Entries Tagged as 'commentary'

audio’connell in portland, oregon

Portland Voiceover Meetup February 2018

The February 2018 Portland Voiceover Meet-Up included Clockwise: Cindy McGean, Doug Rank, Peter K. O’Connell, Kim Fuller, Roberta Solomon, Kevin Cooke, Dan Nachtrab, Ulf Bjorklund, Emma Miles, Jen Gosnell, Sam A. Mowry. — with Cindy McGean and Emma Miles.

Flying to Oregon for the first time was a pretty great way to kickoff February as I am now down to only 12 states I have not stayed overnight in.

Even better was the fact that the Portland Voiceover Meet-up was getting together while I was there and they very graciously included me in the event.

Voice actors and spouses Kim Fuller and Ulf Bjorklund put together this meeting to celebrate Ulf’s birthday!

Of course getting to sit next to and visit with pal Bruce Miles at dinner was swell (he’s not in the picture because he took the picture) as was visiting with Dan Nachtrab (formerly of THE Dayton, Ohio). Jen Gosnell was there as was Sam Mowry who I feel like I’ve known for a decade or more but whom I really only knew virtually via the VO-BB.com.

Roberta Solomon I had also never met – she told some great Dan Hurst stories because they used to compete in Kansas City radio (but are great pals). Kevin Cooke I had also not met – a nice guy! But chatting with shy, reserved, almost quiet to a fault Emma Miles (Mrs. Bruce….and she’s actually about as shy and reserved as I am…thus not much) was a super treat.

I was really very, very pleased to be included in the evening. Equally, I was pleased to also grab a meal with my friend Nikki Lu Lowe – lots of marketing talk and laughs.

Great people, great trip.

only 12 more states to go!!!!!

Oregon FlagLest you think I had given up on my challenge to stay over night in all 50 states, I have not!

As you’ll recall, my rule is I cannot just drive through the state, I must stay over night.

As I write this from 30,000 feet, I am returning from Oregon (Portland and Eugene)!!!

So here’s the updated count of the states I have officially visited in my life:

1. Arizona
2. Arkansas
3. California
4. Colorado
5. Connecticut
6. Florida
7. Georgia
8. Illinois
9. Indiana
10. Iowa
11. Kansas
12. Kentucky
13. Louisiana
14. Maine
15. Massachusetts
16. Maryland
17. Michigan
18. Minnesota
19. Missouri
20. Nebraska
21. Nevada
22. New Jersey
23. New York
24. North Carolina
25. North Dakota
26. Ohio
27. Oregon!!!!!!
28. Pennsylvania
29. South Carolina
30. South Dakota
31. Tennessee
32. Texas
33. Utah
34. Vermont
35. Virginia
36. Washington
37. West Virginia
38. Wisconsin

Thus, I am left with only these 12 American states still to visit (don’t they say the last dozen are the hardest?):

39. Alabama
40. Alaska
41. Delaware
42. Hawaii
43. Idaho
44. Mississippi
45. Montana
46. New Hampshire
47. New Mexico
48. Oklahoma
49. Rhode Island
50. Wyoming

If you’re going to travel, you might as well make it fun!

another example of voiceover pay-2-play skimming

Canafornia Bad For Voiceover #voicestrongAs a voiceover talent, you are no doubt aware of the discussion regarding the disreputable Canadian pay to play company based in the province of Ontario that bought a major California based voiceover lead generation service in August 2017. The voiceover lead generation service has since taken the name of the disreputable Canadian pay to play company. I’ve dubbed it CANAFORNIA.

For reasons that I can comprehend but (to me) fail the business logic sniff test, there are voice talents who understand the disreputable Canadian pay to play company is skimming money (keeping it for itself) that producers had dedicated to pay male and female voice talents.

These talents also understand that in some other cases, the disreputable Canadian pay to play company is taking the voice talent’s quote and adding a substantial fee (sometimes 3 to 4 times the talent’s asking price).

