Voice over narration over footage is either the right choice or a serious mistake, and which one it is depends entirely on whether the video needs a person to be believed.
When it is the right choice
Close up product work, hands only demonstrations, process footage, anything where the face adds nothing. A voice over lets the visual carry the message and it makes reshoots trivial, because the audio can be changed without filming again.
When it destroys the video
When the whole point is that a real person tried the product. A testimonial delivered as narration over stock style footage has removed the only thing that made it a testimonial, and the viewer feels the absence even if they cannot name it.
Do not use it to dub a real person
Replacing a creator's own voice with somebody else's is the worst version. The lips do not match, the delivery is not theirs, and the video signals that something has been manipulated. If a language version is needed, film it again rather than dubbing it.
It solves the confidence problem
Plenty of capable creators are uncomfortable on camera and excellent behind it. Voice over lets a brand work with somebody whose hands, home and eye are exactly right without demanding a performance they cannot give.
The audio quality standard goes up
When the voice is the entire performance, a poor recording is much more noticeable. A quiet room and a decent microphone matter more here than in any format where the picture is carrying part of the load.
Keep reading
- The Comparison Format in UGC
- The Testimonial Format in UGC
- The Tutorial Format in UGC
- UGC Creators in Levis
- The complete UGC guide for Canada
Find creators for your campaign →
Frequently asked questions
When is voice over right?
Hands only and process footage.
When does it fail?
When a real person must be believed.
Can it be used to dub a creator?
No, film the other version instead.
Does audio quality matter more?
Yes, the voice is the whole performance.
