I wanted to share some thoughts about the drama assigning process. While I greatly appreciate the hard work that Channel Managers put into their roles, there are certain things in their decision-making that I find concerning.
Connections over competence
It’s frustrating to see that sometimes the main factor in securing a spot on a drama isn’t skill or relevant experience, but personal connections. Talented volunteers who submit thoughtful and detailed applications often get passed over simply because someone else knows the CM personally. This isn’t fair to those who genuinely want to contribute and have the ability to do so.
“It’s my birthday”
Another issue I’ve noticed is that people comment, “It’s my birthday!” and suddenly they’re given a drama. While celebrating someone’s birthday is wonderful, this shouldn’t be a deciding factor in project assignments. Decisions like these diminish the seriousness of the application process.
Quantity over quality
A common practice among some CMs is to prioritize volunteers with the largest number of subtitles. While having experience is valuable, the sheer quantity of subtitles doesn’t guarantee good quality. I’ve seen instances where people with fewer subtitles produce consistent, high-quality work, while others with high counts deliver sloppy or inaccurate translations. These overlooked volunteers could have made a significant contribution to the drama if given the chance.
Lack of experience in genre
This is particularly noticeable in historical dramas, where inexperience often stands out. Sometimes, CMs assign roles to people who have little to no experience in the historical genre. These projects demand a deep understanding of context, terminology, and tone, which inexperienced volunteers may not be equipped to handle. This can affect the overall quality of the project.
The stand-in loophole
I’ve also noticed that some volunteers use stand-ins as a way to handle more dramas than they can realistically manage. This not only limits opportunities for others but also raises questions about whether the people officially listed in roles are actually doing the work. While stand-ins can be helpful in emergencies, they shouldn’t be used as a workaround to claim more projects.
Badmouthing others
One of the most upsetting trends I’ve seen is the way some people resort to badmouthing others to improve their own chances of getting a role. In some cases, these accusations are completely unfounded and only serve to harm reputations. This kind of behavior is toxic and creates unnecessary conflict within the community.
The thing I want to discuss is fairness. A CM’s role is not just to assign tasks but to ensure that projects are entrusted to people who can do them justice. This means thoroughly reviewing all applications, considering experience, and making unbiased decisions. It’s also essential to set aside personal biases or external pressures when assigning roles.