Double Dutch

In the past these were dirty words for dirty people. Now these very same words can be used to describe the average social media addict.

We like strutting our stuff in public. We want the world to watch us. And we follow the fools who think that tweeting nonsense all day long makes them relevant.

8:05 AM. In line at Starbucks.

8:10 AM. Ordering a tall latte.

8:15 AM. Should have asked for a double shot of espresso.

8:18 AM. Back in my Mercedes. New Jersey Turnpike, here I come!

8:21 AM. In a car accident. Tweeting and drinking coffee don’t go well together.

9:33 AM. Thank goodness this hospital has a Starbucks.

We can laugh about it. We can cry about it, but things like Twitter and texting are changing the way we communicate. Even the way we dress.

If you don’t believe me, you should shop for winter gloves today, and count the pairs with holes in them or with special patches. Touchscreen gloves, that’s what they are called. Snowstorms, twisters, Republican primaries and other natural disasters won’t prevent mankind from texting.

Every single day, two hundred trillion text messages are received in America alone (source). That’s more than an entire year’s worth of regular mail.

Nielsen reported that the average American teen sends 3,339 texts each month. That’s more than six per every hour they’re awake. The girls are beating the boys with 4,050 texts per month, (boys send an average of 2,539 texts). Mind you, these numbers are from 2010!

But it’s not just the kids. Go into any supermarket and count how many times you’ll hear a mother tell her stroller-toddler:

“Not now sweetie. Mommy’s texting.”

8:42 PM. At Trader Joe’s. Should I buy broccoli or cauliflower?

Thanks to all these very important messages, safety is no longer the number one reason for getting a phone. We just love being social, don’t we?

THE FACEBOOK REVOLUTION
In 2010, Facebook beat Google as the most visited site (if we leave out visits to Google-owned YouTube). A year later, Facebook’s U.S. advertising revenue of 2.2 billion dollars had surpassed that of both Google and Yahoo.

It is THE place to hang out and make new friends. It’s that wonderful platform where -in the midst of an economic crisis- everything is always A-Okay. No matter what happens, the show must go on so we keep on dancing.

Smile people! Always beware of your brand. Heaven forbid we become real and share our fears and failures.

Occasionally, some Facebook friends will vent their frustrations, but overall, a happy-go-lucky attitude seems to be the norm: Do what you love and the money will follow. Really?

Many Europeans consider this attitude to be “typically American.” They see the States as a country where people have a hard time accepting failure. We’d rather take a happy pill than deal with our problems. We’re certainly not going to share them on our Facebook Walls. We’ve turned those into advertorials and infomercials:

9:15 AM. Join me for an online seminar where I’ll teach you how not to waste your time on Facebook. Remember the early bird discount!

10:02 AM. Finished an amazing gig with an amazing director. Life is good. It’s great to be back in L.A.

11:46 AM. Jesus rocks! He guided me to book another gig for Playboy Enterprises. Praise the Lord.

11:47 AM. Deuteronomy 5:11

11:48 AM. John 8:7

11:49 AM. Broccoli or cauliflower?

1:15 PM. There’s a new article on the Double Dutch blog. Be the first one to read it before it appears on VoiceOverXtra.

Yep, Facebook is definitely a site we can’t live without. In fact, we need more of those online chatrooms. What did you just tell me? You’re not on Google+ yet? Boy, you’re missing out on something spectacular. It’s great for your business. The other day I saw a video of a dog. Man, that was funny. Every time his owner began playing the guitar, this dog started smiling. No kidding. I’ll send you the link.

3:30 PM. Wasted another 3 minutes watching a dog on YouTube. Completely forgot to register for Faffcon 4. 

A WINDOW TO THE WORLD?
Look, I am not going to pooh-pooh social media again, but we should bury the idea that these sites are widening our world and increase interpersonal connections.

First of all, we don’t seem to know the difference between socializing and advertising. Socializing is all about connecting with others. Advertising is drawing attention to oneself in order to sell. If that becomes the main purpose of the interaction, it will turn people off. Sooner rather than later.

Secondly, people mainly interact with people they know or agree with. We block the rest and ban them from our circles. And if we don’t do it ourselves, algorithms will make sure that we see what we want to see and hear what we want to hear. Author and activist Eli Pariser calls this the “Filter Bubble.”

Based on our location and on what you and I have searched for and looked at in the past, certain websites (like Facebook) and search engines now use algorithms to predict and select what we’d be interested in right now. They call it “creating a personalized experience.”

YOUR WEB YOUR WAY
If you’re in the market for a new set of wheels and you’ve been browsing a few dealerships, chances are that you’ll be presented with car commercials instead of chewing gum ads. If you’re a fan of the current man in the White House and you keep track of his party’s politics, you won’t be exposed to Tea Party rhetoric. So far, so good, right?

Amazon and Netflix work the same way:

“If you liked this product or that movie, here’s what we recommend you check out next.”

I once made the mistake of tweeting about how much I love my memory foam mattress. Within the hour I was followed by three companies selling mattresses. I wanted to challenge them to a pillow fight.

But wait, there’s more!

If you and I were to enter the same keywords in Google, we would receive different results, based on past online behavior. You will get sites that are more in line with your interests and I will get sites that -presumably- will resonate more with things I prefer. Why is that so terrible?

DIVERSITY IS THE SPICE OF LIFE
I happen to think that it’s good to be exposed to different points of view. If I am only presented with an invisibly edited and uncontrollable stream of information that confirms my own bias, I lose something very important. Eli Pariser puts it this way:

“The Internet is showing us a world it thinks we want to see, but not necessarily what we need to see.”

We need to see how other people live and we need to hear what other people think. Intellectual discourse is part of a healthy democracy.

If we wish to promote peace, understanding and compassion in the world, we have to open ourselves up to other ideas, other traditions and the very things we don’t comprehend. Things that may make us uncomfortable. Otherwise, stupid stereotypes will go unchallenged and the people on this planet will never overcome their conflicts.

5:15 PM. More of the same is not only boring, it’s dangerous.

5:16 PM. I don’t want some geek at Google to tell me what’s relevant.

Knowledge empowers. Ignorance separates.

NOW WHAT?
It’s time to burst that filter bubble and give us control over the selection of sources of information. I don’t need Yahoo to determine what types of news stories will appear when I switch on my computer.

I want Facebook to be more about sharing and less about selling. I want parents to care more about their children than about their smart phones.

I want drivers to switch off their Blackberries and pay attention to the road. I want more people to be in the moment, instead of describing it on some electronic device.

That’s all great in theory, but here’s the question that’s been haunting me:

Will that ever happen or did we pass a point of no return?

5:24 PM. I am a practitioner of Positive Pessimism.

5:25 PM Hoping for the best. Expecting the worst.

Paul Strikwerda ©2012
www.nethervoice.com

Technorati Tags: Amazon, Double Dutch Blog, Eli Pariser, exhibitionists, Faffcon, Filter Bubble, Google, Netflix, Nethervoice, Nielsen, Paul Strikwerda, Social Media, stalkers, texting, twitter, VoiceOverXtra, voyeurs, Yahoo

They’re everywhere. Haven’t you noticed?

Take one good look. Let’s start with your online Holiday shopping.

Who’s responsible for most reviews on Amazon.com?

Experts? Consumer advocates? Independent test laboratories?

No. Amateurs!

Who just gave your favorite movie two stars on Netflix? Roger Ebert?

No. Amateurs!

What kind of people put the “reality” in reality TV?

Amateurs!

Where would talent shows like “American Idol,” “The X Factor” and “The Voice” be without…

Amateurs!

Credentials are so yesterday. Experience is optional. If it breathes and has half a brain, any Nobody can be Somebody.

On the web, pretenders pose as pros, and social proof trumps scientific evidence. Now, that’s what I call progress, ladies and gentlemen!

CULTURE SHOCK
A few years ago, British-American entrepreneur Andrew Keen wrote “The Cult of the Amateur: How Today’s Internet is Killing Our Culture.”

In it, Keen describes how he holds the participatory Web 2.0 responsible for at least two things:

1. Making it almost impossible to find high quality material amidst mediocre user-generated web content;

2. destroying profitable professionalism.

