This topic started out as a Twitter discussion earlier this week, and I’m hoping that the translators who contributed there will join in here too! At the recent ATA conference, there was a lot of buzz about how translators should charge; not just the actual amounts, but whether it’s better to charge by the word, by the hour or by the project. So here’s a starter post to get the discussion going! It’s also worth noting that a post on the same topic that I wrote way back in 2008 is still one of the most popular posts on this blog, so clearly it’s a timeless topic! Here we go:
- Charging by the word still seems to be the norm in our industry, at least in the agency market. On the plus side, if you charge by the source word count, everyone knows in advance exactly how much the translation is going to cost (down to the penny) before the project starts. Also, per-word billing favors more experienced and more specialized translators who are thus faster at their work, and encourages translators to incorporate productivity-enhancing technology into their work flow. On the minus side, per-word billing makes translation seem like commoditized piecework: we’re not selling a solution, we’re selling a bucket of words. Clients may argue (down to the penny) about unnecessary words, discounted words, and so on. Per-word billing also discourages translators from doing thorough and time-consuming research, because if we’re not typing, we’re not earning.
- Charging by the hour seems to be gaining steam in the industry. Translators have historically charged by the hour for tasks like editing and proofreading, but now there’s a lot of talk about charging by the hour for translation too. During her preconference seminar at ATA, respected freelance translator Chris Durban noted that most direct clients are accustomed to paying for professional services (lawyers, accountants, marketing consultants, web designers) by the hour. Billing by the hour favors translators who work slowly because they are very thorough, and allows time for reading background material or doing in-depth research. But billing by the hour has its downsides: for whatever reason, most translation agencies seem to be resistant to paying an outright hourly rate that corresponds to what translators make when they bill by the word. For example, a translator earning 15 cents per word and producing 500 finished words per hour is effectively earning $75 per hour, well beyond the hourly rate that most translators report earning for tasks such as editing or proofreading. Billing by the hour also introduces the question of what is billable…phone time? e-mail time? FedEx time? revisions? And unless you have a very good handle on your translation speed for every document, or your clients will agree to start the project without a binding quote, it can be hard to know exactly how to estimate a given job.
- Then we’ve got the third way: billing by the project. Billing by the project with no breakdown of words or hours isn’t out of the question (it’s what I do with the majority of my direct clients). This method has the advantage of allowing the translator to tweak the per-word or per-hour rate without a lot of fanfare. It also gives the client one number to focus on: no worry about words, hours, is this translator fast or slow compared to other people, etc. The obvious disadvantage is that the translator is locked in to the fixed bid; there’s no wiggle room if the project takes twice as long as expected.
Now, over to you!
Hi Corinne,
Good idea to revisit charging options.
A per hour rate is usually recommended for post editing work, in order to reflect the time involved in reworking MT. However, I’ve recently been testing MemSource and noticed that it offers a post-editing analysis of the target text to see how much the MT has been changed on a segment-by-segment basis. I haven’t seen the results yet, but it looks like an interesting new alternative billing post-editing work.
http://wiki.memsource.com/wiki/Post-editing_Analysis
Emma
Hi Emma,
I’m curious: how, exactly, is this an “alternative” billing method?
I may have misunderstood, but regardless of the percentage of (non-)matches, there is still a *time* element involved. That is, a 50% match for an extremely tricky bit of conceptual text is nothing like a 50% match where the only changes are dates, numbers and so on. So you would still be working on a unit-of-time basis, no? Just wondering.
If I recall correctly, MemSource calculates an edit distance between the MT proposal and the post-edited text, and assigns a percentage of match, in a post-task analysis. So I do not think the “time” it actually took is considered but the number of changes that the translator made. I think it is a good idea because if a translator does not use the MT proposal and translates from zero, then he or she will receive full payment, but if the MT proposal is used, he or she will receive a payment proportional to what they have done. There are many issues with this as well (as payment is linked to what the translator decides to edit and not necessarily to correcting errors) but I think it addresses an issue with up-front discounts on MT proposals.
Hi Chris,
Actually, dates and numbers are the things that MT usually gets right, so a 50% match would almost always show that considerable rewriting has taken place. Post-editing rates by percentage of change should reflect the work involved and it’s up to the translator to make sure he or she gets a fair “fuzzy” rate. So, you’re right, at the end of the day post-editing analysis does work on a unit-of-time basis. As Ana G points out, the innovative side of this billing method lies in solving the problem of agreeing on a rate for post-editing before you’ve done the job.
