Integrity Languages

Blog

Category Archives: Business

Replacing interpreters with interpreters who know technology

By: Jonathan Downie    Date: July 13, 2018

Interpreters will not be replaced by technology; they will be replaced by interpreters who use technology – Bill Wood, company founder, DS Interpretation

That quote has become the interpreting equivalent of translators answering “it depends on context” to even the simplest question and agencies asking for “your best rate”. But what does it mean and is it accurate? Even more to the point, why should you care if you are buying interpreting?

The “undeniable facts” of interpreting technology

The impulse behind the quote that started this post seems to be these five “undeniable facts”:

  • After a slow start, new technologies are now filtering into interpreting and shaping work,
  • And they will continue to do so,
  • Those who learn how to use the technologies to their benefit and to the benefit of their clients gain a first mover advantage in the marketplace,
  • Those who lag behind are in danger of having out-dated business models that will not survive after everyone clambers to get on the high-tech bandwagon,
  • Therefore, it is a good business strategy to learn technologies now!

Now, apart from the fact that those facts have been true to some degree at any point in the development of the modern interpreting profession (which is only about 60-70 years old anyway, if we concentrate on conference interpreting), there is plenty of room to debate how far those five assumptions are both accurate and meaningful.

And of course, this still sidesteps the question of  their application to other forms of interpreting. What affects the conference hall might not touch the courts; the difference maker in the doctor’s office might have no effect on the negotiating room.

So, are new technologies changing interpreting? From the point of view of interpreters, yes they are (depending on where and how you work). From the point of view of clients, it remains to be seen. Can clients tell the difference between remote interpreting and in-person interpreting? That remains to be tested. 

Will technologies continue to filter into interpreting? Well, yes but that is practically a truism in any profession. Try to find an accountant who still keeps paper cashbooks or a lawyer who never looks up case law online.

Now what about the first mover advantage and the slow mover disadvantage? As a researcher, I have to say that I have seen absolutely zero objective evidence that interpreters who are adopting any form of technology are seeing any economic advantage (one for a PhD student to study, methinks). And we all know our share of old-school interpreters, who think that being high-tech means accepting contracts by email, yet they still make a packet.

Why People Forecast the Triumph of Interpreting Technology

The famed competitive advantage of adopting technology is a forecast, rather than a reality. We think it will be that way because that forecast serves the purpose of … selling technology. I really don’t think clients care a hoot whether we have a paperless booth or turn up with an armful of vellum scrolls. Results, not techniques, are the order of the day.

There is, of course, the rather more sound economic argument that technologies can increase service availability and so allow more streams of income. That kind of works … until we read research that tells us about video remote sign language interpreters ending up with worse pay and conditions than their in-person colleagues. If there is an economic advantage to that technology, it isn’t being felt by the interpreters. And I doubt it is being seen by the buyers either.

A More Realistic View

Adopting technology for the sake of adopting technology is a really cruddy business strategy. Being smart and adopting technologies that allow you to offer better service levels and products that are better suited to your market is much better.

So maybe the quote should actually be “interpreters will not be replaced by technology but by interpreters who make smart business decisions as to the technologies they adopt.”. Admittedly, that isn’t as good a soundbite. But it is more intellectually honest.

What about buyers?

My advice to buyers is simple. Take a good look at what you are being offered. If you receive a quote with a load of techno-babble you don’t understand, walk away. If, instead, you get chatting with someone who actually cares to find out what you are trying to achieve and sends a quote explicitly showing you how it can be done, you have found the right person.

It’s not about high-tech or low-tech; it’s about getting the right tech to deliver what the buyer wants. And if that means vellum scrolls this week and shiny apps the next, so be it. The interpreting world is too complex for short quips to sum it up.

 

When You Only See Giants

By: Jonathan Downie    Date: June 16, 2018

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
– Hamlet (1.5.167-8), Hamlet to Horatio

The world is dominated by the power and the discourse and the strategies of the giants. In every field, a relatively small number of multinationals strut to the front of the stage and render every other struggling, striving business mere bit part players. We might think that, but we would be wrong.

Take the events industry. As in every industry, there are huge corporates, constantly vying for attention. Faced with this power, what do the smaller entities do? They specialise, they innovate, the offer unparalleled customer service. They break the rules and the create experiences that leave clients desperate for more.

