| Páginas sobre el tema: < [1 2] | Poll: CAT tools have produced a difference in your productivity, but have they increased your revenues? Autor de la hebra: ProZ.com Staff
|
|---|
| I don't think they improve my productivity | May 30, 2012 |
I use CATs (mainly Trados) because I like the concordance feature and Multiterm, and in the Studio versions, the AutoSuggest.
I translate fairly freely at times, and override segments a lot, which has occasionally caused Studio to crash...
I am NOT a proficient touch-typist, and after 40 years of trying on and off, I never will be. My coordination is just not that good.
I am not very creative about writing macros, though I do have one or two small ones. The ones i... See more I use CATs (mainly Trados) because I like the concordance feature and Multiterm, and in the Studio versions, the AutoSuggest.
I translate fairly freely at times, and override segments a lot, which has occasionally caused Studio to crash...
I am NOT a proficient touch-typist, and after 40 years of trying on and off, I never will be. My coordination is just not that good.
I am not very creative about writing macros, though I do have one or two small ones. The ones in the CAT work well for me.
I do still translate without a CAT now and then, when the text comes as a PDF. Although I miss Multiterm for terminology, it takes me roughly the same time with or without a CAT. (These are often medical records, and very similar to machine-readable texts where I use Trados quite happily.)
Trados enables me to work for clients who insist that I use it. I might have difficulty finding enough clients otherwise. As it is, I am offered more work than I can actually manage, so I can refuse to take the jobs if agencies will not pay viable rates.
I am not sure whether the direct result on revenue is positive or negative, but I am happy to invest in Trados to gain the advantages that come with it, just as I invest in good dictionaries and other tools. ▲ Collapse
| | | |
I agree with you Simon, and excuse Chris but "taking advantage of technology" does not means we are ripping off our customers, back in the 90's when there were no CAT Tools at all nobody would offer discounts on repetitions to customers
Simon Bruni wrote: Chris S wrote:
Interesting assumption that CAT increases productivity. Not when your texts include no matches!
And when you do have matches, agencies don't pay you for them, so where's the extra revenue coming from?
The only way I can see CAT increasing your revenue is if you rip off your direct clients...
[Edited at 2012-05-30 13:48 GMT] CAT tools have various other time-saving (and therefore productivity-increasing) features, like automating your formatting, quick access to glossaries, the ability to paste from other sources without losing the desired formatting, the ability to see exactly where changes have been made in an amended source text, etc. So even without matches a massive amount of time can be saved. They also provide an additional layer of backup by storing everything you translate in a memory and allow you to translate lots of different file types without necessarily owning the programme normally associated with the file. As for "agencies don't pay you for them", well that's simply not true. All my (many) agency clients pay me for matches. [Edited at 2012-05-30 15:34 GMT]
| | | | Giles Watson 
Italia
Local time: 19:29
italiano al inglés
In Memoriam | CATs and literary texts | May 30, 2012 |
Wordeffect wrote:
I am basically an arts specialist with a literary bent - the kind of texts where CAT is usually of very little use.
If nothing else, a good CAT will enable you to handle the DTP formats like InDesign or FrameMaker that many publishers work in without having to muck around with dodgy RTF exports or PDFs. The CAT adds value, for which you can legitimately charge, by enabling you to deliver a native-format text that requires less work on the client's side.
| | | | | Congratulations! | May 30, 2012 |
Congratulations! Maybe your words would cheer up a lot of translators who just refuse to use CAT Tools fearing that they will not understand their operation (When in fact it is really easy) and without even know their functionalities.