I should mention that I haven’t actually tested this as I don’t do post-editing work. I read about the feature in the manual when I was doing a project for the first time with MemSource last month and I blogged about this experience here: http://signsandsymptomsoftranslation.com/2012/11/09/memsource/
Emma
Hi Corinne,
I certainly opt for the third alternative, since the word, hour, line, page etc. tend to break everything down into commoditised units. However, why not have a look around and see how professionals in comparable industries fare, i.e. charge. Branches where the individual counts. Take writers, journalists, photographers, designers, etc. I don’t think they are keen on finding a common denominator for their pricing policies. Actually, there might be no common denominator. Differentiation (specialisation, individual skills, experience, etc.) is the key. Quote a price based on standardized unit, and the only variable you can control is the per unit price (which you will probably have to defend, bringing forward all kinds of arguments (quality, skills, experience, specialisation, etc.). So, if you are sure that you deliver quality, don’t let the price decide.
Valerij
Hi Corinne:
Good topic, as always.
1. I think that saying that if you translate 500 words per hour at 15 cents per word, you make 75 dollars an hour, is somewhat misleading because then you have to proofread it, prepare an invoice, and before you get the job, you often have to prepare a bid, etc.
So the translator would probably really make something like 50 dollars an hour if you count the necessary tasks that are included in a simple calculation.
2. I sometime slightly underestimate on purpose the word count in order to underbid the competition if it is a potential project from a new potential customer. If I do get the job, the customer will next time usually ask only for one bid, namely mine, and I don’t have to underestimate the next bid anymore. I assume that other people do this as well.
So in this case it’s really bidding by the project when the price is based on word count estimated from PDF files, which is what I usually deal with. Of course, this is not a technique that will work for a broker who will be billed by the translator for the real word count.
3. I read somewhere that agencies are now trying to bill separately for translation and other additional tasks, such as proofreading and formatting.
I wonder to what extent it is true.
Well, first of all, “context is everything” and I think this is no exception! The best billing method completely depends on the nature (size, scope, topic, complexity, deadline, etc…) of the project. The biggest pressure upon immediately receiving a potential project is to properly analyze its complexity, and therefore estimate an appropriate rate. If it’s a simple text, there’s less research required, less time required, and this can easily be factored into the per-word rate.
In the case of relatively straightforward translation of a text, I personally prefer the first method, billing per word.
It’s maybe a subjective personality thing – but I like to know very clearly what something will cost beforehand (I like to see prices on items in menus or articles in stores). If my bank charges me $4 for something, I want to know why.
So I like to provide that transparency to a potential client. It clarifies things for me too – it encourages me that I’m being compensated for my productivity (as well as my quality and professionalism, of course). I don’t mind discounts for repetitions because using CAT tools, they are indeed less work per word.
That said – when quoting for a project, I don’t only quote a rate, I also quote a delivery. I’m already estimating the amount of time it will take. So in essence, all three methods are almost interchangeable.
1000 word project at 500 words/hour = $0.15/word = $75/hour = $150/project
The choice of which I present to the specific client depends on my relationship with them and on their preference. Even if I were to quote by project without a breakdown, it’s obviously still based on calculated estimates, and I just prefer showing the justification upfront.
If the project involves other non-translation work – editing, formatting, other obscure time-consuming client requests – I am happy to quote them accordingly. The honest “nothing-to-hide” method is what has worked best for me so far.
But that’s just my story, in the market segment I work in – and other translators obviously have other methods which work better for them. But I don’t think it really makes one method unilaterally better than the other.
I’m definitely more for per word quoting than per hour.
However as Marc R. has said above I think it depends on specific clients. In my experience direct clients (as opposed to agencies) prefer billing per project. If sending a quote to a direct client I normally use my per-word rate as a basis on which to calculate and I take it from there depending on a number of factors. For example this week I had a rush job which also needed work on the source text before I could use it in my CAT tool. I quoted an undetailled but total project price to the client (taking into account the extra work and rush factor) and the end result was that I more than doubled my normal per-word rate.
Thanks Corinne! The per project quote seems very attractive to freelancers. I am interested to see more input from people who charge per project, to see how they calculate the project fee, and if they break it down and explain how they came to the price to the customers. In the (rare) occasions I work for a direct client I also quote a total, per project, price. However, this price is based on a per word rate that is much higher than my normal per word rate and includes proofreading my a second translator.
All quotes I have given do not include research time and editing time per se, but it is something I always do. Just like “patenttranslator” mentioned above, the actual per hour earnings include the per word rate, translation time, research time and proofreading and editing time.
When working for agencies, the per hour rate they accept is usually lower than the rate per word, spread out over the time it takes to do the job even when I include research and proofreading. Also, the agencies usually give me a fixed expected time to complete the job in.