Here in the UK, there are a handful of giant High Street banks. But their hegemony is under threat, not because of regulation or legislation but by a new generation of nimble, responsive small banks. Faced with the power of the banking giants, these smaller entities are specialising, innovating, offering unparalleled customer service.

The story repeats in so many industries.

And yet, in translation and interpreting, an industry that is, by any measure, actually dominated by the individual supplier, the sole trader and the micro boutique agency, there is still the temptation to focus on the will and might of the giants, who are far fewer and who, despite all their strutting on the stage, are still at the whim of the individual translator and interpreter.

Take the research of Common Sense Advisory into the “Language Services Market”. To even qualify to take part in their survey, an entity must have “two or more full-time employees, a minimum level of revenue that varies by country, and visible market activity” (The Language Services Market:
Research Methodology 2018).

It may be a neat methodological trick to make the research more manageable but it is deeply problematic. Excluding the individual freelancer means explicitly leaving out the people who are adding the most value across the industry and deliberately sidelining any data and ideas produced by the most flexible, creative and innovative part of the industry.

(Only a real cynic would point out that the segment of the language services market surveyed corresponds almost perfectly with the target market likely to pay for any reports sold.)

The problem with only seeing the giants is that the giants don’t see everything. Go to any conference for professional translators and interpreters and within five minutes, you will notice a trend for the more experienced and more highly skilled translators and interpreters to push for their own direct clients, ignoring precisely the entities who would qualify for the CSA survey. Go to events aimed at interpreting buyers and you will discover that there actually seems to be a shortage of specialists able to deliver when it really matters.

There may well be large multinational corporations hungry to get millions of words translated quickly with minimum cost, but equally there are companies now publicly saying that they only want to work with freelancers directly. There are big companies looking to leverage the power of neural machine translation but there are others still looking for pure human creativity. There are companies hungry for remote, on-demand interpreting and there are others for whom carefully organised in-person meetings still matter. To only see one side and not the other is to risk being blind-sided.

It may be hard to capture the trends and innovation of individual freelancers but the long-standing work of professional associations such as ITI, CIoL and by researchers across the world shows that it is by no means impossible. The biggest barrier is will, not skill.

No-one who wants to know a sector can or should ignore the work of its giants. No-one who carries out market surveys can or should ignore the trends among those creating the work that powers the market. You don’t get to know a market by ignoring any side of it.

This is why I am deeply cynical of any forecasts that this or that technology will render prior art obsolete. Markets are too complex for that and clients to heterogeneous. This is why I am deeply suspicious of any market report that excludes individual suppliers. This is why I would love to speak at a forum aimed at the giants of translation and interpreting and explain the world to them from the perspective of an individual consultant.

This is why I am deeply cynical now of any research that only takes note of the views of companies above a certain revenue level. Because right here, in the land of the small fry and the one-person band, that’s where the energy is.

Signs of a GDPR Fakespert

By: Jonathan Downie    Date: April 26, 2018

Hello and welcome to the 2018 edition of The Millenium Bug. Today, we will be looking at GDPR fakesperts. What’s a fakespert? If an expert is someone who makes their money off the back of having real knowledge of a subject and helping people make effective decisions, a fakespert is someone whose only skills involve repacking generic advice into mega-courses, only available if you sign up for their mailing list (and pay £99.95).

With GDPR coming into force across the EU in May, there has been plenty of scope for real experts to make their mark (thank you Information Commissioner’s Office here in the UK) and for fakesperts to don their shiniest suits and sell their stuff.

How do you tell the difference? Here is a rather cheeky guide to what to look for in a GDPR fakespert.

  • Fakesperts conspicuously don’t mention availability of ICO guidance 

The first sign of a fakespert is that the sell themselves as the be-all-and-end-all, fountain of knowledge and never, ever mention their sources. Here in the UK, anyone who doesn’t mention that the best and fullest information is found on the ICO website is likely a fakespert. The real experts will mention the ICO and sell their services as distilling the screeds of ICO advice into simple, easy-to-apply practices for your business.

