Google released Gemini Omni 1.2 Flash on November 5, 2026, extending its generative-video workflow with longer clips and follow-up editing. For a marketing team, the interesting change is the opportunity to revise an existing shot through conversation instead of briefing every version from the beginning.
Longer generation with a lower published rate
The launch announcement describes native clips up to 15 seconds, compared with 10 seconds for Omni 1.1, with selectable durations from three to 15 seconds. Google says the model is generally available through the Gemini API and Gemini for business. It lists a 720p rate of $0.07 per second, 30% below the previous model. A single 15-second generation at that stated rate comes to $1.05 before any other billable work. Google’s announcement
The model supports conversational revisions and reference-guided creation. Google’s model card describes its role in creating and editing video, together with evaluation and safety information. The supported service, account and delivery workflow remain relevant when selecting a production integration. Model card
The useful unit is an approved clip
A sensible evaluation would start with an existing product brief that has already passed brand review. Ask for a short establishing shot, then change one element at a time: the setting, lighting, framing and aspect ratio. Keep the product reference constant. This makes it easier to see whether the editing workflow preserves the details the team actually values.
For a clothing retailer, an attractive transition can still be unusable if the garment’s seam, label or fit changes between frames. For a software company, a convincing animation may communicate the wrong sequence of actions. Reviewers should record those failures separately from aesthetic preferences. Combining everything into a single “looks good” score makes the next prompt less informative.
Cost tracking should include the rejected candidates and intermediate revisions. A lower per-second price is valuable, but the financial outcome also depends on the number of attempts, the time spent reviewing them and whether the resulting file fits the required placement. Teams can compare a fixed brief under the old and new workflows while keeping the approval criteria identical.
Use reference assets as controlled inputs
We would treat a campaign’s approved photography, permitted product claims and target format as a small versioned reference pack. Record which pack produced each candidate. When a colleague revises the brief, generate a new candidate against that version rather than mixing assets informally across a chat.
The same discipline helps with automated workflows. A generator can prepare alternatives, but the delivery system needs a clear destination, the correct file format and an explicit publishing decision. Keeping the generation and approval records together makes a later correction much easier.
Omni 1.2 Flash is worth testing wherever teams already spend time rebuilding nearly identical clips. Start with one repeatable asset type, measure the total cost of reaching approval, and expand only after the results satisfy that workflow’s visual and factual requirements.