Hurricane Media review

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.

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.

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.

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

Stronger here: Epipheo scores Excellent on the same dimension.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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: 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.

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.

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

Stronger here: Epipheo scores Excellent on the same dimension.

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.

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.

Stronger here: Vidico scores Excellent on the same dimension.