Velior's Corporate Blog about Translation and Translation Industry

I am sometimes asked about how Velior manages to maintain translation rates above the industry average in the highly competitive English to Russian language combination. I think the key to this is quality. You might say, “Wait a minute, you’ve just mentioned high competition, shouldn’t that drive quality across this combination?” You are right, of course, it should, but, judging by the translations I get to edit, it basically doesn’t. For this reason, a translator who puts quality first has a better chance of outdistancing competitors. So, which specific steps can you take to achieve this? From my experience as an editor who looked at several million translated words over the last five years, I can think of at least three main development areas for you to focus on:

1. Literal translation. Because English and Russian are extremely different, very few texts actually allow literal translation. In most cases, a literal translation is hard to read, unclear, and often ridiculous. Nevertheless, this kind of translation is commonplace in our combination. I hear two main explanations of why this happens, which both seem quite amusing to me. First, a translator often knows that the translation is poor, but just won’t do anything about it due to the lack of motivation, time, or skill. Second, many translators simply think this kind of translation will do, because they’ve always delivered this level of quality and got little or no feedback. Make it your job to never resort to literal translation, and you are on the fast lane on the road to success in your translation career!
2. Poor understanding of the source text. I strongly believe that understanding of the source text has a major impact on quality, but you might be surprised about how many translators think otherwise. It is not at all uncommon for people to translate without a clue as to what they are translating about. The bad news is that machine translation is evolving. One advantage of a human translator over MT is the ability to add value through better understanding of the text. Think about this: without this advantage, your translation becomes similar to MT output. As MT continues to evolve, human translators must invest more effort in understanding the text or be prepared to be put out of business. Change your direction today: instead of producing one vague translation after another, give more thought to what you write and look everything up on the Internet. Resolve to understand as much of the text as possible before committing it to your target segment.
3. Failure to use quality assurance tools. Although numerous tools, including free ApSIC Xbench and CheckMate, are available, many translations are delivered unchecked. In fact, one of our agency clients got so fed up with the errors, which can be easily detected automatically, that they put a special policy in place to discourage this kind of errors. This software became an integral part of our translation workflow long ago, since it improves quality and saves time otherwise spent on manual checks. Because I am so used to it now, I find it increasingly difficult to understand someone who doesn’t use translation environment tools on all or some of their projects. When I hear about this, my first thought is, “But this way you don’t get a bilingual text and can’t do automatic QA!” One of the best things about such tools is their simplicity—you can add them to your process easily and start benefiting from them almost immediately.

In a recent English to Russian translation project, we worked on a file with all internal repetitions extracted (received like this from our client). As this is a relatively uncommon practice, I decided to use this opportunity and explain my thoughts on this subject.

Example of a Repetition

Let’s take a look at this example to illustrate the main challenge associated with extracting the repetitions:

“Note:“ can occur in at least three different situations, and, as plain as it seems, may cause problems:

1. Below a paragraph. The colon is often replaced by a dot. (Примечание. Обратите…)
2. In the middle of a paragraph. I prefer to keep the colon and begin the actual note with a lower-case letter. (… кнопку. Примечание: обратите…)
3. As a subheading. The colon is often deleted. (Примечание)

In this example, the identical source requires three different translations. Imagine what happens when the identical translation “Note.” is used across all three situations instead. For instance, a standalone sentence “Note.” appearing in the middle of a paragraph may look weird. In a subheading, it wouldn’t be that bad, but might still be inconsistent with punctuation in other subheadings, so why let it happen at all?

Does it mean that extracting the repetitions is evil? No, of course not. In some situations, the benefits derived from such extraction may outweigh any potential problems. Consequently, you need to consider applying this approach on a case-by-case basis and exercise caution, making sure you understand the implications.

Pros

1. A significant, if not the main, gain is the possibility of savings. This is especially true when many thousands of repetitions are considered for extraction. The client’s willingness to reduce the costs through extraction is perfectly reasonable in such situations.
2. Extraction might be vital when two or more translators work on the same project simultaneously. Otherwise, they will likely translate repetitions in two or more different ways. This means double work, hence a plain waste of money. An arguably better solution might be to extract the repetitions into a separate file and have it translated by one linguist and then checked by another and/or the editor.
3. Extraction also helps eliminate or at least reduce inconsistent translations of the repetitions. Although many translation environment tools ensure consistency by automatically changing all occurrences when you edit any single repetition (auto-propagation feature), there is always room for human error in this area.

