LAI Video 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 — 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. That is the high band above, which is why it scored Strong.

On the record — “IBM X-Force Cyber Range commercial project page names the client, partner agency George P. Johnson, and individual crew credits” laivideo.com ↗

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

Strong — 4 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 21 · Adequate 4 · Weak 30. The typical agency here scores Adequate, and 6 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 — 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. That is the high band above, which is why it scored Strong.

On the record — “Public packages page publishes starting prices: interview/studio $8,500, event video $10,000, recruitment series $20,000, marketing campaign bundle $20,000, branding elements $8,000, display advertising $3,600” laivideo.com ↗

On the record — “Clutch profile shows 4.9/5 across 21 verified reviews, minimum project size $25,000, hourly rate $150-199, with reviews posted through 2026 and engagements dating to 2013” clutch.co ↗

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 9 · Strong 28 · Adequate 20 · Weak 4. The typical agency here scores Strong, and 9 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 — 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. That is the high band above, which is why it scored Strong.

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

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 — 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. That is the high band above, which is why it scored Strong.

On the record — “Animation service page publishes a typical timeline of 4-6 weeks concept-to-completion for an animated explainer and lists 2D, 3D, motion graphics, whiteboard and character animation” laivideo.com ↗

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 — 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. That is what the low band describes, which is why it scored Weak.

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

Stronger here: Epipheo scores Strong on the same dimension.

Strong — 4 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 26 · Adequate 7 · Weak 24. The typical agency here scores Adequate, and 4 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 — 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. That is the high band above, which is why it scored Strong.

On the record — “Animation service page publishes a typical timeline of 4-6 weeks concept-to-completion for an animated explainer and lists 2D, 3D, motion graphics, whiteboard and character animation” laivideo.com ↗

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 10% of the total score.

Benchmark — across the 61 other agencies evaluated in this discipline, this dimension runs Excellent 9 · Strong 14 · Adequate 14 · Weak 24. The typical agency here scores Adequate, and 9 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 — 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').

On the record — “Clutch profile shows 4.9/5 across 21 verified reviews, minimum project size $25,000, hourly rate $150-199, with reviews posted through 2026 and engagements dating to 2013” clutch.co ↗

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