We May All Need Fancy Marketing Soon, a.k.a. Distinguish or Perish (in the Battle of Quotes)

They say 'diversify or die'. Today I want to say 'distinguish or perish'.


Clients, even consumers, already mail 20 providers in BCC, asking for a quote, then pick the cheapest or the best blend, according to them. Which is usually very different from what a choice based on professionally relevant criteria would be.

The cheapest is something you can't help, unless you want that to be you. And you don't, because someone's always going to work for exposure or experience if it comes to it. Or for fun. You can't possibly be the cheapest unless you pay them.

But you can help the best blend. The blend is a sweet spot. The sweet spot where supply best meets demand, or so the client thinks. The best fit.

By saying more about yourself, accurately and in an encouraging way if you can help it, you can't convince mass askers. Not often at least. But you can persuade people away from masking. Or you can convince them before they mass ask.

You can make them think that you're the only option, or the best, or just good enough so there's no need to look further.

My personal take is that the less ambitious, more modest target of 'just good enough so there's no need to look further' is a good, solid base to cover before you fiddle with the fancy stuff. First the basics, then the extras — if at all.

We may all need this if the trend for getting multiple quotes, even on small jobs and even by consumers, continues to rise.

That, and, of course, we need to stop gambling our precious time with the 20 other people in the BCC field. Doesn't mean we should give them exactly zero time, though. Nope. There is a war to wage, so there are battles to fight.

It is good to have a canned response in which you state just what your rates would be for the same job in normal circumstances, while refusing to enter the battle of quotes. This is the least you can do to help unteach them the bad thinking habits, such as that they can get a special (i.e. reduced) offer for just asking and for just being them. Y'know, everybody is special, but so is everybody else. And his dog.

Still, show them you considered their inquiry/requirement/need individually, but the size of your fee is based on standard applicable rates.

Else, if they keep only getting responses from people who are prepared to play their game, they'll end up with a distorted view of the market, thinking everybody else is unavailable or uninterested and those who do respond represent the industry opinion as a whole. Which is not the case (or so I hope).

Dear Client,

Thank you for your interest. It is my policy not to participate in competitive quotes. This e-mail is emphatically not a bid.

For reference, my standard applicable fee for your particular request (as specified in your mail) would be XXX.

Always feel free to contact me for a specific quotation or booking. Please, however, keep in mind my policy not to participate in competitive bidding.

Sincerely,

Provider

Just an example.

If you feel like it, you can consider adding something to the tune of:

Please be aware that due to the low statistical probability of having the project assigned to me out of all of the providers asked for this quotation I am prevented from being able to spend as much time preparing a more tailored quote as is normally the standard of care I give to my clients.

And yes, not a single comma. Be confident. Transmission, not dialogue. And certainly no arguing or pleading. Just remember to turn it into generally acceptable passive-aggressive corpobabble without showing a genuine human side.

100% Quote Acceptance Is Bad

Having your quote accepted or chosen all the time can be a source of pride, but that's misguided.

It does not necessarily mean literally everybody and his dog agrees you're the best.

If you think they believe're the best bang for the buck, that's closer to it, but not yet there.

Unless your quote is outside their spending limit, the decision comes down to two things:

• how much value they get for what they pay
• the alternatives (BATNA) and the cost (or bother) of pursuing them

All of these factors are subjective. They depend on personal tastes, needs and circumstances.

If everybody always agrees you're the best choice regardless of the entire range of subjective differences, this means your pricing is 'objectively'[1] a bargain by a large margin. So large it always outweighs all other factors in the judgement, no matter who's judging.

Next, if nobody ever complains about not being able to afford you, it not only means everybody can afford you easily (which is not bad per se, if that's your mission), it also means nobody will even try pretending otherwise.

… Which means, most likely, you're charging way below your league.

If nobody can ever undercut you, most likely you're the one doing the undercutting. Ooops!

Perhaps you just forgot to give yourself a raise. For ten years or so.

---

[1] Intersubjectively, but let's not go there.

Value Building vs Value Sharing

There is a tip I want to share with all translators and interpreters. Most will refuse to even think about it. The last time I tried to talk to mature, intelligent linguists about the matter, it ended in me storming out of the room after being shouted down and flailed hands at. (In defense of the integrity of the sacrosant all-holy client budget that Must Not Be Questioned.)

This is something people not only refuse to understand, they refuse to even think about it, even when you specifically ask them to and explain how it would be beneficial to them if they did, how you're actually trying to help them. There are various negotiation strategies out there, various classifications you can make. One of such classifications is:

value building vs value sharing

Or, rather, this is the way it was taught to me at law school, while 'value creation' and 'value claiming' is a concept you're much more likely to find online.

The point is, you can keep trying to divide the pie in a way that's either fair to everybody or specifically advantageous to you, the way most people do, or you can think outside the box and try to generate more pie. 

And this is something translators and agencies don't get. Instead, they keep playing the same old zero-sum game.

For example, translation agencies' budgets and pricing schemes are not a given. It's not something that's set in stone and Must Not Be Questioned. No, they are not holy or sacrosanct or in any other way immune to being discussed or brought into discussion. Rather than squabbling over who gets how much pie, can go for a win-win situation and suggest getting money from outside the existing project budget or source of financing. 

… This is even more viable with a direct client, who is usually not operating within the limits of a fee paid by a client. There is someone there who has the authority to adjust a project budget, they just don't normally want to. Doesn't mean they actually can't.

Example:

AverageTrans charges its clients 15 cents per word. But for the text ClientCorp needs translated AverageTrans needs Josh Freelance, who normally charges 12 cents per word. You can't normally have a 12-3 division with an agency, as it won't even cover overhead, so the agency would have to be taking a loss on the project, which is normally avoided unless the PM is allowed to consider the long-term perspective and make independent decisions. Consequently, as translator, you can only very rarely successfully negotiate something like that with an agency.

However, there is a solution: The end client can pay more. I am not saying this is easy to achieve, but it definitely is doable. What it takes is for AverageTrans to tell ClientCorp that a specialized or more difficult text or a rarer language or more qualified translator costs more than the usual rate. Which agencies are often loathe to do, but it doesn't mean they can't or never will. It does mean most will think you have zero touch with reality and no knowledge of management/economy/real life for even suggesting it.

This was just an example. There are more situations in which money can be found and put on the table if you think outside the box, rather than getting your brain stuck in pie-cutting mode. I challenge you to think about some, even if you aren't sure they're going to work. Just like a PM can never be sure you'll accept a lower rate but asks anyway because what's there to lose? At worst you just won't accept.  

Bonus tip:  

Even if they won't charge the client more, impose a situational surcharge or do anything else to get more money from the client, then simply bringing the issue up will make them realize that it was their own decision, not the law of the land, nor a law of physics, nothing they couldn't do but only something they wouldn't.

Hence they should now have a clearer sense of ownership of the decision and the consequences generated by it. You will look more credible asking them why exactly you should be the one financing their policies. Hence you may be able to win a larger slice of the pie then otherwise, supposed you still want a piece.

The good news for you is also that since this is such an unthinkable idea to some translators, integrating it into your strategy will give you a unique advantage. Eventually you may become a trusted and valued partner for teaching people to think outside the box and bake more pie as opposed to remaining stuck in their initial notions.

Remember that the most successful companies in the world are those which participate in the shaping of the market along with client expectations and mentalities as opposed to only passively adapting and believing that the client is right even when the client isn't actually so sure of that!

Not a Reverse Auction: Follow-Up

Remember my very last post: The Market Is Not a Reverse Auction?

Whether you do or not, please allow me to give you a short recap:

Whatever one can say about the translation market in general, your part of it does not have to be the sum total of a bajillion outright auctions for the lowest bidder or recruitments based on 'best rates'.

You don't have to attune yourself to the market and passively obey the general trend, let alone go out of your way to adapt and fit in.

To adapt and fight is an option too.

Being active, making proposals, persuading, insisting, suggesting trade-offs, even declining unprofitable offers — is not something only clients and agencies can do.

You have as good a right to try and change the rules of the game as they do.

The Market Is Not a Reverse Auction

You've probably heard a lot — including from me — about how prices are falling, status is falling, respect is declining, all of which is true, and allow which keeps intensifying as we speak.