Cons

1. Extracting the repetitions means that you don’t get a final file from your translator. What you get is an intermediate file, which you then need to process to create the final file, e.g. by creating a translation memory and applying it to a source file. Before you go for extraction, you may want to compare these additional management costs against the expected benefits of extraction.
2. As a translator, I prefer to work on a copy that retains its original look, rather than an intermediate “censored” file. With the repetitions extracted, you cannot see the whole picture, which may decrease your understanding of the source text and the sense of ownership. The pain can be somewhat eased if you have the original copy (with all repetitions) at hand for reference. For this reason, I believe that providing such file is a must in most extraction scenarios. Aside from taking the guesswork out of the translation process, it is also important for understanding more technical things such as tags.
3. I believe that in most extraction scenarios the repetitions must be checked in the final file. In practice, however, this step is sometimes skipped, as it seems unimportant. This approach may backfire in various forms of damage, from minor slips to weird mistranslations. Unless you are prepared for substandard quality, I advise to keep this step in your process, perhaps in a form of a quick proofreading.

By the way, Velior provides discounts for the repetitions in our quotes, making it quite affordable to let us handle the repetitions. And how do you approach the repetitions in your translation business? Do you accept work with any unpaid repetitions?

In a recent post, I explained how a higher price might have a positive impact on translation quality. However, as productivity increases and competition becomes more fierce, the general long-term trend in the translation industry pricing is clearly “bearish.” This topic is now hot in the blogs and translation forums (e.g. see posts by Wendell Ricketts or Jill Sommer), as translators are increasingly pressured to lower prices. Here is my two cents worth:

Our Situation

Indeed, customers are increasingly interested in discounts. Some also insist on applying a standard minimum translation rate to each project instead of negotiating the prices individually, depending on the difficulty or deadline. As a translator, this is certainly frustrating for me. I do believe, though, in the supply and demand rules of the free market. If buyers have an increasing demand for cheap, lower-quality translations, they should be able to buy them. I think this is a natural trend in the sagging economy and therefore see no reasons to resist it specifically. If the end users are happy with this quality, there’s no reason for a translation buyer to pay more? Otherwise, such buyer will lose some of the business due to low quality, review the lessons learned, and exercise more caution next time.

Recent Quality Issues

Unsurprisingly, we are now receiving more requests to re-do someone else’s work after it was rejected by the client. One of them was a large, almost 100K-word translation. Personally, if some day I am forced to always deliver this kind of quality of work and face the risk of similar embarrassment because I cannot get any better-paid projects and therefore have to translate more to maintain profitability, I’d rather quit this business.

We have recently translated a medical user manual from English to Russian. This job involved using a translation memory created by someone else. In many 100% matches, the word “haptic” (element supporting intraocular lens) was translated as “sclera lens.” While this is an outrageous error itself, it is the fact that it still resides in the TM that is more alarming. This error was once made by a translator and then missed by an editor and proofreader (or were there any?). It might have been spotted by the end users, but no one cared to correct the TM, hence about the quality of any future jobs. Or, this manual might have never been read, so high quality is just unnecessary.

The other day, I proofread a Russian to English translation made for a large global client. While I had my share of bad translations as an editor over the years and developed a thick skin, this nightmare penetrated my low sensitivity threshold easily. It was literal and unprofessional beyond readability, with the meaning of many sentences escaping me completely. I guess the only reason why such translations make it so far in the supply chain is the low price.

Our Policy

We did not decrease the prices and are unlikely to do so. As the cost of living in Russia continues to increase drastically each year while the USD/RUB exchange rate remains basically the same, our rates are bound to increase only. Regardless of the current trend, we will continue to pursue quality and serve our clients to the best of our ability.

This is the 2nd part of the post. Part 1.

Reasons Not to Charge Full Rate

3. Translators who prefer full compensation also maintain that they invest a lot in translation memory software and related training to make it possible to process 100% matches and repetitions with less effort. Because of this personal investment, it is they who should reap the full benefit, not the client. As a translator myself, I think that they are correct to some degree, but the reality dictates otherwise:

• This logic could apply when the TM tools were just introduced to the market. Now, they are an inherent part of the translation industry. A translator is often forced to buy them to work on the specific types of jobs, because otherwise they will not be able to accept such jobs at all. It is not therefore a genuine investment in the sense that you put your own money into optimising your own work, but simply a mandatory requisite just like a PC or phone. Trying to keep all benefits of this software to yourself by labeling it as your investment means resisting progress in the industry where many peers and clients use it routinely. It is now a common technology, and, as such, its benefits should be shared by all parties to the translation process. For example, many clients put additional effort into writing consistently and should share the resulting savings as a compensation of this effort. (I understand though that some translators do, and will continue to, charge full rate for individual and completely justified reasons.)
• The clients become increasingly aware of both repetitions in their documents and the translation memory capabilities, therefore expecting discounts, as they do not see why they should pay the same price for identical text. And I find this fair, because it is a healthy consequence of the technological progress.