Take Wikipedia, which relies heavily on volunteer editors and contributors. Wikipedia gets more traffic than the online edition of the venerable Encyclopedia Britannica, written by experts and scholars. Keen writes:

“Every visit to Wikipedia’s free information hive means one less customer for a professionally researched and edited encyclopedia such as Britannica.”

But why would that necessarily be a bad thing (apart from putting encyclopedians out of business)?

The ever-evolving world wide web is all about user participation. Since the dawn of the egalitarian Internet, experts have had to leave their ivory towers. Information has become democratic: for the masses, by the masses.

We’re now living in the age of the Citizen Reporter, the self-styled critic and open source software. Anyone can share anything, no matter how profound or pathetic. How liberating is that?

Think about it.

In this 24/7 global, unfiltered data dump, there are very few knowledgeable gatekeepers to separate fact from fiction. Any amateur can claim to be an expert, and no one is going to stop them until they are found out.

Case in point:

THE  ESSJAY CONTROVERSY
In 2007, a Wikipedia contributor using the name Essjay, had edited thousands of articles. He once was one of the few people given the authority to arbitrate disputes between writers.

According to his user profile, Essjay was a tenured professor of religion at a private university with expertise in canon law. But in reality, Essjay turned out to be a 24-year-old impostor named Ryan Jordan, who attended a number of colleges in Kentucky and lived outside Louisville.

“People have gone through his edits and found places where he was basically cashing in on his fake credentials to bolster his arguments,” said Michael Snow, a Wikipedia administrator, after Jordan admitted that he had fooled everyone.

Boston Globe columnist Alex Beam called the Essjay affair an illustration of the problems of “crowdsourcing” and the “wisdom of crowds,” saying that the crowd accepts authority unquestioningly. Beam:

“Who would you rather have write your encyclopedia entries? Bertrand Russell, T.H. Huxley, and Benedetto Croce, who wrote for the Britannica? Or … Essjay?”

Andrew Keen was even stronger in his criticism. He said the whole affair was just one example of people ignoring expert guidance in favor of what he called the “dictatorship of idiots.” In this new “idiocracy,” amateurs rule and professionals are no longer cool.

Thank goodness that’s not the case in my profession: the wonderful world of voice-over acting!

Or is it?

THE DIFFERENCE THAT MAKES THE DIFFERENCE
Before I go on, let’s just define the territory, shall we?

To me, an amateur is a hobbyist, knowledgeable or otherwise, someone who does not make a living from his or her field of interest, a layperson, lacking credentials.

According to the same dictionary, a professional is someone engaging in a given activity as a source of livelihood or as a career; a skilled practitioner, an expert.

It’s no secret that each year, hundreds -if not thousands- of hopeful amateurs attempt to break into the business, by presenting themselves as voice-over professionals. It’s never been easier, and I’m not going to belittle anyone for trying.

However, if you present yourself as a pro, you have to leave your amateur attitude behind. In order to compete with the best, you have to hold yourself to the highest standards of professionalism. If you’re not ready, don’t enter the market. Otherwise, you’re wasting your time.

Now, some of you might say: “I’d rather hire an enthusiastic, talented amateur than a burnt-out, uninspired pro. There’s an abundance of fresh talent at the online voice casting sites and they deserve a chance. Everybody’s got to start somewhere, right?”

Well, let’s see how that works out.

HORROR STORY
A colleague with years and years of experience, gave me permission to share the following with you:

I’m trying to establish a new voiceover service targeting a specific niche.

I listened to hundreds of demos on Pay to Plays, and I was appalled at the reads (Radio DJ Syndrome) and by the Audio Quality Disorder (AQD).

While clicking through the demos, it was like… ”no, no, no,no,no,no,no,no, maybe, no,no,no,no, yes. no,no,no,no,no…” Maybe .005% of the people were worthy.

Ultimately, I found about 10 voiceover “professionals” on voices.com and voice123, and from various vo groups.

I contacted the people and explained my project. They all agreed to be involved. I needed some demos to get started. I sent them scripts with pronunciations and asked for demos as .wav files. (The 10 scripts consisted of only two or three sentences each!)

I received their demos of my scripts. The audio was shockingly bad.

Here’s what I heard:

Plosives all over the place; lip sounds; miscellaneous noises; “fff” and ”whoosh” breathing sounds; pops; distortion; headphone feedback. Additionally, there was a high pitch whine/buzz throughout the entire recording of one person’s demo.

In one case, I heard a kind of crackling noise that I knew could be due to a bad hard drive.

I sent samples of the people’s audio to Dan Lenard, the Home Studio Master. He confirmed my claims and he said he’s heard worse! (He said the noise that I thought was a bad hard disk was probably a broken microphone.)

One person ignored the phonetic pronunciations I provided. A few ignored the audio file-type specification. A couple people sent me .wav files not compressed as .zip files. One person sent me a .wav file that did not contain any audio!

One person told me he would be part of the project. In that email, he said he’d been having email troubles, and that’s the last I’ve heard from him! I tried contacting him through one of the p2p sites. I’ve had no response following his first email that stated he would be part of the project.

The audio from almost all the people was unusable.

So, in an email to each person, I explained in detail the issues with his or her audio, and asked for retakes

Then, the retakes deadlines passed, and I hadn’t received the retake demos from 5 of the people, so I emailed those 5 people and asked if they were still participating.

One guy said “I’m going to pass at this time. Thank you though”. His demo had already been sent to two voice-seekers. Had I not inquired, I would have discovered he was no longer interested only at the time I had committed to a job using his voice! He did not have the courtesy to inform me he was withdrawing from the project.

The demos of these people, on their profile pages, sounded good. The audio they sent me was crap.

According to Dan, the audio I received is representative of what ”professional voiceover talents” are giving to paying clients.

I’m absolutely dumbfounded that the poor quality of the audio that these ”pros” gave me is the same poor quality audio that goes out to clients.

I’m dismayed by the unprofessionalism displayed by some of the people.

Bad audio and amateurism are two big reasons the business is going to hell in a handbasket.

ATYPICAL OR A TREND?
It’s very easy to discard this story as anecdotal evidence. If that were the case, why are more and more voice-seekers leaving comments like:

“I cannot emphasize enough that I need high-quality audio. I expect all reads to be performed in some kind of professional or home recording studio with high-quality gear. Second-rate audio quality is not acceptable for this project.”

“MUST be absolutely crystal clear audio with none/minimal ambient noise.”

“Narrators must be able to record in high quality (either at a recording studio or at home with the appropriate equipment that can produce high quality). ”

“The audio must sound professional! Please do not send me audio that sounds like you recorded with a cassette player!”

“We would need the person hired to record the voice over in his own home studio with professional voice equipment, we had someone do it on their computer and it sounded awful and unprofessional.”

Well, one response would be: “If you expect professional quality, start paying professional rates! You get what you pay for.” My voice-seeking colleague continues:

“When clients have to ‘beg’ for quality audio, it indicates there is a problem of poor quality in the industry! Why do clients have to specifically demand high quality audio? We are supposed to be professionals!

For my new service, I’ve decided to only hire members of SaVoa, the Society of Accredited Voice Over Artist.”

The amateur invasion has opened many doors to deserving, talented individuals. But as always, if you don’t apply a fine filter, the floodgates will bring a lot of crap too, stinking up the business.

ARE YOU ALARMED?
In a strange way, my colleague’s story put my mind at ease. I’m not as worried anymore by the influx of upcoming voice talent as I used to be.

Wikipedia learned from the Essjay affair, and in an article addressing the reliability of the site, writes:

“The Wikipedia model allows anyone to edit, and relies on a large number of well-intentioned editors to overcome issues raised by a smaller number of problematic editors.

It is inherent in Wikipedia’s editing model that misleading information can be added, but over time quality is anticipated to improve in a form of group learning as editors reach consensus, so that substandard edits will very rapidly be removed.”

I predict that a similar kind of self-regulation will take place in the voice-over industry, or in any type of market that is overcrowded by freewheeling wannabes. Otherwise, something like a Pay-to-Play model will be as sustainable as the career of an aspiring voice actor.

Erik Sheppard of Voice Talent Productions puts it this way:

“The average lifespan of a voiceover “career” seems to be about a year. Every year old names drop off the radar and new ones appear, just to be replaced again the next year.

