VO-BB - 20 YEARS OLD!

[Deirdre]

Voices.com doesn't like it.

Words that should be eliminated.
_________________
DBCooperVO.com
IMDB

[Yoda117]

I'm feeling very teary-eyed about this.

No. Wait. Just gas.

If you are a pay-to-play site (they are). Then they ought to deal with the connotation that comes with it. If not, then change your business model.

Reminds me of the folks who get upset at the term/phrase "illegal alien" due to it's negative connotation. Do they hold citizenship? No. Are they in a country legally? No. Seems pretty clear to me.

Now let's look at the business model for Voices.com and Voices123. One pays (or must pay) money in order to actually become a player on the site (save for direct invites you can't audition on most of them). The common denominator of all the online casting services is that one must pay to "get in the game," offered by the sites.

Compare that to a definition of "pay to play" and you'll find that they are identical.

Don't like it? Change the level of services offered to the paying client, the entire business model, or accept use of the term.

I think that the third option is the most cost effective for them.
_________________
Voiceovers by Gregory Houser
Philadelphia based Voice Actor

Blog - A man, a martini, and a lot of microphones

[dhouston67]

Not going to bash voices.com, as Stephanie and David's dealings with me have never been anything less than courteous and professional. They've also given me some singular publicity from time to time, and I'm grateful for that.

Having said all that, I have to disagree with them on this. "Pay-to-play" isn't necessarily a pejorative, even if a lot of VO folks tend to use it as such. Even here on the VO-BB, I've seen it used as often in a matter-of-fact context as much as in a "they all stink" rant.

(Irrespective of online voiceover talent pools, though, I do admit that the phrase had nothing but negative connotations when I first heard it in the 80s --- a term used for L.A. nightclubs which not only wouldn't give performing bands a cut of the door or the bar, but would actually charge the bands a fee for the privilege of playing.)
_________________
Great Voice. Great Choice. For Voice Talking and stuff.
http://davidhoustonvoice.com
Do That Voice! - The DHV Blog

[Yoda117]

The term itself was never a negative connotation, but became one due to it's misuse (particularly in politics). Much like you Dave, I've got nothing against Voices.com. But to say that their business model isn't based on "pay to play" is disingenuous.
_________________
Voiceovers by Gregory Houser
Philadelphia based Voice Actor

Blog - A man, a martini, and a lot of microphones

[Lance Blair]

It's nice that at least they care about how they are perceived.

Everything in the world is Pay to Play...it's called investment. P to P is subscription based investment.

I don't like the connotation of "Voice Seeker" it's kinda pimpy.
_________________
Skype: globalvoiceover
and now, http://lanceblairvo.com the blog is there now too!

[CarynClark]

I left my comments on the blog.
_________________
Caryn Clark... The Hip Chick Voice!

"A positive mental attitude and having faith in your ability is quite different from being irresponsible and downright stupid." - Dave

[Bob Bergen]

Kudos on your "pay to play" comments, Lance!

Bottom line is, there are no guarantees. Is it tacky to pay a casting director a fee to take their workshop just to get a chance for them to meet you and hear your work? Maybe. But one job will pay for the investment. And these days it's so hard to get in on an audition if the casting director doesn't know you.

Then there are companies like Voicehunter. I myself work with them. When I first contacted them, I went into this relationship as if it were a business investment. If in one year I got nothing in return for my investment, I'd chalk it up to a tax write off. I was fortunate in that it paid for itself in less than one year. And due to my pay to play with them, I now make far more annually in radio imaging then I will ever have to invest by being repped by Voicehunter.

Again, there are no guarantees. But you get nowhere without the gamble. Sometimes the gamble costs.

[Yoda117]

I don't know, I mean, most transactions are quid pro quo. These sites do not fit that definition IMO.

But that's just me. I think that if there were better protection mechanisms in place for the folks paying for membership (on both side of the fence), I'd view them less stringently.

Both sides have good points, but as folks probably have noticed, I'm a bit of a stickler when it comes to safeguards.

/adjusts the tin-foil hat
_________________
Voiceovers by Gregory Houser
Philadelphia based Voice Actor

Blog - A man, a martini, and a lot of microphones

[glittlefield]

I opted out of my Voices.com membership this year for two reasons:

1. I found myself NOT auditioning for everything that came to me (my fault - I have a day job and can't get to them quickly enough...)
2. I made all my money last year by being found through Google searches. Talk about "not having to lift a finger"!

At this point, it's not worth paying the new rate to continue using a P2P site when I end up being submission #200 all the time. I know, I could have renewed at the old rate a few months ago, but even then I was questioning it.

In the future, who knows? It's a great community and Stephanie and David work very hard to make Voice.com a valuable asset for those who are on their way up! I'm just putting that money into other things that need shoring up right now. That way, I'll have something to "gamble" with next time around.

To get back to the topic at hand, though, I think "Pay to Play" is going to be around for a while. This is an industry that requires thick skin of everyone.
_________________
Greg Littlefield
VO-BB Member #59

[Barry]

I like Voices.com, and the "Pay to Play" is just a perception. Much like hysteria, anger and laughter it can catch on quick in a crowd. Is the term or perception causing damage, helping or hurting? Perhaps to one's ego....maybe.

If one changes the term to something different and puts a spin on it does this change the perception itself? No it simply changes a term. How many of us use the term Jacuzzi (brand name) vs. spa (generic name). They're both the same thing and no matter how you may spin the term, people will call it what they call it. The point is we all know what it is. So if they want something different, change the function, show us how it is not a "pay to play".

That being said, please don't!! I love it the way it is.

[Bailey]

So now “Politically Correct BS” invades the VO world.

I also have no beef with Stephanie and David... except when they fail to answer my PM.

But to say..

[Jeffrey Kafer]

You're misinformed, Bailey. All gigs at Voices.com start at $100
_________________
Jeff
http://JeffreyKafer.com
Voice-overload Web comic: http://voice-overload.com

[CarynClark]

Regardless... point is, there are often gigs on there that have a stated budget of way below a fair value.
_________________
Caryn Clark... The Hip Chick Voice!

"A positive mental attitude and having faith in your ability is quite different from being irresponsible and downright stupid." - Dave

[Deirdre]

I certainly meant nothing pejorative when I started calling Voice 123 and Voices.com "Pay-to-play".

The other way I describe those sites is "collective marketing".
I think that describes part of their mission, at least.
_________________
DBCooperVO.com
IMDB

[Barry]