Hi - thanks for taking the time to share your experience. We’re sorry this left you frustrated, and we’d like to clarify the full picture so other readers understand what happened.
This was a free trial.
As communicated at the start, the work you received was part of a 30-day free trial. Trial deliveries are intended to let clients check our process, timing, and style - not to be final, watermark-free deliverables.
What we delivered.
During the trial, we provided all items requested on time from our side: rough cuts, edits, revision rounds, and draft previews. We pushed updates and followed the workflow agreed upon at onboarding.
Watermark policy on trial work.
We make our watermark policy very clear up front: trial videos are delivered with a watermark. This protects the studio’s intellectual property while allowing clients to validate quality and speed. Removing the watermark requires opting into a paid package - again, a policy we share before starting trials.
Paid opt-in includes trial content without a watermark.
If a client chooses to proceed to paid service, we provide the trial-period videos (the same clips you previewed) as final, watermark-free files as part of the paid delivery - there’s no double charge for work already done in trial once you convert.
There were gaps on the project communication side, too.
We requested specific inputs multiple times (script/voiceover files, correct language details, final asset links, and timely feedback). Delays and partial information from the client side prevented us from completing some iterations as intended. Clear, timely inputs are essential for a fast, high-quality turnaround.
Scale & capacity - and what’s reasonable to expect free of charge.
We are a studio that routinely delivers a large volume of videos daily for multiple clients. That capability is real - but it applies to paid workflows with confirmed briefs and asset handoffs. Expecting the same high-volume output and watermark-free final files during a free trial is not feasible or standard practice for any reputable studio.
Language & editor capability.
We have editors with multi-language experience and access to language resources. Where a specific language nuance was needed, our editors use a combination of trained editors, native-speaker review (when required), and technology (transcription/translation tools) to ensure correctness. If there was a language mismatch in this case, we should have clarified this earlier - and we regret any confusion.
We take feedback seriously - both positive and negative - and we’re committed to improving. If you’re open to it, we’d welcome one final chance to review the project together (a quick call) to identify the exact gaps and find a practical resolution. Our goal is always fair, transparent work and satisfied clients.
Thanks again for your feedback - we’ll use it to tighten our onboarding and communication steps so future trials run even smoother.