It seems to take about that long for The Blue Snowball Coalition of new talent to realize that they jumped into this without knowing what they heck they were doing and then they are on to the next get-rich-quick scheme. Sad really. I imagine there are a lot of old USB mics collecting dust out there…”

So, what’s your take on the avalanche of amateurs? Do they cheapen our community, or do they enrich us? Are they to blame for the steady decline of rates and standards?

Are they stealing jobs that should have gone to seasoned pros, or do they pick up the crumbs no one wants to eat?

Should some Pay-to-Plays put up a barrier of entry and be more rigid in their quality control, or will the weakest links just put themselves out of the game?

Paul Strikwerda ©2011
www.nethervoice.com

PS Be Sweet. Please retweet!

Technorati Tags: Alex Beam, Amateur Infestation, Andrew Keen, crowd sourcing, Double Dutch Blog, Dutch voiceover, Encyclopedia Britannica, Erik Sheppard, Essjay affair, Nethervoice, Paul Strikwerda, social proof, The Cult of the Amateur, voice acting, Voice Talent Productions, voice-over, voice-over career, web 2.0, Wikipedia

“It’s not the crook we fear in modern business; rather, it’s the honest guy who doesn’t know what he is doing.” Owen Young

The lines have been drawn.The time to mince words is over. Every day, our community seems to get more polarized around the issue of low rates. Listen to the buzz. Look at the chatter. Do you think this bubble is about to burst?

Some people are past being polite. They’re frustrated and angry. I like that. If you’re pissed off at something, it means you give a damn and you want things to change.

Some of my voice-over friends are a bit more diplomatic. Recently, I asked a few Facebook buddies a loaded question:

“Is charging low rates a sign of fear and lack of confidence, or just a smart strategy to attract more business?”

Here are some of the responses:

“You left out “ignorance” – some don’t know what they’re worth …” Joe J. Thomas

“It’s not a smart strategy because sooner or later, you will be up to your eyeballs with a multitude of low-ball clients and you’ll be working 15 hours a days, just to make ends meet. If you have to do this to survive, I respect that but you’ll never reach the next level working like this.

For every low rate I have to turn down, it’s usually made up a few days later when I get a new client who gets it. I would rather work with five good paying clients a week as opposed to fifteen who have $50 for their budget.” Terry Daniel ”

I believe it’s mostly be the influx of part timers and hobbyists to VO that drive down rates. They simply don’t depend upon the income to pay their bills. Anyone who has to depend on this work to feed, house and clothe themselves (not to mention a family) could never survive charging such low rates. To them, it’s pocket money. And in some part of the country the cost of living is much lower than in others, so those fewer dollars go further.” Diane Havens

Not everyone agrees. Of course most colleagues would rather do a well-paid job than a low-budget project, but they say there’s no shame in accepting work in the first place. Peter Sandon:

“Many of us are low volume workers, for a variety of reasons, and do not see the need or value in becoming union members. denigrating comments like “bottom feeders” are not only irrelevant but wrong and rude.

For many of us a low paid job is better than no job at all, and there is the chance that someone will hear our voices and offer us a well paid job. Did the “top feeders” start up there? I doubt it, most worked their way up, leaving low paid jobs for new arrivals, and maybe they don’t like the competition coming up behind them, because they may just be better – perish the thought!”

Here’s what Phil Sayer had to say:

“Do low rates ruin it for the rest of us? No, they don’t. They really, really don’t. They mop up low-budget work that others don’t want. If they didn’t provide that service, the money would simply be spent elsewhere, such as print.”

If you’ve been following my blog for a while, or if you’ve read my last article on lowballing, you know where I stand. Today I’ll give you my take on some of the arguments that are being used to defend, excuse or justify low rates. Even though we’re talking about voice-over services, you’ll find the same type of reasoning when other freelance rates are discussed. Here we go!

1. There will always be a high end and a low end of the market. Accept it and move on. 

That’s a given and it’s not addressing the real issue. We all know that there’s a market for KIA and Roll-Royce. The point is: how low is the KIA dealer willing to go to make a sale? Is he prepared to sell his cars at a loss, just to get his business going? How long can he keep that up before he goes bankrupt? It’s not a way to get loyal customers either. Next time, they’ll just buy from someone who’s willing to go even lower.

Bottom line: You need to cover your costs and then factor in a profit. But once you get clients hooked on cheap prices, they will never pay full price again.

2. You may lose money on every sale, but you’ll make it up in volume!

That’s like buying melons for a dollar each, and then selling 12 for 10 bucks. Does that make any sense? No matter how many KIA’s a dealer sells, if he sells them below cost, he’s not making any money. A small business owner once said: “Sales numbers feed egos, profits feed families.”

It’s not how much you sell, but how much you keep that matters. Business is a game of margins, not volume. Bargain airlines tried making money on volume. Guess what? They’re gone! To paraphrase Terry Daniel: would you rather do less for more, or more for less?

3. Purchase decisions are primarily based on price.

If that were the case, Mr. client, I will send you your order in two years, okay? I’ll also make sure that it will fall apart in two weeks, and you won’t be getting your money back. Don’t bother calling me, because I just closed our customer service department.

Most people do not buy on price alone. They will talk about price, but what they really mean is that you haven’t offered enough value to justify paying the price you’re asking.

There’s this cartoon with a picture of a brother and sister each with their own lemonade stand side by side. The brother’s lemonade stand reads “Lemonade 25 cents”. The sister’s lemonade stand reads “Lemonade 50 cents (clean water)”.

Do you want your service to be known for being the cheapest on the market, or for high quality? Competing on price is a losing battle.

Lawrence Steinmetz and William Brooks are the authors of “How to sell at margins higher than your competitors. Winning every sale at full price, rate or fee.” They say:

“If you want to earn a solid living in sales, you need to remember that you are going to face a consistent challenge to hang on to a higher price, because you will always find yourself competing with a fool who is going broke cutting prices.”

The key is adding value. If you don’t offer exceptional value, then your product or service becomes just another commodity. People buy commodities on price. If you’re just another web designer, voice-over artist or a car dealership, you’re in trouble. Value means offering more for a higher price.

4. Price does not influence the perception of a product.

If that were the case, why are people prepared to pay thousands of dollars for a Rolex, instead of buying a $50 Seiko? Most watchmakers agree that the Seiko is the better time piece.

Let’s talk about brain surgery. Why don’t people go to the cheapest surgeon in the area? Because low prices make people think he isn’t any good.

Price makes a statement. Cheap = cheap. What does your rate tell the world about what you think you’re worth?

5. Some clients just can’t afford paying higher rates. I can’t change that.

How do you know they can’t pay you a better rate? Buyers lie in order to get you to lower your price. It’s the oldest trick in the book. If they could get it from someone else at a better price, why are they still talking to you?

Stop making excuses for those who don’t respect you enough to pay you a decent fee. Unless you’ve seen their balance sheet, you don’t know what they can or cannot afford. Know your bottom line. Add value.

Don’t compromise so easily. Negotiate. Dare to say NO to a bad deal. Study the art of making the sale. It’s part of being a pro.

6. I don’t set the rates. The market does.

So, what you’re saying is that you don’t take responsibility for your prices? They are forced upon you at gunpoint? You’re just a helpless leaf in the wind?

Let me put it bluntly: The market doesn’t determine your price. Your client doesn’t set your fee. YOU do. It’s just very convenient to tell the world that you don’t have any influence over your rate. If you can’t control it, you can’t change it. You’re a victim of circumstance. End of story. Now go feel sorry for yourself.

Price-cutting is a self-inflicted wound. Should you decide that $10 for an 8 paragraph voice-over script is fair compensation, so be it. Contract law states that parties must agree to enter into a contract freely and must be of sound mind.

I’m not saying that you should ignore the competition or forget about the rate cards that are floating in cyberspace. It’s up to you if you want to look at Odesk, freelancer.com or the $100 voices.com minimum rate, and decide that that’s what “the market” is willing to pay. After all, all the client cares about is price, right? Or you could decide to look at union rates and make those the basis of your pricing structure.

Why not talk to an agent? If you’re any good, she might want to represent you. She’ll fight for a decent rate because if you do well, she will do well.

7. I’m not a sales person. I’m an artist. I don’t know how to negotiate.

No, you’re a wimp and you need a firm kick in the pants! Nobody is forcing you to be a full-time freelancer. But if you tell the world you are doing this to make a living, it automatically means that you’re the head of the sales department, whether you like it or not. Lawrence Steinmetz has this to add:

“The first thing you have to understand is that the selling price is a function of your ability to sell and nothing else.”

