Entries Tagged as 'voices.com'

disagreeing with the one voice awards

This week the U.S. nominations for the One Voice Awards were released. The company Gravy for the Brain produces the One Voice Conference and One Voice Awards. The conference and awards programs have both a US and UK version. The award show describes itself as “an awards ceremony which celebrates talent in the industry at all levels.”

One Voice Awards 2021 Voice Job Site of the Year

A few days ago, while happily reviewing the list of 2021 US nominees, many of whom are my personal friends (congrats!!), I noted that at the end of the list is an award for “Best Voice Job Site of the Year”. The nominees for this award are selected and nominated by One Voice itself and is open to a public vote from those participants in this year’s One Voice program (I believe that means that those outside the conference cannot just randomly vote on the category).

Included in the nominees chosen by One Voice for a possible award (depending on the voting) for “Best Voice Job Site of the Year” was a notorious voiceover pay-to-play (P2P) services from Canada, voices (dot) com.

Some background for those unaware or new to the voiceover industry.

Some years ago it was publicly uncovered and proven that this specific Canadian P2P voiceover web site – that charges voice talent a sliding scale of fees for access to auditions (the more you pay, the better the access) – intentionally redirects hiring client fees (originally meant for voice talents) into that specific Canadian P2P company’s own corporate pockets. In short, the Canadian P2P company has intentionally taken money meant for voice talents AWAY from voice talents.

This Canadian P2P voiceover company calculatedly works to provide its paying voiceover talents with SMALLER fees so that this same Canadian P2P voiceover company can enjoy greater profits. At best, this is an egregious double dip by this Canadian P2P company against the voiceover talents who pay them access fees. That’s how I see it.

Some voice actors, even knowing this truth but seemingly anxious for any revenue, work with the P2P company anyway. For those seeking my professional advice, stay far away from this Canadian P2P voiceover company.

The Canadian P2P company can run their company as they wish and voice talent can engage any vendor they want…in spite of the ill effects both inflict on the entire voiceover industry.

Back to the One Voice Awards and how they tie in with this Canadian P2P voiceover company.

Because the One Voice Awards DIRECTLY CHOOSES the nominees for “Best Voice Job Site of the Year”, I was gobsmacked that One Voice willingly wanted (not “needed” nor was in some way “mandated” or “obliged”) to positively and publicly recognize this Canadian P2P company whose identified business practice hurts the very industry and practitioners the One Voice’s awards program seems to want to honor.

It seems extremely clear to me that to choose to offer such a public recognition of a dishonorable P2P company by One Voice is a very poor reflection on the Awards program, it’s producers and sponsors. How can you build up an industry by honoring and possibly awarding a company whose policies and actions HURT that industry.

And should the Canadian P2P company win the vote, in my opinion that would severely damage the brand and credibility of the One Voice Awards, the One Voice Conference,  Gravy for The Brain and all associated with them. I feel quite sure this Canadian P2P will promote the heck out of such a win, leaving other award winners not affiliated with the Canadian P2P forever and inextricably linked and as similar tarnished (in my opinion) to the Canadian P2P as the One Voice brand would be.

facebook iconAnd I said as much in a Facebook post on my personal page.

As with anything P2P related on Facebook, it got lots of attention. Including from Hugh Edwards, the CEO of the conference.

His opinion on my post should be shared in fairness, so I will offer my initial Facebook post, Hugh’s response and finally my response (all as of 7/14/21).

None of the content herein is likely change the opinions of the posters (or maybe your opinion either) but at least opinions were shared.

O’CONNELL: Was happy for many of my friends who were nominated today for a One Voice award —-but the award took a big credibility hit with me when I saw One Voice and it’s sponsors would allow a disreputable company like v dot com receive any sort of recognition.

That specific P2P company has been proven to intentionally reduce fees intended for voice talents and line their own company pockets. This illicit practice is well known in the voiceover industry and the operators of One Voice know this fact too. Yet there sits the nomination.

