Voice123 version 2.5 discussion thread

[JoeActor]

Hello all,

I've created this thread so that we have a place to discuss the recent release of Voice123 (v. 2.5).

All comments, Pro's and Con's are welcome.

Cheers,
Joe J Thomas
Joe J. Thomas Acting Portfolio

[JoeActor]

Hey everyone,

I'll kick this off with a couple pro's and con's of my own:

Pro: more info on vo demos.
I like that they've added more ways to classify individual vo demos.

Con: search function still pretty bad
What can I say? The searches I've tried have produced some pretty dismal results. The only sure way I've found to get to my profile is to search for "Joe Thomas".

Pro: better detail on profile
The profile check-boxes have some nice additions. If they worked with the search function, that would even be better.

Con: profile SmartCast matching filters of dubious value at best
You may have noticed the "low or no budget" wording on these fields. In my opinion, V123 has avoided any real change in this area by saying "it's too hard". What they've provided is not very useful for me. Below is a quote from V123's faq:

Frequently Asked Question
What is a low- or no-budget project?

A project can be marked as low- or no- budget if:

* The voice seeker posts the project and marks it as “low- or no-budget project”; or…

* The Voice123 Team, when reviewing a project for its approval, determines that the budget is below the industry median
(check the industry averages for non-union projects for more info).

Please note that in some rare instances the decision of marking a project a low- or no-budget may be highly subjective and some people may not agree.

The reasoning Voice123 does not allow talents and voice producers to determine the minimum budgets are found below (warning, technical jargon may follow):

When a project is set in Voice123 the budget field is not a fixed number, like “400” or “10”. It is actually an open text field that may include numbers and letters. For example: “400 – 500”, “5 per word”, “500”, or “120/hour”. Why? Some projects may be open-ended, some other projects may have a range for their budgets, some budgets may offer royalties, etc.

Now, let’s suppose we allowed John, a voice over talent, to mark on his profile that he doesn’t want to be matched with projects paying less than USD 300. Current computer technology is not capable of determining if “300” is more or less than “5 per word”, “400 – 500”, or “120/hour”. As such, our system may not properly determine if John really wanted to be invited or not to those projects.

In theory we could come up with questionnaires and formulas to do the math, but unfortunately they would be too complex (at least for now) to be practical.

Suggestions to add useful filtering for VO Talent have been aired ad-nauseum on the Savvy forum to no avail, so I will not be repeating them again here.

Overall, my opinion of v.2.5 is "meh...". I would have preferred some more substantial changes. With SmartCast still in place, my renewal at this point is still leaning towards "not". 2.5 has not altered that one iota.

Chime in and let us know what your thoughts are!
Joe J Thomas
Joe J. Thomas Acting Portfolio

[Diane Havens]

I am not impressed. Or amused, for that matter. I figure I should have gotten at least one of those from the latest upgrade.

It just seems nothing has really changed, except that they have cluttered up the site even more, with all the features and choices and boxes and algorithms and parameters and so on and so on..... smoke and mirrors to my mind.

I think they are trying, I really do -- in fact, I think they are trying too hard. But there are no points for effort, except in kindergarten.

We'll live with it a while, of course, and see how it plays out. I've got a few more months with them.

And isn't it the quality of the seekers that count -- not only the quality of the talent -- that makes a site attractive? That will ultimately make up my mind to renew -- or not.

[JoeActor]

Originally Posted by DBHavens

...
I think they are trying, I really do -- in fact, I think they are trying too hard. But there are no points for effort, except in kindergarten.

We'll live with it a while, of course, and see how it plays out. I've got a few more months with them.

And isn't it the quality of the seekers that count -- not only the quality of the talent -- that makes a site attractive? That will ultimately make up my mind to renew -- or not.

Hey Diane,

I agree - it's a very overcomplicated mess of a product. They're trying to invent a jet engine to open a jar or peanut butter. Just post the auditions and let us reply. Some filtering might be nice too. Anything else is overkill, and I'm underwhelmed by it all.

The quality of the jobs is one factor. The site quality is also important. It doesn't matter how good the cereal is if you can't get the box open!

"Aye sir, the more they overtech the plumbing, the easier it is to stop up the drain." -- Scotty, Star Trek III

Finished Analogizing,
Joe J Thomas
Joe J. Thomas Acting Portfolio