Any idiot can cave in at the first sign of buyer resistance and offer a price cut. That’s not selling. That’s being lazy and fearful. It’s a sign that you don’t believe in the value of your product or service. Clients always pick up on that and it will cost you dearly.

Being extraordinary talented in what you do, doesn’t guarantee instant success. Life might have dealt you a pretty good hand, but if you don’t know how to play the game, even the best cards are useless. We all know starving geniuses.

The way I see it, you have two choices. You either learn the rules and become good at playing the game, or you stay out of it. Remember: experience is the slowest teacher.

8. Low end rates do not affect high end rates.

If that were the case, why aren’t rates going up, instead of down? Why have so many auditions turned into a bidding war? Actor, writer and producer J.S. Gilbert:

“While it’s not being broadcast, I’m seeing people I know who have made six figure+ incomes at voice-over for years now, looking at incomes that are fractions of what they were a few years ago.”

I understand that we’ll never get back to the golden days of Don LaFontaine and his limo. Thanks to the internet, the rise in home studios and online job boards, clients no longer have to book union talent at union rates through an agent. Talk has become a lot cheaper.

As Gilbert points out in response to my previous post, a job that used to cost the client $1000, is now offered at $250. But why pay $250 if some fool is willing to do it for $25?

As I said before, once clients are taught they can get it for less, why should they pay a penny more? Give me one reason why this trend does not impact today’s prices, and has never done so in the past.

9. But I’m just getting started. I can’t possibly ask full price. 

Some beginners admitted to me that they’ve offered their services for free, just to be able to build a portfolio. Mind you: they were not talking about doing stuff for charity.

I think a freebie only makes sense if you have something else to sell. That’s why a baker hands out samples, and that’s why my custom demos are free of charge. But if you’re giving 500 dollars worth of services away for free, you’re not only creating expectations, you’re in fact saying: this is what I think my work is worth. Meanwhile, you’re robbing a colleague of the chance to make five hundred bucks.

Jason Fried is the co-founder and President of software solution provider 37signals. He recommends you practice charging a reasonable rate from day one. But what he said next was a real eye-opener to me:

“It’s very safe to charge low rates, because you don’t have to prove anything. But as soon as you charge a customer a good price, it gives them the power to demand something from you, such as good quality and great service. Those are the types of pressures you want on you as a small business owner. You want to be forced to be good. Charging for something forces you to be good.”

10. I don’t need to make a full-time income. It’s only a hobby.

If it’s only a hobby, why are you advertising yourself as a voice-over professional? I play the piano, but I don’t market myself as a concert pianist.

If you enjoy reading to other people, go volunteer at your local children’s hospital or elder care facility. You will probably get more appreciation for doing this, than for anything you’ve ever done before.

Most talent I know are only freelancing part-time, because they’re still building what they hope will become a full-time business. A part-time teacher only gets paid less because she puts in fewer hours. Does a part-time cab driver fix the meter so he can drive you around at half-price? So, why should you offer your services at bottom dollar?

Oh… I see. Your partner has a steady job, and the money you make doing the occasional voice-over doesn’t have to pay the mortgage, right?

Guess what? In this economy there’s no such thing as a steady job anymore. What would happen if your partner gets laid off and you become the sole breadwinner? Can your beer money pay the bills? Do you really think you could raise your rates to make ends meet?

Price buyers are the first to look elsewhere. They don’t care about your personal situation. They care about cutting costs. But stop thinking about your own situation for a moment.

There are people who depend on doing this for a living right now, and they think your price dumping is nothing but unfair competition.I admit: you’re quite talented, and by charging these low rates, you are making it harder and harder for them to justify their fees.

I think it’s time for you to think about the bigger picture.

This is not about shameless greed or about becoming filthy rich and famous. This is about being able to provide for your family; being able to send your kids to college and save some money for a rainy day.

Your voice could help sell millions of dollars worth of product. It can introduce people to brilliant books that enrich their lives. Your voice can be the voice of a mentor, teaching valuable skills to e-learners across the globe. Your voice can inform, entertain, sell and assist. Surely, that must be worth something?

However… Those who can’t build value, have nothing left but to compete on price.

Paul Strikwerda ©2011
www.nethervoice.com
Be sweet. Please retweet!

Technorati Tags: 37signals, bottom feeder, cheap voiceover, Diane Havens, Double Dutch Blog, J.S. Gilbert, Jason Fried, Joe J. Thomas, Lawrence Steinmetz, lowballing, Nethervoice, Owen Young, Paul Strikwerda, Peter Sandon, Phil Sayer, Terry Daniel, voice-over, voice-over rate, voiceover, voiceover rate card, William Brooks

Should every (freelance) business have a blog? 

How do you become a successful blogger?

What should you write about? 

How much time does it take? 

Can blogging really increase business? 

Many readers have asked me these questions. That’s why I have written a 33-page guide to blogging.

I’ll take you behind the scenes of Double Dutch, to share my  very best blogging secrets with you.

Download your copy at Scribd.com today.

Part of the proceeds will go to www.kiva.org, changing the world, one micro-loan at a time!

You can preview and buy the guide on Scribd. International readers can purchase a download of this guide for $3.49 using this PayPal-link. Once your payment clears you will receive the PDF-file via email.

Happy blogging!

Paul Strikwerda ©2011
www.nethervoice.com

Be sweet: please retweet!

Technorati Tags: blogging secrets, blogging tips, boosting business with a blog, content marketing, Dutch voiceover, Paul Strikwerda, search engine optimization, SEO, should every business have a blog, Social Media, twitter, voice-over, voiceover, voiceovers, writing a successful blog

It all started with a short article on his company blog entitled:

“A Quick Guide To Selecting The Right Voice Talent”.

The author, Chris Johnson, is co-Founder of Simplifilm, a young company specializing in “Hollywood-style Explanation videos”. They’ll have to make a video to explain what that means, but Simplifilm says it uses animation and storytelling to demo software applications.

This does not come cheap. Back in July, the company was running a “Grand Opening Sale” offering “3 minutes of broadcast quality demo movie work for $20,000. That’s 40% off the going rate.” You do the math.

Before he became a filmmaker, Chris was Finance Director at Robert Owens for Ohio Attorney General 2008, and he worked as a loan specialist at First Ohio Home Finance.

Thanks to his financial background, Chris seems to know the value of a voiceover, and he’s not basing it on anecdotal evidence. This is how he starts his blog:

“Did you know that the right voice can make a 35% difference in conversion rate? We replaced a voice track in a video – and made no other changes, and the conversion rate went from 2.5% to 3.8% on cold traffic. (Cold traffic is people that are mostly strangers that are coming in via search engines and social media).”

I’m not sure how “2.5% to 3.8% on cold traffic” leads to a “35% percent difference,” but Johnson is definitely on to something.

VOICEOVER CONVERSION
This is not the first time a video company noticed a correlation between the choice of voice and website conversion.

The conversion rate is the percentage of website visitors taking a desired action. It often refers to the number of shoppers turning into buyers. Depending on the size of a company, even a small increase in conversion could mean a significant rise in profits.

San Diego-based Fireclick monitors conversion rates. If you want to get a better idea of industry averages, the Fireclick index will provide some insight.

For software, it averages about 2% per year, with a cart abandonment rate of 75%. That means that three quarters of online software shoppers never become buyers! Could selecting the right voice really change that?

In 2009, Ginger software asked video optimization firm EyeView to develop an introductory video for their homepage to increase the number of visitors that would actually download their software.

EyeView ran a test: 50% of the global audience saw the video with a British voice-over, and 50% saw it with an American voice. Globally, the British voice-over was 4% more effective. For US audiences, the conversion rate for the British accent was 5.5% higher than the American one.

Eyeview:

“The Brits didn’t have it all their own way. In India, the American accent was 12% more effective at converting visitors. But the most surprising statistic of all came when we looked at the comparative performance of the two accents in the UK.

For audiences watching the video in the UK, the voiceover with the American accent was 8% more effective at making visitors download Ginger’s software than the British accent, representing a significant swing away from the global trend.”

Simplifilm’s Chris Johnson confirms:

“The right voice is key to converting video watchers into new customers. When you get the right voice, it breathes life into your video productions, and you should take the time it takes to select and respect your voice talent.”

