Social media management and video production overlap, but they aren't the same function.
A social media manager may own channel strategy, calendars, publishing, copy, community, and performance reporting.
Consistent video adds another operating layer: ideas, scripting, scheduling, talent, production, editing, approvals, versions, asset management, and repurposing.
VID builds and operates that production engine so the social team has something consistent to publish.
The wrong comparison is the salary of a social media manager versus the price of video production.
The roles solve different problems.
The better question is whether the person responsible for distribution also has the time and production expertise to run the entire video workflow.
If yes, keep the model simple.
If not, VID can add the production department behind them without replacing their channel ownership.
A social media manager is often closest to audience feedback and channel performance.
That makes them valuable inside the video department.
VID adds the strategy, production management, filming, editing, workflows, asset pipeline, and cross-channel production capacity around that role.
The social manager can focus on the channel instead of chasing every production dependency.
Hire a social media manager when your primary need is channel ownership, publishing, community, and day-to-day social execution.
Use VID when the bottleneck is the production system feeding those channels.
In many organizations, the strongest answer is both: the social team owns the audience and channel; VID keeps the video engine moving.
If your social media manager already has the time, production resources, and operating discipline to keep video moving consistently, you may not need another layer.
VID becomes useful when production is consuming the social team's capacity or when video needs to serve more than social—YouTube, sales, customer proof, executive content, paid media, podcasts, and the rest of the marketing organization.