But this isn't the whole truth. Things don't have to be this way.

You may've heard from so called business experts and frontline fighters about how this is what the clients want and how we must provide. Suck it up and deliver. Like the tough guys we are. Or they are. Bullshit. Stupid, ridiculous bullshit.

They make it sound like being a tough guy is about putting up a brave face as you cough up protection money for a guy who certainly is bigger than you but not nearly big enough, or relevant enough, to shove you around at will. How tough indeed!

No matter how distorted and unbalanced, there is still symmetry in the market. You don't have to do whatever you sense — or, more likely, are told by pundits and sometimes even your own client — 'the market' wants. Meaning what the buyers want.

… This is because 'the market' ≠ the buyers. The market is also the sellers. It's a two-way street.

There is no 'new reality of the market' that buyers supposedly now want more goods or better goods for the same or lower price, which they supposedly didn't already want before. Any guy who says that certainly is so no prize-winning material. There is nothing remotely inventine or innovative about that kind of statement. Buyers have always wanted to buy more for less and sellers have always wanted to sell less for more. Everybody has always wanted to make a good bargain. Nothing new there.

Now, even supposing that you're going to deliver that good bargain as opposed to sticking to your guns and negotiating harder, even that still doesn't mean you need to start selling more for less. Because you don't.

On the contrary: You can explain how what you already are selling, at the price you already are charging, is a great bargain and always has been. (Just perhaps there was no pressing need to go into the details of it until now.)

As a translator you are opening doors that would otherwise be closed and building bridges where people would otherwise need boats, or at least building and navigating those boats for them so they don't have to swim. Those doors and bridges and boats lead to potentially unlimited opportunities, which, while probably finite, are still worth times and times more than the price of your translation calculated as the number of words times the per-word rate.

It's only that as times get worse and competition gets tougher and scarier there may be more storytelling for you to do before the story falls in together and sells. But, unless you're translating contracts and marketing blurbs written anew at each time for every $100-$1000 transaction, you should still have more than enough wiggle room to carve out a decent fee, if you're willing to put some work in it.

And before you put in the work you must realize and accept that the work can be done and will make a difference. At least try.

***

Consider that a lot of the information you have comes from (i) battle-scared warriors who want to appear tough as they make the brave decision to give the opponent what he wants without putting up a fight and still hope to get the hero treatment; and (ii) people who have a vested interest in making you think that you already are buried neck-deep in reverse auctions, sucked in and unable to go anywhere else. Which you aren't. Not remotely. Not even if your situation actually is somewhat bad in objective terms. It just isn't as bad as that.

Consider how many times they have:

• asked if you are available
• stressed that it's important it's you who take up that project
• tried to evoke your sympathy
• … or threatened you
• or resorted to flattery
• or even made small concessions such as waiting their turn or paying a slightly higher rate

Boy! (Of either sex.) All of that means you do have some pull.

It's just that the opposing side of the negotiation table may want to prevent you from actually using that pull, for example by making you believe you don't have it or shouldn't use it because it would somehow be unethical. (Or, most frequently, because their procedures, same for every contractor, don't leave room for it.)

See, contrary to what they would like you to believe, the market doesn't consist of millions of sellers, trying to win the favour of buyers who are free to pick and fuss all they want, pretty much because that's they way of things, which is how it should be and the only way it could be. Nope, it isn't.

All of those buyers also need to contend with the scarcity of the goods or services they want to buy, or even of the sellers who sell those, as well as the higher or lower attractiveness of their, the buyer's, budgets and other terms they are able or willing to offer. There is nothing which prevents sellers from selling to someone who offers a higher price or is willing to wait longer or sweeten the deal in some other way.

The market is more of a free-for-all. Everybody is auctioning. Everybody is competing for the other party's side of the bargain. There are elements of reverse auction and there are  — or at least could be, if translators or any type of sellers were more proactive — elements of normal, straight auction as well, where the highest bidder among the buyers and not the lowest bidder among the sellers wins. There are no formalized bids or rules to cover the entire market as a whole, and you need to play it by ear and by trial and error and by guessing a lot. But the essential mechanics are there.

***

Try to break out of the psychological compulsion to please the client (or else!), at least for the sake of a little exercise we're going to have.

Suppose there is a job you don't to do or in any case can afford to 'lose', i.e. simply not get, which is not the end of the world. You won't actually 'lose' it if you don't get it and it was never years. You will simply not have got that one particular job, and that's it. For the record, you don't need to get everything single job you see, nor could you humanly process them all anyway. What you need to get is enough jobs to make a comfortable living at the rates you charge.

So, take that problem job and try to up the rate or move the deadline. Be fair, don't shortchange them, just don't be as acommodating as before. Mind your need for sleep and free time, or give yourself an 8-hour day, 40-hour week, occasional holidays, you get the point. Or, if they're a new client and you know they have the money, then don't charge them the same rate you've been charging everybody for years on years now for the same work — raise it in due proportion to your increasing experience. And inflation. And everything else.

In other words, stop giving so much **** about 'being competitive'. Allow yourself to be less competitive. In the meaning they attach to it anyway.

(Remember that, in the real world, you're competitive or not depending on whether you win the competition. Not depending on whether someone says you are.)

There is a good chance you will get those higher rates and longer deadlines, if you actually try. You should try, if only to know more or less where you stand. And remember that you can always grant a discount on the invoice or deliver early or even agree to grant them a one-off discount if you become convinced that their reasons are sound, that their cause is a legitimate one.

Most people who will turn tail and pass up on you are going to be those on the lookout for a cheaper provider, not really the few people who have a real need but too much pride to ask for a discount (hint: if their statements are public record and they've been awarding juicy bonuses to their management, they are not in dire need), so don't worry too much about that. You can still make it clear (somewhere, somehow), that discretionary reductions and otherwise unique terms are available on a case-by-case basis to clients who can show a legitimate need without being able to pay the normal fee. That will keep the needy in and the bargain seekers out.

***

What else can you do?

Yeah, it's not all wrestling about the fees. Supply and demand can be influenced — or brought out — in subtler ways that don't involve violence.

I say 'brought out' because the advantages of what you already provide — the good features and the useful benefits of it — are often hidden and underappreciated, and it's up to you to change that state of things as opposed to simply heaping even more at an even lower price.

Thus you may need to do more work to make sure that clients realize just how much they're getting from you — or how much more they're getting from you than from someone else.

Many of them will still try to get it cheaper, that's sort of how human nature is, at least for some humans. The trick is to not cave in the moment they say that (to try costs them nothing, so in a certain sense they would be stupid if they didn't), but instead reiterate the value that you provide and the fact that your prices are already quite reasonable and (if true) that many other clients are perfectly willing to pay them (which means they see the value).

A client who already sees he's getting a good bargain but would like to turn it into an even better one doesn't have too many strong arguments to show for it, and chances are that if things were to resort to open violence you would come out on the top. Especially if he already is getting better terms from you than anyone else is giving. There is an old Latin saying: quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur. If someone asserts something without proof, you don't need proof to negate it. You just negate it.

Remember that in such situations the burden is on them to convince you. You discharge your own burden by simply quoting a fee that falls within the market standard or as much higher than it as your qualifications are or the difficulty of the job is. Anything more favourable to the client is for the client to justify, and you have no obligation to give him an A for effort.

***

To prove your qualifications, data in on objective, legible and concise format are always good. Just pile up the degrees and accreditations and certificates and years of experience and testimonials from happy clients (both the content and the sheer number matters). That is something your client cannot claim to disbelieve or challenge without a good foundation.

Also include samples so that you can refer your prospects to them instead of translating something new for them free of charge for their proofreader's reviewing pleasure.

Speaking of which, obviously, just about any random QA'er from a translation agency or business company is not going to test you more reliably than your professors at university and your state examiners and exam boards at professional associations already have done, unless the test is more difficult and the reviewer is more qualified than your previous examiners were, which is simply not very likely.

It's only that some of your prospects may prefer to have the privelege of acting unreasonably and disbelieving anything which they haven't personally put their hands on — and very literally so because they won't even accept credible documents from respectable institutions in lieu of a first-hand check. Guess what? You don't really have to put up with that sort of treatment. (Unless you actually have to.)