Please remember that, next time you’re tempted to low-ball yet another voiceover project!

With voice talent having such a tremendous impact on conversion, how much does Simplifilm pay per production? Bear in mind that they charge about $33,000 for a 3-minute video. Johnson:

“Generally, productions are around a couple hundred dollars. We’re not going to lord over them or dangle money like some jerk, we want to do business, be respectful and move on.”

FINDING THE PERFECT PIPES
Now, wouldn’t it be interesting to know where Chris finds the right voices? According to his article, two talents work for him on a regular basis and he tells his readers:

“If -for some reason – you need to find someone outside of your network (…) you can start with Voice123.”

Voice Coach and talent Mark Avery read the blog and responded:

“Unfortunately, many producers and end-users of voice talent have gone to the “discount superstore” mentality of hiring voices for their projects, and the results often show themselves in low conversion rates.”

Of course I had to put my two cents in. Thinking back to my interview with Bodalgo’s Armin Hierstetter, I wrote:

“Chris, most online voice casting services will accept anyone with a credit card, talent not required. It’s not unusual for voice-seekers to receive over 100 auditions for a simple project. Imagine how long it will take you to listen to all these mediocre submissions…”

These turned out to be prophetic words. That same week, Chris joined the Voice Over Professionals group on LinkedIn, and this is how he introduced himself:

“Howdy, guys, I’m new to the group. I’m a production company doing software stories. We’re looking for a stable of 4-6 males and 4-6 females for future work.”

OPEN THE FLOODGATES
You can imagine what happened next. I’ll let Chris tell the story:

“So, when I asked for submissions here – and other places – they started trickling in. Then the floodgates opened.

Last count was 400+ and I have seen no slowdown… both here, from another couple of sources.
I’m surprised because I (hopefully) didn’t represent myself as being too “giant.” I caused 400+ auditions for what will amount to $5,000 or so in fees annually – at most.

Now, how do I read through ‘em all? I put everyone in a spreadsheet, but what’s next? How do I sort people out? I need say 8 voices. If I take 5 minutes per x 500 voices, that’s 2500 minutes.

Or 42 hours JUST listening to voices. I’m not doing that.”

At this point I started to jump for joy, thanking Simplifilm’s founder for the perfect example. This is exactly why most Pay to Plays will eventually implode. Do you get my drift?

Some of my clients have worked with voice casting sites for a while, and they’re starting to realize how expensive “going cheap” can be. Think about it!

How long does it take to find a quality needle in a huge haystack made of scrap metal?

Let’s look at the numbers.

Of course it’s unusual to get 500 auditions for one job, so why not assume that Chris Johnson has to weed through (only!) 100 demos. If he spends 5 minutes on each talent (as he just wrote), this will still take him eight and a half hours!

Imagine being in Chris’s shoes. Should he hire someone to do the dirty work for him and weed through hours and hours of audio? That person needs to be paid too.

If Chris is lucky, his hired help might find the perfect voice among the first 20 contenders. However, my clients concur with Armin Hierstetter that the overall level of entries is usually way below the mark. They’re forced to listen to a deluge of demos before they finally spot the right voice at the right price. What an expensive way to find cheap talent!

Critics might say that I am exaggerating the situation just to make a point. Voice seekers don’t listen to that many demos. Or do they?

In their Client Experience Report Winter 2011, Voices.com states:

“(…) it often surprises talent that the majority of clients review all their auditions. I say majority as that includes those who reviewed “all of the auditions” (45%) plus those who reviewed “50-100 auditions” (8%).”

A while ago I noticed that so many voices.com projects were still listed as open after many, many months. Could one of the reasons be that the client simply gave up after listening to 30 mediocre auditions?

Fortunately, there is an easy solution.

Some of my clients find it much more cost-effective and less time-consuming to hand their project to an agent and let him or her select four or five voices that can all deliver the goods. Clients might end up paying union rates and agent fees, but in the end they’re saving time, trouble and money.

Bye-bye Pay to Play, and thanks for the memories!

THE BABBLE BUBBLE
Online casting services have grown exponentially in the past five years. Fast growing companies often fall victim to their own success. Quality and customer service are compromised and sacrificed in favor of rapid expansion as they’re chasing after the big bucks.

It is no secret that more and more (pseudo)voice actors are joining Pay to Plays. That means that more dogs are fighting over the same bare bones. The chances of landing a decent job at a decent rate decline rapidly.

Here’s my prediction. At some point in the near future, there is no point in joining such a service anymore. It’s not worth it.

Saturation leads to annihilation. Bubbles burst. Cheaply made balloons will pop first.

What’s left is just hot air.

Try fitting that in a 3-minute video demo!

Chris Johnson, here’s a word to the wise:

If you need new talent, call an agent.

Don’t ask for any names of agencies, though.

You might get a list of … about 500!

Paul Strikwerda ©2011
www.nethervoice.com

Technorati Tags: Armin Hierstetter, Bodalgo, Chris Johnson, conversion rate, Double Dutch, Double Dutch Blog, Dutch voice actor, explanation videos, EyeView, Fireclick, Fireclick index, Ginger Software, LinkedIn, Mark Avery, Nethervoice, Paul Strikwerda, Pay to Plays, Pay-to-Play, Simplifilm, voice over professionals, voice-over, voice123.com, voiceover, voiceover agent, voices.com, voices.com client experience report

If you’ve been around the voice-over block a couple of times, you know that Steven Lowell doesn’t always mince his words when defending the company he works for as Community Manager: voice123.com.

At times he can be rather undiplomatic, to put it mildly. Some appreciate his candor. Others not so much.

I know Steven to be extremely helpful, knowledgeable and a downright good sport when I poke fun at him in my blog. The picture he sent me of him in a tiny red bikini still haunts me in my dreams. Thanks a bunch!

This week, Lowell published “The Voice Over Guide,” consisting of ten well-written chapters packed with practical information for newcomers and seasoned pros alike.

After reading this free guide, I have gained a renewed appreciation and respect for Steven. This is a very comprehensive and helpful overview of what it takes to become successful as a voice-over artist and solopreneur.

It’s by no means a “Get Rich Quick” guide. It’s a “Build a Solid Career Slowly” resource that does not dumb down what it takes to make it in this competitive business.

This guide should be required reading for anyone who is contemplating the idea of launching a serious voice-over career. If you’ve already taken the plunge and you are wondering why your business hasn’t taken off yet, you need to start reading this guide now.

Not only that, you must take Lowell’s advice to heart and put it into practice, practice, practice.

Lowell’s Voice Over Guide zooms in on using the unlimited online possibilities of building a lucrative career as a voice talent. He takes a close look at marketing, making demos, making sure you get paid, and he busts a couple of myths along the way.

He makes no secret of the fact that online casting service voice123.com has been his bread, butter and jelly since 2007. Chapter Six of his guide is entirely devoted to his professional home, and that’s where Lowell demonstrates that he still is His Master’s Loyal Voice.

To me, that’s the weakest link in this guide. We all know that there are more Pay-to-Plays on the planet, and conveniently ignoring the competition does the uninformed readers a disservice.

Even after reading his exposé about the perceived advantages of the infamous SmartCast system, I am still as dumbfounded as before, at its “heuristic algorithm” that’s supposed to create a level playing field.

If we are to believe Steve,

“60% of auditioning voice talent book at least one job a month using voice123. Between 10% – 13% book at least five jobs a month.”

This is apparently based on

“Current averages in surveys”.

As a born skeptic I’d like to see independent verification of these numbers. Secondly, I’m not so sure a survey of a limited sample by the company itself can be taken at face value.

If -based on these numbers- voice123 is indeed confident that you and I will have a more than 50% chance of landing one gig a month using their service, I’d like to propose the following no cure, no pay system:

• Keep the tax-deductible membership at $295 per year, but don’t charge talent a penny until they start making money on the site;

• As soon as a talent lands a job and payment comes in, this money is applied toward the membership fee until it is fully paid off. In other words: the site makes money as soon as the talent makes money. Fair is fair.

This Play-to-Pay system creates the perfect win-win situation and acts as an incentive for the voice casting service to keep on providing quality leads at reasonable rates.

Anyone in favor say “Aye”!

Steven, are you with me, or am I barking up the wrong tree?

