Resolve This (REPEAT ISSUE) - Suspected QC bias and Rejections from only one individual under particular circumstances.
Hi there,
I apologise for the tone of this post but this has happened so frequently and been resolved repeatedly three times prior in my favour that I believe that it is required that I speak with some degree of annoyance and disdain for the events that have taken place.
Once again, I have faced a submission rejection from 'Juan David Martinez due to 'undesirably over-processed' audio. Just today I have had a rejection removed from my statistics from the very same quality control members' rejections. Yet he has failed to provide any feedback on the community thread I made regarding this.
I am convinced that this man does not understand the concept of bass in a humans voice and thinks that it is clearly provided by 'eq', what is standing as 'undesirable' to him has been accepted by every single job I have placed forward using the setup I have been using for the past several months.
This even includes an agreement on your community forum looked into by your quality control team in which you informed me you'd be adjusting your quality control team's standards to reflect what I had provided that day in retaliation to Juan's clearly wrong judgements.
I would like to know why the level of acceptance for this job:
Are recordings that contain mouth sounds, whilst if I had submitted my original voice-over file and had it invigilated by any other member of your quality control team it would have been accepted.
I am infuriated that every single time I do any voiceover with my adult voice rather than raising it a few octaves (for teenage, which Juan always accepted, using the exact same EQ may I add.)
Juan David Martinez always denies it under 'Over processed' If I need to go and artificially remove the bass from my own natural voice then I'm happy to EQ it all out but it seems to be exactly what clients want and your QC team to considering your prior sidings with this REPEAT problem.
Once again, I request that this unfair rejection be removed from my statistics, as has been done so several times now for this exact issue.
I will provide relevant links below for your own viewing. Please resolve this issue Bunny Studio team, I am getting fed up with having to stick up for myself against one seemingly opinionated, biased QC team member. (Seriously, Juan, you accept my teenage voiceovers using the same EQ settings and processing chain that is used for the young adult jobs you reject. If I had a method of seeing what support member was going to review my submission before accepting the job I'd be raising my octave a few levels higher just to please your own biases for those jobs so I wouldn't have to keep doing this. I'm sure it's annoying for the Bunny Studio team too.)
Links:
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1cYGB_GqmO5GsiaRfxP_KmRGFEYmqylce?usp=sharing - Google drive link containing both this rejections voice over and the overruled rejections voice over from before, alongside the actual accepted audio from the client (Revised using the exact same EQ style that Juan likes to reject all the time.)
https://help.bunnystudio.com/hc/en-us/community/posts/7417193304723-Absolute-confusion-at-a-recent-QC-rejection-despite-many-audios-in-the-same-setup-being-passed- - A thread in which these rejections have been cleared before for your reference.
There are also several email chains you can find tied to my account and your support that have had the same outcome in my favour.
On a final note, I'm trying to do my best to work with your platform, why is it that I can finish a £45 competition-based job for a client entirely with approved audio (that is in fact more bass-heavy, using a lower spoken tone deliberately for corporate use that passes QC fine) yet I can't have the same experience with a £4.50 audition? This is utterly confusing and your statistics system consistently forces me to write regarding unfair rejections. I just want to provide high-quality voice-over for your platform and earn whilst doing so, why is there seemingly a difference in quality control's biases? I understand this is most likely not a personal matter, but it at this point is seeming particularly targeted towards me after having already dealt with several rejections of this audio style from Juan himself. I sincerely hope there is no personal bias affecting your quality control chain.
Looking forwards to your response and to this issue being resolved.
Kind Regards,
Thomas Moore
Double-posted to the community forum for ensuring there is a response
---- Edit ----
I would like to highlight how this dry read of a script with no (presumably based on my own criticism.) research into the clients provided pdf document including details on the character, personality and more is accepted. (Which is fine if this is your QC standard.)
But for a platform that highlights voice over pro's and the top vetted percentage of the worlds freelance voice over artists surely there should be quality control standard based on performance of scripts provided too? The client here was clearly not asking for a dry read if you take a look at the PDF they provided in the job/role description.
This is a quality concern and not entirely relevant to my complaint but I believe it important to point out that you can accept (I apologise to the actor, I'm sure you do wonderful work otherwise! This is of course my opinion) sub-standard performance while invigilating to an extreme (and seemingly personally biased to some QC team members) extent on audio quality.
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Hi Thomas,
Apologise for the late reply to your posts, but I will be replying to both of them.
Firstly, it's lovely to eventually speak with you - I've heard your submissions over the many months and it's always a pleasure to listen to your voice, let alone your performance. The high energy and attentiveness towards each project are always fantastic!
Now to address the elephant in the room...
Please, no need to apologise for your rather annoyed tone. I fully understand the frustrations here. I do recall seeing your post not too long ago and another colleague helped you with suggestions and ways to improve your audio quality. Truly, we are grateful for all your proactive actions. So to receive a rejection again, I think everyone can sympathise here.
I would like to mention that your comments have been listened to and they have been flagged up with the whole team. Please accept our deepest apologises, we are constantly trying to align the team. As such, we have had a discussion regarding your audio quality for this project you've mentioned. And we all agree that your audio quality is great and this shouldn't happen again as long as you maintain the same standard which you have been doing. (Which I'm sure you'll understand if standards slip we have to mention these things.)
I believe there was some confusion here, so there was no dishonest intent. There were some comments regarding your audio quality questioning whether you were removing some high frequencies. So there was no mention that you need to remove the bass from your voice, it was more, since your voice is naturally low and bassy - There was some misunderstanding thinking that you had removed the higher frequencies. Nevertheless, do know that these uncertainties have been put to rest.
You should have had an email already by now, as this rejection has been removed from your stats.
Hope you have a great weekend.
Kindest regards,
Samantha