Taking up last week’s post (in German) about making translators more visible and an interesting comment by Valerij Tomarenko, I decided to post the interview by h Chris Durban she did in 2011 – and which is still applicable today!
She makes some really good points, which made me rethink my opinion on signing even something as mundane as an operating manual. One of my favorites: “There’s no need for a costly certification
procedure or endless negotiations by industry leaders at venues around
the globe over a 5 or 10-year period.”
Here it is:
Catherine: Why are you so adamant about translators getting credit? What’s the point of signed work?
Chris: The quick answer: to promote transparency, and let everyone reap the benefits it brings. Well, let me temper that: everyone who takes this business seriously.
I
would prefer that the cynics, jokers, sellers of snake oil and
just-making-a-buckers exit left ASAP, and I see signed work as one way
to achieve that. Note that when I talk about signing your translations,
I’m referring not just to books, but to corporate, technical and other
types of translation as well.
One feature of our market is that many (most?) buyers simply cannot judge what they are getting
when a translation is delivered to them. This distinguishes us from
providers of other intellectual services. And it makes clients
particularly vulnerable to glib or clueless vendors who weave a
convincing quality narrative to clinch the sale, only to deliver shoddy
or downright unacceptable translations.
Catherine: You sound like you’re speaking from experience.
Chris:
I am. For years I wrote a column called The Onionskin that ran in
various professional magazines (and ultimately led me to write the
little Getting It Right booklet of advice for translation buyers, now translated into a dozen languages).
For
my Onionskin articles, I researched good and bad translations in the
public domain—celebrating the good ones (and yes, there is some very
good work out there) but also moving up and down the supply chain to
identify exactly how, when and where flawed work had skidded off track.
It
was fascinating but also frustrating. And beyond a certain point,
downright embarrassing for the translation industry as a whole.
Because
when caught out, the vast majority of slipshod suppliers (both
freelancers and agencies) ran for the hills, declining responsibility
for the work they had produced and/or brokered and sold. A surprising
number refused to admit their paternity/maternity or spent vast amounts
of energy hiding their connection to their offspring. When pushed,
others admitted their powerlessness to enforce quality standards—and
with it, the hollowness of the claims on their websites and in their own
brochures.
Catherine: So at one level this “sign your work” campaign is a truth-in-advertising issue.
Chris:
That’s right. I am aware of no suppliers who claim in public that they
are producing “so-so” or “moderately good” work, and certainly no one is
crowing about selling garbage. But hey, the mediocre translations are
out there for all to see. And one thing is sure: they are not all being
produced by low-cost suppliers in the third world, students grubbing for
pocket money, or wannabe bilinguals concocting silly texts in-house
with a dictionary in one hand and a grammar book in the other.
It’s
time for our industry to face up to it: many LSPs (again, both
freelancers and agencies) are producing and selling work that makes the cut only because clients can’t judge how poor
it is. I like to think the chickens will come home to roost at some
point. But in the meantime, sloppy translations tarnish everyone’s
image.
Catherine: What are some of the benefits of signed translations?
Chris: The beauty of signed work is that everybody sees who does what. Clients and peers alike. So genuinely skilled translators and quality-oriented intermediaries can get their names out and about at zero cost (did I mention that inserting your name in credits costs nothing?).
It’s
also straightforward: there’s no need for a costly certification
procedure or endless negotiations by industry leaders at venues around
the globe over a 5 or 10-year period. Anyone who understands the point
and wants to buy in can simply agree it’s a good idea and… do it.
Starting tomorrow morning at 8.00 a.m. or tonight at midnight. Whenever.
You take responsibility for the texts you produce and sell by asserting
your maternity/paternity.
The good news is that taking responsibility means you get the credit
too. And with that comes leverage that most translators and translation
companies don’t have now (along with a superb client-education tool).
More about that in a minute.
Finally, signed work promotes best practice among translators by encouraging us all, whatever our size and market segment, to think twice before over-committing ourselves.
So
if you claim to sell high quality work and your name is going to be out
there on the text you deliver, well, you will probably decide to give
that 15,000-word job for delivery a day from tomorrow a miss—either that
or negotiate a longer deadline. With signed work, good translators and
agencies that might be tempted to cut corners are actively encouraged to
not just talk the talk but also walk the best-practice walk.
Catherine:
When do you request that your name be added to your translation? When
you send in the quote or when you hand the translation in? Do you
mention it in your Terms & Conditions?
Chris:
It appears as point three in a one-page summary of Terms &
Conditions that I send to first-time clients before a job starts. As
FA&WB readers know, I’m not a big believer in glossy brochures, but a
sheet like this is a useful way to give new clients a clear idea of
what they are getting into and what their role is.
Catherine: How do you word your request?
Chris:
It’s a statement, not a request. That’s important. (Just as when you
make annual adjustments in your prices and announce this to your
clients, it’s not a good idea to phrase it as a request.)
Most of
my clients are native speakers of French so I communicate with them in
that language, but an English version of point three would go something
like this: “If texts are changed in any way or reset, we revise and sign
proofs before the document goes to press, failing which we apply a 100%
surcharge (since translators’ names appear in credits for most of our
translations).” You can raise that to 200% or 500% if you like. The
point is not to apply it, rather to draw your client’s attention to this
particular condition.
Catherine: Yes, on page 49 of The Prosperous Translator (from Lulu.com),
you refer to this penalty surcharge for unapproved changes. To me, this
appears threatening and I don’t want to ruffle any feathers. How do
clients usually react?
