I keep hearing agency owners whining about how difficult it
is to recruit over the Internet. “People found through ProZ still have to be
vetted!” “Linguists with excellent qualifications on paper turn out to be a
disappointment!” My reaction usually is: "What? The guy whose mailing address is the same as a provincial
prison in Kuala Lumpur turned out to be unreliable? What is the world coming
to?" "You can’t rely on people found through the same medium used by Nigerian
scammers?" "Cancel that Russian mail-order bride!"
Recently, one of the “innovators” in the field of
crowdsourced translation launched a “bad translators” list where you can
denounce unreliable linguists (only humans need apply). (I will not link to him because: 1.- I think the
dude is more than just a little insane and 2.- I suspect he is provocative on purpose to stir up a
hornet’s nest and drive linkjuice.) But the question stands: Are things really that bad out there? (One
observation: It is highly indicative that the people who think translation is a
commodity are usually the same people who gripe about the unreliability of
these translators found on the Internet.)
I think sometimes we over-adapt to new technology. We think
it is better than it actually is. And then we get frustrated because it
develops slowly or because it doesn’t deliver the perfect world that only
exists in our heads. I think that is the problem here. Nobody stops to think
that access to thousands of freelancer profiles might be a double-edged sword.
As a rule of thumb, the quality and value of a professional
relationship is probably inversely proportional to the degree to which it is formed
and nurtured online. For both sides of the equation. If the relation was hatched
via the Internet, both the agency and the freelancer probably view each other
as much more repleaceable than they would otherwise. That is just the economics
of the Internet.
Secondly, the best client relationships I have had were
achieved through references from colleagues and word of mouth. That is how good
companies recruit. Blogging, tweeting, online networking and all the rest of that is fine and
dandy. But who you know in person counts much more. The world is still very,
very local. The constant propaganda about how we are instantly linked to the
entire world is deceptive on many levels. We may be separated by six degrees
from everyone, but those from whom we are separated by one degree still matter
much more than Kevin Bacon. Ignore that at your peril.
Furthermore, I don’t know if agencies realize that the very
inefficiency of the market is partly what keeps them in business. In a completely disintermediated world, the hassle of vetting translators would
disappear. But in that frictionless world, agencies would be as extinct as the Tyrannosaurus. Providers and direct clients would silently drift toward each other
without the messy middle man.
So vetting translators is a hassle? I’m sorry,
but if you don’t do that, what is the service that you provide, exactly?
To know where you fall in the necessary/unnecessary spectrum, ask yourself the
following questions:
1.- Do you know the marital status of your freelancers?
2.- Do you know if they have kids?
3.- Can you name something about them that isn’t on their
CV?
If the answer to any of these three questions is “no,” then you
should probably rethink the way you have structured your business.
Miguel Llorens is a freelance financial translator based in Madrid who works from Spanish into English. He is specialized in equity research, economics, accounting, and investment strategy. He has worked as a translator for Goldman Sachs, the US Government's Open Source Center, and H.B.O. International. To contact him, visit his website and write to the address listed there. You can also join his LinkedIn network by visiting the profile or follow him on Twitter.
Miguel Llorens is a freelance financial translator based in Madrid who works from Spanish into English. He is specialized in equity research, economics, accounting, and investment strategy. He has worked as a translator for Goldman Sachs, the US Government's Open Source Center, and H.B.O. International. To contact him, visit his website and write to the address listed there. You can also join his LinkedIn network by visiting the profile or follow him on Twitter.
20 comments:
Interesting post.
My two cents:
Every translator is a potential agency owner.
But translators will only become real owners if they use what God has given them. All you need to be an agency is to say that you are one and then prove it.
A chaste maiden who has never had sex will never be a mother. She has to act like a woman first. And a translator who can only think within the translator-agency matrix will never never wake up from the slumber induced by his masters.
(Note from Miguel Llorens: Apologies, I erased this comment by mistake and the Blogger platform does not send me an e-mail with the text. Otherwise, I simply would have copied and pasted José's text. José remarked that translation agencies provide more value than just vetting, such as coordination and project management. In response, I didn't mean to imply that vendor management is an agency's only way to add value. However, it is worth noting that the companies who think "vetting" is a hassle also try to outsource coordination and PMing indirectly to their freelancers.)
Hi, Steven. I understand your point. However, you don't need to become an agency to jump over the middle man. You don't *have* to become a middle man yourself. You can deal with direct clients without necessarily setting up lock, stock and barrel as an agency. There are many gradations between full-on agency middle man and independent translator who works only for agencies.
That's what I tried to do, because I much prefer translating, but it did not work in my case. I am about 70% translator and 30% agency now.
When my clients say jump (can you translate patents from Korean, Spanish, etc.?), I have to say how high.
Maybe it works in other fields.
