Broadcast2World review

41 named case studies on-site (Citibank, Wipro, MITRE, AWS, UN Women, Walgreens, Siemens, Red Hat, SUSE); homepage claims 2,448 videos since 2009. Client attributions are vendor-stated, but Clutch reviewers independently and repeatedly credit storytelling — 'transform high-level concepts into amazing final products' — which the rubric weights. Recency of individual portfolio pieces could not be confirmed: the portfolio grid did not render to a text fetch, and case-study results figures (e.g. '2.8x referral signups') are uncheckable vendor claims.

What this dimension measures: The primary reason to hire a production agency. Look for a body of work that is current, attributable and recognisable, with named clients whose brands carry real standards. Distinctive, consistently high-quality output for demanding clients scores 4-5. Competent, generic output scores 3. A portfolio dominated by work more than two years old scores 2 — the team that made it has usually moved on. Where reviewers independently credit narrative or storytelling ability rather than just delivery, weight that: turning a complex proposition into something clear is the hard part of this job. Counts for 25% of the weighted score.

Evidence: partly checkable — corroborated in part against the sources below; the remainder rests on the agency’s own account.

Published tiered pricing on /pricing: Growth from $2,400/60s (whiteboard/flat), Premium from $3,500 (character/2D mixed media), Flick from $5,500 (2.5D/3D); +$750 per extra 30s on Growth; all-inclusive of script, storyboard, human voiceover, music, 2 revision rounds per stage; 50/50 payment terms and up-to-20% multi-video discount stated. Held below the top of the band because the top band rewards a quoted number being the real number — and the FAQ states a $4,000/60s whiteboard starting price that contradicts the pricing page's $2,400, so which number is real must be confirmed in writing.

What this dimension measures: Published prices, published ranges by video type, or fixed productized packages score 4-5, and an all-inclusive fee that covers script, music, narration and revisions scores at the top of that band because the quoted number is then the real number. Ranges given only on request score 2-3. Bespoke-only quoting with no public anchor scores 1-2. Score scope clarity alongside price: a vendor that states plainly what it does NOT do — no shoots, no strategy, animation only — is more useful than one implying it does everything, and should not be penalised for the boundary itself. Counts for 20% of the weighted score.

Evidence: verified — checked against a named source you can open; the links under Sources below are where to check it yourself.

Four-stage process published on /process (script → voiceover → storyboard → animation) with defined revision counts per gate and per-stage timelines (storyboard 5-7 working days, VO 2-3 days). Clutch reviewers independently cite on-time delivery, organized PM, and Basecamp as the collaboration tool. Counterweight from the same reviews: some clients wanted more structured guidance through phases, PDF-based design feedback was called inefficient, and one reviewer said early-supplied materials were forgotten and had to be re-sent.

What this dimension measures: Video projects fail on coordination far more often than on craft. Look for a described process, named collaboration tooling, defined approval gates, and independent reports of on-time delivery. Reviewers consistently citing clear communication and structured workflow score 4-5. No described process and no reviewer commentary scores 2-3. A vendor whose reviews mention schedule slippage or unresponsive periods scores 1-2 on verified evidence. Counts for 15% of the weighted score.

Evidence: verified — checked against a named source you can open; the links under Sources below are where to check it yourself.

Animation only: 2D, 3D, motion graphics, whiteboard, character, infographic, mixed media, AI-assisted. Broad within the modality, but no live action anywhere on the site — a real ceiling for briefs needing people on camera, which the rubric scores as a single-modality 2-3.

What this dimension measures: What the agency can actually produce: live action, animation (2D/3D), motion graphics, studio versus location, and the format and aspect-ratio coverage needed for where the video will run. Both live action and animation, across multiple formats, scores 4-5. A single modality scores 2-3 — not a defect, but a real ceiling that the buyer must match against the brief. Animation-only vendors in particular cannot serve briefs that need people on camera, and that should be stated in the verdict rather than discovered later. Counts for 15% of the weighted score.

Evidence: vendor stated — the agency’s own claim, recorded as theirs rather than ours.

Pricing page states explicitly: 'All rights to each video transfer on delivery, with complete source files.' That is better than finals-only delivery. However, music and voiceover licence terms (duration, territory) are stated nowhere — the FAQ omits licensing entirely — so the transfer claim rests on the vendor's own copy and should be confirmed in the contract.

What this dimension measures: Who owns the final file, the raw footage and the project files, and for how long the music, stock and talent licences run. This is where video differs most sharply from design: a licence that expires, or talent usage limited by term and territory, can make a video unusable in year two. Explicit ownership transfer with stated licence terms scores 4-5. Finals-only delivery scores 2. Silence scores 2 and should be raised before contracting, since retrospective clearance is expensive. Counts for 10% of the weighted score.

Evidence: vendor stated — the agency’s own claim, recorded as theirs rather than ours.

Published per-tier timelines: Growth 2-3 weeks, Premium 6-8, Flick 8-12; homepage offers 2-week rush for a $500 fee; FAQ says projects start the next working day after payment and quotes 4-6 weeks overall — the pages disagree mildly with each other. Clutch reviewers independently corroborate on-time delivery ('delivered on-time' appears repeatedly).

What this dimension measures: Stated timelines from brief to delivery, and how far out the agency books. Fixed, published timelines score 4-5. Multi-month cycles are normal for high-end work and score 2-3 — score the honesty of the estimate rather than the length, since a realistic twelve weeks beats an optimistic four. Undisclosed scheduling scores 2. Counts for 10% of the weighted score.

Evidence: verified — checked against a named source you can open; the links under Sources below are where to check it yourself.

Clutch profile read first-hand: 4.8/5 across 12 verified reviews, most in the $10,000-$49,000 project band. But the most recent reviews date to November 2023 — nearly three years old at check time — and 12 is a modest base for a shop claiming 2,000+ clients. Homepage says 4.8 Clutch; the search snippet's 4.9 was not what the profile showed.

What this dimension measures: Volume and recency of independent, verified reviews. A substantial base on a verification-requiring platform scores 4-5; a handful of reviews scores 2-3; none located scores 2. Low weight deliberately — in this category a portfolio is more informative than a review count, and several excellent production shops have almost no review footprint because their work arrives by referral. Counts for 5% of the weighted score.

Evidence: verified — checked against a named source you can open; the links under Sources below are where to check it yourself.