Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Entertainment/2019 June 1

= June 1 =

Bad voice dubbing in TV ads
I'll ask this question about TV ads here, although it's strictly not entertainment as such (even though they make programs about the best/most humorous TV ads, which programs are clearly meant to entertain, so go figure).

It's fairly common Down Here to see TV ads in which one person is appearing to speak about the product but another person's voice is overdubbed. They seem to make little or no attempt to make the effect seem natural, so that the glaring mismatch is very obvious to the most untrained viewer such as me. In these days of CGI and whatever other super-realistic special FX, and a general focus on excellence, it stuns me that they don't seem to want to try harder to create a seamless product. When I see these ads, I can't help but notice this problem, to the exclusion of whatever product it is they're trying to sell.

It happens so often, that I wonder whether there's an agenda: such as, for example, misdirect the viewer's attention away from the overt product message and on to some technical side-issue, so that the message goes straight through to the subconscious unfiltered and unresisted, with a better chance of being retained and being effective. Is there any truth to this? Or do they figure it's not worth the effort to make it sound natural since nobody but prissy pedants like that Jack of Oz would care, or even notice? But then, if they tried this in a movie, it would attract such bad publicity that nobody would bother seeing it. But then, apart from pirated downloads, people generally pay money to see a movie whereas TV ads come free (and are worth every cent the viewer pays for them).

Am I anywhere near the ball park of the answer to this curious question? --  Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  00:39, 1 June 2019 (UTC)


 * I can't answer the question, but I'm curious about the practice, as I have not seen it done here. (Not that I watch a lot of TV ads.)  Are they trying to pretend that the person you see is speaking with the voice you hear?  What makes it so obvious; are the lip motions not synchronized, or what? --76.69.46.228 (talk) 05:41, 2 June 2019 (UTC)


 * It's incredibly common in the UK. I've tended to assume it was purely a cost-cutting measure. DuncanHill (talk) 07:16, 2 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Friend 76.69: Here is a thread going into some more detail. It dates from 2005, so the issue is not a new one.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  22:15, 2 June 2019 (UTC)


 * And suggesting an answer to Jack's question, namely that it's done to "localize" the ads by pretending that the people shown are Australians. Makes sense, I guess. Thanks. --76.69.46.228 (talk) 08:14, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * In our house we think it's generic European ads being overdubbed into English. Britmax (talk) 09:17, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

The answer to the question I believe is multifaceted, involving cost; effectiveness and again cost. The first element of cost involves the cost of the CGI, and that it is simply not cost effective to undertake this work when one considers it in the context of the following two elements. The memorability of the advert is enhanced by the awfulness. This is a common advertising technique used, almost all washing powder adverts worldwide, involve bad acting and over dramatisation of, for example, red wine on a white shirt. They want the advert to be bad so that you remember it, even if it is just because it is bad. Causing you to recall the advert helps to cement the product into memory increasing the chance that you will recall their product and buy their product over another. The third element I would list is again the cost factor; this time relating to making a new advert for every country the product is sold in, Australia, Germany, France, Spain, Italy, Poland etc. A new advert for every territory or just dub the advert to a new language, enhancing the awfulness. The above to me is obvious and well researched, what I am not able to explain is the good adverts where money has been spent and someone had clearly produced a labour of love yet by the end you don't know what the product was or who the company was. There used to be a advert on UK television several years ago which I clearly noted did not state the product name or brand at all, it was enigmatic and arty, but failed to specify any product. Anton81.131.40.58 (talk) 09:52, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * As to that last point, that sort of thing has been done from time to time as a way of arousing curiosity. After you've seen the ad enough to gain familiarity, they change it so that you'll know what it's about.  My mother told me about a billboard or a neon sign in Piccadilly Circus decades ago.  I only remember the principle and not the specifics, but it might have been that first there was just a straight vertical line, then a week later it became the handle of an umbrella, then the next week there was a man holding the umbrella, and then they added something to make it obvious what they were advertising.  That sort of advertising still happens these days. --76.69.46.228 (talk) 06:53, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Jake Paul's Profession as a Rapper: Should It Be Included in Leading or Not?
I had done this to his talk page back in December, but no replies have been received to this improvement. The main objective is that the subject's occupation should be changed into an "American rapper, actor and Internet personality" in the opening sentence.

Yes It's Everyday Bro with Team 10 was the song that got him as that kind of musical artist, while elder brother Logan is more pop though he rapped three times in Goodbye KSI Santa Diss Track and The Fall of Jake Paul respectively.

So is a brilliant idea to have him as a rapper? Edit request like these can't be rejected.

Good night,

67.81.163.178 (talk) 01:13, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
 * This should not be discussed here, but rather at Talk:Jake Paul. Discussions if specific article content should be held at article talk pages.-- Jayron 32 13:03, 3 June 2019 (UTC)