It's kinda like maths. You don't need to prove that 5000 words times 0.12 a word makes 600 to pay. That's just the kind of thing you just don't have to prove in the face of feigned or even actual disbelief.

But you will still need to use your own good sense to find out where the limits are because making conclusions about your skill level on the basis of your papers is a bit less forward than simple arithmetics. It just isn't some kind of murky waters of non-knowledge and uncertainty that somehow means you should be charging peanuts because your actual qualifications are intangible. And even if they were.

***

Finally, you don't need to talk business. At least not only it and not all the time. I suggest you do read a bunch of course materials about the basics of economy, management and marketing just to know the setting you work in (and if you do business translation, you need that knowledge anyway), but instead of focusing solely on the business terms that are native to your clients, you also use terms that are native to your art.

After all, they need a translator, so it makes no point pretending they don't need one but only have a business problem to solve. Which is not true.

So you don't want to only use some business references that they're going to downplay and counter easily simply because they're more fluent in the lingo and carry more authority in the area than you do. You need to establish yourself as an expert in what you do, which is what they need.

And no bullshit like you still need to prove you're needed. If you weren't needed, they wouldn't be there asking. Or that you need to prove your monetary value. If they didn't sense the value… yes, correct, they wouldn't be there asking (which is even fine to tell them, at least without using the 'BS' word, usually).

So if they know it and you know that they know it and they know that you know they know it, and so on and so forth, then it makes no sense to act like you don't know (and you don't know etc.) and grant them a victory in their own silly game. No unfair downplaying of the importance of your art, and no gratuitous refusals to recognize your qualifications should be your rule no. 1 for them. And yes, you can set rules. To some extent at least. (Precisely to the extent you can get away with, which is up to you to find out.) This remains true even if it's you contacting them rather than the other way round. You're still talking business and fees and not charity and donations.

***

I suggest you also use the talents that you already have to deliver a convincing value proposal that does a good job of showing — and claiming the credit for — the value and meaning (and cost-to-provide and scarcity and difficulty to find) of the services you provide.

Thus, if you are one of those people who came to translation from a different profession, one which is somehow involved in most of the stuff you translate, you could simply use that to establish a connection and to establish your relevance. And show yourself as a competent fellow (of either sex) who understands the stuff.

On the other hand, if you have more of a language background, you should use that. After all, you are an expert on language. So rise and shine. And if your bacgkround is more on the literary side, especially if you know how to write or edit a story, then certainly use that to your advantage. It's actually becoming quite hip in the business world these days.

And, once again, if they gratuitously negate or downplay your importance or relevance, call them on it. Don't be aggressive or rude, but force them to back out of it, if only by asking questions — for example: why they think that, why do they think they know better than a recognized authority — or repeating the obvious — for example just how authoritative the institution is which granted your credentials or was satisfied with your work as your client.

Again, you don't need to act like every shit argument is good currency, because it's not. But you need to build some confidence. I've already suggested expanding your knowledge and re-evaluating your status as an expert in your field with a useful role to play for experts in other fields, but there are also other ways, such as developing your soft skills, including the art of negotiating and saying no without breaking up the negotiation. Everything in due time, not too much at once, but I suggest you take a look at those. I did as an adolescent (a bit overeager to please and a bit shy to stand up, a bit inept at defending my right to stand up and reasons for it etc.), and it did me some good. It prepared me for some things later on.

The no. 1 realization to make is that there is bullshit in this world and that that bullshit isn't binding on you, you can call people on it and refuse to accept it (as a reason for them to get a discount or otherwise).

And the no. 2 thing to do (more like even no. 1, in fact) is to use your knowledge to demonstrate… your knowledge. And to show in all sorts of ways (not always by talking directly about it) that your services are valuable and that you're a competent provider, and (if you need to) that your fees are reasonable and offer a lot of value.

If you have lawyer clients (small firm or solo), or doctors, or architects, it could be a good idea to ask them for some tips, as they've probably already had to deal with the same problems. There should also be more literature available from lawyers' perspective than translators', nearly all of which is going to be applicable to translators without much adaptation left to do, given how similar the professions and the problems are.

With time, as your means allow it, you will want to use a real marketer and a real ad man to make your message heard, to give it more reach and make it more resounding. The goal is to make your perspective matter too and not only the perspective of people who want your services to be cheap and underappreciated (also because it makes them cheaper).

***

Additional reading:

major auction types at Wiki

I believe the market is closer to Walrasian auction than a reverse auction, but the point is not to analyse the theoretical model of that (which I haven't even done myself), the point is to realize that it all goes two ways.

storytelling

As a (wo)man of letters, you simply have an advantage there, and you should use it. Good marketing kinda always comes down to a good story, especially when it comes to creating a brand.

Walrasian auction and Walras's law

… If you're more mathematically inclined, this may do better than a narrative explanation.

As well as a bunch of how-to books, starting from 'for dummies' and moving up. It's only reasonable to know the setting you're forced to operate in and the setting that's native to your prospective clients. It will help you get better fees and otherwise better terms from them, but it will also help you better serve their own needs, which is a win-win situation. (Just like being a good legal translator helps you identify and refuse to sign, or renegotiate, an abusive clause in a contract.)

A Reminder That Tenders and RFPs Are Not Good For You

Earlier today, when checking my mail, I clicked on a job notification from one of the largest translation portals, before I realized it had 'tender' in the job title.

Guess what I did?

I hit 'back'.

I just don't do tenders.

This is not to say that tenders can absolutely never be good for you, because that just wouldn't be true, at least not in that kind of extreme degree.

However, tenders are simply not designed to be profitable to you, or profitable to both parties, i.e. balanced.

Tenders were designed the way the are with the goal of maximizing the buyer's interest.

Look at what the buyer does if buying via RFPs. The buyer sits back in a fluffy armchair and sips his tea just as the sellers enter the arena and bleed their blood, sweat and tears into the sun-scorched sand. Himself, he doesn't have to lift a finger in order to get the entire benefit of negotiation, i.e. the full, maximum benefit of the bargain.

And, no part of the system usually provides for any return of costs even if you 'win'. Yes, you hear me right. Your 'prize' is the opportunity to sell your normal or slightly upgraded services for your normal or somewhat (heavily) discounted prices. There is nothing like paying you for the costs of processing the paperwork. No man-hours, no postage fees, no nothing. I'm talking about the 'winner' here, mind you, not the poor souls who 'lost'.

However, the poor souls who 'lost' may well be real winners in the end — they don't tie themselves up for months or years to come in what's a questionable deal from the beginning.

Chances are they will meet — and use — better opportunities in all that time.

Pretty much the only exception is when you are new to freelancing but not to translating, which means you don't have many clients yet and finding work is a problem but you do have the qualifications to win a tender without being the cheapest provider. Or when you have no alternatives, then it's basically a fact of life that you must reply to those RFPs and better not in vain, or you're going to starve. Or when you can benefit from price difference between the buyer's country and yours (possible if you live in a third-world country or even a second-world country like my own).

Like I said, the scope, the object of the tender is the provision of your services in the future, not the recovery of any costs you may have incurred in the past. The system is simply designed in such a way (which I might well say as a lawyer) that it doesn't give any specific thought to your cost or anything like that. It only gives thought to you not making any more profit than is absolutely inevitable.

Yes, you hear me right: The point of tenders and RFPs and all that is for you to not make any more profit than is absolutely unavoidable. The balance of the bargain is supposed to go over to the buyer, in whole.

That's the point of tenders.

Two Different Ways of Working With a Proofreader (and Pitfalls and Scams)

There are essentially two types of translator-proofreader relationships (other than role switching between double-hatting equals, i.e. two similarly qualified translators serving each other's second pair of eyes):

1. The proofreader, as the more experienced party, is also the reviewer, reviser and overall sort of supervisor responsible for the final quality of translation. (Proofreader ultimately responsible.)
2. The proofreader, as the less active party, with less exposure, is merely the translator's assistant, where the translator makes the final decisions. (Translator ultimately responsible.)

There are advantages and disadvantages to both models.

In #1 (dominant proofreader) the choice of proofreader/editor/reviser(/reviewer/supervisor) doubtless seems prudent, but coupled with the choice of rookier adepts of the profession to handle the core, substantive translation, it inevitably calls for the following question:

Why was the more qualified person not selected to do the translation in the first place?

