LAI Video review

Portfolio names recognisable clients with real standards: IBM (X-Force Cyber Range commercial, with George P. Johnson), National Endowment for the Arts, RAINN, No Kid Hungry, National Retail Federation, World Food Program USA, Trust for Public Land. Project pages carry named team credits (e.g. DP Jun Young Yang, editor Donovan Randolph on the IBM page). Portfolio pages show no dates, and embedded players rendered as placeholders in fetch, so playback was not confirmed; however Clutch reviewers independently credit the storytelling ('ability to find a story, pull it out' as their most impressive skill) and rate quality 4.9, which corroborates the self-published work.

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.

A public packages page publishes starting prices by product: interview/studio package from $8,500 (up to five videos in a half-day shoot), recruitment/membership series from $20,000, video marketing campaign from $20,000, branding elements from $8,000, event video from $10,000, display advertising from $3,600. FAQ states revision tiers (1-2 rounds starter, 3-5 professional/enterprise). Clutch independently lists a $25,000 minimum project size and $150-199 hourly rate. Bespoke work above packages is still quote-only, and package inclusions do not itemise script, music or licences, which keeps this short of the top band.

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

Read first-hand on Clutch (21 verified reviews, 4.9): 'communicative' is the top mention (13 instances); one client said LAI 'always delivers on time and within budget', another that delivery came 'at least a week or two weeks before' deadline; named tooling is Zoom, email, Frame.io and Dropbox. The agency's own site describes only a loose brainstorm-storyboard-script-animate-post sequence with no published approval gates, but the independent reviewer pattern is exactly the clear-communication, structured-workflow evidence the rubric asks for.

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.

Both live action and animation with named work in each: live-action commercial and event/interview production (IBM commercial, studio packages, same-day event edits) plus a dedicated animation practice covering 2D, 3D, motion graphics, whiteboard, kinetic typography and character animation (RAINN 30th anniversary, Trust for Public Land, CropLife America). Also offers digital ad placement (OTT/CTV, display) as an adjacent line. Multi-modality across formats meets the 4-5 band; individual pieces were not all viewable to confirm depth in every mode.

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.

No published terms on who owns the final file, raw footage or project files, and no stated music, stock or talent licence durations anywhere found on the site. The Terms of Use page covers only the website's own IP, not client deliverables. Silence scores 2 per the rubric and should be raised before contracting.

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

Stronger here: Epipheo scores Strong on the same dimension.

Timelines are published on the agency's own service pages: a typical animated explainer takes '4-6 weeks from concept to completion'; a typical project runs 6-10 weeks depending on scope; same-day edits offered for event social recaps. These are realistic ranges rather than fixed commitments, and booking lead time is not disclosed. Clutch reviewers reporting delivery ahead of deadline corroborate that the estimates are honest.

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

21 verified reviews on Clutch at 4.9/5, read first-hand, with engagements dating from 2013 through reviews posted in 2026 - a substantial, current base on a verification-requiring platform. The only recurring negative is price ('on the higher end', 'price could be out of reach for other organizations').

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.