A friend of mine who does lots of corporate reads had coffee with me the other day and we got into a discussion about differences between voice-overs and voice acting. This guy makes good money as a “Corporate Voice” so I tend to appreciate his expertise. But when he declared that there is “no acting” involved in what he does – I had to say “wait a minute”. Elements of voice acting – that is, emotional elements, are in any and all voice-overs – unless you want no response from the listener – in which case – why bother? His point was that corporate reads are informational only – he doesn’t think about trying to elicit anything at all from the listener – except that they walk away informed. This really rankled me – and he laughed at my rankled-ness (all the way to the bank apparently). But I couldn’t let go of the conversation. I am a female voice talent with experience in business and corporate voicing, an Audie award, and an ongoing voice contract with GMC for 10 of my 20 years in this business – and here my very successful friend is shaking my tree on whether one can do “voicing” – without “acting”. So I ran to my James Alburger “The Art of Voice Acting” Third Edition to grab some language… Here’s the distinction according to Alburger: A voice OVER has one or more of the following:
- Often “read-y” or “Announcer’y” (Like reading a script)
- Content is info-heavy, often intellectual, with little or no emotional content
- The goal of the message is to “sell” the listener on something
- The overall effect of the message is to create “listener tune-out”
- Delivery of the message may actually reduce credibility of the advertiser (!)
So…..why would an advertiser hire a voice like this? Good question. I don’t think my friend is giving himself enough credit for the acting he does do, but I digress. Let’s look at voice ACTING. According to Alburger, all of the following apply:
- The performer creates believable and real characters in conversation with the listener
- The message content is primarily emotional, w/ a single clearly defined focus
- The goal of the message is to “tell a story” that the listener can relate to
- The focus of the message is to “help” the listener rather than to overtly sell something
- The overall effet is of keeping the listener’s attention and creating a memorable moment
OK – so now the question is really one of whether the bullets under voice ACTING apply to Corporate voice-overs. He says, with some exceptions, that mostly they don’t. I say, with very few exceptions – that even if the “story” and the “helping” and “emotional” aspect of a corporate read is not apparent, if the copy has integrity – those elements are still there. Subtle perhaps, but present. Think of an effective corporate voice presentation or ad campaign – like the TV campaign for the oil industry that was running for months – you’ve seen it – the tall leggy blonde in the black suit – giving us a virtual tour of how great the industry is for our economy etc. The oil industry is trying to combat our emotional response to the BP oil disaster and offshore drilling (yuck! no more! We’re killing baby pelicans!) to one of (job) security and rationality (yeah wind and solar, but America runs on oil and we always will). And who didn’t want to be like her? Calm, knowledgable, in control (and rich, tall and blonde). I closed my eyes and listened to this ad – a voice of authority, very corporate, very informational on the surface – but you betcha she was trying to elicit an emotional response…all the way to the voting booth right now!
So I don’t think you sacrifice the voice of authority required in so many corporate reads with an emotional element – I think you reinforce it. And you connect with the listener on a level that’s deeper than content and intellect….and that’s the realm of voice ACTING. My friend and I are going to have coffee again next week – and this time I’m bringing Alburger!
