Ordinary Folk review

Excellent — 5 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 9 · Strong 32 · Adequate 16 · Weak 4. The typical agency here scores Strong, and none scores 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 — 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. That is the high band above, which is why it scored Excellent.

On the record — “Roughly 50 portfolio projects listed with named clients including Google (5+ projects), Webflow (3), BibleProject (6), Twilio (2), TED (2), CNN, SAP, Volvo, The Trade Desk, Procreate.” ordinaryfolk.co ↗

On the record — “Portfolio is current: Google Gemini launch animation dated 2024 and Google Doodle 'Salsa' dated 2025, both with full crew credits and process styleframes on readable project pages.” ordinaryfolk.co ↗

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 19% of the total score.

Benchmark — across the 61 other agencies evaluated in this discipline, this dimension runs Excellent 6 · Strong 22 · Adequate 4 · Weak 29. The typical agency here scores Adequate, and 32 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 — 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. That is what the low band describes, which is why it scored Weak.

On the record — “New business is routed to a named Executive Producer (Stefan Green); accepted project types are named: animated explainer, brand manifesto, product launch, event opener, logo animation.” ordinaryfolk.co ↗

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

Stronger here: Epipheo scores Excellent on the same dimension.

Adequate — 3 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 29 · Adequate 19 · Weak 4. The typical agency here scores Strong, and 38 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 — 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. That is between the two bands, which is why it scored Adequate.

On the record — “Four-phase process (Message, Design, Audio, Animation) is described, but with no timelines, tooling, approval gates, revision policy, pricing, or rights terms anywhere on the site.” ordinaryfolk.co ↗

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

Adequate — 3 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 32 · Adequate 18 · Weak 3. The typical agency here scores Strong, and 40 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 — 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. That is between the two bands, which is why it scored Adequate.

On the record — “Studio is animation/motion-only (2D, 3D, cel, character, motion graphics); no live-action service is offered anywhere on the site. Founded 2019, ~10 staff across 6 countries, based at 3488 Commercial St, Vancouver BC.” ordinaryfolk.co ↗

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

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

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

Stronger here: Epipheo scores Strong on the same dimension.

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 Excellent 4 · Strong 27 · Adequate 7 · Weak 23. The typical agency here scores Strong, and 38 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 — 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. That is what the low band describes, which is why it scored Weak.

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

Stronger here: Epipheo scores Excellent on the same dimension.

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 Excellent 9 · Strong 15 · Adequate 14 · Weak 23. The typical agency here scores Adequate, and 38 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 — 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.

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

Stronger here: Vidico scores Excellent on the same dimension.