Integrity Languages

Blog

Category Archives: Tech

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.

 

The problem with receiving interpreting via mobile apps

By: Jonathan Downie    Date: June 4, 2018

We are all getting used to doing everything online. As a father of three (with one on the way), it is hard to explain just how important online shopping, online flight check-in and online travel booking have become. Yet, for all the leaps we have seen in technology, there are some things that should really stay offline.

Take high-level meetings. For all the deserved concern about the environmental costs of transport, it is still pretty normal to see a businessman from New Zealand fly to mainland Europe to discuss a deal with a company whose representatives might come from different ends of the same country.

Despite Skype and Telegram and Whatsapp, the big, important meetings still take place in person. There’s just something about being in a room together that makes a difference. And there is something about the security of knowing that no-one outside that room can hear what is going on.

For important meetings, privacy and security are a huge concerns. That’s why interpreters sign Non-Disclosure Agreements. That’s why, as a consultant interpreter, I have a public key so I can receive encrypted files. That’s why, for the moment at least, I would recommend that clients keep with the tried-and-tested system of receiving simultaneous interpreting via an infrared (IR) setup and eschew receiving interpreting via mobile phone apps.

This recommendation holds even if every other part of the interpreting process is carried out following best practice.

It’s not that the technology isn’t impressive. It is still amazing that we can and do beam high-quality sound (like podcasts) across continents and can use Wi-Fi networks for sending interpreting and receiving output. But, for meetings where security is a concern, you just can’t beat the advantages of the traditional IR setup. How so?

Unlike Wi-Fi, the traditional setup requires proprietary equipment. It sounds old-school but if the only way to hear the interpreting is with a headset that you get from the sound guy, only people who talk to the sound guy can get a headset. That instantly makes things more secure and, as anyone who has used traditional interpreting equipment will tell you, the signal simply does not leave the room. If you go out of the line of sight of the transmitter, you lose signal. What sounds like a restriction ensures that your meeting is secure.

Since the headsets are dedicated to a single use, they tend to do well at keeping their charge all day. Compare that to any mobile phone, which your delegates will use to listen to the interpreting, check their email, update Facebook and so on, and the difference is clear. For mobile apps to be feasible, the event will need LOTS of mobile phone charging points. Very modern but pretty pricey.

Having delegates receive interpreting through an app also means that you lose control of the security of the feed. Not only is it hard work for the tech to receive, encrypt, broadcast, decrypt and play the signal in real-time (so it is tempting to skip the encryption and decryption parts) but you can’t guarantee what else might be on the mobiles used by your delegates. You simply can’t tell what security risks they are carrying.

The solution might be to  hand out dedicated mobile phones that you have configured. That comes with its own costs means that you will suddenly have lots of internet-enabled devices to maintain, update, fix, and teach delegates to use. That’s before you take account of delegates having special needs that they have setup their own devices to cope with.

As with remote interpreting, the problems with receiving interpreting using the internet are mostly not technical but psychological and behavioural. Even if the tech for receiving interpreting over app was 100% secure, there are too many other variables for it to be an ideal solution for any meeting where security is a concern, at least for the time being.

 

Skills to Learn before you Learn to Code

By: Jonathan Downie    Date: May 7, 2018

With Event Technology, Neural Machine Translation and Remote Simultaneous Interpreting are all vying for publicity, we would be forgiven or thinking that the only choice is between jumping on the high-tech bandwagon and living in a shack on the plains. Many authorities have pleaded for all children to learn to code. The logic is simple, you are either learning how to handle data or you are just part of the data. But might there be a flaw in that logic?

Why Tech Fails

As much as the innovators would never admit it to their angel investors, history is littered with tech that went nowhere. To the well-known flops of laserdiscs and personal jetpacks can be added the expensive failures of nuclear-powered trains and boats and the hundreds of “instant translation” websites that promised to leverage the “power of bilinguals”. Just because a tech exists, that doesn’t mean it will actually make a meaningful difference, just ask the inventor of the gyrocopter.

While the stories of some technologies are unpredictable, there are others where it was clear that there as too wide a gap between what the engineers could do and what the market actually would accept. Take nuclear powered ships. While nuclear submarines are an important part of many navies, the reticence of many ports to let a ship carrying several kilos of activated uranium dock (never mind refuel or take on supplies) spelled the end of that particular dream.