  • The closest they have ever been to SARs is feeling out of breath once

This is a bit of a data protection in-joke. An SAR (Subject Access Request to give it its Sunday name) is a request filed by someone who wishes to know what personal information an organisation holds on them. At the moment, they cost £10 in the UK and, depending on the organisation can cost much, much more to actually do.

If someone has never seen, much less had to manage SARs, it is likely that their expertise in data protection law and GDPR is more theoretical than practical. Even though SARs are thankfully rare, you probably want someone who has had the “joy” of helping a company through the existing legislation to help you through the new rules.

  • Until last week, they thought the ICO were the people who ran the Olympics 

A proper GDPR expert will know the name of the organisation responsible for data protection in your country and will definitely be familiar with their materials and guidance. If, for example, they get them mixed up with the governing body of an event where people win medals for the marathon, they will not be helpful to you in the long run [pun intended].

  • Their only training is a £29.99 course, which they are now repackaging into a £99.99 expert briefing 

GDPR is complex. It’s principles are relatively straightforward but their application is varied and depends on so many factors that it makes your head spin. Real GDPR experts, even if they haven’t yet led a company through existing requirements, will have spent days trying to get their head round the relevant laws and their application to your country.

The best of the best will already have a background in a role that would have involved expertise in existing legislation. They might be accountants, info security managers, data protection officers, lawyers or something similar. Sometimes, there might be someone in your specific field who has done their homework but it will pay to make sure that they are getting their training from the right places.

  • They are happy to sell you generic advice but won’t even consider coming to your office to help out in person 

A few bullet points with platitudes about “keeping records up-to-date”, “having clear opt-ins” and “getting a good privacy policy” aren’t enough for you to make the right decisions. What might those general principles mean to you? How do they apply in your situation?

It’s likely that you need a helping hand, rather than a teacher’s blackboard. If the most you can get from someone is a smart-looking video and a 5 point plan, keep your credit card in your pocket. At very least, you will need someone who can give you specific answers to you specific questions, even if those answers are “we don’t know yet.”

Just as the Millenium Bug turned semi-decent programmers into megabucks consultants, there is a real danger that GDPR will turn fly-by-night operators into Data Protection Gurus. I am anything but a GDPR expert. I am a consultant interpreter. But together we can make sure that we bypass the fakesperts and spend cash wisely on getting the advice and help that will not only ensure we pass the legal checks but run a much more streamlined, efficient business.

Eventbrite and the Power of User Revolt

By: Jonathan Downie    Date: April 23, 2018

While I was away enjoying the delights of Vienna and the BP18 conference (blog post coming soon), a  storm broke out among events professionals on social media. Here was my first glimpse of it.

Screencapture of Facebook update from Alan Stevens

The upshot was simple: Eventbrite claimed the right to come to any event where their software was used and to film and/or record everything that went on for their own promotional use. In short, the content created at the event belonged to them, not the organisers or the speakers.

Needless to say, when this went public, the events management world went crazy. Within a few days, the #eventbrite hashtag on Twitter was full of complaints, demands for information and competitors showing how their services were better. Yesterday, this response came from their head office account. (Name of tweeter redacted)

Screencapture of tweet from Eventbrite

The offending clauses would noticeably disappear from the terms used in the UK and US.

The users won.

Now that we are beginning to ask tough questions about the power and responsibility of technology companies, this one decision stands out. When users make enough noise, companies do change their practices. A few tweets or posts in the right place and behaviour changes.

Not only does this  story remind us of the power of users, it should serve as a warning to all businesses to respond to client problems before their reputation is threatened. Just because your lawyers told you that your Terms of Service are legally good, that doesn’t mean that they are the right ones for you and your users. So how helpful are your terms?

 

 

Do Monolingual Tech Conferences Make Sense?

By: Jonathan Downie    Date: April 9, 2018

Almost every consultant interpreter will have been told at some point that conferences in tech or medicine tend to be English-only. “Everyone speaks English and interpreting is expensive so we just have the entire conference in English” say some organisers. While it seems to make financial sense, is it a good long-term decision?

Let’s start with a story.

I was interpreting at a negotiation. A French company were trying to get investment in their newest sure-fire, profit-making product. At least one of the two senior managers could have managed in English and the investor had decent enough French, so why did they hire me?