Talents would NOT know this because the disreputable Canadian pay to play company does not allow ANY communication between talent and client. That’s how the disreputable Canadian pay to play company takes extra money without the talent knowing it.

Yet knowing all these truths, these same voice over talents continue to pay an annual fee to the disreputable Canadian pay to play company and audition (maybe occasionally book) jobs at a lesser fee.

It appears to me these talents (some of whom are my friends and are talented, smart people) are shooting themselves in the foot to pay for a service that might book them a voice job at what promises to be a rate less than what their client thinks they are paying them.

In short, the voice actors working with the disreputable Canadian pay to play company are making less money than they should be.

But it’s their business to manage as they want. They may think I’m nuts (and who is to say they’re wrong!)

Just a quick note, a great way to avoid working with voiceover P2P companies that will scam you is to work with agents in the VO Agent Alliance. That’s my opinion and I get nothing for it.

Are all these discussions just rumors and innuendos against the disreputable Canadian pay to play company by disgruntled voice talents?

Well, no.

The reason so many voice talents and voice agencies will NOT work with the disreputable Canadian pay to play company is because the company’s unethical behavior has been well documented.

But this week, voice talent Rick Riley shared his story about the disreputable Canadian pay to play company on social media.

Facts are facts and the facts indict the disreputable Canadian pay to play company directly.

What follows is Rick’s September 2016 account of what happened. Since that time he notes he has not done any business with “the disreputable Canadian pay to play company”.

Rather feature the company name or initials as Rick did in post, I share replace it with “the disreputable Canadian .pay to play company”.

Here are Rick’s words….

Right now, “the disreputable Canadian pay to play company” is an extremely heated subject, and rightfully so. I recently replied to Bob Bergen’s post regarding “the disreputable Canadian pay to play company”. With that, I feel I should reveal my involvement with “the disreputable Canadian pay to play company” and their practices.

I contacted someone in the industry who was compiling a case against “the disreputable Canadian pay to play company”. She asked me to relate my experiences. This is the email I wrote to her with names redacted by (_______) lines.

The first case was in regards to an IVR session I was asked to do. As a rule, that’s not what I do, but I have done a lot of commercial work for this company and they wanted me to be on their phone when people called.

“The disreputable Canadian pay to play company” contacted me and asked if I would do the job. I quoted and “the disreputable Canadian pay to play company” came back a couple days later saying that my rate was too high, and they would look someplace else. When you read the emails below, you will see that “the disreputable Canadian pay to play company” was willing to ace me out of a job if they couldn’t have their exorbitant commission. Below is the email I provided the person doing the research.
—————-
Hi ______,

Bullet points for your records:

A “disreputable Canadian pay to play company” managed project in which the client wanted me but didn’t have the budget so they contacted me directly. The following is an email exchange with a client who happened to have my contact information.

Hi Rick,

I just wanted to reach out to apologize of the back and forth on this latest ____ phone tree job, my client(the agency) is not making any progress with their client on the budget and at the current rate i will not be making any money on this job.

We talked last time about going to you directly and i mentioned that i felt it was only fair that i stay loyal to “the disreputable Canadian pay to play company”, but now i may back track on this if the price changes so that i can make some money. What would be the cost of this project if i dont go through “the disreputable Canadian pay to play company”?

To which I replied…

Just out of curiosity, what is “the disreputable Canadian pay to play company” charging you?

And they replied…

$425.00

And I replied…

You see, that is a bunch of crap. I told them $250, which is my session minimum. I had a feeling they were charging way beyond what an agent would charge. THIS is why they are getting a bad rap and why they won’t allow communication between the client and the talent. “A different pay to play company” charges a subscription fee just like “the disreputable Canadian pay to play company”, however “a different pay to play company”, once the client and the talent make a connection, steps out of the equation.

And they replied…

Well that settles it then. I will reach out to you directly from now on.

When are you available between today and monday? ____ at “the disreputable Canadian pay to play company” mentioned tomorrow, is that still the case?