The excuses on behalf of this corrupt P2P service may fly from those voice talents who claim success from it. Their paid membership to that dishonorable P2P is an individual and associational choice – a risk to their reputation that they are free to take.

It’s also desperate justification, in my opinion.

Further, such excuses allow and encourage bad corporate behavior.

As does this nomination.

EDWARDS: Hey Everyone.

OK, this was always going to be an inflammatory topic and I apologise if it upsets people, but everything has been thought through and nothing done on a whim. I’ll deal with this in three sections. Firstly, the public vote mechanics, secondly the moralistic/ethical issue, and lastly why we need awards at all.

The One Voice Awards are a brand new way of doing awards in the USA in our industry, and it’s not surprising that you are used to what you are used to, and so don’t understand our ethical and moralistic standpoints.

I should also say just to preface this that at the actual awards ceremony, we have an intro video that shows the process end-to-end and illustrates exactly the approach we take – which everyone in the UK knows, but clearly the USA doesn’t so it is relevant that I comment now due to the confusion involved.

Firstly then, the public vote mechanics. If you make the votes for this kind of award *actually* public then what happens is the companies go to their databases and ask for votes. This isn’t fair as the size of the database is clearly the important thing. What you want is the people who work in the industry, who are likely to be using the services, actually being the only voters. So the mechanics are that it’s the people who are submitting awards who are allowed to vote – i.e., the voice artists themselves. You sign up for a free submission account and before you upload your own submissions, you vote on the two public categories. We also automatically check for any accounts created that do not have submissions attached so that this can’t be faked, and these discounted (not that we’ve ever had any). This means that the companies involved cannot game the system and it’s the people who use the services who are voting – which again is anonymous, so they can vote genuinely how they feel. I can tell you that in the UK this has been won for the past three years by bodalgo. People vote with their feet.

Secondly then, the ethical or moral dilemma.

– Do you include companies who are not popular or who seemingly make bad choices, or shareholder-style decisions regardless of the people who use the service? Should we then not recognise Apple as a tech giant (who take 33% of every piece of music sold from any source), or Uber as an international player (who have decimated the taxi industry and are now doing the same to the catering industries)? The answer of course has to be no we don’t do that. Not recognising such companies in their industries would be stupid.

– Should we make a choice about who we like and who we don’t like, and then only let the people that we do like into our event? No – I’m afraid that is the cornerstone of bigotry and even racism and I’m afraid our company doesn’t stand for that. Not withstanding the fact that organisations like the Competitions and Markets Authority would not look kindly on it as influencing markets anyway.

Now: Before you get too carried away with slamming us for allowing these companies in, consider this:

It’s extremely easy as a voiceover artist to take what you think is the moral high-ground and slate the P2P’s…..

But it’s a much more difficult thing to take a step back and ask what is truly fair, industry-wide, and then let people vote with their feet.

So many VO’s joined the bandwagon of hate in the early days – and don’t forget, I was the second person to interview David Ciccerelli [sic] live, and didn’t let him get away with anything in the interview – but there is also a huge and growing swathe of VO’s who hate the fact that they are chastised about where they choose to work, by people in the industry. I personally know many VO’s who are popular in the industry who work on fiverr under pseudonyms – Because they *choose* to.

Should we discount their opinions, or all those people who choose to use and make a living from their services because we don’t agree with them? Of course not! Should we not allow republicans or democrats on, because we disagree with some of the heavy political ads they do, and hate what they stand for? No? Is there any difference here? Of course not!

You have to draw the line somewhere.

The final point on the ethics then, and actually this is the one that means we have made our choice as a company:

*****It is a literal dichotomy to claim fairness and impartiality – which is what we do at the One Voice Awards as you will see in the ceremony – and intentionally exclude any parties, regardless of how ‘popular’ some may see them. ******

The voiceover artists have voted – anonymously – and these are the results. To the person who said “Shame on them” meaning me for allowing this – I sleep very well at night knowing that I am being fair to everyone in the industry. And by way of example, The Voice Realm were also included as was *every single other P2P site* and the public did not vote for them. They did vote for Fiverr and they did vote for VDC – and now the industry will need to choose what it does with that information.