Paul Strikwerda ©2011
www.nethervoice.com

Technorati Tags: Double Dutch Blog, Nethervoice, online casting, Paul Strikwerda, Pay-to-Play, SmartCast system, Steven Lowell, The Voice Over Guide, voice-over, voice123, voiceover, voiceovers

“I’m being offered $200 to record a 120-thousand word audio book. Do you think that’s a fair rate?”

“A client wants me to voice a movie trailer for $150. Should I do it?”

Not a day goes by without someone asking these types of questions on Facebook, LinkedIn and now on Google+ (the latest way to go around in circles).

Sometimes I stick my neck out and I respond to these questions; especially when I get sentimental and remember the early days of my career.

I was young and unafraid and incredibly ignorant. Back then there was no Internet. Picking brains became my specialty.

On other days I’m not so sappy, as I remember the kind words of my business coach:

“If you’re a Pro, you know what you’re worth. If you’re not, go do you your own homework! You won’t learn a thing if I hand you everything on a silver platter.”

He was right.

These days, getting info has never been easier. Search Google for voiceover rates. You’ll get about 1,370,000 results in 0.15 seconds. How’s that for starters?

MONEY TALKS
Bringing up rates usually spells trouble. Talent likes them to go up; clients love paying less. Where to begin?

The Freemarketeers will tell you to leave everything up to the unregulated forces of supply and demand. After all, it worked well for subprime mortgages, didn’t it? The Interventionists fear a free fall for all. They want rates to be regulated.

Unfortunately, it’s not that black-and-white. Voice-Over rates reflect many variables, and -unless you belong to a union or you have an agent- it can be tough to put a price on your pipes.

Enter a parade of Pay to Plays. You pay for the privilege of being offered the opportunity to audition and bid for projects (together with thousands of other privileged colleagues). Here’s the catch.

As a member, you often have to subject yourself to an agreed price range per project deemed reasonable by that site. Whether or not you choose to accept that range depends on your personal Price Floor.

A Price Floor is a point below which a product or service should not be sold, or else you’d incur a loss. I bet you anything that most people reading these words right now, have no clue what their price floor actually is.

Be honest. Do you?

A EUROPEAN PERSPECTIVE
If you’ve visited my blog before, you know that I have written about U.S.-based voice casting sites and their perceived influence on dwindling voice-over rates.

On January 8th, 2008, a new player entered the market: Bodalgo. Based in Germany, Bodalgo is the brain child of a man who once had a very boring job as the deputy editor of Penthouse: Armin Hierstetter.

Armin’s no dummy.

He studied the existing P2P’s carefully, as he set out to take the good and improve the bad to create something beautiful. Unlike similar sites, Bodalgo is available in German, Spanish, Italian and English (American and British).

Now, if you think that you can buy your way into Bodalgo, you are wrong. No matter the credit limit on your Visa Card, if you sound like crap, you can’t join the club.

Bodalgo caters to clients from all over the world, but because it’s based in Bavaria, it’s a gateway to the European voice-over market. This brings me back to rates. How does Bodalgo compare to its American counterparts?

I (PS) decided to check in with the boss: Armin Hierstetter (AH). Here’s a transcript of the interview:

PS I just saw a project posted on your site in the 100-250 USD range. It made me think: Is Bodalgo going in the direction of its American counterparts, or did I miss something? Has $100 always been the minimum?

AH In USD the minimum range starts at 100 dollars (the Euro has a 50 to 150 minimum range as – for example – a local radio spot in Germany is usually 50 to 55 Euro).

If jobs are posted that are budgeted too low (intentionally or not), Bodalgo contacts the voice-seeker suggesting what we believe is a fair rate. Sometimes the voice-seeker sees our point and is willing to raise the budget, sometimes not. If the voice-seeker does not agree on increasing the budget, the job simply does not get posted. Period.

Of course, we hear many times:

“What? You want me to pay 250 USD for a job that is done in five minutes? You must be insane, you [censored]“

Well, depending on my mood, I sometimes try to explain why voiceovers cost what they cost (knowing that with these types of folks it really does not help at all in most cases), or I simply press the delete button and go on with whatever I am doing.

PS Bodalgo’s been in business for a few years now. What’s your overall take on how voice-over rates are established and where they are going?

AH There are many factors when it comes to rates. Here are few of them (this is by no means meant to be a complete list):

Your voice:

1. Experience
2. Skills
3. Uniqueness (most important if you ask me)

Your studio:

1. Equipment
2. Recording skills

Other factors:

1. Currencies
2. Inflation

I see a link between equipment becoming more powerful yet more affordable, and declining voice-over rates. Let me share three trends with you:

1. The costs for your own studio are coming down, so you can make this beneficial for your clients as well;

2. Because many talents build their own studios, there is much more competition which also leads to lower prices. That’s how the market works.

PS Sorry to interrupt, but clients are saving money due to the increase in home studios. No longer do they need to pay for studio time, an audio engineer/editor and a director.

It is my impression that these savings are simply pocketed and not passed on to the voice talent. In the end, we end up doing more for less. Shouldn’t this give us some leverage to raise our rates?

AH I fully understand that voice-seekers already save a lot of money because they’re used to getting the finished audio from the talent without paying for a studio.

I want to be honest with you. I really think that’s one of the biggest mistakes talents have made for a very long time: They did not charge properly for the studio work, only for the rate as a talent. It will be VERY difficult to change this to an approach where talent charges their normal rate plus editing costs;

3. More and more people of the type “My friends all tell me I should host a radio show,” buy a Shure SM58 microphone and think that their laptop recording is god’s gift to the audio world. Untrained amateurs seem to flood the market.

What’s worse, there are many voice-seekers out there that listen to crap demos thinking they are actually good, because they don’t have a proper recording at hand to compare.

But one thing is for sure: Bodalgo will never start to accept amateurs. Yes, there are a few talents with Bodalgo that have just slipped through the net that might not have passed if I had been pickier the day I activated their accounts. Still, the level of Bodalgo’s talent is much, much, much higher than with any other Pay2Play site that we’ve come across.

PS What’s your advice on how to best play the game? Everybody loves to win an audition, but not at any rate. Do you expect voice-over rates to go up any time soon?

AH If you ask me, the reasons why rates should go up are purely to be seen in costs of living. If those prices would be stable, I’d say it’s fair to assume that our rates would stay stable as well.

With financial markets facing the issues they face at the moment, including all the effects like higher inflation, increased costs for energy, food, rent etcetera, I think that we’ll see rates rising over the next years to cover the rising living expenses.

PS Inflation correction keeps rates at the same level. Talent won’t be making more just because the number on a check is higher. If we wish to increase the amount of money coming in, we need to compensate for the rise in the cost of living, and add e.g. 10% to whatever we’re charging.

AH Well, U.S.-based talent benefits from the weak dollar when paid in Euros by Euro-Zone clients. The opposite is true for Euro-Zone-Talent paid in USD. U.S. clients will not accept higher USD prices just because of exchange rates. It’s really just bad luck for us Euro-Talents. And – if you ask me – the U.S.-Dollar will become much weaker over the next months and years (but that’s a different topic).

So, to cut a long story short: Yes, I see higher rates over the next years. But this is only because everything else will go up in price as well.

PS So, how can we best prepare for the tough years that are ahead of us?

AH 1. If you have not done so already, invest in your own studio.

2. Buy the good stuff (like Neumann or Brauner for mics, for example) as it will serve you well many, many years. Personally, I would no longer waste money on analog equipment. I would solely buy digital stuff (like the TLM 103 D from Neumann).

PS Quality equipment is essential, but owning a state of the art camera does not make one a top-notch photographer.

AH I do appreciate that a cool mic does not make a great voice talent, but this is not where I am coming from at all. I am just a firm believer that successful talent simply needs both: A well-trained voice and great equipment to deliver high-quality audio. There are too many Samsung USB mics out there in my opinion.

I know, of course, that those top shelf brands are pricey. But when you look at what you (and your client) get for the money – it turns out to be an excellent investment.

3. LEARN HOW TO RECORD PROPERLY!!! It’s really, really, really (I mean it) horrible to hear how bad, bad, bad many of the auditions are recorded (hiss, bad miking, bad levelling, bad everything). Use proper headphones to proof-listen your recordings and be super critical about the work you deliver. [Armin insisted this should be printed in bold]

PS Can Bodalgo keep both voice-seekers and voice talent equally happy, or is that impossible?

