ResourceSpace has changed the way the DEC uses content, making it much easier for us to quickly make assets available both internally and externally during our emergency appeals.
Does your organisation rely on shared storage solutions for managing digital assets?
You’re not alone.
After all, they’re low cost (or even free), easy to use and familiar to the majority of people. However, there are a number of hidden costs that will be impacting your ability to effectively manage the digital asset lifecycle.
FREE DOWNLOAD: The Cost of Chaos Whitepaper
Why shared drives are often used for asset storage
For many organisations across all sectors, shared drives feel like the natural and obvious solution for storing digital assets. Tools such as Google Drive, Microsoft OneDrive and Microsoft SharePoint are already part of the workplace toolkit, so teams default to using them for images, videos and documents. Most employees already know how to upload files, create folders and share links, which makes these platforms an easy starting point when asset libraries begin to grow. There is little training required, and teams can start collaborating almost immediately.
Arguably the biggest factor for organisations choosing these tools is the cost. These platforms are often bundled within wider productivity suites, so they appear to offer a low-cost or even ‘free’ way to store marketing and brand assets, which appeals to organisations under budget pressure.
However, although shared drives solve basic file storage needs, they aren’t designed to support the structured workflows, granular permission sets and fast discoverability required for effective Digital Asset Management processes.
READ MORE: What's the difference between a DAM and Google Drive?
4 hidden costs of using shared drives for digital assets
Using shared drives and storage-only platforms could be construed as a low cost solution for managing digital assets, but there are a number of hidden costs that impact productivity, performance and compliance.
These include:
- Time lost searching and recreating assets
- Version confusion and brand risk
- Security, permissions and rights management gaps
- Lack of asset lifecycle and governance
Time lost searching and recreating assets
Shared drives work well when asset libraries are small, but their limitations quickly become apparent when those libraries grow larger.
Folder structures become disorganised and harder to navigate as different users and teams create their own subfolders, naming conventions and new versions of the same files. Over time, even simple tasks such as locating a logo, campaign image or product photo can turn into a time-consuming search.
Unlike dedicated Digital Asset Management systems, shared drives rely heavily on manual folder organisation rather than structured metadata. This means users need to either remember exactly where an asset was saved or manually browse through layers of folders to find it. The result is a lot of wasted time, with marketing teams, designers and content managers spending hours searching for assets that already exist somewhere in the system.
When files can’t be found quickly or easily, staff often take the easier route and recreate the asset instead. New graphics, photos or documents are produced simply because the originals are buried in a complex folder structure, and over time this duplication increases costs, wastes creative effort and puts brand consistency at risk.
Version confusion and brand risk
Version control is one of the biggest hidden risks when organisations rely on shared drives for digital assets.
In shared drives versioning is often handled informally through file names such as ‘Final’, ‘Final_v2’, or ‘Final_FINAL’. While this can work temporarily, it quickly becomes untenable as more teams access and download files.
Over time, multiple versions of the same asset begin circulating across email attachments, local desktops and new folders. Without a clear, authoritative source, teams can easily pick the wrong file simply because it appears first in a search or sits in an easily accessible location.
This is inconvenient, but the consequences for your brand and marketing campaigns can be more serious. Marketing teams publish campaigns using outdated logos, discontinued product images or visuals that no longer reflect current brand guidelines.
Fixing incorrect campaigns, replacing assets and repairing brand inconsistencies requires time and resources, and more importantly, repeated visual inconsistencies gradually erode brand trust and professionalism.
Security, permissions and rights management gaps
Shared drives are designed primarily for general file storage and collaboration. Although they offer basic permission controls, they quickly become difficult to manage as organisations grow and more people require access to digital assets.
Permissions are granted to individuals, teams and external partners, but they’re rarely reviewed or revoked when projects end or staff move on or change roles. This ‘access sprawl’ creates a situation where too many people have access to sensitive or valuable assets.
The more people with access to a digital asset, the greater the chance that it will be shared externally, and this also carries additional risk. Files are often distributed through ‘anyone with the link’ access, which makes it easy for agencies, partners or volunteers to download materials, but at the cost of any meaningful oversight.
Another issue with shared drives is that they typically provide no structured way to track licence agreements, usage rights or expiry dates for images, videos and other creative assets. This can create compliance risks if licensed content continues to be used after permissions expire, particularly for public sector organisations and charities.
Without proper visibility, robust permissions and rights tracking, organisations can easily lose control over who can access their assets, how they are used and whether they remain legally safe to publish.
Lack of asset lifecycle and governance
Shared drives are designed for storing and sharing files, not managing the full lifecycle of digital assets. As a result, important governance processes often happen informally or not at all.
For example, when assets are uploaded to shared drives there is rarely a structured way to confirm whether a file has been reviewed, approved or is ready for use. Instead, teams have to rely on naming conventions or internal comms to understand approval status, which is easy to miss and difficult to enforce.
It’s also hard to manage archival or assets without clear asset lifecycle processes, with older assets remaining in active folders long after they should have been removed, making it harder for teams to distinguish between current and outdated materials.
Ultimately, this lack of clear audit trails means organisations can’t easily track who uploaded, edited or distributed an asset. When combined with the absence of formal retention policies, this creates governance risks, particularly for organisations that must demonstrate accountability, compliance and responsible data management.
READ MORE: 3 arguments against having a DAM... and why they're wrong
To find out more about the consequences of using cloud file storage solutions, download our free whitepaper, The Cost of Chaos, where we explore the true cost of poor Digital Asset Management practices and how those hidden inefficiencies quietly drain budgets, slow teams and expose organisations to avoidable risks.