The problem wasn’t so much in terminology, although there were terminological differences, but in culture. The investor came from a culture where the point of a meeting was to quickly dive into the financial detail, especially the profit margins and earnings forecasts. He expected that everyone would want to get straight down to the figures and returns.

The French company were into building relationship, talking history, vision, and extolling the virtues of their community engagement. They needed an interpreter not just because of linguistic differences but to help them navigate the cultural difference.

English-only events exist because there is an assumption that people all know the same terms and so they can communicate perfectly. If the majority of the terms are the same in every language, there is no room for miscommunication, right?

Wrong! Just ask the Italian construction industry experts who fouled up a presentation of their company’s best ever project in front of hundreds of other industry bods because they presented in (broken) English, instead of Italian. Ask the British manufacturing company who almost lost a deal because they defined a word differently to a visiting buyer.

Terminology is just one part of language and often, it is the least relevant part. While it is possible to take the idea too far, it is well-known that different languages have different views of the world. A US company might look at a widget and see three parts to it, a company in Germany might see six. In some cultures, it is absolutely vital to show due respect to your hosts with a flowing, artful thank you at the top of your presentation; in others, that marks you out as a time-waster.

English-only events create an illusion of understanding and implicitly exclude ideas and thinking that don’t fit easily into English-language norms. For that reason English-only tech events block more innovations than they promote. How can machine translation experts learn to create more flexible and useful systems if they work, present and test in largely monolingual environments? Why else would so many companies chase after the low-value market for “instant interpreting on the go“, if not because their founders rarely speak anything but English?

The business case for English-only events is becoming weaker as time goes on. We know that people buy more, are more easily persuaded and learn more if they read and hear in their native language. Could it be that they think better and innovate more in that language too? And if that is the case, could it be that interpreting, rather than being a big expense could be the smartest investment that a company can make?

 

If you are looking at making that investment, this free course is designed to help you get the most out of it. Want advice right away? Drop me an email.

Simultaneous Translation – the need to know guide

By: Jonathan Downie    Date: April 5, 2018

Don’t have time to read long guide before you jump into buying simultaneous translation? Then this is the post for you. Scroll down for five things you need to know about simultaneous translation before you buy it. To make life even easier, scroll right down to the bottom for a link for a free email course, which takes you through all the buying stages and includes free templates and guides to work through.

Ready?

  1. Professionals call simultaneous translation “simultaneous interpreting” or even just use the term “conference interpreting”. Those who offer “simultaneous translation” without any hedging or further explanation tend not to know what they are doing. And when interpreting goes wrong, it goes really wrong.
  2. Simultaneous interpreting is expensive but its results are incredible. Want to be able to persuade several audiences at once and see orders roll in from around the globe? You will need interpreters. Want to make sure that your talk sounds as smooth in French and German as it does in English? Get yourself some simultaneous interpreters.
  3. You can have simultaneous interpreting without interpreting equipment but you probably shouldn’t. Yes, it’s always a bit of a shock to read the quote for the equipment for interpreting. But, unless you want everyone at your event to complain about the pesky whispering people at the back, you will want to hire in the requisite soundproof booths, microphones and headsets.
  4. You don’t have to get interpreters through agencies. One of the biggest changes in the past few years has been the massive shift in interpreter thinking. Excellent professional interpreters are now happy and proud to offer their services directly to you and some will even find the rest of your interpreting team and pull together the AV equipment for you too!
  5. If your business is English-only, you are losing out on deals. This isn’t strictly about interpreting but it certainly justifies it. According to the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Modern Languages here in the UK, UK businesses lose out on £50billion worth of contracts every year due to a lack of language skills. That’s a lot of money to lose, just for the lack of a good interpreting budget.

Want to know how you can hire interpreters the right way every time so you get the most from your budget? Sign up for the Buying Interpreting Step-by-Step course.

The Problem with Remote Interpreting

By: Jonathan Downie    Date: March 20, 2018

[note from the writer]It’s quite rare these days for me to write a post that is not explicitly aimed at potential clients. This one is an exception, although there are lots of things for clients to chew over. All opinions expressed herein are entirely my own.

By the time you read this, the interpreting industry will have had some time to digest the latest move from the leading remote interpreting platforms. We have had product releases and demos, we have had assurances and articles telling us that we had all better sign up now! Now! No, right now! Why haven’t you signed up to be assimilated yet!? Resistance is futile!

