| Pages in topic: < [1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18] > | Moving on from freelance translation, starting a new career Thread poster: James Greenfield
|
|---|
Dan Lucas 
United Kingdom
Local time: 08:45
Member (2014)
Japanese to English
| As views go, it's neither fresh nor incisive | Feb 22 |
Lieven Malaise wrote:
Technically correct, but it makes all the difference. Employees within a company are to a certain extent in the same boat and have leveraging power, freelancers simply aren't and haven't, which is why I believe there never will be any sort of
union.
It's not as if this hasn't come up many, many times in the past...
That failure to distinguish between employees and freelancers reminds me of this exchange several years ago...
https://www.proz.com/forum/money_matters/332153-trend_to_reduce_translation_rates-page3.html#2835599
Similar implied argument too: "I participate in this market, so it owes me success!"
Nah. It really doesn't. Equality of outcomes isn't in the contract.
Dan
| | | |
Lefteris Kritikakis wrote:
Most of them think that the end-client pays 30% up or so. They don't know. One former PM posted in another thread recently that in her agency they would markup 100%. Well, that was a good agency then. In reality the more aggressive agencies markup at 200% - 350% on average (I've seen personally one case of 417% but that was on the package total). It all depends on how much the translator is willing to accept - you agree with that.
But the translator would have a different mindset if he knew that the end-client paid 0.25 and he accepted 0.05. And that the "ordinary minimum charge" nowadays is $95-$110.
I've mainly seen people here say 50-100%. Which sounds about right to me.
Does the 300% you refer to not include other services? I thought it was you who recently broke down just how small a margin the big agencies actually make.
I'm familiar with the "extras" strategy you refer to. I do work for the Swedish government for an agency that won the contract by bidding 10 cents a word. They pay me 18 cents a word. They must find an add-on somewhere to cover the cost.
Lefteris, you are clearly very familiar with the work of the giants/sharks, and I do recognise some of what you describe, but please remember that most agencies aren't like that.
It doesn't matter if you say "I charge this and that and don't get out of bed etc".
It certainly does. It shows that we aren't all the slaves/pawns/mugs you make us all out to be, that the big agencies do not actually have a stranglehold on their own suppliers, let alone the market, and that we do still all have agency.
| | | |
Carlos A R de Souza wrote:
Could you list sectors within the translation industry where translators possess significant bargaining power due to their irreplaceability, especially in comparison to other areas?
I think we have already agreed that no-one is irreplaceable.
If one were, then such a person would not need to seek gainful employment (in the widest sense) elsewhere.
Otherwise, I have already given examples of actual people who have got jobs in fields about which they previously translated (medical & international development).
It is the contention of some commentators (e.g. Chris Durban) that anyone worth their salt should be employable in some capacity in their specialist sector.
But not everyone specialises to that extent.
I do certainly agree that any decent translator should be employable, in general, in terms of their overall intelligence, ability to learn new stuff, etc.
| | | |
Carlos A R de Souza wrote:
Could you list sectors within the translation industry where translators possess significant bargaining power due to their irreplaceability, especially in comparison to other areas?
I've considered highly specialized fields such as aerospace, although I'm aware this may not be the primary focus of platforms like Proz. Are there other sectors I might be overlooking?
I'm not sure if it's sectors so much as individual clients/buyers.
Most banks, especially merchant and central banks, will require half-decent to excellent human translations of stuff that can move markets. Most public companies too.
Drug companies are obviously keen to cover their backsides, as are most law firms. But it's individual.
I think perhaps those of us who translate into English are at an advantage here.
In all these cases, they can either use a pricey top-notch translator working alone or an even pricier agency with a translation+reviewer+editor approach.
Concrete examples:
I am indispensable to one top-three global agency because they don't have enough good pharma translators on their books.
I am indispensable to one of the others because the government end-client insists on having me after having their fingers burned elsewhere.
I am indispensable to various financial end-clients because I've been doing all their stuff for 10-20 years and it would be take too much effort to replace me.
| | |
|
|
|
| 200% is fair for a Company, even 300% | Feb 22 |
Lefteris Kritikakis wrote:
Most of them think that the end-client pays 30% up or so. They don't know. One former PM posted in another thread recently that in her agency they would markup 100%. Well, that was a good agency then. In reality the more aggressive agencies markup at 200% - 350% on average (I've seen personally one case of 417% but that was on the package total). It all depends on how much the translator is willing to accept - you agree with that.