What if Client Prefers Not to Pay

1. Generally, Velior requests that 100% matches and repetitions be compensated. When a client asks to automatically process them without checking, there is often a risk of mistranslations, and we do not want any flaws in our translation, even if they happen through no fault of ours. For this reason, such requests are honoured on an exception basis only.
2. In these situations, we ask the client to extract the 100% matches and repetitions into a separate file, which includes only a single occurrence of each match/repetition. After the translation, the client can use this file to assemble a final translation. Again, there is always a high risk of mistranslations. Normally, such assembled translation should be proofread. Otherwise, the quality will likely decrease.
3. Translation agencies also use the “Perfect Match” technology to insert 100% matches only when the current context is identical to the context, in which they were originally translated. While this technology indeed brings client-side efficiency and cost-effectiveness, it often has drawbacks from a translator’s perspective. The translator normally needs to have control over the entire text, while this technology lets them work just on parts of the text. They do not see a “big picture” and also cannot change the existing translation (either because it is blocked, or they have little motivation to do so, as this work is not compensated). This reduces the translator’s efficiency and quality.

Notes

1. Generally, Velior does not provide discounts for any matches with the translation memory created by someone else, because we cannot be sure about the quality of those translations. They may contain errors that will reappear in the current translation and eventually become our responsibility. Such jobs are subject to negotiation on a case-by-case basis.
2. The match and repetition discounts do not apply to editing or proofreading, because these services are designed to check the entire text, hence matches and repetitions give little or no time savings.
3. Interestingly, our main language combination, English to Russian, yields much more repetitions than the Russian to English translation, which can be mainly attributed to more complex and diverse grammar and punctuation rules in the Russian language.

This post discusses Velior’s approach to charging for 100% matches against translation memory and internal repetitions. Generally, there are three opinions on this matter. Two of them are opposite: some believe that these matches and repetitions should be compensated fully just as any other words, while others maintain that no compensation is necessary, since processing these words does not require any specific effort. The third opinion, shared by Velior, is neutral: a reduced rate should apply to these words.

Reasons to Charge for 100% Matches and Repetitions

1. The context where a 100% match or repetition occurs may be different from the context of the original translation. It is therefore important to check whether all such words fit the new context. The time spent on checking should be compensated. Processing 100% matches and repetitions without compensation and hence without checking is justified only when the client is absolutely positive that the context is always identical, e.g. in a data sheet or parts catalogue. However, in our experience, such texts are rather the exception than the rule: they account for about 3% of our workload (translation from Russian to English, English to Russian, German to Russian).
2. 100% matches and repetitions often require the same amount of typesetting work as any other words. Even when 90% of your text are repetitions, you might end up spending just as much time on formatting them as if they all were new words. And unless this type of work is compensated separately, it should be included into the repetition rate.

Reasons Not to Charge Full Rate

1. Because the amount of work associated with 100% matches and repetitions is normally reduced as compared to the new words, it does not make business sense to charge full rate for them. You do not have to translate them from scratch, but just check whether the previous translation fits the new context, and it usually does. Truth be told, sometimes such words do require adjustment or even complete re-translation. For instance, an English to Russian translator may render the word “position” as “должность” when it means job position. This translation however will be of no use as a 100% match in the context where “position” means simply location and should be translated as “положение.” Yet, as I mentioned above, this happens to a very low percentage of 100% matches and repetitions, and a discount is therefore completely justified.
2. Translators who prefer full compensation for 100% matches and repetitions often refer to various examples from other industries to explain that a discount for repetitive work is unnatural. For instance, in the construction industry, you will not push the construction crew, which is building your new home, for a discount on the basis that one room is an exact match of the other. While this idea might have some truth to it theoretically, in real life, it is the actual amount of work/time/effort associated with the repetitive task that is important here. The new room might be indeed identical, but the amount of work required to finish it will still be the same. In contrast, the amount of work associated with 100% matches and repetitions is usually much lower as compared to the full-rate new words. Normally, the translation memory software inserts them automatically, and you only check whether the previous translation fits the new context. It is therefore fair to charge a reduced rate reflecting the actual time spent on checking instead of charging the full rate as if these words required the same amount of effort as the new ones.

This post is continued here.

