Three options exist for moving a video from one language to another. They cost three different amounts and produce three unrelated results.
Subtitles, the cheapest and the weakest
That is the default option, and it has a real but limited use.
It works when the video rests on the image: a demonstration, a movement, a product that shows itself. It is also indispensable everywhere else, since playback starts with no sound.
It fails as soon as the video rests on a person speaking. The audience hears one language and reads another, and attention splits at the exact moment it had to be held.
Two rules if you choose that option. Rewrite rather than translate: a readable subtitle is five words where the spoken sentence is fifteen. And have it read by somebody who speaks the language as it is spoken here, because a correct translation can still sound foreign.
Voice-over breaks what makes the format work
That is the intermediate option, and it is often the worst of the three.
Covering a person filmed speaking produces an immediate mismatch: the lips do not follow, the intonation does not match, and the content tips over into translated advertising.
It remains valid in one case only: when nobody appears speaking. A video of hands, of a product or of a place adapts to voice-over with no loss at all.
The rule is therefore simple: voice-over replaces voice-over, never a person on screen.
A second shoot with the same creator
That is the most effective option when the person is bilingual.
They redo the spoken takes in the second language, on the same day, in the same set and the same clothes. The edit stays identical, only the takes change.
The extra cost is small: one additional hour of shooting and an export. The gain is complete: two videos that both look original.
One condition: the text must be rewritten, not translated. A translated sentence never falls on the same picture length.
A second creator
That is the option costing most, and sometimes the only right one.
It is required when the target audience has to recognise itself: the vocabulary, the accent, the references and the rhythm count as much as the message.
It also produces a lasting asset: one more person in your pool, tested, available for the following campaigns.
How to decide
Three questions, in that order.
Does a person appear speaking? If not, voice-over is enough.
Must the video produce identification, or only comprehension? If it must produce identification, it takes a local voice.
And how many campaigns are planned this year? Beyond two, reshooting becomes the cheapest option, as described above.
What each option costs and returns
| Criterion | Dubbing | New shoot |
|---|---|---|
| Lead time | Two days | One to two weeks |
| Cost | Low | Full |
| Credibility | Variable | Total |
What makes a dub acceptable
A voice that speaks the audience's language daily, a script rewritten rather than translated, and an edit where the speaker's lips are not visible.
What forces a reshoot
A close-up on a speaking face, a recognisable place, a price shown on screen, or a mandatory notice specific to the target market.
What to plan for in every case
Three elements, written into the brief.
The master with no burnt-in text, which allows every version.
Rights covering both languages, with the same duration.
And the agreement of the person filmed for both versions, including when they appear in only one.
Finally check the language obligations applying to commercial display and to disclosures, which depend on the medium and the situation, before publication.