Other times, technology has flopped due to a simple failure to understand the dimensions of the problem. Take those “instant translation” or “interpreting on the go” websites. Almost always the brainchildren of monolinguals who have a severe case of phrasebook-aversion, they all crash and burn when the founders realise that “bilingual” is a very loose concept and those with actual interpreting expertise are highly unlikely to want to spend their time saying the Hungarian for “where is the toilet?” or the Spanish for “I have a headache and can’t take ibuprofen” forty times a day.

The Problem with Machine Translation

To this motley crew, it seems that we have to add more than a few denizens of modern machine translation. With some leading experts busy telling us that translation is just another “sequence to sequence problem” and large software houses claiming that managing to outdo untrained bilinguals is the same as reaching “human parity” (read that article for the truth behind Microsoft’s claim), it is becoming plain that the actual nature of translation is eluding them.

The most common measure of machine translation performance, the BLEU score, simply measures the extent to which a given translation looks like a reference text. The fact that these evaluations and those performance by humans on machine translation texts are always done without any reference to any real-life context should make professional translators breathe more easily.

Only someone who slept through translation theory class and has never actually had a paid translation project would be happy with seeing translation as just a sequence to sequence problem. On the most basic, oversimplified level, we could say that translators take a a text in one language and turn it into a text in another. But that misses the point that every translation is produced for an audience, to serve a purpose, under a set of constraints.

The ultimate measure of translation quality is not its resemblance to any other text but the extent to which it achieved its purpose. If we really want to know how good machines are at translation, let’s see how they do at producing texts that sell goods, allow correct medical treatment, persuade readers, inform users, and rouse emotion without any human going over their texts afterwards to sort out their mistakes.

Skills to Learn before you Learn to Code

All this shows is that there are key skills that you need to learn before you are set loose on coding apps and building social media websites. Before kids code, let them learn to listen so they can hear what the actual problem is. Before they form algorithms, let them learn how to analyse arguments. Before they can call standard libraries, let them learn to think critically. Let them learn and understand why people skills have to underpin their C skills and why asking questions is more important that creating a system that spoon-feeds you the answer.

I hope that, for our current generation of tech innovators, it isn’t too late. We absolutely need technology to improve but we also need there to be more ways for tech innovators to listen to what everyone else is saying. We could do with some disruption in how events are organised and run but the people doing it need to understand the reasons behind what we do now. Interpreting could do with a tech revolution but the tech people have to let interpreters, interpreting users and interpreting buyers sit in the driving seat.

If our time isn’t to be wasted with more equivalents of nuclear-powered trains, if we are to avoid Cambridge Analytica redux, we need monster coders and incredible listeners, innovators who are also thinkers, writers and macro ninjas. It may well be that one person cannot be both a tech genius and a social scientist but we need a world in which both are valued and both value each other.

It’s a world we can only build together.

Thou Shalt Not Gloat: What the Tencent Fiasco Means for Interpreters

By: Jonathan Downie    Date: May 1, 2018

Another day, another company trying to replace human interpreters and failing miserably. As I discussed last week, the Tencent interpreting fiasco means that, for now at least, the jobs of human interpreters are safe … but is that it?

It’s a familiar story. A company tries to develop a machine interpreting system with pretty much zero knowledge of what interpreters actually do, apart from the fact that it has something to do with words. The company tells everyone what wonderful technology they have and launches it in a blaze of glory. And then, on its first true public test, it flops.

The story has been seen repeatedly from at least 2012 and recently, Chinese tech giant, Tencent, followed suit. Another demo, another set of giggling journalists. Will tech companies never learn?

While professional interpreters might be tempted to gloat or laugh, neither response is helpful. The fact is that tech companies will never give up on machine interpreting, the prize is just too great. And for professional interpreters, the implications of that have never been clearer. Read on to examine them.

Continue reading

The Tencent Interpreting Fiasco: a buyer perspective

By: Jonathan Downie    Date: April 27, 2018

It was hard to miss. Tencent, one of the biggest technology companies in China, aimed to show off their technological prowess by turning over the interpreting at their major tech showcase to a machine. And the results were … not great. The machine spouted gibberish, journalists were amused and suddenly the job of human interpreters seemed safe.

