| Pages in topic: < [1 2] | How are things changing for translation companies? Thread poster: Henry Dotterer
|
|---|
Jo Macdonald 
Spain
Local time: 21:15
Italian to English
+ ...
Hi Luckasz,
One agency I was refusing job after job for because it was getting to the stage where almost all the jobs were just passing on rubbish from big fish and/or using fishy online pay-as-you-go tool, preprocessing a file with an empty TM to discount internal fuzzies, post-editing MT and other similar silliness, now looks like it's thriving and offering many good jobs without any of that past silliness.
I've seen this sort of positive change in several small agencies.... See more Hi Luckasz,
One agency I was refusing job after job for because it was getting to the stage where almost all the jobs were just passing on rubbish from big fish and/or using fishy online pay-as-you-go tool, preprocessing a file with an empty TM to discount internal fuzzies, post-editing MT and other similar silliness, now looks like it's thriving and offering many good jobs without any of that past silliness.
I've seen this sort of positive change in several small agencies.
I think we're getting to the stage where outsourcers are starting to realize a good job takes time and would rather rely on someone they can trust. After the initial "translate for free" craze I think people are starting to realize a CAT is just another tool like a computer or a dictionary, and MT is a waste of time if you want a job well done. I've seen agencies including clauses in their contracts forbidding the use of MT.
Imo the outlook is positive, and I think giving the client feedback on what works and what doesn't, and refusing jobs that don't work often results in a change for the better. ▲ Collapse
| | | | | Anyone else see this? | May 18, 2016 |
...on the memoq server multiple translators can work on a large document at the same time, while seeing each other's translations. This must have caused agencies to modify their editing and QA procedures.
| | | | | Big agencies now dedicated to large enterprise -- has created an opening for smaller agencies? | May 18, 2016 |
While the big agencies have more control over the process (their new pet term), they seem to have converged into serving a very specific type of client: Big enterprise. If in the past even the most commoditizing of agencies could also offer a quality-oriented service for clients who asked/needed it, it seems they generally ditched this revenue source and focus all their efforts on the enterprise (huge volumes, little care for quality). This created interesting opportunities for smaller and specialized agencies (usually run by translators), small teams of translators, and even individual translators who are quality-oriented and can deliver results.
| | | | | Thanks, RobinB! | May 18, 2016 |
RobinB wrote: Henry Dotterer wrote: Thanks for the feedback here in the thread. What is of particular interest to me right now is emerging trends. One survey respondent wrote: Smaller, specialized LSPs are [gaining] ground in my specialty fields. Big players are [losing] market share. Does anyone else see this? Yes Henry, definitely. Small boutiques and mid-sized specialists have a secure future, provided (among other factors) they can find and retain the translators with the necessary expertise. In fact, the growing skills gap among translators is one of the biggest risks, and it's being exacerbated by the inability of many younger translators to gain experience and subject area expertise while still making a sufficient good living. We can talk about this offline sometime if you want.
Thanks, Robin! I would like to take you up on that...
| | |
|
|
|
| I can't comment as I refuse to work in the cloud | May 18, 2016 |
Henry Dotterer wrote: ...on the memoq server multiple translators can work on a large document at the same time, while seeing each other's translations. This must have caused agencies to modify their editing and QA procedures.
I have been approached by several agencies to work in shared projects or using cloud based services. Up to now I have refused to work under these conditions. I don’t have a problem using a serverbased client specific TM or glossary as an external resource, this is something completely different.
a) I don't see a reason to work with other translators on a project. I can translate 7-12 K words per day in my specialty fields - my clients were always happy with my output - a 90 to 100 k user manual within a month, or a PIL/SmPC with 10 k words in 2 days - no problem at all.
b) For QA and traceability reasons, I want a copy of the work I produced on my computer. I will only release it to the client when I am finished with MY QA/QC and this does not work in a system that uses my initial version and makes it available to others. My QA/QC process is document based and consists of multiple steps that cover the complete text and not just individual segments. A "segment based" kind of real-time collaborative approach is in my opinion a good way to produce mediocre quality.
[Edited at 2016-05-18 18:10 GMT]
[Edited at 2016-05-18 19:12 GMT]
| | | |
Jo Macdonald wrote:
Hi Luckasz,
One agency I was refusing job after job for because it was getting to the stage where almost all the jobs were just passing on rubbish from big fish and/or using fishy online pay-as-you-go tool, preprocessing a file with an empty TM to discount internal fuzzies, post-editing MT and other similar silliness, now looks like it's thriving and offering many good jobs without any of that past silliness.
I've seen this sort of positive change in several small agencies.
I think we're getting to the stage where outsourcers are starting to realize a good job takes time and would rather rely on someone they can trust. After the initial "translate for free" craze I think people are starting to realize a CAT is just another tool like a computer or a dictionary, and MT is a waste of time if you want a job well done. I've seen agencies including clauses in their contracts forbidding the use of MT.
