For developer tools companies whose last YouTube upload was eight weeks ago
Video editors who can read your codebase.
So your engineers stop fixing first drafts.
Every developer tools company we work with arrived the same way. A generic agency.
A first draft full of technical errors. Six review rounds. The marketing team gave
up on video without anyone saying it out loud. We exist to make that decision reversible.
Free reference guide on technical video performance. PDF, no call required.
Work we produced for the categories we serve
Unsolicited. Same standard as paid work. Production for the prospects we wanted in our portfolio before they wanted us in theirs.
Before we talk about what Lumaris costs
Look at what your current process is already costing.
production.diff
/// <summary>/// WITHOUT LUMARIS/// </summary>- 4-6 revision rounds before technical accuracy- 10-20 engineering hours per video reviewing terminology- Senior engineers pulled off product work for marketing review- Marketing-engineering tension on every release cycle- Channel goes dark after 3-6 months of revision friction/// <summary>/// WITH LUMARIS/// </summary>+ 1-2 revision rounds (style and pacing, not accuracy)+ Zero engineering hours per video+ Engineering team back on product+ Marketing and engineering aligned on output quality+ Sustained publishing cadence without team friction
A senior engineer at €100 to €150 per hour fully loaded. Four to six revision rounds of
technically wrong video. €3,000 to €5,000 per video before anyone outside your team sees a frame.
Four videos a month puts that hidden cost at €12,000 to €20,000.
Every month.
None of it appears on your video budget.
It shows up somewhere else. Engineering velocity. Marketing manager burnout.
The slow death of a content cadence nobody wants to defend in the next planning meeting.
Tell me if any of these match your situation right now.
—
Engineering has a Slack channel where they flag marketing video errors privately
—
Your last YouTube upload was more than eight weeks ago
—
Your demo videos contain at least one syntax error you noticed but didn't bother flagging
—
A senior engineer has gone on record saying video isn't worth the time
—
Your content marketing manager keeps a private list of facts the agency got wrong
Three structural differences
Three reasons your engineers will never touch our work.
We call this the First-Draft Standard. The mechanism behind it has three layers.
01 / 03 Editors with engineering backgrounds
The first draft is the real draft.
Every editor on the Lumaris team has shipped production code. CLI tools, Kubernetes clusters, authentication flows, deployment pipelines. They open Premiere with the same mental model your developers open VS Code.
When the editor understands what they're editing, the first draft is technically accurate. Not after revision three. Not after engineering review. On draft one.
A software engineer on the Lumaris team validates every CLI command, every API reference, every architecture diagram before any draft reaches your inbox. The check happens at our end, against current documentation, against the actual product running.
When a technical question comes up during production, we resolve it internally. The first time your engineers see the video is when they watch it published, like everyone else on the internet.
This isn't a process feature. It's a validation layer your competitors don't have, because they don't employ engineers. To copy it they'd have to rebuild their hiring pipeline from the ground up.
Every video also ships with structured transcripts, chapter markup, and schema-tagged captions optimized for AI search citation.
The Accuracy Guarantee
Find a technical inaccuracy in any deliverable. The next video is on us. No questions. No process. We can offer this because it has never been triggered. 200+ videos. Zero claims.
When editors understand the product, revision rounds collapse. The work that used to happen in cycles 1 to 3 (technical correction) happens before draft 1 ever leaves the studio. Cycles 1 to 2 become what they were always supposed to be, style and pacing alignment.
This isn't a service-level claim. It's a structural outcome of who's holding the editor.
“99% intro retention. One revision round
average.”
