Hurricane Media review

Strong — 4 of 5 on this rubric’s scale, from Poor (1) to Excellent (5). This dimension carries 23% of the total score.

Benchmark — across the 61 other agencies evaluated in this discipline, this dimension runs Excellent 10 · Strong 31 · Adequate 16 · Weak 4. The typical agency here scores Strong, and 10 of them score higher than this one.

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. Competent, generic output scores 3. 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.

Scores high — Distinctive, consistently high-quality output for demanding clients scores 4-5.

Scores low — A portfolio dominated by work more than two years old scores 2 — the team that made it has usually moved on.

What we found — Current, attributable case studies with recognisable clients: Women's Aid, AB InBev, Cambridge University Press, National Grid, Middlesex University, World Food Programme, Peugeot, Bupa, Shelter, Huawei (portfolio sitemap lastmods run through Jan 2025). The Women's Aid campaign is independently corroborated: the Digital Impact Awards 2024 shortlist on communicatemagazine.com names 'Women's Aid and Hurricane Media Ltd' in Best use of digital by a charity, NGO or NFP. Case pages read first-hand describe named directors and shoots (e.g. director Rollo Hollins, three-day multi-location shoot for Cambridge University Press). Videos themselves did not render as embedded players in fetched HTML, so craft could not be judged frame-by-frame; held below Excellent for that reason. That is the high band above, which is why it scored Strong.

On the record — “Digital Impact Awards 2024 shortlist names 'Women's Aid and Hurricane Media Ltd' in the category Best use of digital by a charity, NGO or NFP — independent corroboration of the Women's Aid campaign.” communicatemagazine.com ↗

On the record — “Portfolio sitemap shows 15+ named case studies with lastmod dates from Sep 2024 to Jan 2025, including Women's Aid, AB InBev, Cambridge University Press, National Grid, World Food Programme and Peugeot.” hurricanemedia.co.uk ↗

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

Weak — 2 of 5 on this rubric’s scale, from Poor (1) to Excellent (5). This dimension carries 19% of the total score.

Benchmark — across the 61 other agencies evaluated in this discipline, this dimension runs Excellent 6 · Strong 22 · Adequate 4 · Weak 29. The typical agency here scores Adequate, and 32 of them score higher than this one.

What this dimension measures: 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.

Scores high — 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.

Scores low — Ranges given only on request score 2-3. Bespoke-only quoting with no public anchor scores 1-2.

What we found — No prices, ranges, or packages published anywhere on the site (homepage, what-we-do, service pages, terms). Bespoke quoting only: 'get in touch'. The only public anchor is the self-reported Clutch listing ($10,000+ minimum project, $150-199/hr), which is vendor-supplied, not published pricing. Scope is broad (26 listed services from corporate video to media buying) with no stated boundaries on what they do not do. That is what the low band describes, which is why it scored Weak.

On the record — “Clutch profile exists with 0 reviews; self-reported minimum project size $10,000+, hourly rate $150-199, founded 2006, 10-49 employees, offices at Bath Road Studios Bristol and 49 Greek Street London.” clutch.co ↗

Evidence: inferred — our reading of indirect evidence, not a documented fact.

Stronger here: Epipheo scores Excellent on the same dimension.

Adequate — 3 of 5 on this rubric’s scale, from Poor (1) to Excellent (5). This dimension carries 14% of the total score.

Benchmark — across the 61 other agencies evaluated in this discipline, this dimension runs Excellent 9 · Strong 29 · Adequate 19 · Weak 4. The typical agency here scores Strong, and 38 of them score higher than this one.

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.

Scores high — Reviewers consistently citing clear communication and structured workflow score 4-5.

Scores low — 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.

What we found — A Strategy / Production / Activation framing is described on-site, and the published terms and conditions define contractual approval gates: 'running order, director's cut, client cut 1 and a Final Cut', with deliverables released only on written client approval. That is a real, checkable gate structure. But no collaboration tooling is named, and zero independent reviews exist to corroborate on-time delivery or communication quality. That is between the two bands, which is why it scored Adequate.

On the record — “Terms define contractual approval gates: running order, director's cut, client cut 1, and Final Cut released on written client approval; 50% non-refundable deposit before work begins.” hurricanemedia.co.uk ↗

deliverability — deliverability: whether cold email actually lands in the inbox rather than spam. The tell is infrastructure talk — warmed sending domains kept separate from your main domain — because a burned domain outlasts the engagement.

