+30–70%) | Additional cost per language | Built-in automatic translation |
| Visual quality | High (professional production) | Medium-high (depends on team) | Medium-high (rapidly improving) |
| Brand control | Medium (depends on agency) | High | High |
| Team time savings | None (outsourced) | Low | High (frees trainer hours) |
