OK, Which is Better? And Which Would You Approve?
Just got rejections for 2 auditions for the Tools Of The Trade reads, Hammers and Saws. In the request for revision sent via email, it came back as "read too fast" "insert pauses between each word". I have done several of books for this requester and have always had good comments from them reading at about the pace of my original demo. I have included that demo and a second reading with pauses in between each word as per the revision request. One of the purposes of the books is to teach children to read and reading in such a stilted manner is not effective. The direction from the client in the remarks is to read so they can follow along, which I did. If it needs to be a little slower, so be it. That can be fixed at the time of granting the read to the winner. If the intent of the QA process is to get a perfect read, OK, but how did the rest of the read sound? Timing is a minor issue compared to the overall sound of the read. And, again, as these are for kids learning to read, they need to hear how words flow also,
not
just
how
each
word
sounds
indi
vidually.
Also, concerning response time. Very few of us are capable of sitting at our computers 24/7 365 waiting for something to come down the pike, either in the way of jobs or responses. It took half an hour for the response to come via email to do a revision. Because of that, I missed the opportunity to submit the revision. Perhaps a slight revamping of the process is needed to get the response time down is in order. Many of us do this as we go from one task to another (like during lunch time and then having to return to work). I know you have a lot to do, so do we.
Here is the file:
https://soundcloud.com/mark-chen-20/part-1-aud-pause-demo
It is a bit exaggerated, but not by much.
Please sign in to leave a comment.
I agree that it's hard to complete a revision requested by our QA Team for a Speedy in the time allotted. Unfortunately, due to the nature of Speedies, we can only allow a short amount of time before we have to give another talent a chance.
This particular client is extremely specific about the type of read they want and our QA Team must be very choosy or we lose money on these projects. Are we a bit "over-cautious" with these projects? Probably. I do understand your frustration and I have been in talks with our product team about revising the amount of time allowed. I'll keep you posted.
Thanks!
Mark, your first read clearly flows more naturally and the slower pace would appear appropriate for teaching children to read. The fact that you have other approved reads, for the same client and the same purpose, would lend weight to this. There's a difference between an audio book teaching words, like "Things on the street: sign, ball, car, dog, bicycle, tree, puddle" (where pauses are very appropriate) and the text you were reading (where being clear and slow and engaged and speaking with a natural cadence are equally important).
I don't think the VB quality folks are trained on all the various possibilities for all the various types of projects, so they go with what they know. I think in this case, the reviewer likely had experience with the teaching individual words kind of script, not the teaching reading skills kind.
Tara, for cases like this, where a read was actually acceptable by the client's standards and by VB quality standards (even though it wasn't actually passed on), can we appeal the rejection in our stats? If nothing else, at least the VB quality review person should get additional training. This is NOT a punishment or a bad thing. We all learn from our mistakes. That's why GOOD quality review is critical for BOTH reviewer and reviewee.
Does that make sense? Like my boss tells me, it's not about blame or feeling bad. It's about what happened, root cause, and what we can do differently or better in the future. And in this case, it's about removing an unwarranted black mark from the talent's stats. My two cents, offered as a loyal and eager VB talent. -- Cat