Time restraint..

Lynne Alston · Posted: Wed Jul 04, 2007, 05:36 (GMT) Post subject: Time restraint..

How do you handle too much copy for a spot that there is no way in h***
it will fit without sounding like sh**.

Do you politely tell them, or just send the audition in going over the time permitted and hope they realize any faster and the message will be lost.

Lynne

Kevin Miller · Posted: Wed Jul 04, 2007, 05:38 (GMT) Post subject:

No chance of compressing?

Lynne Alston · Posted: Wed Jul 04, 2007, 05:55 (GMT) Post subject:

Kevin, they required uncompressed file.

Maybe it's me, this piece has 97 words and I have it down to 0.35 seconds, the last 14 words are a repeat of the web address two more times, maybe I'm just not cut out for the fast pace. Sad

Scott Pollak · Posted: Wed Jul 04, 2007, 05:59 (GMT) Post subject:

Lynne, I suspect what Kevin meant was taking your read and via electronic processing squeezing it down, using a time shift function. When I have a read that runs just SLIGHTLY too long, say, no more than 2 seconds on a :60 read, I sometimes will see if using the timeshift function in CE Pro/Adobe Audition will do the trick without making the read sound artificially choppy. But compressing by any more than about 104% usually doesn't sound good.

You don't say how long the piece is supposed to be, but 90 words is a typically comfortable :30 piece of copy. When clients give me too much copy, if I don't have the option of editing it, I'll give them two takes from which to choose: One that sounds good, but runs too long, and one that sounds horrible; ridiculously fast, but fits in the time constraint. That usually gets the point across.

Kevin Miller · Posted: Wed Jul 04, 2007, 06:06 (GMT) Post subject:

What Scott said.

Lynne Alston · Posted: Wed Jul 04, 2007, 06:11 (GMT) Post subject:

Scott, the spot was .30 seconds, (which technically is .29 seconds) I thought about using THAT compression but didn't think it would give me 5 more seconds, maybe I'll play with it.

I really like your 2 take option, give them one over time and then one in, that way your not being rude, just letting them make an educated decision based on examples.

So glad I asked..I really enjoyed the copy, and it was well written, just seemed too many words.

Thanks guys for the help
Very Happy

Scott Pollak · Posted: Wed Jul 04, 2007, 14:30 (GMT) Post subject:

Lynne, I'll tell you right now that trying to compress :35 into :29 electronically won't sound good. You're trying to compress by over 120% or so and it will sound horribly choppy.

Philip Banks · Posted: Wed Jul 04, 2007, 14:38 (GMT) Post subject:

So, the proposal is to respond to an audition request posted by someone who clearly has no idea what they are doing. Anyone else see what's wrong with that?

Scott Pollak · Posted: Wed Jul 04, 2007, 14:57 (GMT) Post subject:

Thom Wilkins · Posted: Wed Jul 04, 2007, 15:08 (GMT) Post subject:

I agree with Scott - Give them two takes - One reading as it should be and one fitting the timeframe - time compressed if needed.

Also helpful is sending the script back to them on a "TIMING SHEET" with everything thing spelled out -

street addresses, phone numbers i.e. "call one eight hundred five five five"... and terms like "W W W." as "double you double you double you dot..."

Many times the writer will forget that numbers and letters need to be spoken as words - not as numbers. so 90 "words" suddenly becomes 120 with a phone number a couple times and a web address... Smile

-
Also many times web addresses will need to be spelled out for example WWW.XYBERMEDIA.COM would be "double you double you double you ex why bee ee are MEDIA dot Com" phonetically - 14 "words" not 1 url - much longer to say than read.

Grant Holmes · Posted: Wed Jul 04, 2007, 15:21 (GMT) Post subject:

I wish people would get that the "WWW" is irrelevant and doesn't need to be in ANY script read. Those listeners that think it needs to be there will put it there and those that take it literally will STILL get to the web site.

In my radio days (recent) I worked to get the copy writers (time pressed sales people that know nothing about copy)... to remove the "WWW".

Erik Sheppard · Posted: Wed Jul 04, 2007, 15:25 (GMT) Post subject:

Lynne Alston · Posted: Wed Jul 04, 2007, 16:19 (GMT) Post subject:

Quote Thom: Also helpful is sending the script back to them on a "TIMING SHEET" with everything thing spelled out -

street addresses, phone numbers i.e. "call one eight hundred five five five"... and terms like "W W W." as "double you double you double you dot..."

So glad I asked about timing, a great suggestion Thom. This copy omitted the W.W.W, but still looking at it in respect to a breakdown it does contain 99 words ( I missed the dot. and dollar sign in original word calculations)

Lynne

Scott Pollak · Posted: Wed Jul 04, 2007, 16:22 (GMT) Post subject:

More scripting tips from someone who has been to the Dan O'Day/Dick Orkin training on writing effective copy, as well as having written thousands (yes, literally) pieces of commercial copy over the past 20 years or so:

- agreed that www is absolutely unnecessary nowdays. As a matter of fact, when I hear it in a spot it tells me the advertiser might not really be that web savvy. Even worse: "triple w". Arrrrgh!
- Phone numbers in ads: People will NEVER EVER remember them UNLESS they ARE memorable. For example: 1-800-PetSmart. But too often local advertisers want to throw in: Call us at 678-592-2387. Good Lord. Who will EVER remember that? On top of that, do the advertisers want the customers to CALL or come INTO the store?
- Street addresses: Useless. Can you tell me the street address of your church, or kids' school, or bank or even your neighbor up the street? Of course not. When First Bank of Bumluck says "Conveniently located (another horribly tired cliche') at 1277 E. Dongleberry Road", who on EARTH knows where that is? And who would remember it? Instead, the client should say, "Just one-half mile east of interstate 85 on Dongleberry Road, next to Blockbuster." Anyone could remember that, AND find it.

Just my two cents worth.
Believe me I have a lot more. Don't get me started.
Wink

Philip Banks · Posted: Wed Jul 04, 2007, 16:33 (GMT) Post subject: