Ordinary Folk review

50-project portfolio read first-hand with named, demanding clients: Google (5+ projects incl. the 2024 Gemini launch animation and a 2025 Google Doodle), Webflow, Twilio, TED, CNN, SAP, Volvo, The Trade Desk, Procreate, BibleProject. Project pages carry full credits, years, and process styleframes; the two most recent Google pieces are dated 2024 and 2025, so the body of work is current. Client identities are publicly checkable (a Google Doodle is a public artifact) but the pages themselves are self-published.

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 pricing, ranges, or packages anywhere on the site - bespoke-only quoting with no public anchor. Partial credit for scope clarity: the studio is plainly animation/motion-only and the contact page names the project types it takes (animated explainer, brand manifesto, product launch, event opener, logo animation), routed to a named Executive Producer.

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 dedicated process page describes four phases (Message, Design, Animation, Audio) with scripts, sketches and storyboards shared collaboratively - but it is philosophy, not logistics: no named collaboration tooling, no defined approval gates, no revision policy, and no independent reviewer commentary on delivery exists to corroborate it.

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.

Wide range within animation - 2D, 3D, cel, character animation and motion graphics, confirmed across the portfolio (2D Gemini piece, 3D work, hand-drawn Doodle) - but animation only. No live-action capability is offered anywhere on the site, so briefs needing people on camera cannot be served. A real ceiling, not a defect.

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

Complete silence. Nothing on who owns finals, project files, or how long music licenses run - notable because custom music/SFX partners (Actual Magic, Ambrose Yu) are credited on projects, so music licensing terms exist and are undisclosed. Raise 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.

No stated timelines from brief to delivery and no booking-lead-time information anywhere on the site. Project pages show durations of finished films (0:48-1:14) but never production length.

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.

No Clutch, G2, Google, or Trustpilot review page could be located via search; none readable first-hand, so no numbers are cited. Consistent with a referral-driven high-end studio, and the rubric weights this low, but a buyer has zero independent client testimony.

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

Stronger here: Vidico scores Excellent on the same dimension.