Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [Czechlist] Help: Trados Rates

Expand Messages
  • Martin Janda
    Well, folks, as the fictious Czech national hero , Jara Cimrman, says, Muzete s tim nesouhlasit, muzete proti tomu protestovat, ale to je tak asi vsechno, co
    Message 1 of 6 , Jan 3, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      Well, folks, as the fictious Czech national 'hero', Jara Cimrman, says,
      Muzete s tim nesouhlasit, muzete proti tomu protestovat, ale to je tak
      asi vsechno, co s tim muzete delat.

      The trend - which becomes mainstream step by step - simply request that
      you charge clients less for an update of a manual (such as 95% existing
      stuff, 5% updates) than for a new manual. Sorry, I find that logical
      too. Those clients who use CATs routinely request exact match-based
      discounts, the others expect at least a somewhat reduced overall rate.
      Yes, the awareness is still not high among Czech agencies (unlike the
      global market), but it's just a question of time. If you won't play
      along, there is a host of other - more flexible and probably even
      cheaper - translators. You won't get any large/profitable jobs such as
      manuals, and you will, sooner or later, end up with translating
      half-page business letters or literature. Whether you like it or not...

      That said, I agree there are some exceptions from the rule. If the
      client pays rock bottom rates, if you are an indispensable expert in
      your field, if you don't care about keeping that client or not - well,
      then you can maintain your rates or even increase them.

      Anyway, this is IMHO a typical Trados grid with ranges:
      Exacts 20-35% of full rate
      Low Fuzzies (75-85% match): 70-85%
      High Fuzzies (86-99% match): 50-75%
      No match (below 75): 100%

      I personally like 33-66-100 (66 for both kinds of fuzzies), it's easier
      for counting and it compensates you for minor updates to large manuals
      jobs where you more proofread than translate.

      HTH
      Martin


      Romana Vlcek napsal(a):
      >
      >
      >
      > Dear James,
      > I absolutely agree with you. All what clients want is an accurate
      > reliable good and fast translation, and they don't care what means you
      > use to achieve that. (BTW, I still prefer to use my own brain.)
      >
      > Therefore, there is certainly no need to reduce the price, if a
      > translator uses CAT (neither for a translator nor for an agency).
      >
      > At Coilinoc:
      >
      > Have you actually thought about the option to INCREASE your rate per
      > work or line, because you can now deliver better quality?
      >
      > Best regards,
      > Romana
      >
      > ----- Original Message -----
      > From: James Kirchner
      > To: Czechlist@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Czechlist%40yahoogroups.com>
      > Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2008 3:52 PM
      > Subject: Re: [Czechlist] Help: Trados Rates
      >
      > It's very, very common for agencies to demand that translators charge
      > different rates for different level matches. Sometimes it doesn't
      > work out so well for the translator, because the various CAT tools
      > give different word and match counts, so the stats you get with
      > Wordfast won't match their Trados stats.
      >
      > However, come to think of it, my better employers expect me to use CAT
      > tools, even provide me with glossaries and translation memory files
      > sometimes, but always pay me for a straight word count, regardless of
      > the percent match I get, even if they've provided the translation
      > memory.
      >
      > I wonder how many of the agencies that pay based on match percentage
      > actually discount their clients based on that. I'll bet next to none.
      >
      > Many clients don't even know CAT tools exist. I think I lost quite a
      > bit of work one time when I explained the use of CAT tools to a
      > potential corporate client. They mulched it up in their minds as an
      > image of me dumping all their texts into Babblefish.
      >
      > Jamie
      >
      > On Jan 2, 2008, at 11:09 PM, Romana Vlcek wrote:
      >
      > > Dear Coilin,
      > >
      > > It does not sound logical to me that you should give rebates to your
      > > customers, because you are using CAT tools.
      > >
      > > Such computer programs are not cheap, and you certainly want to
      > > recover your investment. Further, it takes time and effort to learn
      > > handling these software tools properly. After that, they will allow
      > > you to work faster, and they will provide better quality results -
      > > faster turnaround with a more consistent terminology - to your
      > > customers. Therefore: Why should you offer such work cheaper? (Or
      > > have I misunderstood your question?)
      > >
      > > Best regards,
      > > Romana
      > > (from Australia)
      > >
      > > ----- Original Message -----
      > > From: coilinoc
      > > To: Czechlist@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Czechlist%40yahoogroups.com>
      > > Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2008 10:40 AM
      > > Subject: [Czechlist] Help: Trados Rates
      > >
      > > Hi there,
      > > I'm sure this has come up before, but because I was so slow to get
      > > round to using CAT tools I probably didn't pay as much attention as I
      > > should have.
      > > Now that I have belatedly started using Trados, I find myself having
      > > to come up with rates for percentage matches. Does anyone have any
      > > experience of charging for 100%, 95-99%, 85-94%, 75-84% matches etc.?
      > > (i.e. is there some sort of formula that you use in coming up with a
      > > percentage of your normal rate?). As I am only starting with this sort
      > > of job, I'm still not sure how much work percentage matches will
      > > actually entail.
      > > Any advice appreciated
      > > Coilin
      > >
      > > __________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus
      > > signature database 2740 (20071221) __________
      > >
      > > The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.
      > >
      > > http://www.eset.com <http://www.eset.com>
      > >
      > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      > >
      > >
      > >
      >
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >
      > __________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus
      > signature database 2740 (20071221) __________
      >
      > The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.
      >
      > http://www.eset.com <http://www.eset.com>
      >
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >
      >
    • James Kirchner
      ... Actually, I also find that logical when the job is largely boilerplate and a large number of the translation units are already in the TM. However, that
      Message 2 of 6 , Jan 3, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        On Jan 3, 2008, at 3:25 AM, Martin Janda wrote:

        > The trend - which becomes mainstream step by step - simply request
        > that
        > you charge clients less for an update of a manual (such as 95%
        > existing
        > stuff, 5% updates) than for a new manual. Sorry, I find that logical
        > too.

        Actually, I also find that logical when the job is largely boilerplate
        and a large number of the translation units are already in the TM.

        However, that assumes that the translations in the TM are of good
        quality. What if the language in them is quite bad, or even kind of
        bad and you'd never let that kind of rotten quality out of your
        office? Wouldn't the linguistic defects in those translation units
        render them less than a perfect match? How would you convince a
        client of that?

        One scenario is easy, though: An agency told me about TM they'd sent
        to a translator that turned out to be so contaminated that the target
        segments were actually in the wrong language!

        Jamie



        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.