AH That’s easy: Our main goal is to attract more and more voice-seekers that post sanely budgeted jobs. We want to provide them with the easiest solution available to find high-quality talent without paying any commission. That way, both sides will win.

PS Herzlichen Dank, Armin.

You can reach Armin at armin@bodalgo.com. He is planning to do regular screen casts/vlogs in German and in English, and pass on his take on topics relevant to voice talent.

Paul Strikwerda © 2011
www.nethervoice.com

Technorati Tags: Armin Hierstetter, Bodalgo, Brauner microphones, Double Dutch Blog, Dutch voice talent, Euro-zone, inflation correction, minimum voiceover rates, Nethervoice, Neumann, Neumann TLM 103D, Paul Strikwerda, Pay-to-Play, price floor, Shure, Shure SM 58, subprime mortgage, TLM 103 D, voice casting, voice casting site, voice-over, voice-over audition, voice-over rates, voiceover, voiceover rates

It’s one of those mornings. I just put on my grumpy pants and I’m not in the mood to write a brilliant blog post. I just need to vent about social media.

The non-event that triggered the outburst you’re about to enjoy, is at the top of my list:

1. Robotic requests to connect, befriend, recommend or refer.

You know what I am talking about. Automated messages such as:

“I’d like to add you to my professional network on LinkedIn”.
“You are a person I trust…”

Give me a break! Do I know you? Have we ever met? Did we do business together? If the answer to these questions is NO, then why are you bothering me? Are you a hacker, a stalker, a spammer or a child?

Are you truly interested in me, or do you just want to milk my carefully built-up professional network for personal gain? Should I send you to social media etiquette school and ask the teacher to put you in the corner?

Your profile tells me you list yourself as a “PR-specialist”. If your approach is an example of how you conduct business, you will be the first person I will never hire. How’s that for a recommendation?

2. Mixing business with personal info.

Just because we’ve worked together, doesn’t mean I need to know that you came back from your doctor and had a wart removed. Spare me the details!

I don’t care what you’ve had for breakfast, lunch or dinner. Your kids don’t interest me. Your spouse leaves me cold and your high school pictures are just as boring as all the other high school pictures on the Web.

Facebook Profiles are for people. Facebook Pages are for nonprofits and businesses. Facebook’s official policy states:

“Facebook profiles are meant to represent a single individual. Organizations of any type are not permitted to maintain an account under the name of their organization.”

“If you create a profile for your business, your account may be disabled for violating our Terms of Use.”

3. Making it all about you, all the time.

Yes, I know the world revolves around you, but do you have to rub it in 24/7? Thin books become pretty old pretty fast. It’s so easy to saturate social media with self-centered fluff. It quickly becomes counter-productive.

I’m happy for you that you landed a new client and I’m sure your latest product looked and sounded great, but do you have an interest in what’s going on in the rest of the world?

It’s obvious that you like talking about yourself, but can you actually shut up and listen for a change? And when you do, do you really hear what I am saying, or are you waiting for an opportunity to bring the conversation back to… YOU?

If you’re the busy professional you claim to be, how on earth do you find the time to constantly tweet, text, chat and comment?

4. Using money as your motivator.

What am I to you? Am I a friend or a business lead? Did you mislead me by befriending me? True friends want to give and share without expecting anything in return. What is it that you really want? Are you trying to warm me up to soften your sale?

I don’t want to be reduced to something that’s bringing you one step closer to meeting your monthly quota. If you want to lose your friends forever, try involving them in your multi-level marketing scheme. There’s a reason why it’s very lonely at the top of the pyramid.

Stop selling yourself. Don’t prescribe a cure before you know the illness. Find out how you can be of service. And if you don’t have anything to offer at the moment, leave me alone. Please. I’ve got work to do.

5. Asking me to do your homework.

You wanted to know how you can become a voice-over artist. You told our facebook group that you don’t have any gear; you have no demos and zero experience. You have no budget and apparently no brain. That’s why you asked the community to do the homework for you.

How about doing a quick Google search, or is that too much to ask? Are you perhaps used to things being handed to you on a silver platter? If that’s the case, forget about a career as solopreneur.

The self-employed get their hands dirty. If they want something, they go after it. And when they’ve exhausted their research, then they might turn to a colleague for advice.

I consider myself to be reasonably responsive, knowledgeable and quite supportive, but there’s one thing I will not support: laziness! So: get off you butt and stop wasting our time!

6. Having no manners.

Picture this: I just took an hour out of my schedule to give you some valuable tips and connect you to a few colleagues. My friends tell me that you followed up with them, so I know you received my 3-page email. Did I ever hear back from you? No Sir! Not even a thank you.

The words “please” and “thank you” are rapidly disappearing from our language. Kids don’t use them anymore because their parents stopped using them. After all, what’s the point? Why thank someone for something we take for granted?

Mind you, I’m not looking for an ego-boost and I don’t need validation in order to feel valued. But I still believe that it is more than a common courtesy to show some appreciation for something someone has done for you without any ulterior motives.

Secondly, the fact that it’s easy to be anonymous online, doesn’t give you permission to be rude, insulting, childish or ill-mannered. We can’t hear your tone of voice and we don’t see your facial expressions. That’s why it’s so easy to take your words literally, so be careful of what you say and how you say it. Notice how diplomatic I am in this rant?

7. Leaving non-comments, just to get your name out.

I love my readers. Without them my blog would make the sound of one hand clapping. I love the readers that become subscribers even more. Right up there, are the ones that get involved and care to comment. You know who you are and you also know that I make an effort to respond.

I do have one simple request: If you have nothing to say, don’t say it!

It’s an old, self-serving strategy to try to trick search engines into believing that you have an internet presence by leaving a two-word comment followed by your contact info. These days, search engines are much smarter than that. They may even penalize you for plastering your name all over the web.

8. Luring me with the Lord. OMG!

You might have heard the story of the man who got into a serious car accident recently. He was rammed by a Hummer with a “God is my co-pilot” license plate. He not only lost a leg. He also lost his faith.

Let me put it bluntly: I go online for information and communication; not for salvation. For me, conversion rate is about turning visitors into customers. Let’s not trivialize the sacred scriptures and turn the internet into a stairway to heaven.

Believe it or not, my soul is safe and my religious convictions and affiliations are none of your business.

*               *               *               *                *

Okay…. I feel so much better already.

It’s not healthy to keep everything boiled up inside.

Thanks for letting me blow off some steam.

Speaking of Social Media, what are things you find absolutely intolerable?

Whining? Political debates? Stereotyping certain groups? Fake endorsements? Customized advertising? Farmville? Bad spelling? People like me?

The floor is yours!

Paul Strikwerda © 2011
www.nethervoice.com

Technorati Tags: common courtesy, difference between facbook page and profile, Double Dutch Blog, Facebook, facebook friend, friend request, internet etiquette, LinkedIn, manners, Nethervoice, Paul Strikwerda, saying please and thank you, Social Media, twitter, voice-over, voiceover

According to my blogging buddy Mahmoud Taji, a VO-pro has to be a Jack -or Jill- of All Trades (or in my case “a Paul of all Professions”). He’s right: there’s no such thing as a steady routine in our line of work.

We should be ready to take on any role at any given moment in time. When the red studio light is on, a smoky voice and a hot mic will turn any script into solid gold. It’s insane. It’s addictive. It’s my life.

Personally, I would rather trade stability for variety. That’s why I loved the thrill of working in an international newsroom: never a dull day!

There’s always some silly dictator being toppled; a ‘perfectly safe’ nuclear reactor is about to burst, and yet another A-list Hollywood actor has shown the world he knows what women want. We’ve sheen it all before, haven’t we?

These days, I’m no longer dishing up a daily dose of dirt (a.k.a. “the world news”) for Radio Netherlands. As you know, I’m now riding the voice-over roller coaster, complete with sharp turns and unexpected ups and downs.

This morning I’ll be yodeling another chapter of a book on Austrian economics. Later today I’m going to sell lubricant… for bike chains. In between, I’ll audition for a role as the Prince of Darkness, followed by an e-Learning program on blood transfusion.

As my Granny used to say: “Life’s a Wheel of Fortune.” She’s right. Perhaps I should audition for that show too, but I’ve heard that IBM’s Watson is also in the running for the part. Will that jeopardize my chances? I guess I better stick to the predictable unpredictability of a rich and fun-filled freelance career!

