Lower Street review

35+ named client shows with individual case-study pages for recognisable brands (HPE, BCG, Adyen, Trane Technologies, Northern Trust, Stanford GSB, FIS, Hampton). Two spot-checked first-hand on Apple Podcasts: Moneywise (Hampton) is live and current - 105 episodes, latest published the day before checking, 4.7/653 ratings; Technology Untangled (HPE) ran 49 episodes to Jan 2025 at 4.9/61, with successor show Technology Now also on Lower Street's roster. Shows are findable, attributable and mostly current.

What this dimension measures: The shows themselves are public and listenable, which makes this category unusually checkable. Look for named client shows that are current — still publishing, or completed as a stated season — and attributable to the agency. A roster of live, findable shows for recognisable clients scores 4-5. Named shows that are all dormant score 2-3: podfade in the portfolio is a real signal, though distinguish shows the client chose to end from shows that quietly stopped. A portfolio of clips with no findable shows scores 2. Where independent reviewers credit editorial judgment — making a guest conversation sound like a show rather than a call recording — weight that over technical polish. Counts for 25% 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.

No published pricing anywhere on the site; the contact form's budget dropdown (under $30,000 to $150,000+) is the only public spend anchor. Their own 'How Much Does Podcast Production Cost' blog quotes generic industry ranges without stating their own rates - SERP marketing, not pricing transparency. Service scope itself is clearly delineated (launch, promotion, video, private, narrative, consulting).

What this dimension measures: Published per-episode or monthly pricing, or defined packages with stated inclusions (episodes per month, editing depth, show notes, clips, distribution), scores 4-5. Ranges on request score 2-3; bespoke-only quoting with no public anchor scores 1-2. Score scope clarity alongside price: production-only shops that state plainly they do not do strategy or promotion are more useful than full-service claims with no boundaries, and a stated boundary is never penalised. Counts for 20% of the weighted score.

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

Stronger here: We Edit Podcasts scores Excellent on the same dimension.

A week-by-week 8-week launch timeline is published (kickoff, concept, branding, production, trailer, launch, growth). No stated per-episode editing turnaround, no approval gates described, no named tooling, and no independent reviews confirming episodes ship on schedule (Clutch base is empty).

What this dimension measures: A podcast is a recurring deadline: the product is hitting the same slot every week for a year. Look for a described workflow (recording logistics, editing turnaround per episode, approval gates), named tooling, and independent reports of episodes shipping on schedule. Reviewers crediting consistency and communication score 4-5. No described process scores 2-3. Verified reports of missed publishing schedules score 1-2 — in this category schedule slippage is product failure, not an inconvenience. Counts for 15% of the weighted score.

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

Full-stack by design: positioning and format development, branding, guest booking, launch strategy, PR, paid promotion, podcast search optimization, private podcasts, and a dedicated video podcast service (YouTube-optimized episodes plus social clips). The Hampton Moneywise engagement was YouTube-led and the show's YouTube presence is real and active, which corroborates the video claim; growth numbers themselves are vendor-stated.

What this dimension measures: What the engagement covers beyond the edit: positioning and format development, guest booking, launch strategy, video podcast capability, clip production for social, and distribution/promotion. Full-stack capability evidenced by real shows scores 4-5. Edit-and-publish only scores 2-3 — not a defect, but a ceiling the buyer must match against the brief, and it should be stated in the verdict. Video capability matters increasingly and its absence should be named. 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.

Nothing on any page read - homepage, services, about, case studies, cost guide - about who owns the feed, masters, raw recordings or show accounts, or how music licensing works. Silence; must be raised before contracting.

What this dimension measures: Who owns the masters, the raw recordings, the feed and the show accounts, and how music licensing works. The feed is the asset a switching client needs: an agency that registers the show under its own accounts holds the client's audience hostage at renewal. Explicit client ownership of feed, masters and raws scores 4-5. Finals-only delivery scores 2. Silence scores 2 and must be raised before contracting. Counts for 10% of the weighted score.

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

Stronger here: We Edit Podcasts scores Strong on the same dimension.

No download or chart guarantees found; results are cited as past outcomes (chart placements, consumption rates, sponsorship revenue), and they describe tracking listener retention with a reporting/review phase and an audience-development component in every contract. But the measurement approach is described only on their own site, so the top band is capped at Adequate.

What this dimension measures: What the agency promises and reports. Honest reporting — downloads with their known limits, follower growth, clip performance, and no guaranteed-audience claims — scores 4-5. Vanity promises (chart placement guarantees, download guarantees, 'top 1%' framing sold as an outcome) score 1-2 on verified evidence, because audience outcomes are not in a production agency's control and guaranteeing them is a claim about someone else's behaviour. No stated measurement approach scores 2-3. Counts for 10% of the weighted score.

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

Clutch profile exists but has zero verified reviews. DesignRush shows 4.8/5 from 5 reviews (praise for professionalism and a claimed 10x ROI), but that is a handful on a platform with lighter verification. The listenable shows are the stronger evidence here.

What this dimension measures: Volume and recency of independent, verified reviews. A substantial base on a verification-requiring platform scores 4-5; a handful scores 2-3; none located scores 2. Low weight deliberately — the listenable shows are better evidence than the review count in this category. Counts for 5% of the weighted score.

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