But the translator would have a different mindset if he knew that the end-client paid 0.25 and he accepted 0.05. And that the "ordinary minimum charge" nowadays is $95-$110.
I had a small company over 20 years ago and we realized that due to costs of employees, taxes, contributions, rent, accountants, risk management, lawiers, occasional non payments, bad credits etc etc, one should really increase by 300% to cover costs and make some money. (e.g. 0,10-0,30).
They are not aggressive, they know how to make business, I don't care what my clients charge as long as they payme in time and a fair rate.
This is my opnion,
[Edited at 2024-02-23 08:09 GMT]
| | | | Dan Lucas
United Kingdom
Local time: 08:45
Member (2014)
Japanese to English
Angie Garbarino wrote:
They are not aggressive, they know how to make business, I don't care what my clients charge as long as they payme in time and a fair rate.
Exactly how I feel, it's a mutually beneficial relationship.
I just want my clients to survive and prosper so they can keep on working with me.
Conversely, I don't work with any of the big global agencies.
Regards,
Dan
| | | |
Christopher Schröder wrote:
I am indispensable to one top-three global agency because they don't have enough good pharma translators on their books.
I am indispensable to one of the others because the government end-client insists on having me after having their fingers burned elsewhere.
I am indispensable to various financial end-clients because I've been doing all their stuff for 10-20 years and it would be take too much effort to replace me.
... but if you're genuinely indispensable, it's poor practice by the organisations concerned.
That said, I was... let's describe it as a very, very strong preference, for one end client of one agency, once. Then the end-client got taken over. New broom syndrome, the agency itself was dropped & that was the end of that.
I'm in a similar position to your 3rd one with a direct client. Such that I'm already wondering quite how to hand it over when I do pack this lark in. Assuming I need to. I certainly believe I'm the only person they use, but I don't actually know it as a cast iron fact. Because they are, elsewhere (as I've translated about it!) pretty hot on contingency planning....
| | | |
Charlie Bavington wrote:
Otherwise, I have already given examples of actual people who have got jobs in fields about which they previously translated (medical & international development).
I'm still wondering whether they work "properly" in the new field (e.g. doctor) or their new jobs still revolve around writing (e.g. producing clinical trial documentation)?
It is the contention of some commentators (e.g. Chris Durban) that anyone worth their salt should be employable in some capacity in their specialist sector.
But not everyone specialises to that extent.
I do certainly agree that any decent translator should be employable, in general, in terms of their overall intelligence, ability to learn new stuff, etc.
I'd like to agree but... At the same pay? With the same flexibility? There's a huge downside to switching. As I said about 100 pages earlier, I could easily move into accountancy, economic research at a push, but either way it'd be years before I made what I make now.
My partner works in the civil service. People managers like her jump around different jobs and organisations there all the time, making more and more money. Whereas subject matter experts quickly hit a ceiling. To get on, you have to go into management. It's the same in most places. Including translation. You build an agency. Been there, done that. Didn't like it. Many of us may not have what it takes to be managers in terms of either personality or experience. That's very limiting.
When my mate Martin was made redundant by Ford in Bridgend, they gave him a massive payout and retrained him as a lorry driver and then as a painter and decorator.
When my mate Nigel was made redundant by a small abattoir in Llanelli, they bunged him a week's wages and told him to do one. He's found a job on a farm.
I feel most of us are more in the position of a Nigel than a Martin. Really only suited to closely related work. (Other than those who came in from other areas, of course. But they presumably did so for a reason.)
| | |
|
|
|
| Just a little hyperbole | Feb 22 |
Charlie Bavington wrote:
... but if you're genuinely indispensable, it's poor practice by the organisations concerned.
Good point. Not literally indispensable, obviously. But effectively. For now.
I suppose I mean that you build a position of strength by providing a really ****ing good service, over and over again, so they wouldn't dream of trying to replace you or duplicate you, or couldn't if they did try.
| | | |
Christopher Schröder wrote:
I'm still wondering whether they work "properly" in the new field (e.g. doctor) or their new jobs still revolve around writing (e.g. producing clinical trial documentation)?
She's not a doctor, no, but I don't know what the role entails. The other one is a project manager for projects they used to translate about.
Christopher Schröder wrote:
I'd like to agree but... At the same pay? With the same flexibility? There's a huge downside to switching.