And that question is spot on. Final quality was apparently looked on from the rear side, so to say. In other words, the decision-maker's focus was on assuring the best possible proofreading, which was commendable, of course, but it happened here at the expense of core translation, which was less commendable. Having the more highly qualified translator start from a clean slate would most probably have led to better results.

Agencies and clients may be tempted to adopt this model in order to achieve cheaply the same final quality of translation — they would think — as if the more expensive senior professional did it from scratch. Except they likely won't get it. The extent to which someone else's translation can be salvaged without being violated is limited. Revamping even a passable translation to make it excellent often takes more time that translating excellently from scratch. At half the price, naturally. Which is convenient to agencies but not to translators, of course.

Even if that exalted expert proofreader (or 'proofreader', as the job carries a lot more to it than its modest name would imply) actually did pursue his own quality standard, he would still need to make a lot of subjective changes that wouldn't go down well. He would be challenged for 'reversing' the translator without a good cause, charged with being whimsical and unable to justify his opinions and back them with evidence, or with being unfair to the translator whose work is being proofread, or with altering the vision of the translator whose name is put on the translation, who basically 'owns' it and thus his choices should command a certain measure of respect even if they aren't optimal.

On the other hand, in #2 (dominant translator) the proofreader's role is more reserved, more restricted, he stays in the background rather and acts as a typical QA link in the chain. Doing it that way should theoretically make sure that the translator's vision is not interfered with, his decisions aren't unfairly challenged and changed etc. However, if the translator's role is seen as more essential, then it's somewhat probable that a rookie will be chosen for the proofreader's billet. And that will mean a lot of silly questions for the translator to answer, a lot of errors flagged that aren't really errors but false positives — because the proofreader knows less than the translator does, he has to ask more questions and is more likely to be wrong.

Furthermore, where the proofreader (or editor or reviser) has less credibility than the translator, the translator is both free and somewhat tempted to just reject all changes off-handedly without justifying himself in detail. And that defeats the purpose of proofreading.

It's an 'either or' kind of situation: Either the translator ends up answering a lot of ignorant questions and even ignorant allegations of error in his work, or the proofreading ends up being more of a superficial pretence than reality, a rubber stamp to meet ISO requirements.

Neither model can be simply judged to be better or worse than the other, but what really leads to serious mess is when parts of the two models get mixed up, aggravating the problems that are already found in each basic model. For example:

1. Junior translators selected to be 'proofreaders' and editing, revising and reversing people who have more knowledge, experience and possibly talent than they do. That is — unsurprisingly — outright harmful to translation quality if they have the final say. On the other hand, at a risk of repeating myself, if they don't have the final say and their authority and credibility is low, then they'll end up being more of nuisance and smokescreen than anything to do with what proofreading and revising really is supposed to achieve.
   
2. More highly qualified translators who are relegated to a mostly passive and marginal proofreader role (in the dominant translator model) can't do much for quality — even if the quality is bad and badly in need of fixing. To still think that such proofreaders can somehow guarantee the same quality standard as if they were translating that same text from scratch would be a gross misunderstanding and an unfair situation to be in. And if they do retranslate entire passages (will they be paid properly for it or will they have to do it free of charge out of their sense of duty?), then someone else — a less qualified person? — will have to do the proofreading if the principle of two pairs of eyes is to be preserved.

You can't magically have the cake and eat it too by paying 50% or 33% of a great translator's normal rates to have him fix a 0.02 translator's work. You will NOT receive 100% of the quality for 80% of the price.

The cost of the kind of 'proofreading' that is in reality more of a rescue operation traditionally is a lot higher than the going rate of a simple cursory QA check that corresponds to 'proofreading' in the typical understanding of the word in English-speaking countries.

If you try to pay less, you expose yourself to the same risks as everybody else who tries to purchase goods or services for less than they are worth. Naturally, it gets worse when you try to buy at or especially below the vendor's cost-to-provide.

Obviously, even having the good translator's work proofread by an assistant with some language skills is preferable to not having it checked at all, by anyone. If you run an old-fashioned translation company with in-house translators, having a seasoned professional proofread, correct and educate the rookies is more than viable, it simply is the standard way of business. Those rookies later graduate and enter into supervisory roles themselves.

But quit thinking that you can somehow, magically, get top translator quality without paying for it.

Rather, think thoroughly and honestly about legitimate ways to optimize your costs without counting on a miracle to happen. For example work with fully professionally qualified full-time proofreaders who are not simply double-hatting translators but for whom proofreading and editing really is their calling. Pay a fixed salary rather than freelance rates. Use rookies for simple texts that they can handle with some supervision from a senior professional equipped with the final say and make it clear who is responsible for what. Or match senior, expert translators with 'assistants' to help spot the occasional missing comma, ambiguity or slip of style. But above all plan with the assumption of having to pay the full price of the quality level you want to achieve, whichever level of quality that is. Don't cut corners, it won't work.

Bottom line: you can't (i) achieve top translator quality by assigning a top translator to do the proofreading and a less qualified, cheaper translator to do the translation, and (ii) you can't really bring the quality of a good translator's work to a higher level by pairing him up with a less experienced or skilled proofreader.

---

For translators: scam risk by certain agencies and clients:

To hire a more qualified translator to do the proofreading with the expectation of e.g. receiving 100% of the quality for 60% of the price is nothing new or merely theoretical. It's not even unreasonable from a purely economical point of view, a purely economical sort of rationality.

Since agencies and PMs don't sell their own time but rather earn their commission on thousands of such sales, the effect of scale makes all those two-cent savings here or there add up to much more substantial numbers that seem worth pursuing (even if they aren't really, compared to adopting a more sustainable and less corner-cutting business model).

Thus, in the broad market of today it is probably reasonable to be cautious with proof jobs and carefully check all the relevant factors before accepting such a job. Try to make it as clear as possible what standard of final quality your are supposed to achieve (or especially guarantee) within what budget. This includes finding out (i) whether you will be paid extra for extra work, as well as (ii) whether you will be required to do extra work for no extra pay if such a need should arise (which would mean the agency outsourcing the risk to you, which is a known and scientifically researched and optmized method of risk management for companies).

Next, agencies can exploit less experienced — and cheaper — translators by having them sign quality guarantees and indemnity clauses (hold harmless etc.), so that those translators can ultimately be required to pay a more expensive translator's bill when their own quality, surprise!, is not found sufficient. Often at the agency's 'sole discretion', as some of those churlish people dare actually write in their standard contracts. 

The above essentially means hiring a 20-cent translator at a 6-cent translator's expense. A beautiful business plan, isn't it?

It is the bigger, meaner cousin of dodging payment by hiring an inexperienced rookie whose work can later be challenged easily and penalties imposed to avoid payment.

Another trap for you lies in not knowing that you are supposed to achieve a particular standard with no editor, proofreader or reviser being hired as should be the case in a real, professional publishing process or in normal professional translation. As a result, you can be expected to pay the proofreader or editor's bill out of your own pocket.

Alternatively, you can just be told that there's no proofreader or editor, so you need to handle it all on your own — with no extra pay. And that too is a scam, essentially, though not of the same gravity. It's not actually fraud, it's just a tricky sort of extortion — if it even is that — or simply a bad deal.

Partners Get the Profit, Subcontractors Get the Wage

Once upon a time an agency owner spelt this out for me when I proposed something close to a percentage deal: Subcontractors just get a wage. Profit is for the partners.

I returned the favour — and the gift of a free lesson — by spelling it out for him that it was in the nature of an intermediary to live off of a commission on the fees of those who actually provided the service.

See the difference? The difference lies in the positioning. He positioned himself as a partner and positioned me as his own mere subcontractor-to-be. On the other hand, I positioned myself as the real service provider and him as an intermediary.

In my reply, I repositioned him.

This is what NLP folks refer to as reframing: when somebody gets in that bad frame of mind — or tries to impose that bad frame on you or on your relationship or interaction with that person — you propose a different frame. Or you just simply propose a different way of looking at a problem when you want to get someone out of a rut.

This is also referred to as cognitive reframe, which, in Wikipedia's words: is a psychological technique that consists of identifying and then disputing irrational or maladaptive thoughts. Essentially, you get to the bottom of what's troubling you — which has a lot to do with your way of thinking about that subject — and you treat yourself to a different way of looking at it. If you're stuck in thought patterns which you know don't make sense or are hurting you, you look for a different, more rational or more manageable way of looking at the same issue.

