Most agencies organize footage by client first, then by job, then by shoot date. Everyone follows one naming convention, access is set at the client level, and there's a written rule for what happens to a client's footage when the work ends. Storage, a MAM or a search tool can sit on top of that structure, but none of them replaces it. The line between clients is the one boundary that should never blur, and every other decision follows from it.
Client first, job second
A folder tree that holds up over time usually looks like this: client, then job or campaign number, then shoot date, then camera or card. Inside each job, keep raw footage, project files, selects, exports and delivered masters separate, so nobody has to guess which file went to the client.
Put client first because most of the other work hangs on that level. Access, offboarding, billing questions and "send us everything from 2023" requests all happen per client. If the top level is the year or the editor's name, each of those becomes a hunt across the tree.
Filenames should carry the same information, so a clip still makes sense when it's dragged out of its folder: date, client code, job, camera, clip number. What matters is that the whole team uses one pattern, not which pattern you pick. Write it down, pin it where people will see it, and give one person the job of fixing drift.
Decide where the master copy lives
Every clip needs one master location and a known backup. Working copies on laptops and in editing projects are fine as long as everyone knows they're copies. Most agencies that get confused about footage have two or three "masters" and no idea which one is current.
Settle retention with the client, not just internally. Some clients expect you to keep raw footage for years, some want it returned or deleted at the end of the contract, and some never think about it until they need a shot. Put the answer in the contract and in a note inside the client folder.
Logging and selects decay fastest
Log sheets, selects bins and markers are what make a job's footage usable after the edit ships. They're also the first thing skipped when a deadline gets close. The cost is someone's time during the job. The limit is that a log only records what the logger thought mattered at the time, so the shot a client asks for a year later is often the one nobody logged.
When a MAM or DAM is worth it
Once the team is too big to know where everything is by memory, a media asset management system adds shared metadata, proxies, review and per-client permissions on top of your storage. The cost is setup, migrating existing footage and ongoing admin. For a small agency with a handful of clients, disciplined folders and naming usually cover the same ground. If you're not sure which kind of system you'd even need, the difference between a DAM and a MAM is the first thing to sort out.
Search inside one client at a time
The newest layer is search by description: you upload a client's footage into a separate searchable project, it's indexed once, and you can then ask for "the moment the product first appears on screen" or "the wide shot of the warehouse". A precise search returns short time ranges, each with a line explaining what's on screen, so you can check a match without scrubbing the whole file. This keeps the same client-first boundary as your folders, as long as each client gets its own project. The costs are the upload step and remembering that this is a search copy, not the master. The limit is that it only knows what you've uploaded.
Vivu follows that structure: one private project per client, and a search only runs inside the project you choose. When a client asks for last spring's product shot, someone types a description into that client's project and opens the time ranges that come back, instead of scrubbing through the job folder. Setting this up client by client is covered in one searchable library per client, and the search itself in finding a specific shot in one client's footage.
When folders are enough
If you have a few clients, short jobs, and the person who shot the footage is usually the one editing it, a clean folder tree and a naming rule are all you need. More systems start to pay off when people change, clients come back years later, or requests arrive for footage nobody on the current team shot.
The test is simple. Ask how long it would take someone new to find a specific shot for a client who left two years ago. If the answer is "a few minutes, by following the folders", you're organized. If the answer involves someone's memory, fix the structure before you buy a tool.
FAQ
Should each client get a separate drive or just a separate folder?
For most agencies, a separate top-level folder per client on shared storage is enough, as long as permissions are set at that folder. Separate drives make sense when a client's contract requires physical separation or when their footage is large enough to need its own storage anyway.
What should an agency do with client footage after the contract ends?
Follow whatever the contract says, and if it says nothing, ask the client and write down the answer. The usual options are keeping it for a set period, handing it over, or deleting it.
Record the decision in the client folder so the next person doesn't have to guess.
Is it a good idea to search all clients' footage at once?
Usually not. Mixing clients in one searchable pool risks putting another client's shot into a brief or a pitch. Keeping search per client, on the same boundary as your folders, avoids that.
It also keeps results shorter and easier to check.
Who should own the naming convention at an agency?
One named person, usually a post supervisor, an assistant editor or an operations lead. They write the rule, fix files that drift from it, and answer questions.
A convention that belongs to "everyone" tends to stop being followed within a few jobs.