FORUMS: list search recent posts

RANT: Re: Need REAL Stock Footage Resource

COW Forums : Business & Career Building

Respond to this post   •   Return to posts index   •   Read entire thread

Bill Davis
RANT: Re: Need REAL Stock Footage Resource
on Mar 20, 2014 at 7:03:47 pm
Last Edited By Bill Davis on Mar 20, 2014 at 7:07:16 pm

This is a rant - so bear with.

I do a lot of voiceover work. At on the casting services I'm connected with - day after day after day I see the same thing. Someone looking for a voice talent - and to explain the "tonality" they're looking for - they post an ad. Typically an APPLE ad.
Here - I want someone who can sound like this… then they link to the Brian Cranston "pencil" ad.
Or the Richard Dreyfus 1997 Think Different Ad.
Or something similar.

I want to scream at them.

I want to tell them that the "tonality" (whatever the hell that means) has as little to do with the impact of the ad as the format it was shot on. (They do know that the iPad ad was actually SHOT on iDevices, - right?)

I want to scream at them that it's NEVER one thing. Never JUST the images - or the music - or the voiceover - or the quality of the product itself - or the timing of the campaign - or the strength of the media buy - or how successfully that product or service dovetails with the wants and desires of the customers the manufacturer is attempting to reach.


It's ALL of those things coming together to mesh beautifully - and compel us to buy something and therefore drive profits.

And whenever it happens - you can be absolutely sure of one thing.

Immediately after that campaign succeeds there will be a zillion clients who are absolutely DESPERATE to rip off PARTS of the successful effort believing that if they can achieve that "tonality" of the voiceover - or the "realness" of the photography - then their work will be *or at least LOOK) more "successful" as well.

But, of course, they won't have the time and money to do ANY of the hard work that went into the first successful project.. Not to write as graceful a script. Not to hire a quality shooter. Not to engage the proper talent. Not to learn to direct them well, Nor spend the back-end time and money relentlessly pursuing what made the original so successful.

They'll want to spend 1/1000th of the money - and they'll expect that copying the look or sound as well as they can will help them stand out and achieve competitive success.

What astonishes me is that they somehow feel that copying great creativity will, in turn, make their work "more creative." Huh? Doesn't copying something BY DEFINITION make the resulting work LESS "creative?"

BTW, this is NOT about Ned, whom I know to be a solid pro who understands all of this already - and who (like all of us) is simply trying to do for his clients the best he possibly can within the limitations they impose.

But I'm a voiceover guy who sees a small slice of the crap that chasing this kind of brilliance breeds. And I suspect it's precisely the same for the stock photographers out there. The market screams for more "REAL" for sure. BUT - not ACTUAL "real." and certainly not ugly real, or ill focused real, or slurred words real or overexposed real or - but for an artfully nearly flawless "REAL" that looks like it took NO effort - when in fact it took MORE effort than the stock photos that were rejected as being "too stock looking."

I believe there's a "making of" video on the web about the iPad "day in the life" video. It reveals a bit of what it took to make those simple "slice of life" videos in the linked spot.

They burned through mountains of cash around the globe and had to sort through a zillion rejects to find precisely the best shots in order to make it look that "real."

And so it goes.

Know someone who teaches video editing in elementary school, high school or college? Tell them to check out - video editing curriculum complete with licensed practice content.

Posts IndexRead Thread 

Current Message Thread:

© 2020 All Rights Reserved