At the bottom lies simply going from A to B (which is just what marketing does, by the way, or a hammer*), but if we put some meat on the bare bones it goes more like this:

Reframing is a way of viewing and experiencing events, ideas, concepts and emotions to find more positive alternatives

(* A hammer gets you from not having nails driven through a plank to having nails driven through the plank.)

Except it wasn't therapy, and I wasn't looking for positive thinking (a half-empty-half-full reframe would have been just that). Rather, I identified the bad thing — bad for me — being the guy's partner/shareholder/owner vs subcontractor frame or pattern — and I found me a more positive alternative: I was the provider of the service, while the agency dude was just an intermediary.

That wasn't about the legal nature of whatever relationship we were contemplating, it was about the thinking about respective roles.

This said, I do regret it comes to such combative witticisms. I'm a fan of collaboration and sharing, and I wish we could both be co-owners of a joint operation (not necessarily a joint venture in a legal sense), and share the fruits of our labour between the two of us. Perhaps this is what I should have proposed, a more constructive solution, and perhaps it would have worked, I don't know. I confess I was being petty to some extent. He'd showned me my place, I had to show him his.

Anyway, the point is that as long as translation agencies — and other outsourcers — are the owners of translation, translators won't be getting much in terms of profit. They won't be partners, they'll be subcontractors or some other subordinate category not entitled to participate in profit sharing.

In other words, capital will prevail over labour. Or will it really?

Capital is not just cash!

It doesn't even have to be anything tangible. Cash is not tangible, to begin with. Coins are no longer lumps of gold or silver with a monarch's stamp, and banknotes, just like printed university diplomas, only representan idea. Pastries and broomsticks and computers are tangible.

Capital can be anything which contributes to the success of the partners' venture, including labour. Heck, even insurance, i.e. a conditional(!) promise of bailing the partnership out of trouble, should it get into any (and we hope it won't), could constitute capital. Telling jokes to keep the other guys in good spirits while they're working also could be capital, but telling jokes actually is labour, so let's get back to insurance.

In this illustration where insurance is capital, nothing goes out of your pocket as long as the company doesn't get in trouble, but you still get a share in the profit. If there is never any loss, then you'll basically only ever gain profits without ever spending a penny. Unfair? Nope. Because if things go down south, then you'll suffer more than the other guys. Your promise makes them safe. You bring in safety.

Things being so, who says cash should be privileged? Cash or the agency's plot of land with a physical office, or production infrastructure (value chain/QA) or sales infrastructure (website, ads, sales reps, client base etc.)? Since when are those things better — or anything else superior grade — than your translation labour, translation expertise and anything else you bring in?

I'm not saying your labour should be privileged, either. I'm not a commie.

Furthermore, it's not unfair if someone offers you a fixed wage for a fixed task! Even if that task happens to be part of his own profit-making operation. Which is how employment works in general.

But who says you need to give them whatever they want on their own terms? (You don't.)

The beauty of the free market is that everybody is allowed to negotiate. You still need negotiating power and leverage to really make it work. This is not to say might makes right — rather,  everybody has the right, so you just need to get the might.

Or you possibly already have the might, except it's dormant and you need to tap it.

You own your labour, don't you? Your labour. Your availability. Your skills, your diplomas and referrals and other cool things which attract translation clients. You own your computer, your software, your books. Just like the agency owns its own computers, its own software, its own books.

You own it, so you make decisions about it, not the agency. It's not unfair if you make those decisions without subordinating your interests to those of the agency.

Nor is it only the agency who's allowed to benefit from the laws of the market or from the way the economy or the legal system works. If your goods are scarce, you can charge more. If their quality is premium, you can charge a premium price. And so on.

What I'm trying to tell you here is that it's not true that the agency is allowed to rely on all sorts of arguments and advantages but you are not. It would be true if it were true that translators, by some sort of law, need to be subordinate to agencies. But they don't.

You don't need to make your capital subordinate to their capital, either. Unless you really need to because you don't have the leverage to command a better price or better terms for your goods or services. But while you may lack the might, you have the right just as they do.

They are right when they say you aren't a partner in their enterprise. In fact, I can respect that: some time ago a group of people assembled and decided to tie their economic lot together, together profit or lose, and together create something. They then created the something and are benefitting from it now. It belongs to them. It does. Why should an employee or (sub)contractor take it away from them?

On the other hand, your business belongs to you. You had the idea, you decided to brave it alone on your own, being your own only partner (unless your parent or spouse or bank was effectively a silent partner). You created it, it works, you can benefit from it. Why should a reseller or agent take it away from you? Or a client?

It's wrong if you propose an unfair arrangement, one that cheats or abuses the other party and imposes an unproportional division of investment, profit and loss. But it isn't unfair if you simply require a higher cut or even a more advantageous — or simply different — compensation scheme.

It doesn't need to be so that your earnings are capped in the low, single-digit cents and the agency's open-ended and growing, getting 30-40 more cents a word that are not yours to think about. That sort of thinking is natural for a business owner, but it doesn't mean you need to agree with it and submit to it if you negotiate with that business owner from the outside.

Percentages or whatever don't matter here. Or even profit shares. What matters is that it isn't true that translation agencies are entitled to push for the highest profit they can while translators should content themselves with blue-collar wage and status.

Yes, it's true they own their business, and you are not their partner. But you own your business, and they are not your partners. Or employers.

Reframe. See your work — and everything else you bring in — as capital. Equally privileged capital.

On the other hand, see whatever work an agency does as equally privileged work. Just as your capital is as good as the agency's, so the agency's work is as good as your work.

Equally privileged does not mean equally valuable. It means equally entitled to be recognized for whatever value it brings in and bring the worker — or the capital owner — his reward. (Without privileging any particular sort of capital or labour. Labour also being capital and capital also being labour.)

If an agency does most of the heavy lifting, i.e. gets some really good and high paying clients you wouldn't hope to get on your own, does the management, the DTP and the technical stuff, does some really serious QA and is ready to step in and hire experts for terminological consultations and reviews, pays you even if the client doesn't pay, and especially if it will eat the loss and not sue you above the value of your invoice for any errors you make, then the agency may well be entitled to a lion's share of the end price. And you're effectively a specialized employee. An important one to be sure, deserving a nice wage, but it's hard to speak about being cut out of profit unless your translation is really unique and critical to the end value.

On the other hand, if the agency basically mediates contacts and payments, then it's hard to see the relationship in the same terms as, say, that of a construction company and a woodworker or bricklayer or glassworker, where the company manages the whole thing and not even the architect can claim ownership of the project. It's more similar to an artist's or sportman's manager or a proper agent.

An agent is someone who seeks out contacts — and sometimes contracts (and sometimes may be authorized to just already sign contracts) — for his principal. And gets a percentage share. This is different from being a salaried trade representative or marketer (many of whom may be remunerated on the basis of a small base salary plus commission anyway, just to motivate them to work and avoid paying for their degrees and certificates and experience when they aren't bringing in any business.)

Wait, so who says people who sell someone else's goods can profit but people who make goods to be sold by someone else cannot?

Again, this is not a proposal of percentage-based compensation model. Rather, I'm saying it doesn't need to be so that an agency charges 40 cents and pays the translator 7, as opposed to the translator getting 33 and the agency getting 7.

Obviously, few agencies would agree to that, and an agency can always walk out. But so can a translator. Why should only an agency be allowed to threaten to walk out ('Unfortunately, we cannot accept (...)') or use my-way-or-the-highway tactics ('We can offer you X,' or forcing you to sign their long contracts in entirety without any change or there's no deal) — but not a translator?

The free market makes the rules equal for both parties here.

People may have the sort of perspective in mind in which whoever gets to get the clients in or issue invoices for them is entitled to 'own' the whole thing. Or that the larger, more powerful company is entitled to 'own' it rather than the small company or freelancer. But, as we've seen by now, there aren't really conclusive arguments in favour of that. With some success, you can argue agencies are, well, agents, and resellers, and the more mediating and reselling they do, the less can they claim to be somehow the owners of the product.