And now, in the latest development, which means not much to anyone who isn’t an interpreter, we have the creation of the Interpreting Technologies Alliance (ITA). According to its own website and this press release via Common Sense Advisory, ITA represents a decision by the major Interpreting Delivery Platform providers (that remote interpreting companies to you and me) to work together on “to raise the visibility and credibility of emerging solutions such as remote simultaneous interpreting (RSI) and amplify the presence of interpreting technology in the business community.” That would be marketing and PR then.

There is also a kind of entente agreed between the companies. Here’s another quote from the CSA PR piece:

The six companies agreed to set aside some of the micro differences between their products and interests and instead focus on the common good of pooling resources to develop new market segments. Their main activities will be to jointly engage the private sector and showcase interpreting use cases at industry events and through trade and social media. They also plan a series of joint campaigns to standardize terminology, increase professionalism, educate the market, and raise the capacity of language professionals to meet the needs of the private sector.

On the one hand, it is good to see companies setting aside any rivalries for the greater good but the whole thing opens a few important questions.

First off, why are only technology providers at the table? If the idea is to professionalise the way remote interpreting is delivered (good idea!) and to showcase its uses (again, good idea!) wouldn’t it be good to, you know have some interpreters involved who aren’t on the payroll of any of the big platforms? Or even to invite professionals associations to engage?

The second big question is what exactly is meant by “raise the capacity of language professionals to meet the needs of the private sector”. Since, to quote CSA again remote interpreting has “suffered from a mismatch between product solutions and actual market demand” how do we know that they know any better than currently active interpreters about “meeting the needs of the private sector?” And hold on, aren’t interpreters already doing that and educating each other about that?

The point is that the founding of ITA and its press release so far have simply underlined the longest-standing problem with remote interpreting – it has always been good about generating publicity but its engagement with the supply side, the interpreters, has been patchy. Some companies have done well enough, others have completely missed the boat.

Despite years of development, no-one can say for sure whether remote interpreting is good or bad for quality, good or bad for interpreter physical health, good or bad for interpreter mental health and good or bad for interpreting revenues. That is the main and maybe even the sole message of AIIC’s new position on remote interpreting. We already have burnout issues. Psychologists know that social isolation is a contributing factor to poor mental health outcomes. Might remote interpreting make things even worse? The answer is: we don’t know.

Research on interpreting since the 1990s has shown that in-person interpreted situations across all forms of interpreting are dynamic social environments where interpreters react in real-time to what is said and done. Might remote interpreting break that link and reduce real quality and outcomes? We don’t know.

With unanswered questions like those on the one side and the attempts at shiny PR image-making from remote interpreting tech providers on the other, it is no surprise that many interpreters are sceptical about remote, or at least sceptical about the future of remote interpreting promoted by its most ardent fans.

That’s why, if you get the more astute remote interpreting promoters in a corner and ask them quietly what their biggest challenge is right now, they will tell you that it is still very hard to get experienced, excellent interpreters to sign up. Yes, you get some cheery early adopters. Yes, you can do nice demos. But still, the biggest tension in remote interpreting is on the supply side, not the demand side.

The biggest problem with remote interpreting is interpreters. The tech can be as wonderful as you like. You can even do as much PR and marketing as you like but if you can’t get enough expert interpreters onside, it won’t work. And right now, many experienced expert interpreters are sitting on the fence about remote interpreting, if not swearing off it altogether, at least for settings where we currently work in person. Sadly, the creation of ITA and some of the rather unfortunate language around it has not made things any better.

For remote interpreting clients, the biggest danger will be that the supplier can’t find the high quality interpreter that they need. For remote interpreting platform providers, there will always be a tension between wanting to become a platform that supplies everything, including the interpreters (and thereby appearing like just another agency to interpreters and alienating those who want to get their own clients) and being the platform interpreters choose to use themselves (and thereby making it harder to sell to clients directly).

If the focus of ITA is really driving up standards in remote interpreting and ensuring that the interpreting provided is of high quality, the priority has to be knowledge and real partnership, above fancy stands at tradeshows. Invite interpreting associations to send a “lay member” or three to your board. Fund research that generates real, empirically validated data on the things that matter about remote interpreting. Work with mental health experts on preparing interpreters for the shift you see coming.

