Karen Commins writes a voiceover blog I make a point of checking just about every day. Her new post about ways to build publicity and traffic for your site is well worth your time. Thank you for the continuing stream of good ideas, Karen.
General
Go deep
One of the key points I gleaned from the teleconference the other evening was the idea of keying in on a signature sound for our voiceover work. Seth Godin makes this point brilliantly in a recent post on his blog.
I am not suggesting that we narrow our world to only one kind or category of voiceover work; rather that we concentrate our marketing efforts on our signature sound, who we really are. Other work will almost certainly come our way. And we evaluate each of those jobs to figure out if it makes sense to take that work or recommend someone else better suited to that job.
(update: edited to fix typos)
Be Yourself
Gary Terzza is a well respected voiceover coach in the UK. On his blog he illustrates for us how “being yourself” can sound on their side of the pond. Good stuff, Gary.
Some good thoughts on budgeting
My friend Elaine Singer has written a helpful post on her blog about how much time it really takes to record a long form narration, and how that influences the amount of money a voiceover talent needs to bid on such a project. Good stuff, Elaine.
The Break Into Voiceover Teleseminar (edited)
I found an amazing amount of powerfully motivating information in this seminar. If you missed the seminar, you can find information about Nancy Wolfson and Anna Vocino at BreakIntoVoiceOver.com.
Nancy Wolfson spoke about creating a map for success. The metaphor is re-booting our operating system. We need to start from the beginning, formulating a business plan for our voiceover career.
We have to look at this as a start-up business.
Education is key. The number of people who can’t do voiceovers is actually pretty small. Doing voiceovers isn’t brain surgery, it’s quite teachable.
Nancy Wolfson says her job is to help us brand ourselves, figure out our own personal styles, and how to present that.
Group classes can be beneficial because we can learn when someone else is not getting it, as well as when someone is really nailing it. But better is private instruction.
A bargain basement demo is often more expensive than what it costs.
Master your elevator pitch. (You’re riding in an elevator and you have to complete a pitch before that elevator ride is over.)
Pay for a good education. Pay for a good demo. Pay for great graphics.
A great tip from Pat Fraley, via Nancy, when you don’t have a pop filter handy, hold an index finger upright between your mouth and the mike. It will split the air to keep the mike from popping.
There is a list of recommended equipment to buy to set up a basic home studio on their website. BreakIntoVoiceOver.com.
Notice that we’ve not talked about agents. When we’re in the booth, we have to be able to deliver the goods. If we spend good money having a great demo done in the first place, we won’t need to update it very often.
What a great opportunity and experience this teleconference was. It was $49.00 well spent. By the way, a copy of the audio for this entire session will be available for sale through the web site. BreakIntoVoiceOver.com.
(Note: I’ve condensed and edited the “live blog” into a more succinct and coherent whole.)
An oppotunity, right now (updated)
With my thanks to Stephanie over a Vox Daily for posting about this, there’s a 2-hour teleseminar this evening that should be of interest to anyone wishing to get serious about voiceover work. It’s hosted by Nancy Wolfson and Anna Vocino.
It’s taking place tonight, Wednesday, January 31, 2007 starting at 9:00 PM Eastern, 6:00 PM Pacific. Registration is $49.00 and you can sign up at BreakIntoVoiceOver.com.
(Update: I’ve signed up already, so I’m putting my money were my mouth is…uh…typing fingers are.)
Among other things, it takes guts
Kristine Oller is a woman with remarkable insights into how to get where you really want to go. And her blog is specifically written to help you think about where you’re going and how to get there.
Her post on January 24, 2007 is a perfect example of what I mean. Maybe you’ve been thinking and dreaming about working full-time as a voiceover talent for some time now. How long? It doesn’t matter. However long it’s been, if it seems like a long time, it is.
You’ve made some money doing voiceovers, but not enough to live on. At least not consistently. You’ve talked with people you respect. You’ve read and taken part in discussions online.
These are some of Kristine’s thoughts…
So, whose advice do you follow? Whose opinion matters most? Whose smarts can you count on?
The answer is: your own.
Ultimately, you have to learn how to trust your own gut. Success definitely involves soliciting sage advice, gathering informed opinions and educating yourself, but it also involves filtering all of that information through your gut to determine what “feels right†to you.
Kristine continues by making a distinction between your brain and your “gut.” My friend Roy Williams would probably say Kristine is actually drawing a distinction between using the left and right hemispheres of your brain.
But the point stands, regardless of the language you use. Eventually, you have to figure out what’s truly right for you.
Take a few minutes, and read Kristine’s entire post. It’s not short, and while I don’t agree with every word Kristine writes; I think it’s well worth your time.
Oh, and while you’re there, if you found benefit in what you read, why don’t you spring for a hot chocolate for Kristine? The links are just to the right of her posts.
