Voiceover ethics – a shortcut to hypocrisy?

About Emma

EmmaEmma Clarke is a leading female voiceover and comedy/drama writer. She voices all kinds of things from advertisements to radio identity packages – but is best known as the ‘voice of the London Underground’.

My full profile

Previous postings


Archives

Subscribe to this feed | Subscribe to feeds
Subscribe to this feed | Subscribe to podcasts

Voiceover ethics – a shortcut to hypocrisy?

Sunday
Jul 24 2011

This morning I received a tweet from a skin cancer fundraiser about Boots’ decision to ‘ban low price competitors using star rating sun creams.’ The tweet pointed to this story. If it’s true – and as we’ve learned the veracity of some journalists’ claims can sometimes be dubious – then it really is an outrage. Reading it, I felt furious. I say this because my father’s death was caused by melanoma, an aggressive form of skin cancer. Because of my personal experience, anything skin-cancer-related touches me. 

So I retweeted my friend’s original tweet. Immediately someone challenged me: “In a show of solidarity will you now refuse to ever be the voice of Boots?” I felt irked. In a show of solidarity with whom? To my knowledge no-one was suggesting a boycott of Boots. Besides, it’s not been suggested that I should be ‘the voice of Boots’ (whatever that means). I replied: “Better than pledge to never accept an offer that hasn’t even been made, a more proactive approach is to ask followers to RT?”  

I suspect making a one-woman protest against a company I don’t fully approve of would be pretty ineffectual. I’d rather write this blog in an attempt to raise awareness of Boots’ sun cream decision and let others make up their own minds.  

But it does raise a question: if an advertising professional disagrees with the ‘ethics’ of a company, does it make them a hypocrite if they later accept work from said company? Or is it fair to say that principles don’t pay your mortgage? Should one’s moral compass be one’s sole guide in making commercial decisions?

Personally, I refuse work that I’m just not comfortable voicing: scam competition phone lines, psychic phone lines, unsolicited ‘spam’ telephone messages and anything which in my limited wisdom I deem to be dodgy. I like to think I’m an ‘ethical’ person but maybe I’m deluding myself: I doubt that in the course of my professional life I’ve worked for companies whose ‘ethical’ reputations are completely stainless. 

So in an expanded reply to my tweeter: in my view big, gobby shoot-from-the-hip, Twitter-inspired pledges – like promises, corporate mission statements and wedding vows – are so terribly easily broken.  

 

2 comments · add a comment · this blog is moderated

Emma Clarke takes no responsibility for any comments below, as these do not necessarily represent her views.

BoÂ?tjan Jerko
24 July 2011 at 01:18

That is a constant dilemma of us all. I always liked the way of dealing with it I first heard by actors. They accept highly payed jobs to earn money which is later used to promote less paid but "more to the heart" movies and other projects. So to translate it to the theme of your blog post. I'd accept work from Boots and then use money to raise cancer awareness. And I know you are doing the later (and I'm supporting you as much as I can). So just keep up with what you are doing, you are the best.


Peter Labrow
25 July 2011 at 12:53

I turned down a job from a tobacco company and always would. But I don't see the point in turning down voicing work for Boots on one point of ethics, you can still campaign and take the money. Mind you, they may feel differently. All similar ethical questions are not the same.