Double Dutch

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

In July, something happened to me that had never happened before: I won a prize. Voices.com had asked members to write about their experiences with their service, and somehow, they liked my story the best. Here’s a quote from what I wrote:

“Two months ago, I decided to challenge Voices.com. My dollar-a-day membership plan paid off big time. With $2300 in the bank, I had earned more than 38 times my investment.”

The genuine article was posted on Double Dutch (and all over the Web). Thanks to this entry, I became the surprised winner of a $500 gift certificate to Sweetwater. So far so good, right? But, wait… is there something wrong with this picture? My winning entry sang the praises of a Pay-to-Play. You might have noticed that there’s even a voices.com banner on my blog. Yet, when you take a look at this blog, I seem to be “Mr. Critical” when it comes to these voice-over matchmaking sites. Could Double Dutch be accused of Double Standards? Colleague Steve Hammill put it this way:

“I must say that I had to chuckle when I saw your endorsement of a P2P site on this web page. It’s quite an elaborate endorsement.”

So, what’s the real deal with the Dutch dude?

At the time of my unexpected win, some blogging colleagues suggested that they would never take part in a competition like that, because they wanted to remain ‘impartial’. Even though I don’t agree with their assumption, I respect their point of view. I also believe that my writings have shown that my opinion is my opinion… no matter how sweet the waters may be.

INSIDER INFO
Let’s get personal for a moment. I happen to be one of those guys some psychologists eagerly label as “fixers“. A few weeks ago, I was looking for an item at my supermarket that wasn’t there. Yes… it was a product from Holland. What else could it be? Now, I could moan and groan about it for the next twelve weeks, or I could go the manager and suggest he stock this particular Dutch delicacy that nobody should live without. The first option was easier and would have taken less time. So, I picked option two. The manager listened to what I had to say and put in a request. Within a matter of weeks, I got a phone call that the item was on the shelves, and by the way…. how soon could I stop by to pick it up, compliments of the store?

It was a small thing that made a big impact. Now my friends tell me: “Stop talking about where you go grocery shopping. We get it, already!”

I happen to be a strong believer in bringing about change from within... one Dutch treat at a time. That’s why I Pay to Play. My P2P-memberships give me access to some of the inner workings of these sites, and that means that I can speak from experience when I write about them. I don’t want to be one of those armchair referees. I enjoy being out on the field, playing the game.

THE P2P ADVANTAGE
There’s no doubt about it: voice-over matchmaking sites have earned their place in the market. In fact, if you’ve been kind enough to keep track of my “ponderings” on this blog or on various LinkedIn-voiceover groups, this is a recurring theme. Every day, sites like voices.com save you and me time and money that we would otherwise have to spend on advertising, marketing and acquisition. The free podcasts, articles and expert advice are a treasure trove for beginners and old-timers alike. And occasionally, these sites even help you or me book a job. However, I’d advise any voice-over pro or amateur against totally relying on P2P’s for leads. I’m sure these sites would be the first ones to tell you that.

FAIR IS FAIR
Every medal, no matter how shiny, has two sides. I’m not one of those people who, blinded by one side, can’t see the other. There’s still so much room for improvement, and rather than being a winner or a whiner, I want to come up with ideas on how these sites can make their services even better. Sometimes they actively ask for my opinion. Sometimes I just can’t help myself, and I blog about it. At times, people even read these blogs and respond.

But let’s be honest: not all is well in voiceover land, but we can’t blame everything on P2P’s, and I don’t think I ever did. WE are part of the problem. A BIG part. Every time we take on a job for less than we deserve, we send a signal to voice-seekers that we’re willing to be taken advantage of. Every time we put in a bid that’s below what’s commonly accepted as reasonable, we’re telling our colleagues that we don’t give a bleep about the long-term consequences. We can’t force sites like voice123 to uphold minimum rates. It’s their business to run their business any way they want. They make most of their money from memberships and not based on how much we get paid per gig. That’s what agents do.

Last but not least, when we’re operating out of the bargain basement, we’re telling ourselves that our unique talent, our invaluable experience and our phenomenal skills are only worthy of a handout. If you truly believe in leading by example, is that really what you want to instill in your children? Of course I know that there’s much more to self-worth than a bunch of numbers on a paycheck. I’m not asking you to charge astronomical fees either, simply because you feel like “you’re worth it”.