Read a blog post, expand your vocabulary
My friend Peter O’Connell, better known in the voiceover world as Audio’connell, has taught me a new word this weekend: Favicon. You can read about it on his blog in the January 26, 2007 post.
Actor’s Tool-Kit #3
THE SEVEN ACTING MYTHS
by Bob Fraser
Myth #1 – YOU HAVE TO START YOUNG
This commonly held belief is far from the truth. Although starting young will certainly give you more time to perfect your craft, many stars have started “late.”
Phyllis Diller started her career at age 38 after raising a family and spending almost twenty years as a newspaper writer. Richard Farnsworth was over fifty before he began his acting career. When he won an Academy Award nomination for his role in Comes a Horseman, it came as a surprise to many in the industry that this ‘newcomer’ had been around since the ’30’s – as a stuntman.
There are literally hundreds of these examples. No matter how old you are, if you love it – TRY.
Myth #2 – IF YOU HAVE TALENT … YOU WILL MAKE IT
Although it’s important to have some talent, any reasonable observer can point to dozens of successful actors who might be considered ‘talent challenged.’ In fact, depending on talent alone is a strategy for disaster. There are many other skills (mostly business skills) that lead to success as an actor. If you’re talented, great. But don’t depend on your gifts for success. It’s mostly hard work.
Myth #3 – AN ACTOR MUST BE OUTGOING
Not at all. In fact, I’d say that the opposite is closer to the truth. Most of the stars you watch and enjoy are basically shy people. It is under the cover of a role that actors seem to be demonstrative. If you are shy or retiring, you are like most successful actors. Don’t sweat it.
Myth #4 – ACTING CLASS WILL RUIN YOUR NATURALNESS
Wow, this one is really off base. In fact, without some training it is unlikely you will get to the top ranks of the acting profession. Agents look for training. Casting directors look for it. And it goes without saying that education has rarely hurt anybody.
Myth #5 – HAVING AN AGENT GUARANTEES YOU WILL WORK
There is no doubt that having a salesman for your acting business is beneficial – but signing with a good agent rarely happens before you have already achieved some level of success.
Actors who think an agent will automatically get them to the top, rarely get there. Agents are not magicians – they are salespeople who develop leads for your acting business.
Period.
Myth #6 – YOU CAN BECOME AN OVERNIGHT SUCCESS
This almost never happens. In fact, a brief study of the careers of very successful actors will convince you that the average time it takes to get into the ranks of regularly employed actors is about 9 years. Like becoming any sort of professional (doctor, lawyer, architect) this is a business that takes time to accomplish.
That’s why they call it ‘paying your dues.’
Myth #7 – ACTORS MAKE THE BIG BUCKS
No. This is totally wrong. Sure some do … and their salaries are publicized to the skies. But the reality is that the large majority of actors make very small paychecks and they don’t make them very often. Go to SAG’s website and see the statistics. Just making a decent living as an actor is a huge challenge.
Bottom line: Don’t go into acting for the money. If you want to act, do it. And do it for money as often as possible. But don’t kid yourself … this is hard work and the pay is nothing to write home about – unless you have the tenacity, business skills, and work ethic to get to the very top.
I hope you do.
Here’s some good advice from the cadets at West Point:
RISK more than others think is safe.
CARE more than others think is wise.
DREAM more than others think is practical.
EXPECT more than others think is possible.
NEXT INSTALLMENT: QUOTES THAT WILL HELP YOU
============================================================
PERMISSION TO REPRINT: You may reprint articles from Actor’s Tool-Kit, on your website or electronic newsletter. However, in order to comply with my copyright, you must also include the following paragraph with your reprint:
“Reprinted from ACTOR’S TOOL KIT, the email course just for subscribers of Show Biz How-To — The Free Actor’s Monthly. Get your own free subscription by going to: showbizhowto.com. Copyright © 2006 Bob Fraser Productions All Rights Reserved”
============================================================
An exceptional archive (updated)
With my thanks to Bob Fraser for pointing this out in an email I received today, you’ll find an amazing archive of in-depth video interviews (many of them around 3 hours!) conducted and archived by the Academy of Television Arts and Sciences (the people who hand out the Emmy Awards) with so many interesting and inspiring actors, writers, producers and so forth. How many? 1,351 as I type this noted tonight, although that is actually the number of 30 minute segments, not the number of people interviewed. Here are just a few of the names, as Bob noted in his email…
Norman Lear, Andy Griffith, David Wolper, Carl Reiner, Bob Newhart, Steven Bochco, Phyllis Diller, Grant Tinker, Jay Sandrich, John Frankenheimer, Dick Wolf, Alan Alda, Quincy Jones, Kim Hunter, James Burrows, Barbara Eden, Gene Reynolds, Angela Lansbury, James Garner, Diahann Carroll, Phil Donahue, Don Knotts, Dennis Weaver, Joan Ganz Cooney, Ricardo Montalban, George Takai, Bob Mackie, Stephen J. Cannell, Larry Hagman, William Shatner, Betty White, Bob Carroll & Madelyn Davis, Jonathan Winters, Sid Caesar, Jane Wyatt, Dick Clark, Grant Tinker, Ossie Davis, and a host of other luminaries of the television industry.