The problem is that most of the discussions of the whole affair were very short-sighted. For businesses and interpreters alike, such short-term “will humans have a job next year?” thinking is strategically useless. In fact, the whole “humans or AI” debate is misleading.

In this post, I will look at what business leaders, events professionals and other buyers need to learn from the Tencent fiasco. Next week, I will look at the perspective of interpreters.

So what do buyers need to learn from the Tencent machine interpreting fiasco?

Let’s start with the obvious: machine interpreting is not ready to be used at important events.

Despite the claims of companies selling the latest gadget and the claims of machine translation suppliers, the best that current technology can do is help you get directions to the train station or help you order pasta. In fact, the latter is even one of the use cases suggested by Google themselves!

There are many reasons why machine interpreting is not even nearly ready to take over your next event but the most important to remember at the moment is that machine interpreting can only deal with words. While words are important, they will always get their meaning from context, intonation and allusion.

Saying “we have no reservations” takes on entirely different meanings depending on who says it. If a hotel receptionist says it, it probably means that your travel agent has messed up. If a potential client says it five minutes before they are due to sign a large contract, it means something completely different. Currently, machine interpreting has no way of determining the wider context of how language is used, apart from sometimes being able to take into account what was said before.

Human interpreters are trained to understand language in context. This is why they ask for detailed briefs before they accept assignments. This is why sometimes they will refer assignments to their colleagues, who might know a specific context better than they do.

Until machine interpreting can understand the social and cultural context of what is being said, it will be as likely to get you in trouble and help you seal the deal. 

The Tencent fiasco not only shows this principle in action but demonstrates the need to be highly critical of the claims of machine interpreting providers. Tencent’s claim of “97% accuracy” most likely came from laboratory results and limited in-house testing. The only results that matter from machine interpreting providers are the experience of clients using it in similar environments to you. For now, it will pay to ignore any research that comes out of testing laboratories. They simply don’t reflect real-life conditions.

This doesn’t mean that we should ignore or ridicule machine interpreting. It will have its uses. It may be worth equipping your sales team with it, to make it easier for them to find their way around foreign cities. One day soon, it may even make human interpreting more effective by helping interpreters to prepare better.

But its uses are still limited and there are still privacy concerns attached. Anything said into a machine interpreting app can and will be used as training data. As soon as you turn on machine interpreting, you basically sign away your rights to keep what you said private.

As much as the Tencent fiasco serves as a warning of the dangers in being overconfident in your newest product, it can and should launch some serious debates about the relevance and usefulness of such technologies for businesses and the extent to which we are happy to sign away privacy in return for technological improvements.

 

Want expertise in setting up interpreting for your business? Drop me a message to set up a free Skype call.

Over-hyped, Under-thought and nowhere near ready: Machine Interpreting

By: Jonathan Downie    Date: July 12, 2017

A few months ago, I was flying to an important meeting and I was flicking through the in-flight magazine (for pitching purposes, you see). As I did that I spotted a short paragraph touting the latest technological development: an in-ear device that promised to translate flawlessly from one language to another. It looks like from now own event managers can dispense with us interpreters for good and just load up on a supply of tiny devices to make sure everyone has a great event, no matter which language they speak.

 

Obviously that isn’t going to happen.

 

Despite the wonderful headlines in the press and the incredible claims made by marketing departments, the chances of machine interpreting ear-pieces doing anything more than replacing phrasebooks is miniscule.

 

Why?

 

Firstly, there is nothing fundamentally new in the technology used in such devices. Machine translation of some sort or another has been around since the 1940s and is still producing results that range from the plausible to the ridiculous. Remember when google translate turned Russia into Mordor? Remember all those websites displaying mangled English because of poor use of machine translation?

 

Without going into the fine detail of where machine translation actually stands right now (you can read that in this article), basically, unless you are willing to spend months training it and are okay restricting your language to controlled phrases, the results of machine translation will be a bit dodgy.

 

When it comes to magical translation ear-pieces, machine translation is twinned with voice recognition – the technology that is still giving us frustrating helplines, semi-useful virtual assistants and the fury of everyone who doesn’t have a “standard accent”. Sure, voice recognition technology is advancing all the time but it still works best when you use a noise-cancelling microphone and speak super-clearly – not quite the thing for crowded cafés or busy conferences.

