We Edit Podcasts review

Roughly 60 client shows are named on /customers/, and two of the largest were confirmed live and current first-hand on Apple Podcasts: So Money with Farnoosh Torabi (2,000+ episodes, newest episode posted the day of checking, 4.7 from 1,932 ratings) and The Light Watkins Show, now running as The Spiritual Perspective on the same feed id 1515614913 (396 episodes, newest 2 days before checking, 4.9 from 880 ratings). The Mere Christians Podcast case study is real and reached its stated 300 episodes before the host put it on hiatus by his own public decision, which is a client-ended show rather than podfade. Not Excellent: the shows are verifiably real and current but the agency's role in them is vendor-stated only, no episode carries a readable production credit, and the site links no before/after audio sample or portfolio player anywhere.

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

Exact prices are published across three separate pages with stated inclusions. /pricing/ lists monthly packages by episode volume: audio editing 440 USD/mo for 2 episodes and 800 USD/mo for 4; video 980 and 1,800; writing (audio plus show notes plus transcription) 900 and 1,640, each with up to 60-minute episodes, multitrack sync, intro/outro and ad insertion, noise reduction, volume matching and uploading. /services/launch/ publishes three fixed launch fees: 999, 2,999 and 4,499 USD with per-tier inclusions. /services/marketing/ prices add-ons a la carte from 45 USD (quote cards) to 130 USD (videograms). Scope boundaries are stated rather than fudged: the marketing page carries no distribution or promotion service, and standard packages do not include clip production. No contracts, month-to-month, 14-day money-back guarantee. One inconsistency: /services/video-production/ publishes a different and much higher video retainer card (Essentials 1,990/mo up to 4 episodes, Growth 3,800/mo up to 6, Revenue Partner 7,500/mo unlimited) than the 1,800/mo for 4 episodes on /pricing/, so a buyer cannot tell from the site which video price actually applies.

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

A four-stage workflow is described on /how-it-works/: signup and portal setup, client submits raw files to a shared folder, production (editing, writing, transcription, design), then QC and upload to a completed folder with a revision stage. Recording tooling is named on the video page (Riverside.fm, Podcastle.io, Zoom) and multicam is supported. Turnaround is a specific number rather than a vague promise: a 72-hour SLA sitewide, 96 hours for premium video, excluding weekends, conditional on all files being provided; /about states one free revision set for audio post if the edit did not follow the original instructions. Capped at Adequate because the rubric's top band requires independent reports of episodes shipping on schedule, and no readable independent review base exists to corroborate the SLA. The described approval gate is also thin: the client reviews a delivered file, and publishing responsibility is not clearly assigned in the standard packages.

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.

The engagement reaches well past the edit. /services/launch/ covers onboarding, a four-week show development process, script writing, cover artwork, voice-over, audio and video trailers, equipment guidance, hosting setup, submission to podcast directories, guest booking templates and a post-launch strategy session. Video is a real capability, not an afterthought: full-length multicam or single-cam editing with color grading for YouTube and LinkedIn, five short-form clips per episode, plus SEO show notes and transcripts. Marketing add-ons cover audiograms, videograms, episode and YouTube thumbnails, and quote cards. Named ceilings the buyer must match against the brief: there is no ongoing promotion or paid distribution service on the marketing page, guest booking is templates rather than done-for-you booking, and clip production sits outside the standard editing packages as a paid add-on.

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.

The terms of service state it plainly: all intellectual property such as artwork, intros, outros, video intros and outros, audio content and social content created for customer podcasts will be the property of the customer, and the company retains no ownership of content the client provides. That is an explicit, first-hand readable client-ownership clause covering the deliverables, and /how-it-works/ describes delivery into a shared account the client holds. Short of the top band because three things the rubric asks about are not addressed anywhere on the site: whether the client keeps the raw multitrack recordings as well as the finals, who holds the hosting account and the RSS feed when the launch package sets hosting up, and how music licensing works for intro and bed music.

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

The launch page argues against exactly the promise this category is usually sold on, stating that any company guaranteeing a certain ranking for a podcast is using artificial ways to inflate rankings, and pointing instead to honest growth over the first four to eight weeks. No download guarantee, chart-placement promise or top-1% framing was found on any page read. Not Excellent for two reasons: no reporting or analytics deliverable is described anywhere, so the buyer does not know what they will be shown month to month; and the site leans hard on unsourced aggregate statistics (1 billion-plus listens, 4,000-plus brands, 1,000-plus podcasts launched, a 99.5% satisfaction rating) with no stated method or verification.

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

No independent, verification-requiring client review base was located and read first-hand. There is no Trustpilot profile at trustpilot.com/review/weeditpodcasts.com (404) and no Clutch profile at the expected slug (404). A Knoji aggregator page exists but returned HTTP 403 and could not be read, so no rating or count from it is cited here. A Glassdoor page exists but employee reviews are not client evidence. The 4.7 and 4.9 Apple Podcasts ratings found during checking belong to the client shows, not to the agency. The /customers/ page shows logos without any attributed testimonial naming a person and company.

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