OK, so I found the group on LI and joined. It's an open group, which means all posts are searchable since about four months ago. I find it interesting that there are 23 members (not sure if that includes me) and zero discussions on the board.
So... who wants to dis a translator?
Paula
translator, copyeditor, proofreader
sole proprietor
dbaPlanB.com
Hi there. No problem about deleting my comment, Miguel, you pretty much put it out.
I am afraid that people we are talking here from a very biased position. There are agencies that behave like a misfit child, but there are others who just fill in one necessary step in the chain. Among the later, you can always find those uneasy fellows that criticize from ignorance. Such guys are never going to get on wheels, so why even bother?
Regarding
A chaste maiden who has never had sex will never be a mother. She has to act like a woman first. And a translator who can only think within the translator-agency matrix will never never wake up from the slumber induced by his masters.
I don't want to upset anyone, but who said being a mother has anything to do with having sex? I know chaste women who are awesome mothers, let aside men couples who are amazing parents. I'm afraid that's last-century way of thinking.
And same happens with translators and agencies. It's not that hard to find people who are delighted by just working with agencies. For some people, it just pay up to be busy 7/8 hours a day even though they charge less.
As I said before, we have to be fair here.
I usually get bored with discussions that degenerate into "well, you can't generalize, because..." My point was a simple insight about online relationships: like Facebook "friendships," they are worth less than actual friendships. Agencies jump online to recruit total strangers and then get surprised when it doesn't go the way it goes with people you know in person or through references. My simple point is that if you are dissatisfied with the quality of the people you get, that may be due to the fact that you hope to reach top talent via the Internet. That's just not the way it is done.
I agree. Top talent doesn't sell itself on-line (well, unless it's top talent in, you know...).
Sorry if I got to bore you, Miguel.
My point wasn't just about "you can't generalize", but more about "translation agencies do provide value in different ways, not only translator screening, and there are people out there that actually enjoying working with them. So don't demonize them so easily.
Best
Excellent, Miguel and so spot on.
Where am I demonizing anyone? I am just pointing out that the people who complain about online recruiting are unconsciously signaling that they have an Internet-centric view of their business and that this is perhaps the clue to their difficulties. The demonization gauntlet that you pick up so gallantly to defend the honor of "I don't know whom" is only in your head.
@Jose -- I don't read Miguel as demonizing anybody in particular here (?).
@Miguel -- I agree with the main thrust of your post. And I often despair at some freelance translators' attitude of "when I grow up, I'll be an agency."
Just so it gets said by somebody besides Steve (er, I think that's what he was saying... :-)): specialized freelance translators who build their own *direct links to direct clients* can earn much more than agency folk. I've mentioned elsewhere that I had a curious chat last month with a Lionbridge rep who insisted that he and I were basically the same (I believe this was an outreach effort of some sort). To which I responded spontaneously (and truthfully) that no, we weren't. Because (1) I haven't posted an operating loss for the past 4-5 years (on the contrary) and (2) as a specialized freelance translator, I can actually say no to a client (if a text is not within my field of specialization, or comes at a bad time). Whereas his company will always always always say yes... and then set out to locate a "suitable" translator within the very low budget they've locked themselves into. The pool being translators they've recruited on line for the most part...
"And I often despair at some freelance translators' attitude of "when I grow up, I'll be an agency."
Just so it gets said by somebody besides Steve (er, I think that's what he was saying... :-)): specialized freelance translators who build their own *direct links to direct clients* can earn much more than agency folk."
Thank you for your support, Chris.
The problem with most translators is that although they do want to make more money, they are either not willing or able to do the required legwork.
As a translator, you will only be able to make money if you cut out the middleman because the middleman takes 50% for himself.
It takes a long time and there are different ways to go about it, depending on your language and personal strengths and weaknesses.
But in my opinion, it is not only worth it in terms of one's income, but it is also much more fun to work directly with people who need you than working for a boss who is an often clueless middleman. It is also much safer in terms of job security.
I am surprised how few translators realize these obvious facts.
I have to use the Anonymous handle here again because my Wordpress handle does not work.
Steve Vitek
www.patenttranslator.wordpress.com
@Steve: “The problem with most translators is that although they do want to make more money, they are either not willing or able to do the required legwork.” That's it, Steve. And if some translation colleagues happen to become partly an agency, like you, they would expect you to pay them that much as your direct clients might have been paying you. If you reject such price request, they demonize you of being a bloody agency. So, what for dreaming of "when I grow up, I'll be an agency"?
@Miguel: "So vetting translators is a hassle? I’m sorry, but if you don’t do that, what is the service that you provide, exactly?" That is perfectly right, Miguel. Like Steve, I partly act as an agency. And it belongs to my daily job to take care of translation colleagues who happen to work with me. Taking care of them includes vetting them or guide them to the right track of becoming real independent translators who are willing and able to approach direct clients, instead of whining over agency prices. Your blog articles are also a good source for educational material for those collaborating translation colleagues. Thanks, Miguel, and right on!