My questions to all who are reading are: What do you include in a project quote and how do you calculate the project fee?
if you charge per hour, do you include time for research, formatting, editing as extra hours in the quote? Do you use a tool to keep track of time spent?
I would especially like to see more agencies give their input on this discussion.
Incidentally, I read a blog post this morning about hourly rates versus fixed rate for freelancers on “Creative Freelancer Blog” here: http://www.creativefreelancerblog.com/designers/freelance-pricing-hourly-rate-vs-fixed-fee/
Thanks for the link, Tess. Once again (journalists, designers, photo models and all creative industries aside), if you need to take your car for repair, would you like the mechanic to present your an itemised list of spare parts, hour fee, etc., or do you feel more comfortable to know the final price you have to pay? It’s probably different when you work for agencies (what I almost never do). Look at it like your client would. It certainly depends…
Hi everyone! (I’m new to the blog)
Here in Germany, billing per post-translation standard line (e.g. 50 chars not including blanks / 60 including blanks etc.) seems to be most common, at least in my line (technical/scientific/advertising).
The advantage of post-translation counting is that you can easily
– give the customer a discount if you notice repetition, or
– increase the final sum if the customer piles on some “forgotten sections”,
without irritating the accounting department (“hey, this was a fixed price!”).
I only charge per hour if it’s proofreading or checking (other people’s work) or perhaps itty-bitty stuff like captions or tables.
Standard-line billing has the advantage over per-word billing that — especially when you are translating languages like German that may or may not have very long words, depending on subject matter (all those big words in technical/scientific texts — it is fair to both translator and customer: you get paid for what you do, clients pay for what they get!
Following on from the Twitter discussion too… To Tess’s question >if you charge per hour, do you include time for research, formatting, editing as extra hours in the quote? Do you use a tool to keep track of time spent?< Yes and Yes. I use Clocking It (free) but there are many out there.
I quote per job for all direct clients and increasingly for some agencies as well. To do this, I look at volume, file format, difficulty, and estimate how long it will take me. For repeat jobs, I use data on previous jobs to help. I always quote a round number, to avoid looking like a piece worker. Even for agencies I round when I quote. Note that this means I can raise my rates without them noticing.
If I underestimate (and if I know it, because I’m tracking time properly–there are some jobs where I don’t set up a time clock) then I make less than I should have and I know for next time. Regarding time, I only pay attention to major discrepancies. A one-hour difference after a two-week job could come or go based on how tired I am, not just on how hard pinning down a term was.
I charge hourly for all editing-related work but I don’t like hourly quotes very much. I have to track time and can’t juggle tasks (my natural style) as easily. My hourly rate is the same for everything. It’s about time I raised it, I realize as I write this. 🙂 Some translation companies do balk at my hourly rate, and they go elsewhere, but hey, I have enough work at this rate. I need to raise my rate, not worry about those companies that don’t like it.
One company owner said on Twitter than freelancers are the ones saying they don’t want paid per hour: I’m not that surprised. Per hour jobs punish time wasting and make us more aware of our bad habits: ten minutes here and there emailing my mum or commenting on a blog or reading the news add up.
On the point made on Twitter and by Corinne that many experienced translators feel they can’t charge per hour what they would earn per word in an hour, shouldn’t more of us stand up and say that we are earning these higher numbers per hour? And know our overall number including non-billable time? Maybe if our clients realized this they would stop looking askance when we quote higher numbers.
Hi everyone
Like Eugen I’m also new to the blog.
It does depend on the type of client that you’re dealing with (i.e. agency or direct). When working with direct clients, I find that they prefer a project price. Whilst in the quote that you give them there will be a breakdown (price per word, proofreading etc.), they’re main concern is the overall price. If you know or believe that they’re getting prices elsewhere, it’s then important to follow up the quote to see if they’re happy with it. If they say that the price is not as competitive as an other translator, I don’t think there is anything wrong with asking what the price difference is. Then, if for example you’re $50 more on a $1000 project, rather than explaining why your service is $1000, tell them what they get for $50 when they use you instead of a competitor (experience, qualifications, quality, second proofreader etc.).
I think that most business are not keen on paying per hour when it comes to external services. Particularly with larger companies, in my experience financial departments want others in the business to give them upfront costs for goods/services/materials. Everyone works within a budget all year round, and it’s hard to budget for services if you use professionals working on hourly rates. If a document needs to be translated, the person at the end client that signs off the expenditure usually wants to know an exact cost, which is hard to give when using professionals who give an hourly rate. In my opinion, they are much more likely to go for a translator that gives an agreed project quotation.
Excellent Karen! Thanks!