Yeah, they own their businesses. But you own yours. You can be their nameless vendor. They can be your nameless agent. Those are two extremes. Find some sort of balance.

Recap (with a twist):

• You aren't being exploited just because an agency keeps 50% of the end-client price or more. The product doesn't make the profit. The sale of that product does. The sale is made by the product and the sales effort, combined. Both are labour, and both kinds of labour deserve pay. If it has bothered you so far and brought you stress and mental anguish that an agency which really does a lot of things charges much more from the client than it pays you, you need to change your thinking by acknowledging the labour the agency puts it.
• On the other hand, your work, skills and everything else you bring in is capital, it's valuable assets, material or not, just like the agency's. It's not somehow less valuable than marketing, sales, taking clients to lunches and writing invoices. Or being a business grad as opposed to a language grad. Or putting one's investment in a translation degree as opposed to a translation agency. You don't need to see yourself as someone who is duty-bound to work for someone else's profit.
• Depending on the balance of the labour and capital each of you bring in, sometimes you really are basically an employee, but sometimes the agency is basically a glorified salesman. Know the difference.
• You aren't a partner in their business. But they aren't in yours, either.

Auctions V: Avoiding Reverse Auctions

This is the final instalment in our series. Thank you for sticking me through all this. I hope it's been worth it. Last time we discussed some ways or making the best out of the worst if you really need to participate in reverse auctions, notably in formal or sort-of-formal procurements, at least for the time being. Now I would like to take a look at what can be done to escape the reverse-auction misery. My translator friends claim I'm better at analysing the negatives than coming up with positives, but let's surprise them. Just please be prepared that there is no quick fix, no move of a wand kind of thing. It will take a lot of hard work, both mental effort and footwork, possibly some talent and some random factors commonly referred to as luck (luck doesn't exist).

Let's start simple. There's a short entry at Investopedia which will tell us exactly what we need to do:

It is important to note that reverse auction does not work for every good or service. Goods and services that can be provided by only a few sellers cannot be acquired by reverse auction. In other words, reverse auction works only when there are many sellers who offer similar goods and services.

Now, I wish to take issue with one thing: as long as there are still a few sellers (i.e. more than one), even rare goods can still be acquired by reverse auction as long as the buyer acts agressively and the sellers allow it to work. In other words, if the sellers — say, of some rare good or service that only 5 people in the world can provide and thousands need — allow a single buyer to round them all up in the buyer's conference room or online procurement system, that buyer can still have a reverse auction. And reap the benefits.

No matter than in the outside world there may be even thousands of eager buyers whereas the world's entire supply is completely represented in that small room. The buyer wins by just making things happen. The industrious buyer defies the laws of economy by redefining reality, by announcing new conditions to the buyers and their lack of defiance, or by taking a gamble and throwing bait and actually succeeding. And it costs the buyer nothing to try! There will not even be shame if the attempt doesn't work out.

On the other hand, a seller does not really need to be one-of-a-kind in order to get a stream of offers coming (just who would still be in business if that were true?). Just like industrious, proactive buyers certainly aren't one-of-a-kind in what they can offer. In fact, most of what they can offer are numbers, i.e. the price they can pay (per-unit or total). In translation, obviously jobs aren't actually unique, either. The demand is huge. It's just that a lot of companies who have those jobs to hand out are determined to sell them dearly.

So, in order to escape reverse auctions your offer must be unique. But definitely not absolutely one-of-a-kind. You can afford to be less unique when your potential buyers (i.e. potential clients) are not artificially unique — for example by just acting as if they were unique and you letting them, or by actually being unique in your pool of potential clients (because you don't get much exposure and your reach is limited).

Your potential clients shouldn't be more unique than they ought to be. Treating them individually and offering them personal or personalised service — and especially giving their texts all the individual attention they deserve — is not the same as caving in to unreasonable demands or accepting unreasonable demands and agreeing to be put in a position in which you can actually afford not to be put. And it's not just about money. For example, if they are rude (which is a noticeable trend in our 'industry'), you can always take a pay cut and work for someone who can't pay as much but is at least polite. Just because they ask, suggest, propose or 'require' doesn't mean you automatically need to do it. As long as you've made no promises yet.

However, obviously, the more choices you are, the more selective you can afford to be. And, the number of choices you have will depend on how many potential clients actually know about your existence and the services you offer. We'll return to this in a moment.

There is also a progressive scale. This is not a game of absolutes. Becoming a little more unique will net you a little better offers, being somewhat unique will get you somewhat better offers, and — obviously — being totally unique will get you totally better offers. So it's not all or nothing, the return grows with effort. Thus, small steps will also pay, although without making a dramatic difference in a short time-frame.

Here are some areas in which you can become more unique (i.e. differentiate yourself):

• substantive personal qualifications (degrees, certificates, experience etc.), which put your translations on a higher level than the buyer can normally hope to find
• soft skills and your other personal assets, which affects how good a fit you are
• types and definitions of the services you offer, and the way you perform them, including any added services, convenient (or not) service plans and such like
• client service (e.g. fast response, courtesy, personal approach, pampering, subservience), which is either about connecting with your clients or pleasing them
• just being where nobody else is (for example an industry conference or business chamber)
• missions, ideas, stories a.k.a. the why

The ways of becoming unique typically involve research and writing, whether on your own or with professional assistance.

There are basically two things you can do here:

• adjust your business model (decide how you do things)
• design, manage and publicise your brand (manage your image)

In a simplistic illustration, your work is the substance, your business model is the form, and your branding is the packaging. Let's take chocolate as an example. It's chocolate all right, as in the substance — some cocoa powder, milk, whatever they put in the mix, perhaps some nuts and raisins or some other stuffing to make it nicer and more attractive (and in many cases also unique). It needs to be sold in bars of various shapes or as pralines or sweets (candies) of some kind. Finally, you need to wap it in some nice paper or foil or put it in a pretty box.

If you don't, it will be difficult to sell even if it's really good chocolate. Achieving good prices would be even more difficult. Chances are the excellent chocolate would still end up being sold in bulk, i.e. stock quantities, perhaps for cooking, instead of e.g. serving as a unique gift to make a child happy on its birthday.

So, you need substance or there's going to be nothing to sell (only advertising agencies can sell ads). You need the form, too, or you won't be able to get the substance to be where you want it to be (as opposed to all over the place). And you need the packaging if you aren't selling it bulk, in stock quantities. And bulk sale or stock sale is not just about the volume, it's a type of sale rather.

Moreover, if you sell the chocolate in a transparent wrap — which is not actually a bad idea — then the chocolate itself takes over the role of the wrap and provides the visual attraction. And transparent wrap is still wrap anyway. The chocolate surface does not touch the shelf surface, or the chocolate would catch germs and the shelf would get stains and germs.

In short, you need to get some presence (exposure). You need to offer value to be paid, but you need exposure to even have a chance.

Develop and flesh out your offer. Identify your strengths, use them, communicate them. Do it in the right language — at least language which your client will understand but normally the language the client actually speaks in the client's own business should be better. Identify your weaknesses and either fix them or work around them and rely on your strengths instead. Identify opportunities and try to chase them, see if it works. In many cases it doesn't hurt much if it doesn't (gotta get over the fear of disappointment and rejection).

Just be there. Say something about yourself. Something which is relevant and something which is also understood. Better still (with time, perhaps), something which will translate into what your client gets from you, rather than what you need to sell. Perhaps it might be worth spelling out what the client gets from you as opposed to some other people, machine translation, or unprofessional inhouse effort — just don't concentrate too much on aggressive comparisons and negatives, as that will put you right back in the reverse-auction model.

You can probably even write a dedicated and explicit Why me page, nailing and detailing your unique propositions but remember you're writing it to get out of the reverse aution world, not to hop right back in. For example, some time earlier in this post I mentioned subservience, which is not rare in the translation world. Don't do it, it will only reinforce the buyer control and entitlement. At this point you're actually unique if you don't. Those who do profess their total subservience to the client possibly don't even benefit from it any more because of how commonplace that style has become. You need to be indispensable and very significant to your client, not expendable and insignificant. (As much as calling yourself the business partner of a Fortune 500 company would be a bit over the top.)