Please, for goodness sake, do something more than PR and marketing. The profession deserves much, much more than that!

 

The Day I Made Some Founders Sad

By: Jonathan Downie    Date: March 15, 2018

It all started so well. Two super nice and super enthusiastic founders asked if they could Skype call me to get my opinion on their latest project. As someone who has been known to gripe about people starting companies in the interpreting world without actually having a clue, I was pleasantly surprised and was happy to arrange a time to suit. And then, it all changed.

 

We got the idea from travelling around the world together.

We went to lots of countries where we didn’t know the language and thought “hey, what if you could instantly get an interpreter on your phone at the touch of a button? Then you could chat to literally anyone and get medicine and find directions and lots of stuff like that.”

So, our idea, and you might need to take a minute to take it in, is to build an app where people can get right to an interpreter in any language. It’ll be amazing for travellers and would help interpreters as we are sure there would be lots of work for them. (Cue winning smile). So, what do you think, as an industry expert?

 

Those who know interpreting would have seen hundreds of similar ideas. Very few have any real profile left. In the next twenty minutes or so, I would explain to those nodding start-up founders how the interpreting market works and the reason why so many companies trying to do the same thing have failed.

 

Here it is in a nutshell:

  • The interpreters who are offering excellent interpreting are becoming good businesspeople in their own right. Knowing the true value of their skills has led to them wanting more control over their work. This desire is pushing them to build their own client list consisting of good direct clients and/or established agencies who know the industry well and know how to work with interpreters.
  • This change is prompting a trickle-down effect, where younger and less confident interpreters are beginning to follow the same logic. This is leading in many places to a shortage of qualified/certified/experienced interpreters who are willing and interested in joining platforms for bulk selling their work.
  • There are still many people who are interested in such platforms but they will tend not to have any credentials or serious training. They might be good; they might be poor. The likelihood is that they have never been tested so you can’t know either way.
  • Machine interpreting is almost good enough to take away the need for human interpreters to do the phrasebook “is this the train for Salzburg?” “I have a sore throat” stuff anyway. Basically, if the phrase used to be in those small books you would buy from the airport newsagents before your flight, Google Translate has it sorted.
  • Put this together and you have a perfect storm of massive supply issues and dwindling demand for “on-demand instant human interpreting” for the needs of your typical tourist.

 

By about three-quarters of the way through the call, the smiles had become noticeably more fixed. I really did like these founders. They asked intelligent questions and seemed truly interested in what I had to say.

 

I just wish that they hadn’t chosen the world’s most oversaturated idea for their big business.

 

Before you think that this post is about arrogant self-congratulation, it actually made me realise my own business frailties. At the beginning of my career, I had my sights set on one market and one market alone. I realised that I might not crack it right away so in the meantime, I sold my service through precisely the kind of bulk selling platforms that most green founders think will work for interpreting by app.

 

It’s hard to learn that your marketing and entire business model is flawed. It’s even harder to pick up the pieces and start again. For me, it took a burnout episode and a PhD for the clouds to break. Even now, I am still finessing how I work and how I market.

 

The real lesson of this story is not that start-up founders in interpreting are likely to fail badly unless they ask interpreters first. It isn’t even that the days of finding excellent interpreters on bulk selling platforms of one kind or another are ending. It’s that we all need help and honest feedback, even though it might make us sad. Being sad today is much more beneficial than losing your house tomorrow.

What Does a Consultant Interpreter Actually Do?

By: Jonathan Downie    Date: March 14, 2018

For most businesses who don’t have an HQ in Brussels, Paris or some other city where conference interpreting is ubiquitous, the phrase “consultant interpreter” will seem entirely foreign. So what is one and what can they do for you?

To answer that question, we need to think about how interpreters are traditionally hired. For many companies, hiring an interpreter means sending an email to an interpreting agency with a brief for the event, sending over documents and then waiting for the interpreters to turn up on the day.

There is not a lot obviously wrong with that model and, as I mention in my free Buying Interpreting Step-by-Step course, there are times when going to an interpreting agency is exactly what you need to do.