Lastly then, as to why we need awards at all. I am not a huge fan of awards in general. I think they are so easily corrupted, money making machines that favour their friends, and exist solely to aid the people who are putting them on. And that’s precisely why Peter and I started the One Voice Awards – to fix what is broken. FYI we have never made a profit on the awards during the last 3 years, but do at GFTB – and so it’s our way of giving back and helping the industry. The process is absolutely locked down, and aside from being free, the entries are anonymous, the judges are not revealed, the judges do not know who the other judges are, the judges scores are always hidden from each other and so all judging is done purely on the merit of the clip and that it can’t be corrupted. Hell, we even hide the names of demo producers on the demo category so that people can’t be swayed. Because of this, in the UK it’s gained a reputation for actually meaning something and genuinely helps careers – because everyone knows it’s not just another lie – it’s actually been earned.

Anyway, I hope that helps and clears matters up as to why we have made these choices. I guarantee you that none of these decisions haven’t been taken lightly and….

….just because no one has been brave enough to stand up for fairness and equality before in this way – even if it might not be popular with everyone – does not mean that it’s not the right thing to do.

Happy to speak to anyone individually if you’d like more info. ?

O’CONNELL: Hugh, Thanks for taking the time to offer your explanation for why you and your company would choose to include v dot com as a chosen nominee in your awards program.

First and foremost, it IS your awards program and that decision is yours.

You get to choose who you want to consider to honor. That’s an important point.

No one NEEDS to have these companies possibly recognized. You WANT to honor them and you WANT to include v dot com as a nominee and possible winner. You have the right to do that.

You would evidently be fine with that specific P2P brand likely promoting its association with your organization if it won — in what you have outlined as a fair, just and anonymous voting process.

It IS your awards program and that decision is yours.

And while the P2P industry is not a category I choose to work, I don’t begrudge those who do. It’s an individual choice. The industry category is not what I find problematic in this instance.

Rather, I find it astounding that your organization would, by your choice, promote and possibly honor a specific P2P company whose business practices included (and may still include) intentionally redirecting client fees – originally meant for voice talents — into that specific P2P company’s own corporate pockets. In short, taking money meant for voice talents AWAY from voice talents.

Is that “truly fair”? I say no, regardless of how anyone may try to justify it.

In my opinion One Voice is recognizing, with its choice of award nominee, a P2P company whose business practice hurts the very industry and practitioners One Voice’s awards program seems to want to honor.

Why would you or anyone want to positively recognizing a company – in any industry – for doing a wrong thing?

What this P2P company has done IS wrong and everyone knows it.

Does the fact that some voice talents know this ugly truth and still do business with this P2P company mean that it should be OK to act like the company is a worthy nominee or honoree for an industry award? I say no.

People know cigarettes are deadly but they justify away their reasons for smoking…they have the right to do so. But the honors for the cigarette companies aren’t pouring in either, as far as I know.

I’m not sure how I or anyone else who opposes such an unethical business practice – like those this P2P company has employed – has a corner on any ‘moral high ground’ by opposing such a practice and calling it out as bad…rather than honoring it. While there is plenty of gray in the world, some things ARE right and wrong…the business practice of this specific P2P company is wrong.

As for your efforts in your explanation to tie any of this voiceover nomination discussion into the modern day insanity of Republican vs. Democrats or the horrible problems of bigotry and racism…the most polite thing I can say about such pandering analogies is that they are wrong and completely out of place among this specific content.

As I said at the beginning, it IS your awards program.

Who you nominate and what you honor is your decision, whether I or anyone else like it or not.
Opinions were exchanged here but likely none were changed…social media at its finest?

And the industry moves ahead, with or without us.

Thanks Hugh.

 

#voicestrong

#voicestrongBefore I talk about #voicestrong and it’s impact on the voiceover industry, two quick observations.