Normally, we make every effort to use our standard minimum rate for each translation job. However, various reasons may exist that could lead to increasing this price. They are usually associated with the individual job specifics such as difficult subject matter, additional pre- or post-translation formatting, illegible source text, specific format, or short deadline. This surcharge directly compensates the additional time spent on work associated with the above reasons. Yet, in addition to this, we put in extra effort in order to deliver the highest quality translation, because we believe that the increased price always goes together with additional responsibility:

1. We invest more time in understanding the source text and apply this knowledge to translate it more accurately. We also take more time to research the subject matter in the target language, which helps find and use common terminology or style.
2. Every job associated with an increased price involves a second linguist who double-checks the translation. This is irrespective of whether or not the customer orders independent review. The additional review has a positive impact on quality, as an old saying “Two heads are better than one” fully applies to our workflow. Looking at the translation with a fresh eye, the second linguist is likely to spot issues that the original translator can no longer notice, because they are too “used” to their translation.
3. Where possible and/or necessary, we work with the subject matter experts such as a medical doctor or auto mechanic to resolve any queries.

For example, we have recently translated a veterinary vaccine website from English into Russian. Since the website content was marketing-related, meaning more language challenges for our translator, the price was increased. Thanks to this increase, the translator was able to spend more time on understanding the medical information and searching for common target language terminology, while the second linguist focused on ensuring that the translation was accurate and eliminating any style issues. Specifically, the surcharge meant that we could put more effort in the time-consuming phrases such as the website slogan and find a close, yet not literal translation. This work resulted in a very positive feedback after the customer reviewed our translation.

Recently, we have participated in two similar medical translation tenders. With the first one, the customer just requested a potential translator’s CV and a volume discount. In situations like this, the question is whether these two considerations are really sufficient for an comprehensive vendor selection process. It is my opinion that a CV provides you with only basic information about what you can expect from this translator in your project. A CV itself doesn’t usually constitute any warranty. For instance, try to imagine an employer that hires by CVs only. Additionally, it might be hard to trust the information in the CV because it’s hard or impossible to verify it. The price is therefore more objective among the two, as it can be easily compared and is plausible. But is the price really the appropriate consideration to base your decision upon when it comes to buying translations? There are numerous examples of how customers select seemingly attractive translation prices, without realizing that a lower price inevitably means lower quality. We ourselves are contacted on a regular basis by freelancers and companies that charge 5-10 times less than we do. Needless to say, they are definitely more likely to win a tender where the choice revolves around the lowest price. And naturally, I don’t challenge the vendors’ and customers’ full right to offer and accept whichever prices they find appropriate. After all, getting a better price is a key reason behind almost any tender. Yet, with important projects, including this tender (operator’s manual for a complex medical device), it might be unsafe to select a vendor based primarily on the price. What quality can the customer expect when selecting the price that is two, three, or four times lower than the other quotes? I do understand though that with some projects you can trade quality for price, but I strongly believe that this doesn’t apply to the medical domain where people lives might be at stake.

Meanwhile, the second tender (with almost similar volume and subject matter), in addition to request for a discount, also included a test translation. This combination seems more reliable because it provides more input for the fact-based decision-making.

In this post, I would like to share our recent experience of cooperating with a major Russian translation company. Any details and names are not disclosed for confidentiality reasons.

We received a cooperation request from this company in summer of 2008. I started by reporting our price (from EUR 0.05 per word), so that they could immediately decide whether this is acceptable and, if not, avoid wasting time on negotiations. The company accepted this price, and I returned a completed vendor questionnaire to them. The vendor manager confirmed the receipt.

In about a month, the manager called back and asked whether we are interested in cooperating with them and when they should expect the completed vendor questionnaire. I resent the questionnaire in reply to their confirmation of receiving this very questionnaire. Then, the manager provided a test translation to check our professional skills.

We completed the test and returned it. Then, the manager promised to send it to their editors for review. Next, they provided an Agreement and asked us to complete it.

In about a week, the manager called back and went like “Your price is too high for us. Actually, we charge the same price to our customers. We suggest that you decrease your price down to EUR 0.02 per word.”

I was very surprised since (a) previously, the manager accepted our price; and (b) even sent an Agreement. Well, I could imagine that this price decrease could have been due to the low test translation quality. In this scenario, the translation company could have disliked our translation and suggested EUR 0.02 per word as a fair price for such quality. But it seems that this was not the case:

• After sending the translation, we received the Agreement soon, without any comments about the test quality or high price.
• The manager never said that the decreased price was associated with the low test translation quality.
• The manager did not provide any comments to the test translation.
• The company decreased the price by 150%. It is hard to believe that our test translation quality was that low. As usual, we used five employees for this project including a translator, editor, proofreader, engineer, and project manager.

