RaffertyWeiss Media review

25 years in business; site names 50+ clients including CDC, Department of Justice, Department of Labor, Lockheed Martin, American Red Cross, AARP, Amtrak, Fannie Mae and Georgetown University, and displays 13 award organizations (Telly, Davey, Communicator, CINE Golden Eagle among them). Portfolio is organized by category (TV spots, PSA, education, training, eLearning, virtual conferences, Spanish) but individual pieces are largely undated and not client-attributed per project on the work pages themselves. Recency is corroborated independently: Clutch reviews through May 2026 (FourBlock, Washington DC Auto Show) describe current, delivered work. Not Excellent because per-project attribution and dating on the site is thin.

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 published prices or packages. The public FAQ does give an anchor: completed projects range from $5,000 to over $100,000, names the cost drivers (taping days, travel, video length), and quoting is otherwise bespoke via a strategy call. Clutch reviewers report a most-common project size of $50,000-$199,999, so the public anchor understates typical engagements. A published range with named cost drivers is more than bespoke-only silence, but well short of productized pricing.

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.

Described three-stage process (pre-production, production, post-production) with a defined revision structure (rough cut, fine cut, final cut) and a PMP-certified producer/project manager on staff. Independently corroborated first-hand on Clutch: 30 reviews, schedule sub-rating 4.9/5.0, with reviewers repeatedly citing on-time or early delivery ('Everything has always been delivered on time or early, even when we request changes' - Washington DC Auto Show, May 2026) and clear communication. This is exactly the reviewer pattern the rubric's top band 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/motion graphics, plus PSAs, broadcast TV spots, eLearning, live streaming/virtual conferences, still photography, radio/podcast, and Spanish-language production. Equipment named in FAQ (ARRI Alexa 35, RED V-Raptor; DaVinci Resolve, Premiere Pro) and delivery formats cover web, social, digital signage, cable, broadcast and streaming. Range is broad and shown across portfolio categories, though per-format depth (especially 3D animation) is not individually demonstrated with attributed pieces.

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.

Silence. Neither the FAQ nor any page read addresses who owns the final files, raw footage or project files, or how long music, stock and voiceover talent licenses run. The FAQ confirms they cast voiceover talent and source music per video, which makes license terms directly relevant, yet none are published. Per rubric, silence scores Weak 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.

FAQ publishes a typical turnaround of 2-4 weeks start to finish, with expedited 2-3 day timelines possible and an honest caveat that turnaround depends on production complexity; production days are stated at ten hours. On-time delivery is independently corroborated by the Clutch schedule sub-rating of 4.9/5.0. The 2-4 week figure likely applies to mid-size projects rather than $100k+ productions, but a published, review-corroborated timeline clears the top band's bar.

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

30 verified reviews on Clutch read first-hand: 5.0 overall, sub-ratings 5.0 quality / 4.9 schedule / 4.8 cost, spanning 2016 through May 2026, with named recent reviewers (FourBlock Foundation, Washington DC Auto Show). Substantial, current base on a verification-requiring platform. Site also carries attributed testimonials (FourBlock, Linkvisum Consulting) consistent with the Clutch record.

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.