You know the great thing about life? Everything is always changing.

You know the problem with life? Everything is always changing.

Three examples.

When audio technology improved to allowed more affordable, professional audio recording into people’s homes, it was a revelation. For the voiceover industry, it helped voice talents build better, very professional home studios. But it hurt recording studios who had to find new streams of revenue lost since voice talents were not recording in the studios’ booths.

With that audio technology update, more people could live their dreams of being a professional voice talent. But many of those folks were only dreaming, because they had neither the training nor the talent (or even business savvy) to operate a voiceover business. These less knowledgeable new voice talents also negatively impacted the economics of the voiceover industry.

Advances in Internet technology also allowed companies to create on-line casting sites (known now as Pay 2 Play sites ((P2P)) for voice talents that allowed voice seekers to get hundreds of voiceover auditions with only a few mouse clicks and no in-person meetings. But voiceover agents, who for decades had managed those auditions and booked those castings, now have to work especially harder to secure those auditions and castings. Oh and the P2P model has also negatively impacted the economics of the voiceover industry.

retail onlineThese examples are business realities in the voiceover industries. Change happens in every business. The old General Store lost to the local department store, who lost to Macy’s, who lost to Wal-Mart, who seems to be currently battling with Amazon.

Ones personal reaction to change in business is usually based on whether you’re being eaten or you’re doing the eating. So change, while not always pleasant, is always present.

But in the voiceover industry, there have been a few of these P2P players who have grown to be the biggest in their business category and, because of that scope, naturally have an impact on the industry.

I had been a member on both of these bigger P2P sites and have long ago since resigned and pulled my profiles from them.

In their infancy, both sites offered opportunities. But then their business models changed, adding elements of control to money transaction and job management that were at the least questionable and, in many states, likely illegal when it came to requirements of imposed by actual professional agents and managers – which is the category these new P2P business models put these P2P companies into (although they have denied such assertions).

I found their practices improper and unethical (to BOTH voice talents and the hiring companies) and I left the P2P sites I’m referencing. But their models still exist and thrive to the detriment of novice and (strangely, to my way of thinking) more experienced voice talents.

One has to respect that every voice talent has the right and even the obligation to run their business as they see fit. If they have a financial need to try and make money via Pay 2 Play voiceover sites, then the discussion is over for them.

Voiceover P2P Ethical Business audioconnell

They will not consider the downsides of Pay 2 Plays because they cannot do so…to do so would mean they would have to either drastically change their own business plans or even cease working in voiceover. I understand the financial imperative to them personally and I respect the argument.

And it also needs to be said that there is at least one other, smaller Pay 2 Play voiceover web site, run in Europe, that I believe is ethical and is not having as negative an impact on the voiceover industry, save for some projects with ridiculously bad fees that I personally noticed.

So if change is a constant in business and change has created large P2P companies who are negatively impacting the voiceover industry, what options do the rest of us have in what historically should be just another cycle of change, albeit what I and many others consider unethical change?

A simple answer is to publicly and repeatedly expose the unethical business practices of these large Pay 2 Play sites. Doing so will help new voice talents better understand the P2P playing field (and let them make their own decisions). It might also allow established talents to understand what their business relationship with these unethical P2P companies really mean to their business and the industry they hope to thrive within. They too will make their own decision.

My friend, Erik Shepard, who is also one of my longtime agents, has recently resurrected #voicestrong . The purpose of this campaign is to foster discussion about, and even put pressure on, the unethical business practices among Pay 2 Play voiceover sites. Erik made a video about his opinions (many of which I share – not all).

I believe the history of this particular hash tag in the VO industry came about after a rather unprecedented interview that voice talent Graeme Spicer of Edge Studio held with the CEO of possibly the most questionable and unethical of all the Pay 2 Play voiceover sites.

