A delivery folder can contain several files whose names make sense to the editor but not to the people who will use them. A label such as final revised latest tells a colleague little about the intended audience, language or destination. The buyer should agree how delivered versions will be identified before the collection grows.
The aim is practical selection. Someone who did not attend the edit review should be able to choose the correct approved asset without opening every file or guessing from its size.
Identify the distinctions users need
List the differences that affect use: audience, language, orientation, duration or another agreed version characteristic. Not every technical detail belongs in the filename. Include what helps the organisation distinguish the actual outputs.
Keep the terms familiar to the people receiving the files. An internal production abbreviation may be efficient during editing while remaining opaque to a sales team or website administrator.
Avoid relying on a numbered sequence to communicate purpose. Version three may be newer than version two, but it may also be a different audience cut rather than a replacement. The naming system should not force users to infer that relationship.
Separate identity from approval state
A filename can identify an asset, but the organisation still needs a clear record of whether it is approved for the intended use. Do not treat the word final as a substitute for that decision.
Agree how superseded and current versions are distinguished in the delivery record. If a new file replaces an earlier one, say so explicitly. If both remain valid for different uses, record the difference.
Keep review copies outside the ordinary delivery route where possible. A useful naming system should reduce confusion, not depend on every colleague remembering which folder once contained provisional work.
Include a readable delivery map
A short index can connect each file to its purpose and relevant limitations. This is particularly useful where long technical filenames are unavoidable or several outputs look similar at a glance.
The index should describe the agreed use in plain language. It can identify the main website version, an internal presentation cut or a version with a particular language treatment without assuming that the reader understands production terminology.
Update the map when a file changes. A clear filename paired with an outdated index can still send someone to the wrong asset.
A hypothetical delivery problem
A fictional contractor receives two approved films: a public case study and an internal version containing additional operational context. Both filenames begin with the same project name and end with different edit numbers.
The delivery is revised so the audience distinction is visible and the index explains which version may be used where. Staff no longer have to assume that the highest number is suitable for every purpose.
Test the handover with a new user
Ask someone outside the production team to locate a specified version using only the delivery information. If they need verbal guidance, improve the naming or index before wider circulation.
Good version naming makes the approved asset family usable. It preserves the meaning of the production choices after the editor and project sponsor are no longer present to explain them.
Discuss the brief
Contact Live Images with the proposed audience, production needs and intended use. Confirm suitability, scope and availability for the particular brief.
Editorial note
Original production-planning guidance prepared with AI assistance. Examples are hypothetical, not completed Live Images projects. Search intent is an editorial hypothesis, not measured demand. This draft remains unpublished.