{"id":9831,"date":"2016-07-07T12:59:00","date_gmt":"2016-07-07T12:59:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/musik.a-z-translation.com\/should-translators-sign-their-work\/"},"modified":"2020-01-03T11:36:42","modified_gmt":"2020-01-03T11:36:42","slug":"should-translators-sign-their-work","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.a-z-translations.com\/es\/should-translators-sign-their-work\/","title":{"rendered":"Should translators sign their work?"},"content":{"rendered":"

Taking up last week’s post (in Germa<\/a>n) about making translators more visible and an interesting comment by Valerij Tomarenk<\/a>o, I decided to post the interview<\/a> by Catherine Jan<\/a> wit<\/span><\/span>h Chris Durban<\/a> she did in 2011 – and which is still applicable today!<\/p>\n

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: \u00abThere\u2019s no need for a costly certification
\nprocedure or endless negotiations by industry leaders at venues around
\nthe globe over a 5 or 10-year period.\u00bb<\/p>\n

Here it is:<\/p>\n

Catherine: Why are you so adamant about translators getting credit? What\u2019s the point of signed work?<\/b>
\nChris<\/b>: The quick answer: to promote transparency<\/b>, and let everyone reap the benefits it brings. Well, let me temper that: everyone who takes this business seriously.
\nI
\n would prefer that the cynics, jokers, sellers of snake oil and
\njust-making-a-buckers exit left ASAP, and I see signed work as one way
\nto achieve that. Note that when I talk about signing your translations,
\nI\u2019m referring not just to books, but to corporate, technical and other
\ntypes of translation as well.
\nOne feature of our market is that many (most?) buyers simply cannot judge what they are getting<\/b>
\n when a translation is delivered to them. This distinguishes us from
\nproviders of other intellectual services. And it makes clients
\nparticularly vulnerable to glib or clueless vendors who weave a
\nconvincing quality narrative to clinch the sale, only to deliver shoddy
\nor downright unacceptable translations.<\/p>\n

Catherine: You sound like you\u2019re speaking from experience.<\/b>
\nChris<\/b>:
\n I am. For years I wrote a column called The Onionskin that ran in
\nvarious professional magazines (and ultimately led me to write the
\nlittle Getting It Right<\/a> booklet of advice for translation buyers, now translated into a dozen languages).
\nFor
\n my Onionskin articles, I researched good and bad translations in the
\npublic domain\u2014celebrating the good ones (and yes, there is some very
\ngood work out there) but also moving up and down the supply chain to
\nidentify exactly how, when and where flawed work had skidded off track.
\nIt
\n was fascinating but also frustrating. And beyond a certain point,
\ndownright embarrassing for the translation industry as a whole.
\nBecause
\n when caught out, the vast majority of slipshod suppliers (both
\nfreelancers and agencies) ran for the hills, declining responsibility
\nfor the work they had produced and\/or brokered and sold. A surprising
\nnumber refused to admit their paternity\/maternity or spent vast amounts
\nof energy hiding their connection to their offspring. When pushed,
\nothers admitted their powerlessness to enforce quality standards\u2014and
\nwith it, the hollowness of the claims on their websites and in their own
\n brochures.<\/p>\n

Catherine: So at one level this \u201csign your work\u201d campaign is a truth-in-advertising issue. <\/b>
\nChris<\/b>:
\n That\u2019s right. I am aware of no suppliers who claim in public that they
\nare producing \u201cso-so\u201d or \u201cmoderately good\u201d work, and certainly no one is
\n crowing about selling garbage. But hey, the mediocre translations are
\nout there for all to see. And one thing is sure: they are not all being
\nproduced by low-cost suppliers in the third world, students grubbing for
\n pocket money, or wannabe bilinguals concocting silly texts in-house
\nwith a dictionary in one hand and a grammar book in the other.
\nIt\u2019s
\n time for our industry to face up to it: many LSPs (again, both
\nfreelancers and agencies) are producing and selling work that makes the cut only because clients can\u2019t judge how poor<\/b>
\n it is. I like to think the chickens will come home to roost at some
\npoint. But in the meantime, sloppy translations tarnish everyone\u2019s
\nimage.<\/p>\n

Catherine: What are some of the benefits of signed translations?<\/b>
\nChris<\/b>: 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<\/b> at zero cost (did I mention that inserting your name in credits costs nothing?).
\nIt\u2019s
\n also straightforward: there\u2019s no need for a costly certification
\nprocedure or endless negotiations by industry leaders at venues around
\nthe globe over a 5 or 10-year period. Anyone who understands the point
\nand wants to buy in can simply agree it\u2019s a good idea and\u2026 do it.
\nStarting tomorrow morning at 8.00 a.m. or tonight at midnight. Whenever.
\n You take responsibility for the texts you produce and sell by asserting
\n your maternity\/paternity.
\nThe good news is that taking responsibility means you get the credit<\/b>
\n too. And with that comes leverage that most translators and translation
\n companies don\u2019t have now (along with a superb client-education tool).
\nMore about that in a minute.
\nFinally, signed work promotes best practice<\/b> among translators by encouraging us all, whatever our size and market segment, to think twice before over-committing ourselves.
\nSo
\n if you claim to sell high quality work and your name is going to be out
\n there on the text you deliver, well, you will probably decide to give
\nthat 15,000-word job for delivery a day from tomorrow a miss\u2014either that
\n or negotiate a longer deadline. With signed work, good translators and
\nagencies that might be tempted to cut corners are actively encouraged to
\n not just talk the talk but also walk the best-practice walk.<\/p>\n