I’ve used Google’s search functions to sort the archive for you to include only the interviews, and in alphabetical order, just click here.
Details and background about these archives can be found at the Academy’s web site.
UPDATE! Thanks to Karen’s comment below, you’ll find a lots of information and plenty of direct links to the archived videos at this wonderful blog. There are many productive hours of reading, listening and watching available.
Let your voice be heard
Voices.com is working on an updated and improved web site. They’re asking for suggestions on the Vox Daily blog. Here’s your chance to let Voices.com hear your voice on the subject.
Some good words about training
Over at the Ask the Voice Cat blog, you’ll find some good comments from Mark Cashman about training for work in voiceovers.
Where do you have to live to be successful?
Joe Cipriano answers this question in detail in his latest blog post. These are words from one of the most successful voiceover people in the United States. But, more importantly, there words from a genuinely nice guy, who’s telling it like it is.
Here are a couple of key paragraphs…
I always tell people who ask me if they should move to Los Angeles or New York for voice overs to only do so if they have a job waiting for them in the new location.
And…
Too many people come to Los Angeles with no job and a dream of acting or getting into voice overs and find themselves struggling to pay the grocery bill. All this does is make your chances for success in the business even slimmer. No one…NO ONE…wants to be around, let alone hire, someone who is DESPERATE for the J O B. Do not have the stench of desperation follow you into auditions and interviews.
Read the whole thing. Please.
Being There
If you have 3 minutes to read something that will help you remember the things that are truly important, pop over to Kara Edwards-Suchan’s blog and read this.
And since she mentioned it, if you haven’t made up your mind yet about joining us in Las Vegas for the V.O.I.C.E. Conference, I hope you will. If you can’t, you can’t. If your hesitation is about whether it will have been a worthwhile expense, I can’t answer that for you; but I know it will be for me.
I hope I get to meet you there at the end of March.
Thinking about rates
My friend Brian Haymond has posted some thoughtful comments about how to set rates for voiceover work.
The lessons are there…you just have to watch for them
My friend Adam Creighton has written some thoughtful comments about watching someone obviously struggling with something significant, while at the same time, giving everything he had to the moment.
I encourage you to take a moment and read. I think you’ll be glad you did.
Some things are just wrong (updated)
I’ve written a number of times here about the many things I’ve learned from Dan O’Day. Just yesterday, one of Dan’s free email newsletters arrived that had such a powerful commentary in it that, even though it doesn’t speak directly to the world of voiceover, I thought it was something you should get a chance to read. So I wrote and asked Dan for permission to republish his commentary here. He has graciously agreed. What follows is Dan’s commentary, complete.
———————————————————————————————-
*THE INEVITABLE RESULT OF THE “LET’S DEBASE OUR LISTENERS” RADIO PROMOTION MENTALITY*
I was not planning to write about the recent tragic result of a radio station promotion in Sacramento. (If you are not familiar with it — which must mean you are outside the U.S. — do a Google search for “sacramento radio contest” — without the quotation marks.)
My personal response to it is very strong, and this Letter is meant to offer constructive approaches to creating and delivering good radio. It is not intended to be a soapbox from which I declare my values and beliefs.
But as I contemplated what transpired, I realized that at its core is an issue that long has bothered me about the promotional mindset of many commercial radio programmers. In fact, I wrote about this at some length as far back as 10 or 15 years ago.
It’s an approach to station and program promotion which, at its core, is fundamentally and fatally flawed.
I’m referring to all the stations that conduct “What would you do for _____” contests.
The stations that dangle a prize in front of their listeners, offering it to the person who is most willing to suffer humiliation for the sake of “winning” it.
What other profession thinks it’s good business to subject its most enthusiastic customers to discomfort and ridicule?
What other profession gleefully engages in such foolish, juvenile, and sadistic behaviors toward its customers?
Whenever a radio station or program offers a prize to listeners who agree to embarrass or degrade themselves, the unmistakable message is:
“We are big and powerful. You are nothing. If you want to win our favor, you must demonstrate how powerful we are by humiliating yourself.”
That type of radio station is nothing more than a petty dictator, constantly needing to be reassured of its own importance by belittling its “subjects.”
Think of the western movie cliche of the town drunk being forced to dance or sing a song or crawl along the barroom floor before being tossed a coin to fuel his alcoholism. Guess what? It’s never the good guys who exploit the town drunk for their own amusement; it’s the bad guys!
