When a conference sells day passes, track passes and full registrations, the replay library may need more than one collection. Decide how those groups map to recordings before commissioning the final exports and catalogue. A folder labelled “conference videos” leaves the organiser to reconstruct an access scheme after editing, often with unclear session boundaries.
Begin with the organiser's approved entitlement rules, not assumptions about the ticket names. A day pass might include that day's recordings, a selected follow-up package or no replay at all. The production brief should implement the confirmed offer rather than decide what the registration terms ought to mean.
Draw the content map at session level
Make a grid with audience groups on one axis and deliverable recordings on the other. Mark inclusion, exclusion and anything awaiting a decision. Include plenary sessions, shared introductions and cross-track discussions. These are where an apparently simple division can become ambiguous.
Then inspect the source material. A recording that begins in one session and continues into another may need a clean boundary. A keynote can refer viewers to a restricted workshop. A combined question session may serve several tracks. Those relationships need editorial treatment rather than only different filenames.
Ask whether the same master can serve several groups. Reusing one approved session across collections is usually a simpler editorial proposition than commissioning near-identical edits for each audience. Where different treatment is necessary, name the actual difference: omitted discussion, a new introduction or a different supporting document.
Keep membership logic outside the edit
The editor can produce and label assets according to an approved map. Someone else must own who belongs to each audience group and how access is administered. Do not put personal attendee information into production filenames or ask the editor to infer eligibility from registration correspondence.
The platform owner should verify that the proposed collections can be delivered as intended. That check concerns the actual destination chosen for the event; it should happen before the team promises a particular access arrangement. If the platform cannot express the plan cleanly, revise the delivery design rather than creating an unexplained assortment of duplicate videos.
A hypothetical two day forum
An organiser offers a first-day industry overview and a second-day technical track. A closing panel includes speakers from both. The initial edit schedule places the panel only in the technical collection because that is where it happened. The approved registration offer, however, includes it for both groups. A session-level map catches the mismatch. The panel receives one shared master, while each collection has its own short navigation introduction.
Accept the collections as a set
Review a representative viewing route for every group. Confirm that the promised sessions are present, excluded sessions are not accidentally listed as available, and references to other content make sense. A correct individual file does not prove that the collection is correct.
Retain an authoritative asset map with version identifiers and the person who approved it. When a speaker later requests an edit, the map identifies every collection using that recording. This turns a potentially scattered replacement into a controlled change. The commission is complete when the organiser can account for the content each audience receives, not merely when all exports exist.
Discuss suitability
Contact Live Images to discuss the proposed recording, audience and delivery requirements. Discuss suitability, scope and availability for the proposed brief.
Editorial note
Original commissioning guidance prepared with AI assistance. Hypothetical examples are invented, not Live Images projects. This unpublished resource makes no service, legal or performance guarantee.