Wordeffect wrote: I am basically an arts specialist with a literary bent - the kind of texts where CAT is usually of very little use. As the crisis began to bite, this sector was hit pretty hard, especially for someone like me, trying to elbow her way into the profession at over 50! So, what to do? I made a strategic shift about a year ago. I transferred my writing skills into the marketing field and took on more catalogue-style texts. Here, CAT really comes into its own. It is a win-win situation: more well-paid work around than in the arts, plus the CAT-assisted productivity, at a price that is less than a good agency would charge. Yes, I can earn a lot more like this, but - above all - I now have more choice and flexibility in what other work I take on. It is my leverage tool, enabling me to offer a premium service to direct clients at an affordable price. It is not (and I will never allow it to be) a rod for outsourcers to beat me with. Just like a watch allows me to know what time it is, but doesn't tell me when to do things! Word count can only ever be a part of my pricing structure, so anyone who wants to waste my time playing the "percentage-match" game can go and roll their hair-splitting marbles elsewhere...  Alison (Wordeffect is a "personal brand"; see recent thread on pseudonyms) [Edited at 2012-05-30 09:17 GMT]
| | |
|
|
|
Mary Worby wrote:
Plus there are all sorts of jobs I simply wouldn't have been given without CAT tools.
Most of my big agency clients would not have given me the jobs if I hadn't had the necessary CAT tools. In addition, if your productivity increases, you can deliver more quickly, and be free to take on more jobs.
| | | | Kay Denney
Francia
Local time: 19:29
francés al inglés
| paying for matches | May 30, 2012 |
Chris S wrote:
Interesting assumption that CAT increases productivity. Not when your texts include no matches!
And when you do have matches, agencies don't pay you for them, so where's the extra revenue coming from?
The only way I can see CAT increasing your revenue is if you rip off your direct clients...
[Edited at 2012-05-30 13:48 GMT]
Chris, I consider that if by investing in a CAT tool to take care of repetitions and ensure consistency I save my - and thus my client's - time while ensuring good quality. In which case charging something for the repetitions is perfectly honest.
| | | |
CATs have more sense inside on-line networks, which are by definition the price killers.
You need a steady stream of jobs which would be sufficient to cover the hard/soft/connection/etc.-related expense and to earn to yourself.
| | | | | @Texte Style | May 31, 2012 |
Texte Style wrote:
Chris, I consider that if by investing in a CAT tool to take care of repetitions and ensure consistency I save my - and thus my client's - time while ensuring good quality. In which case charging something for the repetitions is perfectly honest.
I totally agree that charging *something* is fair. If there are a significant number of matches in a job, I charge by the hour instead of by the word (something I try to do in general). So then CAT is not increasing my revenue!
| | |
|
|
|
| @Ricardo and Simon | May 31, 2012 |
Ricardo Falconi wrote:
I agree with you Simon, and excuse Chris but "taking advantage of technology" does not means we are ripping off our customers, back in the 90's when there were no CAT Tools at all nobody would offer discounts on repetitions to customers
Sorry, I think charging for words that CAT does for you or that you copy-and-paste is ripping people off.
Simon Bruni wrote:
CAT tools have various other time-saving (and therefore productivity-increasing) features, like automating your formatting, quick access to glossaries, the ability to paste from other sources without losing the desired formatting, the ability to see exactly where changes have been made in an amended source text, etc. So even without matches a massive amount of time can be saved. They also provide an additional layer of backup by storing everything you translate in a memory and allow you to translate lots of different file types without necessarily owning the programme normally associated with the file.
As for "agencies don't pay you for them", well that's simply not true. All my (many) agency clients pay me for matches.
[Edited at 2012-05-30 15:34 GMT]
Good point, and I agree that CAT has massive benefits for some translators, but *not for everyone* is my point. Some of us don't translate repetitive texts etc etc.
I actually use Wordfast all the time. The main benefit for me is the convenience of seeing source and target together on screen. I love this, but I don't think it increases my output or my revenue.
Simon - I assume you mean that agencies pay you a reduced rate for matches. But if they don't pay the full rate, where's the benefit to you? Where is the increase in your revenue? I'm with Haluk here!
[Edited at 2012-05-31 08:04 GMT]
| | | | Claire Cox
Reino Unido
Local time: 18:29
francés al inglés
+ ...
