Is there some way to charge according to type of text? For example, technical translations are very time-consuming and therefore, should require a higher rate per word than a simple email or web page translation. Say 20 cents per word for technical writing and 15 cents per word for non-technical writing.

My scale isn’t right but I hope you get the idea. Another way may be to grade the level of texts. I have seen this done with web sites. For example, you submit your web site to a grader and it will tell you the level of text from elementary, high school, college, graduate level, etc.

“We are a little people, and like little people
we think like little people”
(Prince Faisal of Arabia, as portrayed by Alec
Guinness in “Lawrence of Arabia”)

The per-word unit has for at least one hundred years been the basis for determining a translator’s fee. Although there have been suggestions and even isolated attempts to change this basis, it has remained the dominant form in translation services invoicing.

The natural efficiencies of the computer allowed for the corresponding increases in translator productivity, and that increased productivity kept the per-word unit firmly in its position as the dominant basis for determining translation fees. Since the time that the computer became the principal production tool, no one has questioned the practice of charging for repetitive words or phrases or entire passages that were very similar but not precisely identical. The concept and the predominant thinking was that a translator’s time had to be compensated even though the translator was not actually translating words, but merely blocking, copying, pasting and comparing and/or verifying.

But the advent of the computer-assisted translation (“CAT”) tool and its widespread implementation has dramatically changed the economic playing field, and translators, particularly those who are relatively new to the industry, have readily accepted the notion that they should be paid solely and exclusively for words translated only once, and that their time and knowledge applied to moving words and re-positioning phrases or components of phrases, i.e., data movement, to provide complete and accurate communication has absolutely no remunerative value. Like those who marched in willing resignation and without protest to the “showers” and the gas chambers, the translators of the 21st century are seemingly doing likewise.

To this correspondent, it is not a question of what brought about this change in thinking that translators should be compensated only for so-called “new words” or that bastard sibling called “fuzzy matches”, but rather who has promoted this concept and who is benefiting most by its application.

In the freelance community, the “villains” are clearly the translation agencies, now predominantly in the hands of language-blind, profit-focused and marketing-focused businesspeople. The few translation agency owners who are willing to speak about this issue, say that it is the translation clients who are forcing this change upon the translation agencies in an effort to lower translation costs, and therefore the agencies have no choice but to pressure freelance translators into accepting compensation solely for “new words” translated…at prices that would have looked attractive in 1978!

Added to the mix are the attitudes of translator organizations, which have become more and more fascinated by machines and attendant technology than with the resulting economic impact. Worse, some of them have jumped into bed with the manufacturers of CAT and other translation-assisted tools, blindly but gleefully accepting handsome advertising revenues. In addition, translation organizations have encouraged their members to use this technology on the sole grounds that it provides for increased efficiency and productivity, although no studies have been sponsored or undertaken to determine what if any efficiencies are actually achieved, save for the efficiency of increasing profits at one end and lowering compensation at the other. Indeed, if CAT and other so-called translation-assisted tools are providing such increased productivity, then why is it that so many translators are complaining about longer hours of work and less compensation? Something don’t smell right here.

The United States is now moving into a major economic recession, but a recession that is coupled with rising inflation. Every single one of us is now feeling the effects of this inflation, as prices for basic goods and services are increasing dramatically across the board. Yet, translation prices have dropped and translator income has remained relatively stagnant. And if we place any credence in the complaint that translators worked longer hours to earn in 2007 what they earned in 2006 or 2005 or 2004, then in effect what we have is a reduction in income.

If there is any veracity in the translation industry’s current economic indicators, then perhaps the time has come for all to ask themselves whether translation is an endeavor in which a person can earn a supplemental income at best, and whether it is an industry that constitutes a welcoming harbor and nurturing environment solely for “housewives” (desperate or proverbial), and one in which most of the practitioners are quite willing to march to their own economic gas chambers.

However, I do agree that it’s important to, as Simac pointed out, set your rates using objective data and include your overhead and then stick to them, which may mean finding new clients when you raise your rates.

Similarly, a translator’s source-word rate and target-word rate should be adjusted so that the same document results in (roughly) the same fee, regardless of which billing method is used.

If I dare say, translators who consider themselves professionals AND businesspeople really need to devote time to analyzing their own metrics so that they can price accordingly. If you as a translator are making *less* money when billing hourly than you are when billing per word, then you need to increase your hourly rate to match.

One important thing for translators to realize as well in terms of pricing is that you must be prepared to say no to a client that does not want to pay your minimum rates. It may be hard (at first), but actually clients respect translators more whose minimum rates stay firm–it speaks to your self-confidence as a translator and as a business person. It also stops you from being in the terrible situation of having said yes to a job at a very low rate and then being too busy to accept the next offer of a job at a very high rate.

So, again: adjust your pricing so that no matter the billing mechanism so that your rate is covering your salary and your overhead (health insurance, software upgrades, etc.), and never say yes to jobs priced below that pricing. (Unless you’re donating your time to charity or something.)

I once heard a story of a woman who asked a famous painter to draw a painting for her. He said he would charge her $3,000 and she agreed. In 15 minutes he had drawn a beautiful painting for her, and she turned around and said “I cannot believe you will charge me $3,000 for only 15 minutes of your time”. And he responded: “What you are paying for is the many years that it took so that I can accomplish this in only 15 minutes”.

Très pertinent comme analyse. J’ai moi aussi traité de la question dans Circuit, la revue de l’OTTIAQ, et j’en arrive à des conclusions similaires :
http://pages.infinit.net/flaval/L_auteur/Circuit/TarificationHeure.html .

Votre dernier argument est le plus pertinent pour moi, même s’il est celui qu’il est le plus difficile d’apporter dans un débat public. En fait, je crois même que ces pour cette raison que certains gros fournisseurs d’ouvrage militent pour le tarif à l’heure : ils savent qu’ils paieront ainsi moins cher, car le marché est bizarrement ainsi fait.

J’ajouterais un autre argument corollaire : avec le tarif au mot, le traducteur a naturellement une « augmentation salariale » à mesure qu’il acquiert de l’expérience (car il acquiert de la vitesse). S’il facture à l’heure, il est obligé d’augmenter son tarif régulièrement pour avoir une augmentation de revenu en rapport avec l’amélioration de sa compétence qui lui vient avec l’expérience. C’est une contrainte dont on se passera volontiers!