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

Strong — 4 of 5 on this rubric’s scale, from Poor (1) to Excellent (5). This dimension carries 14% of the total score.

Benchmark — across the 61 other agencies evaluated in this discipline, this dimension runs Excellent 8 · Strong 31 · Adequate 19 · Weak 3. The typical agency here scores Strong, and 8 of them score higher than this one.

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. 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.

Scores high — Both live action and animation, across multiple formats, scores 4-5.

Scores low — A single modality scores 2-3 — not a defect, but a real ceiling that the buyer must match against the brief.

What we found — Live action verified in read case studies (Women's Aid: three 90-second live-action films; Cambridge University Press: live-action brand film shot over three days). 2D animation, 3D animation, and motion graphics are listed service lines with a dedicated portfolio-service sitemap; corporate page also cites 'staff interviews, presenter-driven scripts, animations and live events'. Both modalities across multiple formats, though the animation work was not read first-hand. That is the high band above, which is why it scored Strong.

On the record — “Portfolio sitemap shows 15+ named case studies with lastmod dates from Sep 2024 to Jan 2025, including Women's Aid, AB InBev, Cambridge University Press, National Grid, World Food Programme and Peugeot.” hurricanemedia.co.uk ↗

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

Weak — 2 of 5 on this rubric’s scale, from Poor (1) to Excellent (5). This dimension carries 10% of the total score.

Benchmark — across the 61 other agencies evaluated in this discipline, this dimension runs Strong 7 · Adequate 6 · Weak 48. The typical agency here scores Weak, and 13 of them score higher than this one.

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.

Scores high — Explicit ownership transfer with stated licence terms scores 4-5.

Scores low — Finals-only delivery scores 2. Silence scores 2 and should be raised before contracting, since retrospective clearance is expensive.

What we found — Published terms are explicit but buyer-unfavourable: 'Unless stated specifically otherwise in the Quote all Rights in the Deliverables shall be owned by the Agency', with the client receiving only a 'revocable royalty free licence' for the approved final cut, restricted by purpose and territory. Third-party music/stock may leave the client with 'continuing liability... for royalties, licence fees and performance fees'. This is not ownership transfer; a revocable, purpose-limited licence is exactly the year-two usability risk this dimension exists to catch. That is what the low band describes, which is why it scored Weak.

On the record — “Published terms state all rights in deliverables are owned by the agency unless the quote says otherwise; the client gets a revocable royalty-free licence to the approved final cut, restricted by purpose and territory.” hurricanemedia.co.uk ↗

deliverability — deliverability: whether cold email actually lands in the inbox rather than spam. The tell is infrastructure talk — warmed sending domains kept separate from your main domain — because a burned domain outlasts the engagement.

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

Stronger here: Epipheo scores Strong on the same dimension.

Weak — 2 of 5 on this rubric’s scale, from Poor (1) to Excellent (5). This dimension carries 10% of the total score.

Benchmark — across the 61 other agencies evaluated in this discipline, this dimension runs Excellent 4 · Strong 27 · Adequate 7 · Weak 23. The typical agency here scores Strong, and 38 of them score higher than this one.

What this dimension measures: Stated timelines from brief to delivery, and how far out the agency books.

Scores high — Fixed, published timelines score 4-5.

Scores low — 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.

What we found — No stated timelines from brief to delivery anywhere on the site, and no indication of how far out they book. The terms note only that major changes 'may extend timelines and increase costs'. Undisclosed scheduling. That is what the low band describes, which is why it scored Weak.

Evidence: inferred — our reading of indirect evidence, not a documented fact.

Stronger here: Epipheo scores Excellent on the same dimension.

Weak — 2 of 5 on this rubric’s scale, from Poor (1) to Excellent (5). This dimension carries 10% of the total score.

Benchmark — across the 61 other agencies evaluated in this discipline, this dimension runs Excellent 9 · Strong 15 · Adequate 14 · Weak 23. The typical agency here scores Adequate, and 38 of them score higher than this one.

What this dimension measures: Volume and recency of independent, verified reviews. 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.

Scores low — A substantial base on a verification-requiring platform scores 4-5; a handful of reviews scores 2-3; none located scores 2.

What we found — Clutch profile read first-hand: 0 reviews (company listed, founded 2006, 10-49 staff). Yelp page read first-hand: 0 reviews, unclaimed listing. Testimonials on their own site (Women's Aid, Edwards Vacuum, Havas Life Medicom) are vendor-hosted and unverifiable. No independent review base located.

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

Stronger here: Vidico scores Excellent on the same dimension.