BabelOn-line wrote:
Thanks for your long input.
I think I will steer clear of penalties or any financial disincentive for the client.
Reason is, if we agree on a higher rate for these small last second bits, you are in effect telling the client that last second stuff is perfectly OK.
As a Eng->Fr translator, I can definitely see the logic in what you say: getting paid a flat rate of e.g. 20 Euros for a job that is going to take me 1 minute sounds like something i'd be stupid to turn down. I can always find one minute.
As a project manager and an agency, things are quite different.
The last minute 20 words are usually coming in the guise of "Can i have these 20 words in 5 languages for this afternoon". That's a different story altogether.
Are the 5 translator working on that day? What if they are around, but not checking their emails every 5 minutes? Or they popped out to the shop? Also note that translating the 20 words themselves takes about the same time as answering an email asking you ... if you can translate 20 words this afternoon.
So. The 20 euros now need to be split in part with the translator – I am not going to pay them 2 euros for the job, that would be borderline insulting - no doubt some agencies don't share that view. And this means that any other project I have to do at the time are now on hold...
So, factor in the disruption to the running of an agency, and you may start thinking that you'd have to impose a truly punishing rate to make this this economically viable.
Which in turn is never going to fly with the client. Even if they more or less see where you are coming from, they are not going to accept this.
As a solo translator, things are brutal but simple. As an agency, I find things a tad less brutal, but far more complicated.
I see. And yeah, that changes things. You'd need a nice, small but not insulting sum for the translator while also ensuring good compensation of the PM's services... stuff could add up to really high numbers. I personally believe that it should, though. You shouldn't be punishing the client, but on the other hand you shouldn't be expected to hold the client harmless of his own quirks. As in, don't impose a punitive charge, but don't shield the client from the bill that he runs up with his requests (any more).
Have you received any feedback on that from your translators? If they have complained or expressed any other negative or weary sentiment, you could use that as a good argument in your negotiations with the client. Like it's not you, it's the translators, and you shouldn't be expected to allow your relationship with your subcontractors to suffer. 'The translators say (...),' should probably have some added credibility.
José Henrique Lamensdorf wrote:
Rush rates on translation shouldn't be treated as penalties, though this is the widespread notion most people have of them.
It is not about punishing the client, e.g. Look what you have done! You got this large job three weeks ago with a 20-day deadline, fairly feasible. You've wasted two weeks searching for a cheaper translator and couldn't find one. Now you want me to do a 20-day job in 5 days? I'm gonna rip you off, charge you twice as much as I would otherwise, just to teach you a lesson!
I'd certainly be tempted to do that, but ultimately the solution is different. I see rush fees as something I should be getting but often am not due to all sorts of reasons from my own being too soft to my client's or agency's being somewhat legitimately hard-pressed with little of its own fault. Usually somewhere in between.
So, the way I see it, if those guys actually spent time looking for a cheaper translator but couldn't find any, then I have no obligation or incentive whatsoever to be accommodating and make advantageous offers. I won't charge more than the full extent of the rush fees available on all the identifiable grounds, but they'll get much less clemency from me than if they even had forgotten about the thing until today. Now: 'Yes, I know we should haven accepted your offer instead of looking for a cheaper one,' would probably have the power to save them quite some buck, as long as they weren't an affluent organisation that should be expected to pay full prices for everything.
[Edited at 2013-08-08 17:37 GMT]
Login to reply/comment 
Translation news