Hi Corinne,
Great post, interesting comments as always. I find it that, particularly with direct customers, they like the idea of being charged per project because that way they know right away what’s it going to cost them. I think it is a good idea to work out a rate per page of translation and then, based on that, calculate the project fee. When it is a small project, a page or two, I would charge my set minimum fee. I am quite new to the industry so it is very interesting to see how more experienced translators deal with these issues.
Malgorzata Stich-Silva
I always bill by word for translations simply because I find it the easiest and most transparent.
What I find increasingly more and more challenging is how to handle advantages (to me) thanks to a translation memory and increasing know and hence increasing speed in translations. Some clients are now aware that there is such a thing as a TM and hence want to decrease what they pay the translator. Fair enough in some ways, but then at the same time, I have spent years honing my skills and knowing my subject matters and the “repetitions” (i.e. my know-how in a way) are worth next to nothing.
It’s the way it’s heading and I would like to hear how others are handling this. Great blog btw, so glad to have found this.
Hi Corinne,
I nowadays prefer to stay away from discussions on blogs and translation sites because I am a very angry person right now. However I wanted to ask you about your statement “a translator earning 15 cents per word and producing 500 finished words per hour is effectively earning $75 per hour”. I would like to know who earns 15 cents per hour (I have never been offered that much) and who produces 500 FINISHED words per hour. By “finished” I understand “translated and reviewed”; I honestly do not see how anyone can do that. I obtained my university degree in Legal and Literary Translation 36 years ago, have been working ever since, offer top quality but never got that kind of money or managed to have such output. And have had no work at all for a month and a half.
Thank you for this post, Corinne!
It is very easy and straightforward when working with agencies — they always ask my price per source word and there is no any flexibility. Though when working with direct clients I try to give them what they want and in most cases they ask for a flat per project quote.
Most of my clients will want it on a per project level too. Personally, I like hourly but it is sooo hard to steer them away. Does anyone have any advice on how to convince them otherwise?
About charging by the word, clients (some clients) really will argue down to the penny about unnecessary words and discounted words like you say, but these will be the same clients who will argue about any other way you decide to charge them. I’m convinced charging by the word is still the best way to go.
As somebody said, the arguers-down-to-the-penny ye shall always have with you. Which is a good reason for highly skilled translators to move up and on — to market segments where texts (and their impact) are so important that price is not really a factor. Preferably where clients have been burned by sub-par translations.
Hi Corinne,
I read this entry with interest and thought that (if you don’t mind) I would offer my thoughts on this coming from working in an agency. =) From our experience, our clients by *far* prefer either a per word rate or a per project rate. A charge per hour is normally offered for ‘other’ services such as DTP, CMS entry, keyword research for SEO etc. In my personal opinion (it might be worth noting here that I also work as a freelancer on occasion) ‘per word’ is clearer (with ‘per project’ rates for smaller ‘minimum charge’ projects), and discounts for repetitions are easier to apply and more transparent for both the freelancer and the end-client.
I could imagine that charging per hour for a translation, as far as an agency is concerned, would potentially severely restrict the deadlines we would be able to offer our freelancers. For example, anything up to a 2,500 word document is given an *estimated* time of one working day for completion, but a client will not want to pay for 24 hours of translation – payment per hour would perhaps only work for freelancers who are working with a direct client.
Very occasionally we have worked with translators who charge per ‘target word’, this can be a bit of a nightmare which we avoid if possible and I would be interested to hear people’s opinions on this method of charging =)
Thanks!
Michela
thanks Corinne, it’s a great post !
Hello Corinne and colleagues. I followed this topic on Twitter, but just now found the blog post.
It seems to me that most of the posters (including myself) take the same factors into account when quoting a price as per Karen Tkaczyk’s comment. Based on this information (volume, turnaround time, difficulty, special formatting, etc.), we figure how much we should earn for the project and quote that price to the potential client.
What is different is how we express that price to the asker, whether in words, hours or a flat-rate for the project. Yet these essentially amount to the same thing: the client sees what the job will cost. (Here I am assuming that those who bill per hour commit to a certain number of hours that the job requires.)
Personally, I quote translation jobs on a per-word basis, but the per-word rate varies depending on the factors mentioned above and others as I almost never quote a job without seeing the document. In the presence of a factor such as lots of tedious formatting, non-editable text or a particularly challenging subject matter requiring more research, I would tack X cents onto my per-word rate. (I could also deduct Y cents from my per-word rate for big volume, high rate of repetition or very long turnaround time.) This is how I account for the extra time required for certain types of jobs.