And how would you like to set up payment?
(end of email exchange)

A 70% commission and “the disreputable Canadian pay to play company” was willing to let the client go and ace me out of a job because they couldn’t get it!
———————–

NOW, today’s story…

A job booked through “the disreputable Canadian pay to play company” that kept getting revisions. I did the second minor revision at a low rate for goodwill towards the client.

The latest revision, before I quoted for it, had me calling the client because I wanted to make sure they were getting the benefit of my goodwill. Turns out “the disreputable Canadian pay to play company’” greed did not let me down.

For the original 30 sec spots for a Canadian company I quoted $1,000.

First round of revisions I quoted $500.

Second round of revisions I quoted $100 as a goodwill effort.

When “the disreputable Canadian pay to play company” contacted me for a quote on this latest minor revision, before I gave it to them I decided to call the company and find out what they were paying “the disreputable Canadian pay to play company” on what I had quoted them.

When I quoted $1,000 for the original spots, “the disreputable Canadian pay to play company” charged $1800.

When I quoted $500 for the revisions, “the disreputable Canadian pay to play company” charge $795.

When I quoted $100, “the disreputable Canadian pay to play company” charged $155.

80% commission, 60% commission and 55% commission respectively to  “the disreputable Canadian pay to play company”.

THAT is “the disreputable Canadian pay to play company” in a nutshell!

Now THIS company will be working with me directly as well.

Thanks ______!


That’s my exchange with the person doing research. Knowledge is key in all aspects of life. Hopefully this knowledge about one person’s experience with “the disreputable Canadian pay to play company” will help you make decisions in your own personal endeavors.

Thanks for reading!

Rick

ear blowing audio in durham, nc

Erik Romanowski Peter K OConnell 2018It’s always nice when people come to visit me, especially since I visit so many folks all year.

But having a native BUFFALONIAN come visit – one that works in voiceover – well that just doesn’t happen very often.

So it was a very nice treat to get to have lunch demo producing supah-staaaah Eric Romanowski.

Eric is the proud owner of hot voiceover demo shop Ear Blowing Audio. He was driving through Durham, NC (about a 1/2 hour away from my studio) coming from his studio in Virginia Beach, VA, on his way to Charlotte, NC. He is presenting at the Voxy Summit, a voiceover conference for women.

We talked about most things VO, like demo producers who aren’t really demo producers (Eric is the real deal) and work-life balance (which is tough sometimes working from home) but the conversation really got going when we started reminiscing about Buffalo and, of course sports.

I’ve been gone from Buffalo almost two years but Eric left about twelve years ago. And while he’s followed the Bills somewhat, he has totally lost touch with the Sabres.

I explained to him in great detail why that was completely unacceptable. Somewhere in my rant, he escaped and I assume he made it down to Charlotte. 😉

It was great to see him. If you need a great demo, give him a call. But make it quick, cause he’s booked out for at least 45 days with the demo production work he has right now.

 

Celia Siegel has a new book – Voiceover Achiever

It is with great pleasure that I share with you that a friend of mine — and a friend to voice talents everywhere — Celia Siegel, is now one of those fancy, pipe-smoking, ascot-wearing author types!!

Celia has just released her new book, entitled Voiceover Achiever – Brand Your VO Career. Change Your Life.

As it’s so new, I have not yet read it. But here is where you might want to grab your copy here.

That’s where I just bought my copy.

Celia Siegel

You may have heard of Celia’s company, Celia Siegel Management, which has been working on establishing brands for voiceover talents for many years.

You might not know that before that, Celia worked as a talent agent with agencies like CESD, JE and Wehmann. She has a great deal of experience in the voiceover business.

In addition to her branding work, Celia is a certified life and business coach, success strategist and talent manager

In this, her first book, Celia shares her winning formula for creating standout brands that ignite standout careers.