[quote]Chris S wrote:
Ricardo Falconi wrote:
I agree with you Simon, and excuse Chris but "taking advantage of technology" does not means we are ripping off our customers, back in the 90's when there were no CAT Tools at all nobody would offer discounts on repetitions to customers
Sorry, I think charging for words that CAT does for you or that you copy-and-paste is ripping people off.
[quote]
I really don't think it's at all appropriate to talk about "ripping people off" in this context. Clients are presumably happy to pay a certain price for a professional product: if they feel it's too expensive, they can look elsewhere. It's immaterial whether you use CAT tools or not, as long as the end result you provide is fit for purpose, in a quality your client requires and a t a price he's prepared to pay. The translator has invested in the CAT tool and the not inconsiderable amount of time required to learn to use it effectively - how would you reflect that cost in your pricing otherwise? My builder doesn't offer me discounts because he's doing the same repeated job time and time again, even if he's invested in a nail driver to insert nails rather than doing it by hand!
I do offer discounts for 100% matches and repetitions to certain clients, but usually only if they supply a (good) TM and I'm not required to proof-read their pre-translated segments. Otherwise, the whole text is translated as a whole, making sure that the style and content of each and every segment is consistent and I don't see why I should offer discounts for that. Wordfast Classic, for example, will say a segment is a 100% match even if the formatting is different, so that obviously needs to be checked very carefully. I don't offer fuzzy discounts at all as they take just as long to tweak, as others have said.
Back to the question, however, there is no doubt in my mind that CAT tools have increased my revenues hugely, both in making me more productive, enabling me to accept jobs I couldn't have otherwise considered AND improving consistency. I think clients are prepared to pay a premium for high-quality translations turned round quickly and CAT tools enable you to achieve that without any loss in quality.
Then again, if huge chunks of text I'd already translated cropped up in a new translation, I would notify the client and not charge again for that particular section. One particular direct client often sends minutes of monthly meetings which may have the agenda, delegates list and previous action sheets from the last meeting attached. They've already got the translations of the agenda and action sheets, so I wouldn't translate them again or charge them - now that could perhaps be described as ripping people off! It all boils down to providing a good service in my book.
[Edited at 2012-05-31 14:58 GMT]
| | | |
OK, fair point. But... We got wills done recently and agreed to pay a small fortune to the lawyer, and when they came back it was pretty much a template with our names filled in. I felt ripped off. Do we not have a moral or ethical obligation to share savings with the client? Agencies certainly seem to think so...
| | | | Simon Bruni
Reino Unido
Local time: 18:29
Miembro 2009
español al inglés
| No moral obligation as far as I'm concerned | May 31, 2012 |
Chris S wrote:
Do we not have a moral or ethical obligation to share savings with the client?
Morals and ethics are quite a personal thing, but I don't think a business has a moral obligation to pass on savings. It has a moral (and legal) obligation to do what it agrees to do and that's where it ends. Otherwise where does it stop? Do I deduct 0.1% from my client's invoice because I have found a cheaper energy supplier to power my computer with? Or cut my prices because I have had plenty of sleep and exercise lately and I'm therefore translating more efficiently?
In fact, businesses that are able to provide a quicker turnaround on projects often cost more, because customers are willing to pay more to get the product sooner.
Of course, sometimes it makes business sense to pass on savings (to increase competitiveness perhaps), but that's another matter.
| | | | | Páginas sobre el tema: < [1 2] | To report site rules violations or get help, contact a site moderator: You can also contact site staff by submitting a support request » Poll: CAT tools have produced a difference in your productivity, but have they increased your revenues? | Trados Business Manager Lite | Create customer quotes and invoices from within Trados Studio
Trados Business Manager Lite helps to simplify and speed up some of the daily tasks, such as invoicing and reporting, associated with running your freelance translation business.
More info » |
| | Pastey | Your smart companion app
Pastey is an innovative desktop application that bridges the gap between human expertise and artificial intelligence. With intuitive keyboard shortcuts, Pastey transforms your source text into AI-powered draft translations.
Find out more » |
|
| | | | X Sign in to your ProZ.com account... | | | | | |
Login to reply/comment 