Catherine:
\n When do you request that your name be added to your translation? When
\nyou send in the quote or when you hand the translation in? Do you
\nmention it in your Terms & Conditions?<\/b>
\nChris<\/b>:
\n It appears as point three in a one-page summary of Terms &
\nConditions that I send to first-time clients before a job starts. As
\nFA&WB readers know, I\u2019m not a big believer in glossy brochures, but a
\n sheet like this is a useful way to give new clients a clear idea of
\nwhat they are getting into and what their role is.<\/p>\n

Catherine: How do you word your request? <\/b>
\nChris<\/b>:
\n It\u2019s a statement, not a request. That\u2019s important. (Just as when you
\nmake annual adjustments in your prices and announce this to your
\nclients, it\u2019s not a good idea to phrase it as a request.)
\nMost of
\nmy clients are native speakers of French so I communicate with them in
\nthat language, but an English version of point three would go something
\nlike this: \u201cIf texts are changed in any way or reset, we revise and sign
\n proofs before the document goes to press, failing which we apply a 100%
\n surcharge (since translators\u2019 names appear in credits for most of our
\ntranslations).\u201d You can raise that to 200% or 500% if you like. The
\npoint is not to apply it, rather to draw your client\u2019s attention to this
\n particular condition.<\/p>\n

Catherine: Yes, on page 49 of The Prosperous Translator<\/i> (from Lulu.com<\/a>),
\n you refer to this penalty surcharge for unapproved changes. To me, this
\n appears threatening and I don\u2019t want to ruffle any feathers. How do
\nclients usually react?<\/b><\/p>\n

Chris<\/b>:
\n In most cases, first-time clients ring back immediately, concerned that
\n a hefty price might head even higher. And this is the magic moment\u2014the
\nchance for me to explain, pleasantly, that I do not want to apply the
\nsurcharge: that is not the point.
\nThe sentence is in there, I tell
\n them, because I\u2019ve found that money focuses the mind and experience has
\n taught me that it really is very important for the client\u2019s image and
\nmy own to run a final check.
\nI give them an example or two\u2014if a
\nwell-meaning French client or printer adds an \u201cs\u201d to \u201cInformation\u201d on
\nthe grounds that \u201cthere are several\u201d (or removes an \u201cs\u201d from
\n\u201cheadquarters,\u201d for that matter, because \u201cthere is only one\u201d) and my
\nname appears as the translator, I\u2019m the one who takes the hit; my
\nreputation and brand suffer. I may also remind them that they don\u2019t
\nfiddle around with the content of their financial statements once the
\nauditor has signed off. Above all, I point out that it is silly for them
\n to have spent a lot of money on their translation and then trip at the
\nlast hurdle.
\nConcretely, I have them make note of this essential revision-of-proofs stage and include it in their production schedule.
\nIf
\n for some reason time runs out and there is no time for revision, I
\ninform them, regretfully, that they will then have to take my name off \u2014
\n \u201cIt\u2019s too risky for my reputation.\u201d Interestingly, that sentence alone
\nis often enough for them to find the time and extend the deadline. If
\nnot, they strike my name from the credits and pay me my normal fee (of
\ncourse). Encouragingly, I have not yet had to apply the surcharge.
\nOccasionally
\n a new client will say \u201cRight! So this clause is a standard thing for
\nprofessional translators, then?\u201d To which I always reply, \u201cYes, for the
\nserious ones.\u201d Because in my opinion it should<\/i> be a standard thing.<\/p>\n