What I've said on this thread should be viewed through the prism of the context of the OP. Namely the perception that something needs to change otherwise one might ultimately be living in a cardboard box under a railway bridge. That some pay is an improvement on no pay. That flexibility is great but being completely free 24/7 loses its appeal after a month or two.
All ways of earning a living have drawbacks.
On the plus side, a hypothetical new boss might be less of an arse than my current one
| | | | Dan Lucas
United Kingdom
Local time: 08:45
Member (2014)
Japanese to English
| Nobody should be irreplaceable | Feb 22 |
Charlie Bavington wrote:
... but if you're genuinely indispensable, it's poor practice by the organisations concerned.
Agreed. I know somebody who manages fairly large teams, and a lot of his concerns center on avoiding (human) single points of failure, as their existence impairs his ability to maintain the resilience of the team.
I don't like the word "indispensable" and I don't think Chris is right to characterize himself in this way, tongue in cheek though it probably is. As I pointed out earlier, if he (God forbid) were to drop down dead this evening his clients would be appalled, and would have to scramble to replace him, but replace him they would. The same thing applies to me, of course. I know I'm not indispensable.
That doesn't mean that either Chris or myself, or any other good freelancer is easy to replace. When Chris said "it would be too much effort to replace me" I think that goes to the heart of the matter. A more appropriate way of conceptualising the relationship would be that it has "stickiness" or maybe "friction".
The whole process of finding, courting, onboarding, and (to an extent) training up freelancers must be a hideous time sink from the perspective of the agency. And at the end of it all, there is still no guarantee that the freelancer will perform as the client expects.
I'm reminded of a very demanding client with whom I had a tempestuous relationship. After a major spat we took a mutual decision to ignore each other for a couple of years, but eventually he came back and asked me to work with him again. I agreed, but it only lasted about a year before we had another argument and split again. Oh dear, how sad, never mind. Clearly this client will have replaced me, and maybe he spends more time editing the translations of the person he replaced me with, or not, I don't know.
But the interesting thing is that he came back at all, because it suggests that decent translators within certain niches are not that common. He had the whole of ProZ.com to choose from, as well as various translation associations in Japan as well. That's hundreds of people, at a minimum.
Do I think he talked to every single translator on those places and decided I was the best? Not at all!
I believe that he found the idea and the actual process of having to grind through dozens of CVs and talk to dozens of unknown people and so on (while also being very busy with his project management tasks) so taxing that he eventually thought "You know what, I'll just go back to Dan and see if we can work something out." Ultimately it was easier and lower risk to re-establish a relationship with a known quantity.
Unlike a lot of people on this site I don't believe that agencies of this kind invariably see freelancers as fungible elements, as cogs in a machine. On the contrary, I think they value people like Chris, or Kay, or Rachel, or possibly even Lieven (not intending to be rude there, just not sure how it works with MTPE?) precisely because they rate their individual skills.
Regards,
Dan
| | | | | "His" market, not the entire market | Feb 22 |
Dan Lucas wrote: The market is signalling that the service he offers is not competitive at the price at which he is offering it
His market, not the entire market. Maybe he was only working with 3-4 clients, and little changes here and there happened (internal and external), and kaboom. A lot of translators have lost 50% of their income because their main agency/client (or the end-client) went belly up or sold. Too many factors outside one's control.
The Silicon Valley Bank made the same mistake - not large and diversified enough client base. Unfortunately translators cannot be bailed out by the government for their errors.
Maybe he should have been a crook instead (Christopher probably knows this channel): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-V9yPGdubHQ and lots of people would admire him, and then parachute a billionaire.
Then it's also perspective. I live 4 miles away from the house "Home Alone" was filmed. The "upper echelon" starts at around $2mil/year in the area, but one can squeeze himself in Winnetka with only 100K income in one of the very few apartments where the workers live. People in the big houses are really nice and polite, not condescending at all, they know that one bad turn can send them under a bridge themselves, they have seen a lot. Some of them even knew Sam Bankaman-Fried, who enjoyed a great initial reception in all Big Time Financial Channels (which are overpopulated with "experts") and his father (a big time Stanford legal scholar), on whose advice his son will now serve a long jail sentence.
Yeah, our friend James Greenfield would be more lucky in other jobs/industries (I agree with that), but this doesn't mean that it's his fault he's not satisfied in this over-crowded/rapidly automated industry. Who knows... one of my neighbors (he's from Afghanistan) made every error possible in the "personal marketing" and "investments" book, and still managed to own 7 gas stations in less than 3 years. He's moving to Northfield this summer. Cheers.
| | |
|
|
|
| none of us are owed work | Feb 23 |
I haven't posted on Proz for quite some time now, but have been following this and other discussions closely.