The interview, pretty infamous among those of us in the voiceover world, was a total public relations #fail for the CEO, who offered inconsistent and embarrassingly thoughtless answers to direct and reasonable questions about his own company’s documented and dubious business practices. A later presentation by the same P2P company at VO Atlanta in 2016 confirmed the company’s complete lack of respect for the voiceover industry and those who work in it.

Full disclosure – at one time, early in its creation, I was friendly with the CEO and his spouse who also works as an executive at this company. As their business methods changed, so did our interactions. There’s that change again.

If #voicestrong can help bring to light the unethical corporate business practices of those who I believe take certain advantage of people in my industry who might not know better, then I too am #voicestrong.

from the frustration of voices.com comes humor

@notvoicesdotcom

By now, most people in voice-over have an awareness of the controversy involving the Pay To Play web site Voices.com.

How the company has done everything from limiting communication of their paying voice talents with the clients who’ve hired them, to escrowing money from voice talent jobs (and taking a 10% commission – like an agent though not being held to those industry standards), to the introduction of a Project Management service where up to 50% or more of a client’s voice-over budget is taken by voices.com for “production” services (the same services provided by recognized and accredited talent agents for an industry standard average 10% commission).

It’s a fiasco.

Voices.com makes no apologies for their practices and certainly little concession for these practices to their paying voices talent. It seems that the company has enough wanna-be voice talents and existing voice talents who are tolerant of the company’s practices that they can still be profitable from membership fees, Canadian government business grants and monies secured from Venture Capitalists (who care little about bad publicity, evidently).

For myself, I dropped the service years ago and have moved on.

From the sidelines, I certainly feel badly for those whose income has been lessened because of Voices.com’s practices, which I personally consider shady (I’m not a legal expert, just a business executive). Further, I have seen good people on both sides caught in the middle of this whole thing and be pretty torn up by it. That’s hard to watch. Adults behaving badly. Again.

I’ll let the courts settle it all should the State Attorneys General in New York and California suddenly recognize that Voices.com is operating and profiting as an agency in those highly regulated states with without honoring the rules and standards in place in those states for the operation of a talent agency. Until such time as the courts or the majority of their clients (voice talents and media producers) say otherwise, Voices.com is free operate in anyway it sees fit.

But now a ray of light, a glimmer of hope. Humor.

I got pinged by Twitter the other day that a new account has been set up there called @NotVoicesDotCom. No, I do not know who owns it and no, I am not affiliated with it in anyway (well, except I’m following the account on Twitter now).

It’s a parody account poking fun at the Voices.com situation by tweeting about “what goes on behind the scenes at @voices, the #1 marketplace for taking money from voice actors and their clients.”

I’m not sure if it’s the kind of fame Voices.com and its venture capitalist investors wanted from their business practices, but they’ve got it now anyway. Hey, what’s the old axiom “any publicity is good publicity”?

I think that was written before the internet was invented.

i thought i quit already

Peter K. O'Connell Voices.com profile Sept 2013

Some months ago I requested that my free profile be taken down from Voices.com. I waffled on this idea for many reasons but came to the conclusion that the Voices.com business model and brand was harmful to my brand.

Last night, while doing some Googling, what do I come across but my Voices.com profile. Yikes! So I sent an email to customer service to request it be taken down. Again.

This morning comes confirmation that they’d be doing just that but also asking for feedback on why I was leaving. Now if there is one thing that Voices.com has become infamous for, it’s asking for feedback. They IGNORE the feedback but they always ask for it.

At first, I thought about just ignoring it because I know Voices.com (home of the very profitable – for Voices.com – and ethically questionable for voice talent SurePay program) will dismiss it like a gnat. The company didn’t seem to be this way when it started out but things evolve. They are not evil people but they interpret professional business practices and models differently than I do.

So after thinking about it, I thought, OK Voices.com, I will articulate my problems with your business, you will disagree with them and nothing will change.

I’ll let you grade me on whether I clarified my points well enough.

Hi Kelly,

You asked for feedback and I’ll provide it but I can assure you it will likely be quickly dismissed by your ownership.