Catherine: Do you ask for a link back to your website or social media profile?<\/b>
\nChris<\/b>:
\n My own customers find me almost exclusively through word of mouth and
\nmy presence at client-industry events, so this doesn\u2019t really apply. But
\n for translators who rely heavily on a website, blog or other social
\nmedia, yes, this would be a good idea.
\nCatherine: Any other comments about this public display of who translates what?<\/b>
\nChris<\/b>:
\n I\u2019ve been going on about signed work for about thirty years, and run
\ninto the same reactions from translators all the time. Some get it
\nimmediately. Others start \u201cyes, but-ing,\u201d which I think is a pity. Let
\nme recycle a few of the latter reactions here:
\n\u201cMy clients would never allow it.\u201d <\/i>
\nResponse:
\n have you asked them? I used to nod understandingly when translators
\npulled this one, but have now stopped. The fact is, translators tend to
\nproject their own worries and fears onto clients (this applies to
\njitters about prices, too). They may be the first to weigh in with
\nopinions on discussion lists and blogs, often expressed very
\narticulately. But when it comes to standing up in public with \u201cthis is
\nwhat I produce and sell\u201d they twist, turn and shuffle, using a million
\ntactics to keep out of what they apparently see as the line of fire.
\nWhich says a lot about their self-confidence.
\nIn contrast,
\nquality-oriented clients understand exactly what the point is. Many have
\n experience with formal QC and QA procedures, in which identifying who
\ndoes what at each stage is a given. So they don\u2019t have a problem with
\nsigned work. On the whole, it\u2019s insecure translators and brokers
\nunwilling to stand behind their work who do.
\nOne of the very few
\nexceptions I\u2019ve experienced first-hand is in-house client departments
\nthat want to pretend they\u2019ve done the translation themselves. And I have
\n no problem with that. As I\u2019ve written elsewhere, you certainly don\u2019t
\nhave to sign every single text you translate. But if you don\u2019t sign any
\nat all, well, that says a lot.
\n\u201cI\u2019d love to, but everything I do is 100% confidential.\u201d<\/i>
\nEr,
\n yup. And agreed if we are talking about, e.g., contracts and such. But
\nlet\u2019s be serious: claiming that every single translation you\u2019ve produced
\n for the past ten years has been confidential is the sign of a
\nterminally anxious translator, full stop. Get a grip. Be brave.
\nTranslator up! (In fact, your work is probably very good, but how will
\nthe praise and future clients reach you if you don\u2019t dare tell anybody
\nyou did it?)
\n\u201cClients change things after I\u2019ve finished; I have no control over what happens to a text when it leaves my computer.\u201d<\/i>
\nThat
\n can happen. But isn\u2019t it about time you reclaimed control of at least a
\n few projects a year? The penalty clause discussed above gives you that
\ncontrol.
\nIf you don\u2019t participate actively in client education, if
\n you buckle under each time and accept conditions that you know are
\nincompatible with quality, surely you are part of the problem. Here\u2019s a
\nfree tool that will help you move everybody ahead!
\nIt is even more
\n interesting to me to hear large agencies use a variation on this
\n\u201cclients insert errors\u201d argument to explain why they must remain
\nanonymous. Hang on: does this mean a freelance translator can gain
\ncontrol of the process while you, with all your staff and processes and
\ngiant contracts can\u2019t\u2014even as you continue to write screeds about your
\ncompany\u2019s 100% commitment to excellence? Surely there is something wrong
\n with this picture. At the very least, you might consider adding
\n\u201cplatinum service\u201d to your portfolio: in this case, you proudly sign a
\nsmall percentage of the work you\u2019ve produced because it is so very very
\ngood. And leave the\u2014 how to put this? pretty darn good but not
\nsignable?\u2014gold, silver and bronze-level jobs as orphans.
\n\u201cBy signing my work I reveal who my clients are, and a rival might steal them away.\u201d<\/i>
\nIf you can lose your clients that easily, the problem lies elsewhere.
\nIn
\n translation, there are many ways to reinforce your ties to the
\nbusinesses in your client portfolio. Making signed work your standard
\nactually reinforces your value proposition<\/b>: it\u2019s a differentiator that confirms your pride in your work and helps you stake out your section of the premium market.
\n\u201cWe are a top-end translation agency; we add massive value\u2014why should the translator\u2019s name appear when we do most of the work?\u201d<\/i>
\nIf you are convinced that is the situation, by all means sign with your agency\u2019s name. But somebody<\/i>
\n sign, please. And in a few years, your agency may be brave enough and
\nsecure enough to take a page from our photographer friends\u2019 book and use
\n both agency and translator name: Spanish text: Jos\u00e9 Bloggs for International Global Translation Excellence Group & Partners<\/i>.
\nThe
\n fact is, when nobody takes responsibility (and credit) and opacity
\nreigns, the people who interest me\u2014clients and good translation
\nsuppliers\u2014all suffer.
\nIf LSPs (freelancers and agencies) were to
\nget into the habit of signing even 50% of the commercial, technical and
\nother translations found in industry and elsewhere, we would be well on
\nour way to a healthier market in just two or three years. And that\u2019s a
\nshake-out I would really love to see.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

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 Catherine Jan with 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 […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"om_disable_all_campaigns":false,"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[1],"tags":[529,90,530,531,166],"class_list":["post-9831","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-unkategorisiert","tag-chris-durban","tag-english","tag-interview","tag-quality-to-sign-or-not-to-sign","tag-translation","entry"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"aioseo_notices":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.a-z-translations.com\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9831"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.a-z-translations.com\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.a-z-translations.com\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.a-z-translations.com\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.a-z-translations.com\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=9831"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.a-z-translations.com\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9831\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":10782,"href":"https:\/\/www.a-z-translations.com\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9831\/revisions\/10782"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.a-z-translations.com\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=9831"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.a-z-translations.com\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=9831"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.a-z-translations.com\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=9831"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}