- Wenjer Leuschel
Chris raises an interesting point about the MO of large agencies which is generally borne out by reports from former PMs:
...'as a specialized freelance translator, I can actually say no to a client (if a text is not within my field of specialization, or comes at a bad time). Whereas his company will always always always say yes... and then set out to locate a "suitable" translator within the very low budget they've locked themselves into.'
Even more perversely, some former project managers report that the client names the price and that this is accepted by the salesperson no matter how ridiculous the price is. Then the PM has the task of simply forcing everyone else down the production chain to conform to the ridiculous budget. Pretty amazing, right? A business model whose cost structure is determined by the client... As a client, don't you wish everything were like that? Say, at the supermarket or at a convenience store?
Sorry to be back to commenting here, and my advanced apologies for the bothering and boring.
And my apologies again for saying that we were 'demonizing' agencies in this post. Maybe 'demonizing' sounds really awful, but when we say things like
"Furthermore, I don’t know if agencies realize that the very inefficiency of the market is partly what keeps them in business. In a completely disintermediated world, the hassle of vetting translators would disappear. But in that frictionless world, agencies would be as extinct as the Tyrannosaurus. Providers and direct clients would silently drift toward each other without the messy middle man."
that really sounds like the "messy middle man" does nothing else but taking the biggest piece of the cake.
I don't defend anyone's honor but mine (sorry to disappoint your romantic interpretation, Miguel), just was trying to keep everyone's foot on an unbiased drift. Truth is that I have been on the three sides of it (translator, agency and client) and I have found that my previous perceptions were unexpectedly wrong.
Many agencies are pure crap. As easy as that. And many could be easily 'wordarounded' and we'll make both end clients and translators happy, no doubt. However, agencies and agencies with bad practices are not the same thing. Agencies may provide value just through their size, and they are necessary as any other company to achieve what individuals can't do working solo.
You can be an absolutely awesome fisher, best in your town and speciality, and sure those who buy from you will be delighted by the freshness and well-selected sizing of your product. Nevertheless, if your people skills, the way you package the fish and your speed delivering the product to client's door are not awesome enough, you might found yourself depending on someone else to help with those.
I think we translators need to understand that agencies can sum up added value to what we can offer, and work with them on a fair payment basis. If the middle man does something that you cannot do yourself, you need him. If they don't, then don't let them steal your profit and ask for a fair rate.
Miguel, I really enjoy your acid posts and must admit that talking "in favor" of agencies doesn't come easy to me, but I think that making them look as an unnecessary middle man might venom the translator's ear into a misleading direction. A single translator is an agency to a certain extent, and bigger doesn't necessarily mean worse.
Btw, let me say that I know (a lot of) companies that do say no to clients when the rates or specifications are not high or realistic enough.
Have any of you met a translator that always say yes? Probably a lot, too, don't you? ;-)
Perhaps part of the miscommunication stems from the term "inefficiency." It is a technical term in economics which might strike someone who doesn't know economics or business theory as harsh. An "inefficient" market is one in which there are inequities of information. In a perfect market, respective price and quality levels are immediately known to everyone. "Perfectly perfect" markets do not exist, of course. So when I refer to an inefficient market aiding agencies, that is not pejorative. Inefficient markets also help individual translators. If the relative quality and rates of all translators were immediately transparent, the market would be very efficient and rates would tend to be lower and lower. Call it the "ProZ.com" effect. Lack of transparency is the small business's friend. Gotta love that inefficiency!
When I read comments like some in this thread, I wonder, as a newbie freelance translator, how on earth am I supposed to find direct clients? Nobody knows me and without references, the odds of a client trusting me on the sole basis of my degrees are slim – at best. I have done pro bono translations (28000+ words) so as to build a portfolio that I can hand out to prospective clients, be they direct clients or agencies.
If more experienced translators could share tips on finding direct clients, some of us newbie would truly appreciate.
Hi Amenel:
You need to take a look at the following books about dealing with direct clients as a freelance linguist:
Chris Durban's, The Prosperous Translator
Judy and Dagmar Jenner's The Entrepreneurial Linguist
You also need to look at books not aimed at translators but at freelancers in general (there are thousands, of variable quality). One recommendable example:
The Wealthy Freelancer, from several authors, including Ed Gandia.
Well, I've followed your suggestion and bought two of the books. They should arrive in a few days. I'm also writing the text of some communication/marketing material that I will distribute locally. I used to think that most of my business relationships would form through Internet with mostly non-French speakers. But this blog post of yours made me stop and think again.
Post a Comment