Yet, there comes a time in many businesses where running international events becomes a regular feature of your work. There might also be occasions where the event is so special or so valuable that you want greater partnership than the traditional agency model can easily provide.

This is where consultant interpreters come in. As both a practising interpreter in their own right and someone who knows how to build specialist interpreting teams, they know how to match your exact needs with interpreters on the market. They will know who is excellent for sales events and who is better in board meetings. Why? Because they will tend to have worked alongside the people they recommend and will have first-hand experience of their strengths and weaknesses.

As well as building you a custom interpreting team, a good consultant interpreter will also have relationships with suppliers of interpreting equipment. That relationship alone could save you hours of frustration!

Lastly, here’s something that few people know. Consultant interpreters really are consultants too. If you have a question about the best order to speeches to keep people awake or the right interpreting equipment or even the best way to address guests from different countries, ask your consultant interpreter. They will have the knowledge and experience to either answer those questions themselves or find you the right person to answer them.

 

Now that you have seen what a consultant interpreter can do, isn’t it time you chatted with one? Drop me an email using the contact form for a free Skype chat to see how working with a consultant interpreter could super-charge your business.

Should suppliers pay to speak at tradeshows?

By: Jonathan Downie    Date: February 26, 2018

In the past year I have been invited to speak at two different, but equally prestigious tradeshows. Both attract an audience of my ideal clients and both are free to attend. But my invite to speak came with a catch, the organisers would love to have me speak … if I were only to purchase a stand at the event.

Now, let’s put this in context. As one lovely salesperson at one of those events made clear to me, the “buy a stand to speak” rule mostly applies to suppliers, especially “niche” ones. If you are a buyer or have already made your name, the floor is yours. If your business is in making buyers’ lives more comfortable and more successful, come with cash in hand, please.

Honestly, it is understandable. The truth is that suppliers go to tradeshows with selling in mind and the Return on Investment at any of these shows should easily outstrip the initial investment. Notice the “should“.

There are never any guarantees. Personally, I have seen some sessions at tradeshows where the speaker has obviously done everything they could to attract an audience (and probably paid a big chunk of their annual marketing budget for a stand) only to end up speaking to about three people, one of whom thought this was another session and only stayed because they were British.

And of course, if you are a smaller supplier, the likelihood is that your time in the limelight (if speaking to three people and a few moths can be seen as the limelight) means that noone is there on your stand. What you gain on the possibility of landing new business through speaking, you are losing in opportunity cost.

While I understand the underlying mathematics and logic of linking buying a stand with speaking, the speaker and buyer in me is growing sceptical. As a speaker, I know for sure that a need to sell will kill any talk and, if you have paid significant sums to speak, it will be tough to erase the need to sell from your presentation. Few speakers manage it and so encouraging a “buy a stand to do a talk” model is probably not in the interests of any tradeshow audience, who are there to learn, not to get the hard sell.

As a buyer (and yes I have looked to buy from companies I have met a tradeshows), I really want to see education and selling treated separately. Yes, buyer education is part of the sales process but I personally walk away from any presentation where the two get confused.

If you learn something from someone, you may wish to buy from them. But there is a difference between going to a talk to learn and meeting them with the intent to buy.

I am sure that there are lots of success stories of business people laying out the cash to speak at tradeshows and seeing success. But I have yet to read one on the website of any show. I am sure that there are cases of the pay-to-speak system opening paths for speakers who wouldn’t normally have even gotten near the stage at a big show. But again, I have yet to read one. And I wonder how many excellent speakers it is actively putting off.

Instead, I have read several speakers write rather bluntly and disparagingly about the practice. I have come across stories of people deciding not to attend a show at all when they found out that paying for a stand was a route to getting a speaking slot. I know of one show which saw less footfall last year and can’t help wonder if their “buy a stand to speak” policy had something to do with it.

As a trained researcher, I have to go with the data and at the moment, I haven’t seen any data that shows me that “buy a stand to speak” is in the interests of speakers, their audience or the bottom-line. I would love to see such data. But for now, if I am invited to speak, I will reflexively check if I have to buy a stand. And if I have to buy a stand, I will simply walk away, knowing that there are other, less financially onerous ways to get excellent content to potential clients, especially with excellent organisations, such as Hashtag Events, showing that the practice is anything but universal.