Re: Translation rate basis
- Vit wrote:
My issue is: Has anybody tried lately to calculate the worth of translating resources necessary for the quality translation work? Ie, computer+software+reference literature+overheads (Internet, phone, ...), etc.
You may add to it:
- marketing expenses
- I consider as a significant expense the time I need to spend on activities related to translating, but during which
I do not translate, by other words - do not generate any income: time spent on marketing, writing invoices, various paperwork, going to bank, participation in discussion groups, etc, etc. - doing anything related to translating
- I need to have two computers for the case if one of them goes out of service
- mobile phone to be accessible when not at home
- SW, OS
- subscribing foreign journals
- I would not hesitate to add all necessary expenses I would need to spend, but I can�t afford them becouse of low local rates, and to present a negative salary:various international gatherings, annual ATA conferences,
- Vit Ruzicka wrote:
> A customer of mine (at the prospective stage yet, though) has asked for asubstantitation of the translation price, ie costs based on resources
employed plus adequate salary.
Your potential customer's inquiry is quite absurd. It reminds me strongly of
the communist mode of thinking; you may still remember too. On the other
hand, they might easily find your price very low in the light of such
considerations, as Otto has pointed out, although Otto's account of a
translator's expenses is close to the ideal condition - not my situation.
You could easily impress those who ask with such theoretical costs of doing
the job at a professional standard, but I don't think you should disclose
your actual expenses, whether it's money or time. I don't simply think that
this kind of question can be answered satisfactorily; you'll always drift in
the midst of theoretical price ranges and real individuals' spendings with a
high statistic deviation. Just mu view.
- Hello Otto,
thank you for the in-side answer. Naturally, I am far from being content with a provision of such information to a customer, not even to a prospective one. My point is that the costs are getting higher and rates (and some customers) tend to resist this reality of life.
All the best
>A�customer of mine (at the prospective stage yet, though) has askedI'd say it's none of their damn business how you arrive at your
>for a substantitation of the translation price, ie costs based on
>resources employed plus adequate salary.
prices. If your rates are competitive for the technical, linguistic,
and service quality you provide, then I'd tell 'em to take it or
- " >A customer of mine (at the prospective stage yet, though) has asked
> >for a substantitation of the translation price, ie costs based onYou are right, Michael, and when I replied to this issue, I did not mean to
> >resources employed plus adequate salary.
> I'd say it's none of their damn business how you arrive at your
> prices. If your rates are competitive for the technical, linguistic,
> and service quality you provide, then I'd tell 'em to take it or
> leave it.
comply with this strange requirement, but rather to embrace it as the issue
standing alone: "expenses in doing translation business", which might be of
interest for us.
HOWEVER, I would like to add that some big, really big multinational
companies have included this requirement in their subcontractor policy. But,
to get a contract from such big company means to get high volume work
secured for several years. In return, these big companies push their
subcontractors really very hard, including inquiries of their expenses,
pushing their price as low as they can get, and also try to set-up the
contract in the most advantageous way for themselves, and the least
advantageous way for contractors.
>In return, these big companies push theirCount me out. If they're going to own you body and soul anyway, let
>subcontractors really very hard, including inquiries of their expenses,
>pushing their price as low as they can get, and also try to set-up the
>contract in the most advantageous way for themselves, and the least
>advantageous way for contractors.
'em hire you as an employee and pay your health insurance and pension
Just MHO. :-)
> But,I think this is the most dangerous way how to run your business. This may
> to get a contract from such big company means to get high volume work
> secured for several years.
lead to you dependence on one source of income. And consequently, you become
more "flexible" to any request of your one (two, three) big multinational
customers. I have always tried to avoid such situation. Once such customers
drops you this might mean a couple of months before you recover from such
loss. Of course, if you manage to have big volume customer it would be
nonsense to let him go. However, I prefer to subcontract a part of my work
(even if this means more proofreading for me), in order to both keep my
customer satisfied and avoid my dependence on him.