Similarly, a provider who charges by the hour could account for these same special circumstances by adding hours to their quote. A translator who charges per project would raise the project cost. So why does the billing unit matter? I say what is more important is ensuring that we are fairly (dare I say well?) compensated for the time we spend on our work (lots of good tips on that here on the blog and in the comments).
As for the clients, assuming that they receive firm quotes on project cost, whether it is expressed as a lump sum or broken down into words or hours), they will be able to compare costs across potential providers. Then it is up to each of us to explain our services and our value added to help them make the right choice!
p.s. There is a second topic running through these comments. Note that I used the phrasing “produce words in translation”. Some posters have mentioned additional time for research, revision or proofreading as being separate from the translation task, but I would argue that this is all part of our production process. My philosophy is summarized in what Tess Whitty wrote in her comment: “All quotes I have given do not include research time and editing time per se, but it is something I always do.” As it should be.
Hi Corinne,
Thank you for sharing your ideas! I’m really interested in this topic. I’m both a translator, a proofreader of Russian and a customer of several LSPs and I’ve always wondered about those who charge per hour, proofreaders for instant. What bothers me is how I (as a customer) can be sure that the vendor really needs 4 hours to do the job, not 3 or 2, and what if they simply lie about the time needed? If we are talking about photographers or dentists, you can see how much time exactly they’ve spent with you, but a freelance translator works somewhere else an I can’t control how they spend their time. I realize that different types of text require different amount of time and effort, but I prefer to be given a per word rate because this is something solid. If the text is more difficult to deal with than usual, we can discuss it with the vendor and agree on a higher rate. I also don’t like those who charge per ‘target word’ for the same reason: unscrupulous people can artificially add more words to the translated text.
It’s really interesting reading everyone’s views on this subject as it is something we negotiate with translators everyday.
I have to say that a per word rate is always favoured in our company as this is the way we charge our clients. All of the linguists I’ve worked with have always been happy with this method.
Whilst the majority of our linguists are extremely trustworthy, we just can’t take the risk of agreeing to hourly rates as this may encourage translators to take longer than necessary, just to earn more money! It would also make it extremely difficult to put quotations together for clients before consulting with translators.
Having a set rate for a project works well with some translators, especially when negotiating per word rates. If for example a translator wanted 7p per word and we could only afford 6p for that particular project it can sometimes be easier to meet in the middle with a set rate.
Personally I prefer to agree set rates for proofreading jobs in particular, as some linguists prefer to charge per source word, others prefer per target word and others prefer hourly rates. With a set rate we can agree a rate which we’re all happy with.
I look forward to reading more opinions on this subject.
Hey, So here is a situation that I would like to hear about. I translate for a school district they pay me 25 per hour, 1 hour minimum. What i do is the following. In my mind i charge .10 cents per word so what I do is if there is a 1000 word project I divide that by 10 (10 cents per word) . That gives me 100. then divide that by 25 ( 25 dollars per hour) that gives me 4, so I multiply 4 x 25 = 100 4 hours. so I charge 4 hours for the project.
I am looking for the fairest way to do this. Thansk for your help if you would like you can email me at extrafuntoall@gmail.com Thanks
Just came across this page when looking at how professionals around the world bill their work and decided to drop in and say a bit more than just “Hi!”, though we can start with that 🙂
My first suggestion, and an emphatic one, is to forget about hourly billing for nuts and bolts translation/revision work. There is a resource in the market called machine translation, and while the quality is appalling (though some people calling themselves ‘translators’ manage to be worse) and likely to remain so for the rest of my lifetime, it is a free service that is almost instantaneous. On the basis of 2 out of 3 criteria we are doomed to looking very bad indeed, so our dealings all have to be based on the one criterion where most of us win easily – the quality! So keep time out of it (except in the matter of determining a reasonable deadline); it’s bad enough that we have to compete on price with a free service!
When it comes to pricing per word, I prefer to charge for the delivered translation, not the original document, and that includes all words removed and added, so we’re not caught out by clients who like to alter the content during the process. Like Eugen, I feel this is a better reflection of the work we have put into the job. But we have to resist the temptation to pad it out – not only may it cost us a client, but it is dishonest!
Another method that has long been a tradition here in Brazil is to charge per ‘lauda’, a standard page comprising 1250 characters with spaces (equivalent to between 180 and 195 words), again based on the delivered volume, whenever possible. Some clients use different lauda volumes, so one must always check before closing the deal. It’s a lot better than ‘per page’, which some people still try to use (“It’s only a page!”). I once got ‘one page’ that had been scanned from a newspaper at a significantly reduced size – it came to 17 laudas when it had been translated. Fortunately I had insisted on payment per lauda!!!