Think about what makes you unique. Low prices don't, not even lower than everybody else's — for now. Meeting project deadlines doesn't really. Using CAT tools (cutting edge technology, yeah, right) doesn't either. Handling secretarial work or running office and administrative errands for your client certainly does not — it's more like the wrong kind of added value, whereby translators become personal office assistants, a task for which they are overqualified. Plus, don't overemphasise added value or your core value will be overlooked and disregarded. You need first of all to make a strong case for the core value you provide to your client. Added value is added value, not mandatory or essential or indispensable or core value. Mention the added stuff anyway because it would a bit silly not to benefit from all the advantages of your offer, but don't do that in ways which undermine your professional status.

Still, as it's more about the client than it is about you (unfortunately), you'll need to show the client that you understand the client's needs, and that you care. There's a marketing saying that before you sell the solution you need to sell the problem. There's a grain of truth in that, but it might be better to talk about opportunities than about problems. Or perhaps both problems and opportunities.

This may end up requiring you to do more selling than you fell comfortable with, but it really is not the same as the client-centred or even client-centric mumbo jumbo which makes translation clients feel like the own agencies and translators body and soul, which then rubs off on rogue agencies which go over to the dark side. Remember: You own me, and I am your slave. I live to do your bidding and be your whipping boy, and I'm enthusiastic about it is not unique. It is commonplace. It's all over the place, in fact. You're actually unique if you don't think and communicate that way, although it may seem harder to compete (except your goal is not to outcompete everybody else but to make competition irrelevant).

First step is just doing it. Or even actually wanting to do it.

This first step is probably really the most difficult one to make. It is always difficult to just start doing things, unless perhaps you are the sort of go-getter born to just be doing things. Such people, however, are a minority, and most of us are not Alexanders or Caesars or even the general we saw on the TV. Fact: most soldiers are not commanders ;).

If you want to make the first step toward adjusting your business model and developing a more efficient way of handling your online image — and the beginning always comes down to just wanting to do something — then perhaps see these two presentations first. They are free to watch, and take about 2 hours each:

• Doing business with translation clients, by Marta Stelmaszak
• Translation branding & identity, by Valeria Aliperta

(Both @ Traduemprende, 24 May 2013.)

Books were written to facilitate freelance stats and introduce translators to some useful basics of business and marketing knowledge. They may contain a lot of basic stuff that any practising freelance translator already knows, so look at the list of contents first, but they generally come with useful tips:

• The Entrepreneurial Linguist. The Business-School Approach to Freelance Translation, by Judy A. Jenner and Dagmar V. Jenner
• The Prosperous Translator. Advice from Fire Ant and Worker Bee, by Chris Durban
• How to Succeed as a Freelance Translator, and Thoughts on Translation, by Corinne McKay
• Marta Stelmaszak is working on Business Checklist Book for Translators

Especially if you're new to freelance translation, take a day off and read. Perhaps read more than one book and compare those parts where different authors offer different points of view, to see why they the way they do and get a clearer perspective for yourself.

All of the people I mentioned above have blogs where they share useful insights, such as Corinne McKay's blog from which the material for Thoughts on Translation came, Marta Stelmaszak's numbered lessons or even a couple of useful tips periodically published on Latitudes. Proz.com's own blog keeps a list of other translation blogs, about twenty in all. A lot of them deal with business and marketing matters rather than chit chat and translation riddles or forecasts about the future of translation.

It should be worth looking at industry-specific business and marketing blogs relating to your clients' industries, or the field-specific marketing of other professions, especially those which are similar to our own. For example legal marketing has become a strong discipline by now, largely because of the tough competition in the world of legal services but also stringent rules on advertising, which are intended to keep it ethical and keep their status high. In short, they are another profession for the services of which demand is practically endless but few people actually want to pay the sort of prices which really make the professionals happy. Which is just like the current situation in our own 'industry' with its raging price compression.

Thus, for example you can look at the Lawyerist's marketing tab, Tom Kane's Legal Marketing Blog to name just two that come to my mind easily. However, as I said before, it's a good idea to look at business and marketing blogs relating to the subject-matter you translate, be it health care, finance, engineering, design, whatever it is in your specific case.

If you'd feel more comfortable having some expert assistance instead of researching and doing things totally on your own, then Marta Stelmaszak @ WantWords teaches Business School for Translators, and Nicole Y. Adams @ NYA Communications offers Translator Consulting Packages. Other popular authors and bloggers also may be available for consultation. Websites for Translators can take care of your website, logo and business card. Just to name a few of the more popular ones.

Recap

Be unique. To be unique, you need to be. So have a presence and exposure, preferably somewhere where competition is more limited. Try to make competition irrelevant rather than outcompeting the other guys (or it'll end up in an auction). Treat your clients uniquely and appreciate the ways in which they and especially their needs are unique, but don't allow them to act like they're more unique than they are and dictate terms to you monopolist-style if you have other potential clients to choose from. Try to avoid competing in ways which make you just like the other people, rather attempt to find or create niches. Think about getting professional business and marketing assistance — you've seen what happens when our clients translate on their own.

Good luck! (And yeah, luck doesn't exist.)

Auctions IV: How to Survive Better

In parts 1-3 of this series we established that a setting based on reverse-auction mechanics — where the buyer essentially controls the setting, all the more so if an RFP is involved — is not optimal for you as a freelance professional. It harms your interest by not just simply reducing your profit but rather making sure that profit is basically only for the buyer to make. Reverse auctions and especially RFP-driven procedures subject you to tedious bureaucratic marathons with no certainty of the outcome. They give all power to the buyer and have some serious potential to commoditise your work and encourage buyers to act in self-centred or irresponsible ways (waste your time, most notably).

But we also noted that it isn't really possible to avoid an auction mechanic in a real-life market where competition exists. If your competitors are not currently sitting at the negotiation table during your conversation with your potential client, then they are certainly just behind the corner or at least in some more distant background. Their offers affect how much you can expect to charge or even what you need to do and how if you want to find clients.

We have nailed down primary problems with reverse auctions (including RFP's):

• buyer controlled environment (and we could finish here)
• driving prices into ground, up to the point even winners may stand to lose
• huge loss of time and little in the way of compensation even if you win
• mental exhaustion and negative emotions
• no opportunity to shine, be unique, profit from exceeding the requirements
• difficulty winning when you aren't the lowest bidder
• uncertainty even when you are
• promotion of irresponsible behaviours and ignorance

Now let's look for some basic solutions:

• First and forement – you can say no! This may sound a little silly on my part, but just because you've received an RFP doesn't mean you must submit a proposal.
• See how much the deal really pays if you win, and what the return of your investment be (including the costs of preparing the RFP and maintaining your participation throughout the entire procedure). Don't compete just for the hope and satisfaction of winning. Pick your battles, fight for meaningful targets. You have a war to win, not battles to chase.
• Assess your costs of participation and your chance of winning before you commit. Don't overcommit, e.g. don't spend too much time analysing where a rough estimate will do. Overanalysing is a huge part of what's wrong with the RFP-driven regime in the first place. You may want to put together a stable list of criteria and clues if you end up doing this often.
• Know more or less how much you can possibly earn if you commit your time and other resources to something else than answering RFPs. If the alternative is better, forget the RFP. Resist the lure of chasing and winning them.
• Before you even have an RFP on your table decide what chance of winning you're comfortable with, and what your comfort zones and bottomlines beforehand, too. You can use the Proz.com rates calculator to get a rough idea. Make sure you know that and why you can't go below to avoid indecision when you are tempted.
• Just like in gambling, don't get hooked. Know when to quit, and quit when you know it's time.
• Keep track of the time and other resources you spend answering RFP's. Adjust your estimates and your future decisions accordingly.
• Be efficient. Automatise what you can, use cheat sheets, scripts, templates etc. Don't use over– or underqualified staff. Don't lose track of time perfecting irrelevant details. Ask a veteran for some tips.
• If you already need to provide any diplomas, certificates, referrals and such like, you may as well pick up all the leftovers in order to maximise your impact while at it.
• Search online (e.g. the Proz.com BlueBoard) and talk to people to learn whatever information is legal for you to get and relevant (just don't overdo it time-wise). Important details include any history of non-paying or otherwise being difficult.
• Give your response a unique touch, just learn how to do it in a time-efficient way. Even canned responses when done right can be thoughtful and considerate and engaging and invoke good emotions in people.
• Practice saying no. Preferably in a courteous, creative and engaging way, preferably an offer to do something else which has value for both you and your potential client, e.g. a paid-for but high-quality case evaluation. For example read Jonathan Wold's article at Smashing Magazine (Stop Writing Project Proposals, 17 February 2012), Alice Hendricks's at Jackson River (Why I Hate Your RFP), and you can probably find some more. Or just decline courteously but confidently, they may still contact you anyway, regarding the same or some other contract.
• Read the whole RFPs carefully before you start preparing the response, as you don't want to invest time before discovering that you aren't eligible, after all. Stay vigilant and mindful and then double check your response before sending, run it through a second pair of eyes. You don't want to lose or be eliminated on a technicality after investing your time and effort, asking other people to send you documents if you're fielding a team, and so on.
• Watch the buyer's act. See if the buyer is a reasonable sort. See what you can expect.

