I’ve thought about it long and hard, and I still can’t understand why we’re cutting out audience members. Is it because decision makers that hear and read without support aren’t considering live captions. Therefore, it doesn’t matter?
I don’t have all the answers. I wish I did. But I do want to know why live captions — also known as real-time captions — aren’t being budgeted for. Why it’s not always considered an important thing?
As someone who has worked in the media localisation and accessibility space since 2018, I can see live captions for all the benefits they bring.
No wonder it was our most popular service in 2025.
It’s simple. It’s cost-effective. It’s inclusive. Of course, accessibility-wise, it’s great for the 18 million people in the UK who are deaf, hard of hearing or have tinnitus. But it also just makes for a better experience for neurodivergent attendees and people whose first language isn’t the one being spoken during an event.
I think all events should be accessibility friendly. I know it’s not easy to cover all bases, such as audio description and British Sign Language. But I feel that as a bare minimum, live captions could, and should, be used to cater to a bigger audience.
To be honest, it’s actually frustrating me a bit writing this! It’s so unjust. If you’re in control of a budget for a live event — whether that be music events, festivals, conferences — if you don’t use live captions, please consider why you aren’t putting budget aside for them.
If you’re thinking about money: events don’t cut costs on crew food, company credit cards being racked up in Starbucks, nor do they cut costs on paying for hard-wired internet, which can cost up to £15,000 a day.
So why cut costs on live captions for events?
Is it because you can’t always SEE if someone is deaf, hard of hearing or has tinnitus?
Or is it that media accessibility can be left, because we don’t HAVE to do that. I don’t HAVE to say thank you to the bossman in the shop, but I do. I don’t have to say thanks when I cross a zebra crossing but I do.
While this isn’t a shame game, at the same time, it’s important to have an honest conversation about why decision makers aren’t opting for live captioning for events.
I’m not even saying you must be 100% accessible at your event. I know that isn’t easily done (though we make it easy)! However, in my book, live captions should be the standard to make your event more accessible.
Decision makers may see live captions as a cost, but they are forgetting that there’s something in it for them too.
As described in our live captions guide, I saw that a 2022 report by Forrester outlined that investing in accessibility and user improvements can return up to $100 for every $1 spent.
They may think there’s no need for accessibility. But those potential attendees may not be attending because the media isn’t accessible. Whereas, on the flip side, they could be selling more tickets to a loyal audience, who may share their experience, and drive more loyal customers to support events.
If it’s a complexity issue that scares organisers away from a live captioning project, rest assured, a good provider should provide dedicated support from start to finish so you’re not in it alone.
While I’ve covered a lot of points, I hope that if you aren’t budgeting for live captions services, you will reconsider and approach it with an open mind.
I’ll leave you with this: it doesn’t it have to be law for us to comply and be decent human beings!
– Hey, I’m Sophie and I’m on a mission with VoiceBox to make media accessible to everyone because if your audience can’t access your content, your message is lost. Our committed team consults, educates and builds relationships that last.