 

The FCC Begins 2018 By Failing To Protect Local Communities

FCC LogoOn January 8, 2018, the Federal Communications Commission will remove the almost 80 year-old rule that required broadcasters to have a physical studio in or near the areas where they have a license to transmit TV or radio signals.  With that rule no longer in place, the FCC has issued a likely fatal blow to the tradition of local broadcasting in radio and TV.

I’m not talking about the syndication of a program, which has been a profitable and long standing broadcast practice (that’s how the world first heard about Oprah Winfrey). Rather, with the elimination of the rule requiring broadcast owners maintain a main studio in or near the local coverage area of their license …owners can rent an office somewhere, sell ads locally, while all non-network broadcasts emanate from one central location…some place else, anywhere else really.

FCC Chairman Ajit Pai

FCC Chairman Ajit Pai

FCC Chairman Ajit Pai, who took a leadership role on this ruling, said “Continuing to require a main studio would detract from, rather than promote, a broadcaster’s ability and incentive to keep people informed and serve the public interest.”

Chairman Pai’s professional background is that of a lawyer, administrator and bureaucrat. He had only a brief career as a lawyer in the telecommunications industry. His resume references no work in broadcasting. None.

The only winner with the elimination of this rule is anyone with a large broadcasting company (about ½ dozen or more companies) who can now create centralized hub studios any single place in the country and simply send out a signal to a city or town’s transmitter.

If you go to the web site of your local TV and radio station, you’ll see the station’s corporate owner name. Click on the web site link…see how many other stations they own and where.

Then think about how much money they will save their company by shuttering all their local TV and radio stations, laying off a sizable portion (if not all) of their local staffs at those stations, putting their stations’ local sales departments in small rented local buildings while all broadcast operations emanate and are transmitted from a far-away US city.

They will try and make the broadcast look and sound local, maybe, but (as an example) a Los Angeles broadcast hub for scores of stations isn’t going to be able to truly share the local news and community feel of (say for example) Sioux Falls, SD or insert your town or city name here.

Cost cutting at local stations has been happening for some time at broadcast stations. Some radio stations broadcast only satellite programming, with maybe someone reading local news in the morning and a local TV meteorologist pre-recording a weather forecast throughout the day (or just using a national weather service…again, not local).

Many TV stations within an ownership group have their news programs actually directed from a regional production hub nowhere physically near the station. And in some markets, a TV station in one city or state will actually create a newscast in their city for a station and viewers in totally different and unrelated city…sometimes fairly far away. Or TV stations just forego a news operation all together. Too much time, effort and money….you understand.

Some will ask why it matters to have a station physically in a market. The Internet, YouTube, and iPhones have changed how we all consume news and programing. Satellite radio is more popular than ever as are Internet radio outlets.

I understand all that but…BECAUSE of those new channels — the need for local coverage is more important than ever and cannot be executed effectively by well-meaning people in a building hundreds or thousands of miles away who have no ties to a community.

A Winter Storm Whips Across Lake Erie South of Buffalo, NY

If you’ve ever been through a tornado, blizzard, forest fire, flood or other horrible disaster, that would be just one prime example of how news…live and local, will be almost completely lost either immediately or over a slow, imperceptible transition to viewers and listeners. Local meteorologists? Oh, they can just put those weather computers any place and see the readouts.

Oh, and the job losses at all these local stations? Well those are a big part of how ownership groups will save money, which is why broadcast lobbyists put immense political pressure on the executive and legislative branches of the US government (and thus the FCC) to get this rule eliminated. Just because they own broadcast outlets doesn’t necessarily make these TV and radio station group owners true broadcasters. Owners answer to revenue and profits and it matters little how those are achieved.

I understand and respect cost savings as a business owner. I get it.

But as a broadcaster, who understands the immense value that a radio and TV station bring to a community, I see a dangerous and probably irreversible change. Change whose resultant problems will be dramatically felt at a local level while its national implementers are safely ensconced in their vaults.

It may be a slow demise, but it will likely be local broadcasting’s demise nonetheless.