What would you say if your small child came home from school one day and told you a bigger classmate had declared that any child who wants to play in the sandbox first has to drink so much water that he wets his pants?
You’d say that other kid is a pathetic, nasty bully.
In a business that lives and dies by its relationship with its customers (listeners), does it really make sense to be the bad guy, the bully?
It’s not just poor judgment by some radio people that led to a woman’s death this month. They simply did a bad job of conducting a type of contest that has enjoyed industry-wide approval for years.
Let us imagine that no one died. Still, the show hosts *laughed* at the fact that the woman reported feeling sick. The physical discomfort of the contestants provoked *glee* from the air talents.
The woman complained of feeling sick!
Why didn’t they call a doctor?
Why didn’t they drive her to a hospital?
Why didn’t they care??
Has radio lost its conscience? Its soul? Its humanity?
If so, why would any decent person remain in this business?
What other profession *tries* to make its constituents physically ill?
In a world beset with pain and fear and suspicion, what other profession *endorses* the debasing of its fellow human beings for the aggrandizement of the company?
“Well, Dan, what about TV shows like ‘Fear Factor’? They exploit the discomfort of their subjects.” Yes, they do. But those TV shows have no relationship with the audience. And they don’t have an F.C.C. license to serve their community.
Not only are such promotions cruel; they’re also stupid.
This particular morning show was given a Wii to award as a prize. Some genius at the station thought, “Hey, ‘Wii’ and ‘wee’ sound alike. Let’s make the contestants hold back their ‘wee’ for as long as possible!”
And, presumably, others at the station laughed and applauded such creativity.
But despite the auditory similarity between the prize name and the euphemism for urine, exactly what does urine have to do with a video game?
Nothing. But apparently that never occurred to anyone at that radio station.
And if it hadn’t ended tragically, you can bet this “clever contest” would have been trumpeted from the pages of various radio trade publications and emulated by other, equally callous programmers.
If you read the news stories, you probably saw mention of a college student who died from a similar “prank” a couple of years ago. What was the context of that teenager’s death?
A fraternity hazing. A “trial by fire” which deliberately sought to create great discomfort for the victim.
Is that what we’ve become? Immature, irresponsible, sadistic fraternity brothers who equate our fun with the suffering of others?
Two children lost their mother. A man lost his wife. Two parents lost their daughter.
Forever.
And given our industry’s steady slide into the muck of “wouldn’t it be funny to torture someone who needs the money or who desperately wants the prize,” such a fatal misadventure was inevitable.
Have we become so beaten down by consolidation, monetization, and the stress of keeping our jobs in a downsized environment that we have lost our humanity?
====================================================
From The Dan O’Day Radio Programming Letter (http://www.danoday.com/free).
Copyright 2007 by Dan O’Day. Reprinted by permission of author. All rights reserved.
====================================================
(Update: You’ll find Stephanie’s passionate and thoughtful response to this post in full, on Vox Daily, here.)
One of the keys (updated)
The other day I was digging through the blog archives at my friend Dan Nachtrab’s site and came across this thoughtful and well written post from some time ago. It’s not long, but well worth a moment of your time.
Update: Dan was part of a meeting of the minds among 3 of us voiceover guys when we all got together for lunch in Central Ohio recently. He’s posted about it here.
A word of congratulations
My friend Joe Rodriguez has just landed a very cool bit of work in the world of Pokemon. You can read about it on his blog, here; and an update with more information on the VO-BB, here.
Good for you, Joe. And may much more success follow.
Focus and facets
In a recent post on her blog, Kara Edwards examines some of the many things that fascinate her. One of her key fascinations is working as a voice actor, but she has many other interests, too.
I am a multifaceted woman. I am a voice actor, a television spokesperson, a writer, a producer, a gardener, a scrapbooker, a painter, a daughter, a sister, a friend, and a wife. I pray often. I fall down a lot. I am a terrible speller. I record voice overs from home, and I travel half-way across the country to bring characters to life. I am also an amateur photographer. I sell stock photos online.
Kara looks around her and wonders how other people do it…
I see so many talented people in the world, men and women doing the exact job I do- and they seem to have it all together. I’m assuming they’ve been given some Divine advice I missed out on.
The key word in that paragraph is “seem.” They seem to have it all together. One of the deadliest traps in life is to compare ourselves with someone else. There are few pursuits more fruitless and even destructive.
Focus is a good thing. Here’s how I understand focus: Pouring energy into our central passion. My friend Kristine Oller has helped me understand that we can, in fact, successfully have lots of fascinations. We just have to learn how to organize them around our central passion in life. Drop those that don’t move us forward. Concentrate on those that do.
May all the facets of your life reflect your God-given passion.