Chris:
In most cases, first-time clients ring back immediately, concerned that
a hefty price might head even higher. And this is the magic moment—the
chance for me to explain, pleasantly, that I do not want to apply the
surcharge: that is not the point.
The sentence is in there, I tell
them, because I’ve found that money focuses the mind and experience has
taught me that it really is very important for the client’s image and
my own to run a final check.
I give them an example or two—if a
well-meaning French client or printer adds an “s” to “Information” on
the grounds that “there are several” (or removes an “s” from
“headquarters,” for that matter, because “there is only one”) and my
name appears as the translator, I’m the one who takes the hit; my
reputation and brand suffer. I may also remind them that they don’t
fiddle around with the content of their financial statements once the
auditor has signed off. Above all, I point out that it is silly for them
to have spent a lot of money on their translation and then trip at the
last hurdle.
Concretely, I have them make note of this essential revision-of-proofs stage and include it in their production schedule.
If
for some reason time runs out and there is no time for revision, I
inform them, regretfully, that they will then have to take my name off —
“It’s too risky for my reputation.” Interestingly, that sentence alone
is often enough for them to find the time and extend the deadline. If
not, they strike my name from the credits and pay me my normal fee (of
course). Encouragingly, I have not yet had to apply the surcharge.
Occasionally
a new client will say “Right! So this clause is a standard thing for
professional translators, then?” To which I always reply, “Yes, for the
serious ones.” Because in my opinion it should be a standard thing.
Catherine: Do you ask for a link back to your website or social media profile?
Chris:
My own customers find me almost exclusively through word of mouth and
my presence at client-industry events, so this doesn’t really apply. But
for translators who rely heavily on a website, blog or other social
media, yes, this would be a good idea.
Catherine: Any other comments about this public display of who translates what?
Chris:
I’ve been going on about signed work for about thirty years, and run
into the same reactions from translators all the time. Some get it
immediately. Others start “yes, but-ing,” which I think is a pity. Let
me recycle a few of the latter reactions here:
“My clients would never allow it.”
Response:
have you asked them? I used to nod understandingly when translators
pulled this one, but have now stopped. The fact is, translators tend to
project their own worries and fears onto clients (this applies to
jitters about prices, too). They may be the first to weigh in with
opinions on discussion lists and blogs, often expressed very
articulately. But when it comes to standing up in public with “this is
what I produce and sell” they twist, turn and shuffle, using a million
tactics to keep out of what they apparently see as the line of fire.
Which says a lot about their self-confidence.
In contrast,
quality-oriented clients understand exactly what the point is. Many have
experience with formal QC and QA procedures, in which identifying who
does what at each stage is a given. So they don’t have a problem with
signed work. On the whole, it’s insecure translators and brokers
unwilling to stand behind their work who do.
One of the very few
exceptions I’ve experienced first-hand is in-house client departments
that want to pretend they’ve done the translation themselves. And I have
no problem with that. As I’ve written elsewhere, you certainly don’t
have to sign every single text you translate. But if you don’t sign any
at all, well, that says a lot.
“I’d love to, but everything I do is 100% confidential.”
Er,
yup. And agreed if we are talking about, e.g., contracts and such. But
let’s be serious: claiming that every single translation you’ve produced
for the past ten years has been confidential is the sign of a
terminally anxious translator, full stop. Get a grip. Be brave.
Translator up! (In fact, your work is probably very good, but how will
the praise and future clients reach you if you don’t dare tell anybody
you did it?)
“Clients change things after I’ve finished; I have no control over what happens to a text when it leaves my computer.”
That
can happen. But isn’t it about time you reclaimed control of at least a
few projects a year? The penalty clause discussed above gives you that
control.
If you don’t participate actively in client education, if
you buckle under each time and accept conditions that you know are
incompatible with quality, surely you are part of the problem. Here’s a
free tool that will help you move everybody ahead!
It is even more
interesting to me to hear large agencies use a variation on this
“clients insert errors” argument to explain why they must remain
anonymous. Hang on: does this mean a freelance translator can gain
control of the process while you, with all your staff and processes and
giant contracts can’t—even as you continue to write screeds about your
company’s 100% commitment to excellence? Surely there is something wrong
with this picture. At the very least, you might consider adding
“platinum service” to your portfolio: in this case, you proudly sign a
small percentage of the work you’ve produced because it is so very very
good. And leave the— how to put this? pretty darn good but not
signable?—gold, silver and bronze-level jobs as orphans.
“By signing my work I reveal who my clients are, and a rival might steal them away.”
If you can lose your clients that easily, the problem lies elsewhere.
In
translation, there are many ways to reinforce your ties to the
businesses in your client portfolio. Making signed work your standard
actually reinforces your value proposition: it’s a differentiator that confirms your pride in your work and helps you stake out your section of the premium market.
“We are a top-end translation agency; we add massive value—why should the translator’s name appear when we do most of the work?”
If you are convinced that is the situation, by all means sign with your agency’s name. But somebody
sign, please. And in a few years, your agency may be brave enough and
secure enough to take a page from our photographer friends’ book and use
both agency and translator name: Spanish text: José Bloggs for International Global Translation Excellence Group & Partners.
The
fact is, when nobody takes responsibility (and credit) and opacity
reigns, the people who interest me—clients and good translation
suppliers—all suffer.
If LSPs (freelancers and agencies) were to
get into the habit of signing even 50% of the commercial, technical and
other translations found in industry and elsewhere, we would be well on
our way to a healthier market in just two or three years. And that’s a
shake-out I would really love to see.