GOING GLOBAL
Thanks to the  interconnected global economy, our voice can reach more people than ever, at rates that barely buy us a Happy Meal, let alone a much needed hardware upgrade. I’m in the market for a new computer and I think I just might have to settle for a mini Mac. ElDorado-George seems to like it, so why go for a big Mac?

As I told an aspiring VO-talent the other day: “If you want to make lots of money, you have two options: you either apply for a job at the U.S. Mint, or you start an online voice casting business.

Don’t waste any time pimping your pipes. The voice-over future is filled with gloom and doom. When people tell you less is more, they’re usually referring to your rate and not to your interpretation of the script. ”

During desperate days there’s always one consolation: the knowledge that we’re not alone in our suffering. The slump is not just affecting government workers in Wisconsin. Well-respected socialite and VO-colleague Dave Courvoisier had to take on a second job as a Vegas news anchor*. It gets worse.

The outrageously gifted actress Lindsay Lohan allegedly stole a necklace to make ends meet. Yes, it’s hard to be glamorous in a bad economy, and life can be terribly unforgiving.

REDEMPTION & RECOVERY
Fortunately, we also know that a sudden spin of the wheel can turn a beggar into a chooser. Golden pipe dreams do come true, as long as your voice-over video goes viral.

By the way… is Ted Williams honing his Kraft or is he still recovering from rehab? I don’t mean to be Cavalier about it, but it must be hard being exploited by the media while your 90-year old mother tells America you’re an embarrassment.

But that story is so yesterday…

As I am getting ready for my next recording session, I still wonder why so many people want to get into voice-overs these days.

Why not invent a cure for cancer or help end global warming instead? Those are dignified undertakings, and you might end up winning a Nobel prize. That surely beats being the voice of BMW or receiving a nomination for an Audie!

Why not leave the voice work to the panhandling Jacks of all Trades that aren’t very good at anything else but blabber? They’ll soon be replaced by clever text-to-speech apps anyway.

What did you say?

They already are?

I better start recording now, before they trade me in for the voice that comes out of my Tom Tom.

The tape is running.

The red light’s on.

If only I could find my script…

Paul Strikwerda © 2011
www.nethervoice.com

* that’s just plain silly and utter nonsense.  Dave leads a double-life as a triple threat! He anchors, he’s a VO-pro and a master of social media.

 

Technorati Tags: Audie Awards, Charlie Sheen, Dave Courvasier, Double Dutch Blog, Dutch voiceover, Eldorado Recording Services, George Whittam, Harlan Hogan, Harlan Hogan voice-over sign, IBM, IBM's Watson, Jeopardy, Lindsay Lohan, Mahmoud Taji, Nethervoice, Paul Strikwerda, Ted Williams, voice-over, voice-over blog, voice-over career, voice-overs, voiceover, voiceover career tips, voiceovers, Watson, Wheel of Fortune

VOICES.COM has released new numbers testifying to the success of the company. There’s every reason to congratulate the owners, David and Stephanie Ciccarelli. They proudly announced “$39,290,580 in Total Earnings by Voice Talent at Voices.com.”

Some commentators concluded that the data in the report are a summary of this company’s past year in business. Stephanie Ciccarelli states:

“These numbers are based upon the last several years of data we’ve collected at the site.”

Voices.com has been in business since 2003, starting as “Interactive Voices”. In September 2006, Interactive Voices became Voices.com.

The new report speaks of: “155,915 All-time number of jobs awarded to voice talent.”

Voices.com says on their About-page that they are “creating 6911 job opportunities on average, each and every month.” My calculator tells me that this adds up to an average of 82,932 jobs per year.

How did voices.com arrive at 155,915? The verbiage “All-time number of jobs” suggests that they started counting from the very first day of business. Was that in 2003 or as of September 2006? Let’s do the numbers:

155,915 : 7 years = an average of 22,273 jobs per year (2003-2010)

155,915 : 3 years = an average of 51,971 jobs per year (2007-2010)

And what about $39,290,580 in total earnings? Is that also “based upon the last several years of data”?

PERSPECTIVE
It’s impossible to put these numbers into proper perspective if we don’t know what time period we’re talking about. That’s exactly the problem I have with most of the numbers coming from voices.com. I’m not saying that they are pulled out of a hat, but they lack clarity and context and they don’t always stand up to simple scrutiny.

The same can be said about their “Annual Report on the Voice Over Industry”. It is not compiled by an established market research firm, but by the CEO of voices.com, David Ciccarelli.

As long as we cannot independently verify the numbers or get a clear sense of the time period during which these data were collected, I choose to look at these reports as marketing tools, more than anything else.

AVERAGE FEE
Stephanie Ciccarell broke down the $39,290,580 in Total Earnings by Voice Talent at Voices.com. “On average” -she writes- “a voice talent made $252.97 per job” using their service.

I haven’t been keeping track of the voices.com numbers over time, but it would be interesting to see whether or not the average payment per job went up or down since 2003, and if so, by how much.

Stephanie Ciccarelli concludes:

“10,000+ people have earned a respectable income from doing voice overs with Voices.com serving as a key part of their marketing strategy.”

Once again, the numbers are vague and note that the term “respectable income” is not defined.

Let’s assume a talent lands one job per week on voices.com at $252.97. That would bring in $13,154.44 per year.

The talent decides to use the voices.com SurePay escrow system, at a 10% fee per job, costing him $1315.44. This brings the gross income down to $11.839.00. Subtract 10% for expenses and we’re left with: $10,649.10. Subtract from that amount $1504 in self-employment taxes and we arrive at a grand total of $9,149.10.

The 2011 Federal Poverty Guidelines of The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services puts the income level at $10,890 for a one person household.

Of course this is a theoretical example. Some voices.com jobs pay a lot more and some pay a lot less. No professional voice-over talent should entirely depend on one source to generate leads and make a living. At the same time, not everyone will land one gig a week using voices.com. Stephanie did write:

“10,000+ people have earned a respectable income from doing voice overs with Voices.com.”

In his analysis of the report, colleague Peter O’Connel comments:

Taking the Voices.com figure ($252.97), as a P2P industry average – that figure, I believe, doesn’t reflect what the voice over customer market “dictates”.

I believe it reflects what the voice over customer market “can get away with” with the help of the pay to play (P2P) business model.

ADDING IT ALL UP
There’s no doubt about it: voices.com has become one of the market leaders in online voice casting. That role comes with responsibilities. Market leaders have the clout to be trend setters and power pricers.

Voices.com has become more than a neutral playing field where supply meets demand. It has developed into a game changer that can write the rules of engagement by dictating the terms and conditions (no one is forced to join the club and pay the annual $299 Premium membership fee or the Platinum membership at $1995.00 per year).

One of those conditions is “a minimum project posting requirement for any job posted publicly and this amount is $100.” By the way, this doesn’t mean that a voice seeker can’t go any lower than that. Voices.com states:

“If your budget is lower than $100 then you may post a job privately using the Request Quote function within our search engine or you may email talent directly with your project details and budget.”

Critics feel that the Pay to Play business model is in part to blame for the steady decline in voice-over rates and professional standards. Peter O’Connell:

I don’t believe or financially support any service in which voice talent “pays to play” i.e. pays a subscription to receive auditions. I believe such services lower the rate expectations of potential clients because so many voice talents who swim in the pay to play pool low ball their rates out of what I feel is a kind of sad desperation for revenue of any kind.

The pay to play model negatively impacts the voice over business and its practitioners, in my opinion.

It has been suggested that if voices.com is really interested in their members making a “respectable income,” they should start by raising that $100 minimum rate immediately.

Secondly, voices.com has a global network of over 25,000 members. I am one of them. I think we should expect a lot more transparency and accountability when it comes to numbers. As voices.com so aptly pointed out: they did not make $39,290,580 in total earnings. Their members did.

Paul Strikwerda ©2011
www.nethervoice.com

Technorati Tags: average voice-over fee, David Ciccarelli, Double Dutch Blog, Nethervoice, online voice casting, Paul Strikwerda, Pay-to-Play, Peter O'Connell, Stephanie Ciccarelli, SurePay, voice over market place, voice-over, voiceover, voiceovers, voices.com, voices.com report