Issue #1 would be customer service since I already requested my Voices.com free profile be taken down months ago.

Issue #2 – the P2P model, as it has evolved primarily through Voice 123 and Voices.com, has significantly devalued the Voice-Over Artist almost to the level of Fiver.com. While profitable for the P2P companies themselves, the flow of unprofessional work has hobbled the industry’s professional image in the eyes of many of our consumers.

#3 and most importantly, as Voices.com has evolved, it clearly today has as it’s sole mission the profitability and promotion of the company, which is a mission of most companies. The difference being that the execution of the Voices.com business model is completed at the expense and detriment of its members specifically and the voice-over industry generally.

There is absolutely no value for me in debating this with company officials – whom I’ve known for years – as the public and investor documentation for the company prove my point. Further, testimonials from my fellow voice-over professionals both directly and via social media, make it clear that – in spite of public corporate posturing to the contrary – such Voices.com consumer opining and discussion falls on deaf, disinterested company ears. The sweet sound of money is too overpowering.

Multiple reviews from attendees at last year’s Voices.com event in Toronto – how it was an extended commercial for Voices.com and how horribly the producers treated some of the event’s speakers – solidified for me that Voices.com was not a brand I could professional afford to be associated with going forward – even in a free way.

Every company, including Voices.com has the right to run their business as they see fit. And potential customers have the right to do business with the brands that suit them. We will simply agree to disagree on these issues and now part ways.

Thank you Kelly.

– Peter

a voice-over white paper in the making

Say you are a voice-over pay to play site and you’ve got a pretty good reputation as far this particular business segment goes…those that like P2P sites use you and believe you treatment them fairly; those that don’t like P2P sites are never going to be won over so why bother with them. A reasonable strategy.

So say one day you decide that you want to change your Terms of Service (TOS) – the rules that you as the P2P site owner operate under and that users of your site must abide by if they want to use your site. Most every interactive site has them and there are updates made on all of them as business dictates.

But imagine you are a voice-over P2P site with this good reputation and you want to change your terms of service in what might be considered a controversial way…a way that might dismay or upset you primary revenue source – your voice talents who pay a membership fee.

For example let’s say via your revised TOS you’re going to:

1. Change your P2P site from a relatively open format where a VO can list his/her contact information on the site for prospects to view to, under the TOS revision, a site that bans that VO talent contact information from being posted on the talent’s paid page (as part of their membership fee) on the P2P site.

2. Change the P2P voice-over web site in such a way that any links to outside web sites would be removed on any communication between VO and client (for example, in a template proposal available within the P2P site and used to communicate to the client).

3. Finally, in this scenario, let’s also imagine that all financial transactions between the client and the voice talent on this site must now use the P2P web site’s proprietary payment system that pays the P2P site a 10% fee on the value of the transaction (previously service this was optional). This is in addition to, not in replacement of, the voice talent’s yearly membership fee paid to the site. The P2P site gets paid twice if there is a business transaction on the site.

All of this is legal. It all falls under legitimate business practices. There is open notification to all parties that this change is coming.

The questions always are:

What will the the customers (in this case the voice talents) say?

What will the customers do?

How will this all turn out?

And so the business study (the White Paper) begins.

dan friedman and how not to screw up your voice over career

Voice Over Talent Dan Friedman

Audio Engineer, Producer, Voice Talent and Author Dan Friedman has a business card about 3 feet wide with all those titles but he’s earned the “cred” so the “cred” shall be bestowed (unlike my business card which lists “male model” as my title – people either giggle or look a little sick when they read that).

Anyway, back to Dan who on Wednesday, November 30, 2011 will be the featured speaker on a Voices.com webinar beginning at 7:00 PM (EST).

Dan will offer a sound engineer’s perspective on proper studio etiquette and some common mistakes that hinder people from becoming a successful voiceover artist.

Now, I believe I’ve made most of those mistakes and probably some Dan hasn’t even considered but that only means you should listen to what Dan says and sign up for his webinar.