Clearly, we had to reject any cooperation and were left with the questions below unanswered:

Why did the requesting translation company first accept our price, but then reject, because they actually charge the same price to their customers? And why did they need to send a test, Agreement, etc, when our prices were initially unacceptable?

Why were the communications so inconsistent? Why did the manager confirm the receipt of the vendor questionnaire and then, after a month, ask us to complete it once again, as if they hadn’t received it previously? Why did they send the Agreement first and then suggest a lower price?

Sometimes, existing or potential translation buyers are inclined to think of translation as something secondary to their products or services. This understanding is typically based on a strong belief that the product itself is good enough to generate great sales in any market. Another typical attitude is to underestimate the translation quality and therefore choose the lower cost.

These perceptions are based on approaching the translation in the same way as a company would approach e.g. their newly purchased computer hardware. Such hardware is something material. You can see it working everyday and can easily estimate the direct impact of this hardware on your company’s performance. This provides a clear, visual justification of the budget spent on them. However, applying the same approach to translation doesn’t work quite often. The translation is typically something virtual, stored as a file on your PC or designed for the company’s customers only, not for the company. Frequently, translation doesn’t generate any direct profit, as it simply accompanies the product or service, without any separate price. Or, it merely serves the marketing purpose.

I am not exactly in the right position to judge whether the companies benefit or not from the above perceptions. Though looking at the situation from the stakeholder’s (translator’s) point of view, I do understand why some decision makers underestimate the value of translation for their business. But what do other stakeholders think about the value of translations to their business?

Recently, one of such stakeholders announced their opinion of translations. Microsoft Corp. named Lionbridge, the leading language services provider, a Vendor of the Year 2008. From the point of view discussed above, Microsoft’s position is highly questionable: why translation is so important to them? Lionbridge managed to outdistance not only the larger and more renowned Toshiba, which received a less prestigious Technology award, but also other companies, which are supposed to contribute more to Microsoft’s success than translators. Again, this perception is based upon the visual, material approach. How come Lionbridge “beat” MV Transportation, a major transportation company that helps 2,000 Microsoft’s employees commute to work every day, or Compass Group that provides food management services to Microsoft’s kitchens? The remaining nominees include the lodging company Marriott International, real estate company Grubb & Ellis, event management and registration company CRG Events, and Revonet that helps Microsoft’s partners win competitive engagements.

Interestingly, Microsoft is paying significant internal attention to product translation, underpinned by the understanding that localisation has a direct impact on their market success. To this end, the company even has a special Language Excellence team, which manages terminology within a complex workflow. Despite these internal efforts, Microsoft chooses outsourcing services when it comes to translation. And now, they even give the Vendor of the Year award to the translation vendor. This recognition underscores the fact that the visual, material approach described above does not always apply to translation in the way it applies to company’s investments in other, material assets.

I believe that we as translation professionals must be thankful to Lionbridge. This kind of award recognises the hard and important work that Lionbridge is doing, therefore improving the image of our industry and translator profession. Despite the internal profitability issues, Lionbridge provides Microsoft with stable and high quality. At least, this holds true for the Russian translations.

P. S. I also assume that Microsoft pays at least EUR 50 per translated page for this high quality.

Source:

http://www.microsoft.com/Presspass/press/2008/oct08/10-02MSVP2008PR.mspx?rss_fdn=Press%20Releases

Recently, we needed to provide the English language training to one of our employees (monolingual proofreader) for promotion and development purposes. Because the number of training tasks is both limited and individual, tutor training seemed the best option.

We came to know that one-on-one tutoring costs RUR 500-750 per hour (EUR 15-20) in Ivanovo. The pricing is reasonable, but we were interested to know how it matches the translation industry pricing and where the margin is higher.

One translator hour is one translated page, or 250 words – this is the amount that a good freelancer or company can deliver within one hour with normal quality. The Yandex. Direct (Russian search engine) ads offer prices at RUR 270-350 and even lower. Also, in August 2008, we were approached by a few translation companies offering RUR 250, including Ego Translating.

This brief comparison shows that the margin in the translation industry is significantly lower. Clearly, this calculation is approximate, but still representative. What is the reason for this? Why people tend to invest in their own or their kids training more than they are prepared to invest in their business, which depends on translation?

A possible reason is that they do not understand how translation is important to their business. You can easily tell a good tutor from a bad one, which makes you prepared to pay more. With translation, evaluating quality is often a challenge. One of the possible workarounds could be using common sense. Can you really expect good quality for RUR 200-250 per hour?