All I’m asking for is that you please educate yourself by taking a good look at resources like these… many of them offered by the same voice-over sites listed in this article:

http://www.edgestudio.com/Voice-Over-Rate-Card.htm
http://www.voices.com/voice-over-rates.html
http://support.voice123.com/article/How_Much_Are_Talents_and_Voice_Producers_Charging_for_Non-union_Voice_Over_Work_Delivered_Online.html
http://www.aftra.com/documents/2009_Radio_Commercials_Ratesheet_Revised_5-6-09.pdf
http://www.voiceoverresourceguide.com/index.html

NOW WHAT?
Even the best information is totally useless if you don’t do anything with it. You have at least three options:

1. Show me that the rates listed in these resources are outrageous and out of touch with reality, and argue that you don’t deserve to be paid that much. OR…
2. Agree that these rates (no matter how average they may be) are reasonable, and stick to them when bidding and negotiating.
3. Don’t be involved in this discussion, but keep on complaining and watch from the sidelines as others are sticking their necks out.

SAVED BY THE UNIONS
Some of you have asked me: “How about the unions? Isn’t it their job to deal with remuneration? If you’re so unhappy with the current rates or the lowballing bidders, why not join AFTRA?”

I’d say: Well, if you can afford to be a union member, great! If you get paid union rates or above, even better! However, don’t walk away from your own responsibility by telling me that the unions are the only parties who can fight our fight, and that non-union members have to pay the price for not being in the union. Members are usually the first ones to tell you that things aren’t what they used to be, and that the presumed power of AFTRA, SAG, ACTRA, EQUITY and others, is fading fast. Correct me if I’m wrong, but the majority of Pay-to-Play users are non-union.

Do you remember these numbers? Almost 40% of professional voice-overs make less than $25,000 per year, even after having been in the business for 10-25 years. Over a quarter of those surveyed make less than $10,000 per year.  (Source: VoiceOver Insider magazine). I don’t see these people joining a union in the next few weeks. So, who else will stand up for the thousands of unrepresented voice-overs, who love what they do and who also wish to make a decent living?

Don’t expect SaVoa (Society of Accredited Voice Over Artists ) to go to battle for you. That’s not SaVoa’s mission. Article 2 of their STANDARDS OF BUSINESS CONDUCT clearly states:

“neither SaVoa nor its members shall collude to set or attempt to set minimum rates for voice over services.”

So, at the end of the day the ball’s back in your court… where it always was and always will be. We all choose what we want to live by, and what we’re willing to accept. The great thing about living in this free country, is the fact that in many situations, we can choose where we wish to draw the line. Sometimes it’s not so easy to see that one decision, no matter how small, has an impact on the whole. If you have any doubts about that, ask Rosa Parks.

CONTEST IN CONTEXT
And finally… here’s an update on my voices.com “success story”. I became a member on April 24th of this year, and I have no regrets. Stephanie Ciccarelli who handles the PR for “voices”, knows that my endorsement of her company was not motivated by a prize, but it was inspired by my experience at that moment in time. There’s a reason why there still is a voices.com banner on this blog.

It’s almost six months later, and I can tell you that I have landed exactly THREE jobs through voices.com. All of them were booked before I won my prize. It’s not for lack of trying. In fact, since I became a member, I’ve sent out a total of 378 demos; most of them custom-made, hand-crafted and with a touch of Dutch. I think I can do better, and I think sites like voices.com can do better. And that’s exactly why I share these thoughts with the rest of the voice-over community and beyond.

A RESPONSE
Voices.com has a dedicated LinkedIn Group for members who’d like to be involved. Whenever I write a new article, I post it under “news”, and that’s how many of you probably found out about Double Dutch.

Stephanie Ciccarelli wrote the following about my previous blog on her LinkedIn group page,:

“With regard to what has been posted re: “What Pay-To-Plays Don’t Want You to Know”, let me share the following:

These sort of postings in the Voices.com LinkedIn group are giving me cause for concern. I would request that articles deliberately questioning the integrity of services such as Voices.com not be posted in the Voices.com LinkedIn Group in the future. While the article may mention our company, or others in this space, it is unacceptable for me to let unfounded information as it pertains to Voices.com be shared through our own property.

I will be replying to the blog posting personally with my thoughts.”

I encourage you to read her thoughts in the comment section of my last post. I also urge you to share your thoughts on the following:

-Do you believe that I questioned “the integrity of services such as Voices.com?”

-Did I provide “unfounded information as it pertains to Voices.com?”

-Do you agree with Stephanie, that we should refrain from posting articles such as “What Pay-To-Plays Don’t Want You to Know” on sites affiliated to those that are mentioned in the article?

Paul Strikwerda © 2009
www.nethervoice.com

PS Are you having a hard time figuring out what to charge for your voice-over services? You’re not the only one! My next article will take you through some of the steps involved in bidding on an audio book project.

Technorati Tags: AFTRA, contest, Double Dutch, LinkedIn, non-union, P2P, Paul Strikwerda, Pay-to-Play, rates, SAG, SAVOA, Stephanie Ciccarelli, success story, union, voice-over, voice123, voiceover, voices.com