Imo the outlook is positive, and I think giving the client feedback on what works and what doesn't, and refusing jobs that don't work often results in a change for the better.
Thanks, Jo.
I suspect agencies, just like translators, once they've made some money and a name, begin to refuse jobs they don't feel good about and grow more of a spine. Haven't seen much of that in Poland, though. I can think of one agency that has been making more money and standing up to clients more, otherwise it's either the old agencies which had never been much into the pleasure industry or new players. But I'm going to ask around. Otherwise the going trend is lower and lower rates; sadly even in those agencies that used to be able to generate decent or even luxurious traffic even during the peak of the financial crisis.
@Henry: Re: Cloud.
Short version: Ain't gonna happen.
Long version: It's ethically murky and legally and economically risky for the following reasons:
1. Quality. You just can't have quality where texts are split to translate 200 pages in 2 days, or just simply to avoid rush fees. You can't have quality where the no. 1 priority is low cost and no. 2 is consistency. The latter is a larger problem when translating into inflected languages. I generally refuse to work with agencies' TMs or with translators I don't know; both tend to be poor in my experience. I want none of the time wasting and certainly am not going to implement changes required by some ignorant guy somewhere who thinks he can skip inflection if he wants to.
2. Too much reliance on the agency's technical competence, organization, reliability and sense of responsibility vs stuff like broken files, server downtimes and other technical issues that make your life miserable. By contrast, agencies' contracts tend to impose strict liability (i.e. fault-independent liability) for all sorts of stuff through guarantees, representations and outright risk assumptions. Too much risk and too much stress especially in legal translation, where your jobs are worth millions and deadlines are deader than elsewhere.
3. Race against time working on small files or small chunk of big files is not for me. Urgent work needs rush fees. Quality work needs to not be rush work. Normal works need to be, well, normal.
4. Low prestige.
[Edited at 2016-05-23 15:25 GMT]
Henry Dotterer wrote: While the big agencies have more control over the process (their new pet term), they seem to have converged into serving a very specific type of client: Big enterprise. If in the past even the most commoditizing of agencies could also offer a quality-oriented service for clients who asked/needed it, it seems they generally ditched this revenue source and focus all their efforts on the enterprise (huge volumes, little care for quality). This created interesting opportunities for smaller and specialized agencies (usually run by translators), small teams of translators, and even individual translators who are quality-oriented and can deliver results.
That control of the process is detrimental to quality in a number of ways:
1. Direct: Requirements of consistency conflict with requirements of context and flexibility and nuance. All of the latter conflict with the requirements of a corporate boss having his way if he decides to play with language.
2. Useless bureaucracy, time wasting, reduced time for tasks, hence pressure to accept shorter deadlines without appropriately increased pay.
3. … And without appropriately reduced responsibility/liability, which makes the process a nightmare to translate in.
4. Agency reviewers and other QA'ers are selected with savings in mind, or dependability and malleability to clients and their requirements.
5. Even more fictitious stuff than only exists in the agency's copy (especially where it says 'ISO') and in the responsibilities/liability section of the contract with the translator.
6. Few translators in their right minds would accept such soul-destroying drudgery, so agencies end up with the kind of translators they tend to work with.
Bottom line: The process thing is unprofessional, is killing the profession and promoting the bureaucratized 'industry' that's more into QA than into quality. With some exceptions, I guess, but in those cases the pay is not commensurate to all the things you're required to do and all your time claimed by the agency.
[Edited at 2016-05-23 15:32 GMT]
| | | | Olga Koepping
United Kingdom
Local time: 20:15
German to English
+ ...
| Like button please! | May 25, 2016 |
Tom in London wrote:
In my experience each translator has to create their own niche, with an established portfolio of agencies, and just quietly get on with their work which, hopefully, has become established as a reasonably steady flow.
Once a translator has succeeded in doing that, it hardly matters what happens out there in the (supposedly) big bad world of rip-off merchants and exploitative people.
IMHO there are some very good agencies. Let's hear it for the clients we love !
[Edited at 2016-05-18 11:53 GMT]
Yes, quite! Lukasz is accurate in his assessment overall, but there are still good agencies and clients, fortunately.
| | | | | Pages in topic: < [1 2] | To report site rules violations or get help, contact a site moderator: You can also contact site staff by submitting a support request » How are things changing for translation companies? | Anycount & Translation Office 3000 | Translation Office 3000
Translation Office 3000 is an advanced accounting tool for freelance translators and small agencies. TO3000 easily and seamlessly integrates with the business life of professional freelance translators.
More info » |
| | Protemos translation business management system | Create your account in minutes, and start working! 3-month trial for agencies, and free for freelancers!
The system lets you keep client/vendor database, with contacts and rates, manage projects and assign jobs to vendors, issue invoices, track payments, store and manage project files, generate business reports on turnover profit per client/manager etc.
More info » |
|
| | | | X Sign in to your ProZ.com account... | | | | | |
Login to reply/comment 
Translation news
