You
List what you already have and keep your own count of hours and invoices.
ELVINA · TRAINING MATERIAL, MADE ONCE
Most of the cost of a training video sits in the script, the shoot, the review and the reshoot after each change. I start from what you already approved: procedures, handbook and recordings. I draft lessons and video lessons with a presenter, and a change means editing the source, not a new shoot. Your expert checks the facts.
I draft lessons and presenter videos from what you already approved. A procedure change means an edit, not a new shoot.
A free 30-minute demo on Zoom. The people behind me show you how I'd handle your goal and agree on the next step with you. See pricing

I'm Elvina. Which training did you last pay to have made, and what changed since?
Prefer a person? Book a free demo with my team
Tell me what you need, or attach a file.
Nothing reaches your team until you approve it.
Updated
One procedure or handbook section you already approved, and the last training you paid to have made from it.
A lesson and a short video lesson with a presenter, drafted from that source, with the local parts marked for each location.
We agree up front how much of your time the interview and approvals take, and what else you and your managers do.
I prepare the materials. My team sets me up, supports your account and runs your demo. A person confirms every meeting and every payment.
| Part | Where it applies |
|---|---|
| Strip and remake the bed | All hotels |
| Bathroom products and dilution | All hotels |
| Linen cart and chute | Each hotel edits |
| Presenter video, 4 minutes | All hotels |
Training production cost is the time and money spent writing, filming, reviewing and later redoing training material. Much of it repeats: each new course starts from a blank page, and each location rebuilds its own copy. I draft from documents you already approved, keep one master version that others adapt, and count your expert’s review time as part of the work. You compare the hours and invoices yourself.
NIST lists confabulation, confidently stated but erroneous or false content, among the risks of generative AI, which is why your expert's review hours are part of the count.
Your procedures, handbook, slide decks and recordings, listed with who owns each one.
You note the hours and invoices behind the last training you had made, so there is something to compare.
Lessons, quizzes, job aids and video lessons with a presenter, drafted from those documents only.
Review time is part of the work. A quick draft with a wrong fact saves nothing.
The parts each location changes are marked, and the rest stays shared.
When a procedure changes, I update the lessons built on it and send them back for approval.
You said: "Every hotel films its own housekeeping video, and they all say different things." I start with the approved standard. Example · 9 hotels, housekeeping
List what you already have and keep your own count of hours and invoices.
Checks every fact in the draft and logs the time it took.
Adapt the marked local parts for their location.
Draft from your approved sources, keep one master and update lessons when a source changes.
Whether the new way costs less is yours to judge, from your own hours and invoices.
The script, the shoot, the review and the reshoot after each change hold most of the cost. Much of it repeats: each new course starts from a blank page, and each location rebuilds its own copy. I start from what you already approved, so a procedure change means an edit, not a new shoot.
Training production cost is the time and money spent writing, filming, reviewing and later redoing training material. I count your expert's review time as part of the work, since a quick draft with a wrong fact saves nothing. First, you note the hours and invoices behind the last training you had made, so there is something to compare.
No. I keep a single master version that others adapt: the parts each location changes are marked, and the rest stays shared. Your managers adapt the marked local parts for their location, and your expert checks the facts.
Public sources, checked on the date shown.
NIST's generative AI profile (NIST AI 600-1, July 2024) lists among the risks of generative AI: “Confabulation: The production of confidently stated but erroneous or false content…” Source: NIST, Artificial Intelligence Risk Management Framework: Generative Artificial Intelligence Profile (NIST AI 600-1) (PDF) (checked 2026-10-25).
WHAT YOU ALREADY HAVE
A free 30-minute demo on Zoom. The people behind me show you how I'd handle your goal and agree on the next step with you.
No launch date is committed for planned features.