Injecting the opportunity to shine

It may be an uphill battle but also a rewarding and intellectually fulfilling task. Be resourceful and maximise the usefulness of whatever channels and space you still have left within the tight constraints of RFP response. Concise, clear and engaging writing would be ideal.

It won't always be possible to shake off buyer control, but in more informal settings (e.g. RFP-like rather than strict RFP) a well-landed tactical blow can change the rules of the engagement.

Make use of what NLP wizards call reframing, i.e. force the buyer to think outside the box, look at other perspectives, expose the dangers of the buyer's presumed safe position. Think of ways of putting the ball in the buyer's court or providing incentive to reach out to you more.

Don't be too subservient, it's hard to project professional confidence or authority from one's knees.

Don't overcommit your writing time, but it won't hurt if you can still stress the unique, individual character of your services.

Explaining why you won't play the game – a fight for a better future.

If a sufficient number of people refused to play the game and said why, somebody would change the change or some of its rules and others would eventually begin to follow the lead. It's actually in buyers' needs to attract reliable sellers, and some of the people who devise the hoops are still nice people who just simply can't see things too clearly from your perspective, but they possibly would if they could. So give them a chance.

If you decline to participate or especially withdraw after already submitting a response, make sure you state the reason why, in polite and constructive terms. Be very professional, courteous and perhaps uplifting but not flattering, brief but not short, concise and up to point, confident but humble. If you do it this way, your message will have more chance of influencing the buyer (or a sensible professional advisor the buyer may have).

Use language familiar to the buyer to explain why some things don't make business sense from your perspective (e.g. why you would be taking a loss because the costs of preparing a response would exceed the profit margin on a small job).

And remember what we discussed above about making a no more of an opportunity to try something different, better. If not, at least encourage the buyer to get back in touch with you some other time, e.g. when there's no tender or when the budget is more in line with your rates.

This has a much higher chance of working out in informal inquiries and recruitments than it does in formal RFP-driven procurements.

Don't burn your bridges, don't close your doors.

Regimes change, as do the people who call the shots. Those who don't, but like you, find work in different companies, talk to you about their new bosses or friends, or they are the boss who calls the shots now. So don't alienate people, especially those who aren't responsible for the RFP misery (e.g. it wasn't their idea or they had their hand forced).

Perhaps even actually write your proposals and other communication with such next times and collateral referrals and other surprises in mind, just like you always carry business cards (or should). As a minimum, you will have made some people know you exist (including your competitor, who may be larger than you are and themselves looking for a reliable subcontractor). Before, they didn't.

Mental exhaustion

As a freelance professional you need to take this factor in consideration. Don't push yourself too hard, or you will slip, errors will come in, you will lose reputation and incur liability. Try to alleviate the RFP misery by changing something in your approach, making sure you take breaks and don't forget your basic needs while jumping through the hoops. Definitely consider this also — and especially — when you declare any sort of guaranteed capacity. Speaking of which:

Guaranteed capacity, other deadlines and guarantees, other parameters

You'd better have it clear in writing whether the capacity you are declaring is your theoretical daily minimum, average or maximum or some sort of turnover you are effectively booking for the RFP'er — or for the company responding to the RFP if you're that company's subcontractor. Rigid unpaid bookings that you can't cancel are a very serious matter and you should really know what you're doing before you sign such a thing (though I can't personally don't think it's a good idea anyway).

Check any and all other guarantees you're expected to make. Any representations, statements and declarations requiring your signature. Any other parameters requested on you. Remember that RFP-driven procurements are not friendly settings to you, they often deal in bulk quantities, and the conditions are stiffer than in normal translation work. So inspect everything carefully.

Check all the contracts and commitments carefully anyway

Check the contracts, commitments and understandings and anything else you do or will need to sign in connection with the procedure. Contracts are too long a subject to discuss here — bad contracts in the translation 'industry' are a bottomless sack. If the contract is unfair, demeaning, puts you in a really awkward position or heaps risks on you — stay on the safe side. If you don't understand, then certainly don't sign.

Rose Newell and I talked about contracts a little in late January, you may be interested in taking a look (Zombie contracts: Translator's beware, Lingocode, 31 January 2014).

As a subcontractor for someone else, clarify your position and require clear communication

… Make sure that the company above you relays to you all of its client's requirements and all of the relevant communication, that it can and will ask relevant questions and pass answers to you. Clarify your position — e.g. whether the company will expect you to 'inherit' its obligations to its client or just simply hand in your job like normal. Watch out for poor quality sources or highly technical and complicated sources with tight deadlines. Remember that a job originating with an RFP has probably been optimised to turn in as much value as possible for as little pay as possible (value to price ratio for the client), which means that your financial return for the time invested is probably going to be passable at best.

Don't mistake rigidity and lack of willingness to talk to you for legal requirements

Don't mistake an our way or the highway approach for a strict procurement regime. Don't presume that some sort of unchangeable law is responsible when an agency or direct client can't do this or that or invokes our policy, declines to negotiate the contract, imposes unreasonable requirements and piles formalities on you and just won't budge. That's not the same a government spender who is legally locked up in a very strict formal procurement regime. If they don't want to talk about your relationship and work out somewhat agreeable terms, then they probably aren't the kind of people you'd like to work for if you can avoid it.

Know your position and assess how much buyers effectively need to compete for you

Like I said in Part 1, on the example of Proz.com job posting FAQ, people who run informal auctions and auction-like recruitments need to face the following dilemma:

maximising their benefit vs making their job still attractive

This is because those sellers — in our case: translators — who can afford to choose probably will. Almost everybody can afford to choose jobs within some margin. If you sometimes have more inquiries than you could handle, then you probably can afford to choose — which is to say even if you can't just go ahead and raise your rates you can at least choose which inquiries to give priority. Likely the ones chose are the most profitable or the most interesting or those from people you owe some favours.

Do your maths and hold job posters and inquirers to what standards and requirements you can afford to hold them to. Recalculate any exotic rates and deadlines into something more manageable, then compare with other offers (don't exempt them from the comparison). Include the time consumed by any special requests or requirements, such as a lot of material to read before you start translating or your participation in any quality assurance procedures, explanations and reports and cheklists and so on. If the client requests an outright financial discount, just recalculate how profitable the job is now, comparing the effective rate and not the nominal rate it was before the discount.

Bottomline: While you can't really run an auction to select the highest bidder to offer your services to, you can still compare alternative options and choose the best, without subjecting your potential clients to a bidding process.

Last year on Proz.com I wrote an article suggesting that job posters need to compete for translators too (Competing... for the translator?, 30 August 2013) and a follow up illustrating some possible job selection criteria (Competing for the translator. Follow-up: How I choose jobs, 11 September 2013).

The silver lining

While somewhat depressing to participate in, formal procurements from governments and public spenders, especially if the procedure is public and taking credit would not violate the NDA, can lead to some serious references and documented experience. Those, in turn, can be used to raise your profile and make your position stronger. Plus, while the pay may be poor, at least the flow is likely to be steady, which is not bad for any translator who faces some difficulties finding enough work. Which doesn't normally make the hoops and the bad pay worth it, but there may be some rare exceptions. Private procurements (e.g. from corporations) are likely to involve better pay and be more flexible, otherwise it's similar.

Afterward of IV, foreword of V

In the last instalment, I'll try to give you an upportunity to look at doing something better than just surviving, with a mind to avoid the RFP game totally and restrict the impact auction mechanics have on you.