Once a brand accepts it needs a French version, the next question is how. Subtitles, a voice over and a second shoot cost three different amounts and produce three genuinely different results.

Subtitles are the cheapest and the weakest

They are fast and they satisfy accessibility, but the person on screen is still visibly speaking another language. For a Quebec audience that reads as an English campaign with a courtesy layer added, which is exactly the impression the brand was trying to avoid.

Voice over breaks the thing that makes UGC work

The whole premise is that a real person is talking to you. Replace their voice and the illusion collapses: the lips do not match, the delivery is not theirs, and the video becomes a dubbed advertisement rather than a recommendation.

A second shoot with the same creator is the middle option

If the creator is genuinely bilingual, filming the piece again in French from the same setup costs one extra hour and produces a native asset. This is by far the best return of the three and it is why bilingual creators are worth a premium.

A second creator is the strongest and most expensive

Two creators, two versions, two audiences who each see somebody who sounds like them. It costs roughly twice as much and it performs like two campaigns rather than one campaign translated.

How to decide

If the video is going into paid advertising in Quebec, film it again. If it is a supporting asset on an owned channel, subtitles may be enough. Voice over is almost never the right answer for creator content, whatever it saves.

Keep reading

Find creators for your campaign →

Frequently asked questions

Are subtitles enough?

Sometimes for owned channels, rarely for ads.

Why is voice over a problem?

It breaks the illusion of a real person.

What is the best value option?

A bilingual creator refilming from the same setup.

When is a second creator worth it?

When the video runs as paid advertising.