Antonio Erdeljac - CEO, Code with Antonio
lumaris_dev-validation-receipt.log
═════════════════════════════════════════════LUMARIS STUDIO · DEV VALIDATION RECEIPT═════════════════════════════════════════════
Client: Acme Corp
Project: Kubernetes Tutorial - Part 3 / Pod Networking
Delivered: 2026-05-12T14:33:00+01:00
Editor: Ognjan Stefanović
Validator: Stefan Kostić (Software Engineer)─────────────────────────────────────────────WHAT WE CHECKED─────────────────────────────────────────────✓ kubectl commands (12 instances)
✓ YAML manifests (4 manifests, 87 lines)
✓ Network topology diagrams (3 diagrams)
✓ API responses (6 examples)
✓ Tool versions (k8s 1.29, kubectl 1.29.2)
✓ CNI plugin references (3 plugins named)
─────────────────────────────────────────────FLAGS RAISED─────────────────────────────────────────────[2026-05-11 09:14]
Issue: kubectl flag deprecated in 1.29 --replicas (replaced with --replica-count in latest stable)
File: segment_04_pod_networking.mp4 @ 02:14
Action: Re-shot segment with current flag syntax
[2026-05-11 11:22]
Issue: Network diagram missing kube-proxy reference
File: segment_07_service_routing.mp4 @ 04:08
Action: Diagram updated with full service chain
─────────────────────────────────────────────CORRECTIONS APPLIED─────────────────────────────────────────────
Total flags raised: 2
Total corrected: 2
Total escalated to client: 0─────────────────────────────────────────────Validated and approved for delivery.─────────────────────────────────────────────
The artifact behind the guarantee
Every video ships with a Dev Validation Receipt.
A software engineer on our team checks every CLI command, every API reference,
every architecture diagram before the cut leaves the studio. The receipt
names what was checked, what was flagged, what was corrected, and against
which version of which documentation.
It's not a quality-control checklist. It's the artifact of the validation
layer working. Your team receives it with every video, alongside the .mp4 and the
source files. Forwardable, auditable, paper-trail proof for whoever signs off internally.
This is what makes the zero-syntax-error guarantee defensible.
WHAT THE RECEIPT SHIPS
Three videos that came through this system.
Every video Lumaris delivers carries a Dev Validation Receipt like the one above. These three were produced through that exact mechanism. Two were validated by the in-house dev team before delivery. One was produced unprompted as a demonstration.
Calibration edit example 4:32
GitButler - AI-assisted branch management
We produced this piece as a part of our callibration edit process with GitButler.
Demonstration work 2:14
Prisma - Developer database tooling
We produced this piece unprompted to demonstrate the kind of animated explainer videos we can produce.
Active retainer client 1:54
Error Tracking - IDE integration tutorial
We annonymized this segment from our active retainer work with the client, and changed the voice.
I spent a decade building the products you're trying to explain.
Marko Živić · Former GitHub Actions Team Lead · IBM Product Owner · Senior Engineer at Euronext and Paceteq.
I didn't leave engineering to run a video agency. I left because I watched technically brilliant products
get killed by content that looked polished and was factually wrong.
Developers noticed. Comment sections turned hostile. Marketing teams stopped trying. Engineering teams
blamed marketing. Nobody fixed the root problem.
When your video editor doesn't understand your product, you become their technical support.
The video industry built itself around generalist agencies serving every category at once. That model works
for consumer brands. It fails the moment your audience can read code.
A developer watching a Kubernetes tutorial doesn't grade production value. They grade whether the commands work.
The agency that doesn't know the difference produces content the audience rejects.
Lumaris exists for one specific buyer. A developer tools company whose marketing team has been burned by a generic
agency, whose engineering team has quietly stopped reviewing marketing content, and whose YouTube channel went
dark twelve months ago.
This isn't differentiation. It's a different kind of company.
Four numbers. Each one is what changes when the editor has shipped code.
13.4%
Average CTR across active client work
Industry benchmark: 2–6%
99%
Viewer retention through intros
Across 200+ delivered videos
200+
Technical videos built & delivered
CI/CD, DevOps, API platforms, cloud infrastructure
0
Syntax errors across all content
Validated by in-house dev team
These aren't projected numbers. They're observed across active client work
and verified Clutch reviews.
Three ways in. Pick the one that matches where you are.
Start with the free reference guide. The retainer conversation comes later.
The reference guide is a PDF covering every metric that matters for technical video performance, retention curves,
CTR benchmarks, drop-off patterns by content category. No call required. You read it in fifteen minutes and decide
if any of it changes how you think about your channel.
If you want feedback on your specific content, the audit is the next step. A 5 to 10 minute Loom from Marko, delivered
in 48 hours, naming three issues hurting your retention right now. If you're already deciding between agencies,
the 15-minute fit call is the right entry.
