The tutorials are all about the cutting, which is the part software already does. The reason people stop is the shape of the rest of it: shared budgets, delayed money, submissions voided by a rule in line nine. Here is the evening as it actually runs, so you can decide from the real version.
No income screenshots on this page and no projections. SnapDub sells a tool; what a campaign pays is between you and that campaign.
Finding and reading a brief is twenty minutes, and it is the highest-leverage twenty minutes in the whole process - a misread brief voids everything after it. Producing clips from a recording is minutes with a tool and hours without one. Posting them across accounts, with the required caption, tags and credit on each, is the part nobody films: it is dull, it is per-clip, and it is where requirements get missed.
Then nothing happens for weeks. The counting window has to close, verification has to run, the anti-fraud hold has to pass, the platform has to reach its payout date. Five waits, none of them yours - in order, with who owns each.
The gap between the work and the money is longer than the gap between starting something and losing interest in it. People who last are usually the ones who submitted enough in week one that week four has something arriving in it.
A submission voided for a missing hashtag, or as a duplicate of somebody else's cut, reads as a judgement on the work. It is a checklist. The six reasons are all mechanical and most are avoidable, but only if you know they exist before the first one happens.
Short-video distribution is high-variance by design: most clips find nobody and a few find everybody. Judging the idea on your first three clips is judging a coin toss. The people who keep going are running volume, which is a production decision made on day one, not a motivational one made later.
They work more than one campaign. One frozen payout or one exhausted budget then costs a fraction of the month rather than all of it.
They get more submissions out of each recording. The brief-reading, the account setup and the waiting are fixed costs; the number of clips is the only part that scales. Several genuinely different moments from one source, not the same cut reposted - duplicates are a rejection reason and repetition looks like a farm.
They stop hand-applying the brief. Branding, caption style, fonts and any required on-screen asset set once per campaign as a template, so every clip in the batch carries them and nothing depends on remembering at eleven at night.
All three are the reason SnapDub exists in this shape: a long recording in, a set of distinct finished vertical clips out, with the campaign's own look applied to the whole batch. The free plan is 500 credits a month with no card, which is enough to find out whether the rest of it suits you before paying anybody anything.
The honest answer is that it depends on how many campaigns you run and how much of the production you have automated. The fixed part - reading briefs, setting up accounts, posting and tagging - does not shrink, so people who treat it as a weekly slot rather than a daily habit tend to last longer.
Not for the cutting, which tools do. What you do need is the discipline to read a brief properly and the patience to keep posting through a fortnight where nothing has arrived yet.
The number of campaigns and the money moving through them has been growing, not shrinking, and new briefs open constantly. What has changed is that the obvious moments in any popular source are taken quickly, which is an argument for speed and volume rather than for staying out.
A computer or a phone and the accounts you will post from. Nothing about this is equipment-limited; everything expensive about it is time.
That is how most people do it. The part that fits badly around a job is not the editing but the posting - per clip, per platform, with the right caption each time - which is worth setting up as a routine rather than improvising.