At the risk of seeming blunt, I think what it comes down to is that no one is owed work. And no one has a 'right' to be a translator. I've been working as a freelance translator in Italy since 2010 and at two points early in my career (!) I found myself being taken advantage of. In both cases, the client had become my main one and it was scary to realize that I needed to get... See more I haven't posted on Proz for quite some time now, but have been following this and other discussions closely.
At the risk of seeming blunt, I think what it comes down to is that no one is owed work. And no one has a 'right' to be a translator. I've been working as a freelance translator in Italy since 2010 and at two points early in my career (!) I found myself being taken advantage of. In both cases, the client had become my main one and it was scary to realize that I needed to get myself out of the situation without losing needed income. It felt like a catch-22. On top of that, I was living in a Calabrian village and 'going out and getting a job' would have required relocating rather than just going into town. It was hard and I needed to work a lot of long days and weekends, but I got myself out of both situations, lessons learned. Point being that I fail to understand the view that translators are somehow owed good conditions. I would think that it is up to us to refuse to accept exploitation, and if that's all we are offered, to go do something else. Educating new (and not-so-new) translators is essential, as is educating clients (something that used to be talked about a lot in the Proz forum, but I'm not seeing it so much lately). I see education on both sides as the way forward for the profession (and by forward I kind of mean, in a certain sense, back, back to before the situation became what it is), changing attitudes and perceptions. But refusing exploitative conditions has got to come first, yes to the point of switching careers, if necessary.
As for the original post, my corner of the translation world seems to be fine, with no downward trend in rates and AI immune. I'm a trained art historian and so translate art texts for museums, publishing houses and scholars. I've been doing this for about fourteen years and see lots of opportunities for growth. And yet, while this niche does seem to be AI-proof, I know that things can change and have begun thinking about my options, just in case. Since I'm a trained art historian, one thing I'm considering is teaching CLIL art history in Italian secondary schools, or working in English-language museum education in Italy. ▲ Collapse
| | | | | Transferable skills | Feb 23 |
I've been thinking overnight about transferable skills and decided that, even as a writer, I actually have little to offer.
After 30 years of rewriting what other people have already written, I find it hard to formulate structured arguments of my own (as you will have noticed!).
That rules out content creation and journalism, and copywriting unless there is a very clear brief.
I master only two registers: business English and simplified English. Unlike the ... See more I've been thinking overnight about transferable skills and decided that, even as a writer, I actually have little to offer.
After 30 years of rewriting what other people have already written, I find it hard to formulate structured arguments of my own (as you will have noticed!).
That rules out content creation and journalism, and copywriting unless there is a very clear brief.
I master only two registers: business English and simplified English. Unlike the late, great Mervyn, I couldn't write pastiches of different authors. I couldn't write in the language of young people.
I've specialised to the point where I'm very much a one-trick pony.
That's not to say these things can't be learned. But the prospect of starting again at entry/intern level is far from appealing.
I've also never had a proper job interview and I know I would be terrible.
So I will continue to focus on what I have always done: give my clients no reason to look elsewhere, and every reason not to. ▲ Collapse
| | | | Dan Lucas
United Kingdom
Local time: 08:45
Member (2014)
Japanese to English
Charlie Bavington wrote:
All ways of earning a living have drawbacks.
We have to seek the bundle of trade-offs that is optimal for us personally.
God, that's an ugly sentence.
Dan
| | | | | Pages in topic: < [1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18] > | To report site rules violations or get help, contact a site moderator: You can also contact site staff by submitting a support request » Moving on from freelance translation, starting a new career | TM-Town | Manage your TMs and Terms ... and boost your translation business
Are you ready for something fresh in the industry? TM-Town is a unique new site for you -- the freelance translator -- to store, manage and share translation memories (TMs) and glossaries...and potentially meet new clients on the basis of your prior work.
More info » |
| | Wordfast Pro | Translation Memory Software for Any Platform
Exclusive discount for ProZ.com users!
Save over 13% when purchasing Wordfast Pro through ProZ.com. Wordfast is the world's #1 provider of platform-independent Translation Memory software. Consistently ranked the most user-friendly and highest value
Buy now! » |
|
| | | | X Sign in to your ProZ.com account... | | | | | |
Login to reply/comment 
Translation news
