PricingAn editor may be doing more than cutting
Someone has to find the story, notice the unusable take, correct the product name, choose what to leave out, and make the last line land. If your freelancer quietly handles all of that, replacing only the cutting tool leaves several jobs unassigned.
List what happens between the camera and the final file. Mark the decisions you can make, the repetitive work you want help with, and the tasks that need specialist judgment. That list is more useful than a claim that everyone is switching to one new app.
Three ways to change the arrangement
You can keep an editor for high-stakes pieces and use software for straightforward social cuts. You can hire a service for a predictable queue of work. Or you can own the brief and review yourself, using a tool such as Shorty to assemble supplied footage.
Shorty suits a clear direction applied to your media. It does not become your brand manager, interview producer, and final approver just because the cut is automated. Decide who owns those jobs before increasing the volume.
Pilot the repeatable part
Imagine a business that posts weekly demonstrations and makes one larger launch film each quarter. The weekly clips are a sensible trial: similar inputs, a familiar structure, and an obvious standard for accuracy. The launch film may still benefit from a dedicated editor.
Test the arrangement for a few real deliverables. Count late approvals, repeated corrections, and total effort. This guide does not claim to measure what the whole market is doing in 2026. It gives you a way to decide which work you can move without losing the judgment you were relying on.