 

The second reason why translation headsets are not a cure-all is that interpreting is about far more than just matching a word or phrase in one language with a word or phrase in another. Language is a strange beast and in all communication, people use idioms, metaphors, similes, sarcasm, irony, understatement, and implications and are tuned to social cues, intentions, body language, atmosphere and intonation. At the moment, and for as much of the future as we can predict, computers will struggle to handle even one of those things.

 

Human interpreters have to be expert people readers as well as having enviable language knowledge. Ask the CEO for whom an interpreter helped sort out a cultural and terminological misunderstanding that threatened to lose the company a deal with several million pounds. Ask the doctor who worked with an interpreter to be culturally-aware enough to give a patient the right treatment. Ask the speaker whose interpreter prevented him from making a big, but accidental cultural mistake.

 

When human interpreters work, they don’t simply function as walking dictionaries. They take what is said in one language, try to understand its meaning, tone, and purpose and then recreate it in another language in a way that will work in that specific context.

 

The only way that machines could ever do that would be if meetings and events were just about stuffing information into people’s heads and human beings always said exactly what they meant in a completely neutral way. With the current emphasis on the importance of delegate experience and our newfound awareness that people are more than just robots, it makes sense that we would realise that their communication deserves to be handled by experts, not machines.

 

So the next time someone tries to persuade you that you should let machines take over the interpreting at your event, just remember: for information processing, use a computer; for experience and expertise, work with humans.

Why Community Counts

By: Jonathan Downie    Date: November 9, 2016

Millions of people are waking up to election results they did not expect and did not want. Others are waking bleary-eyed in disbelief that the result they wanted but seemed out of reach is here. No matter where you are on the political spectrum, there is change in the air and it will take courage and creativity to navigate it. But it will also take community.

 

Beyond “Community” as a Buzzword

 

For the past few years, social media has turned the word “community” into a buzzword. We have gaming communities, interpreting communities, communities of practice, the events community and more besides. In the face of technology that could lead to us living in individual shacks, communicating with nothing but smartphones and Wi-Fi, there is a desperate cry for meaningful, in-person relationships.

 

That is why community is such a hot topic right now. In the face of isolation, xenophobia, breakdowns in understanding and mistrust, there is something refreshing about being in the same room as a fellow human being. When we get to the point that we can be real and communicate without soundbites or tweets, we begin to realise that we are all still humans, from the newest president to the poorest worker.

 

The Price of Community is Vulnerability

 

But the price of community is vulnerability and vulnerability is not something our technologies are built to handle. Steven Furtick reminds us that we can often compare our real-life to the highlight reels that people project onto social media. Online, there is always a message to get across. In-person, there is just us.

 

The kinds of communities we need cut across the traditional racial or class or political barriers. Perhaps the reason why recent political decisions in the UK and US alike have come as such a surprise is that our technologies and platforms, from Twitter and Facebook to LinkedIn and Snapchat, encourage us to congregate in groups of the like-minded. In that environment, we only really hear the voices of people like us. In these echo chambers, we become convince that the whole world thinks like us. And then we get a short, sharp shock when it doesn’t work that way.

 

Diversity in Community

 

Some of the most valuable communities are those where people come from different walks of life, hold different political and ideological views but still choose to walk together.  I have been on boards of directors where there were disagreements but strong decisions were made. I have been in churches where people who originated from different countries and continents broke bread and laughed together.

 

If you have got this far and wonder why this is on a business blog, I have a simple answer. If we want our meetings to succeed, we need to build communities not just teams. If we want conferences to have a lasting impact, they need to help kick-start or maintain diverse communities. What if you managed to create an event that knocked-down the echo chambers, the class distinctions and the political fear and brought people together to learn from those who speak a wide variety of languages?

What Technology Doesn’t Do at Events

By: Jonathan Downie    Date: September 27, 2016

With the rise in event apps, IP telephony, webcasts, and virtual presence, it is easy to forecast that the future of events will be centred on virtual reality. In fact, if you ask many professional speakers, they will tell you that they can foresee virtual appearances becoming the new normal in their industry. But might we be in danger of overestimating precisely what technology can do or, more to the point, might we be underestimating what real presence means?

 

Virtual Conferences Already Exist

 

Take a simple example, if you are a translator or interpreter, you will have heard of Proz.com. This mega platform regularly holds virtual conference, complete with free webinars, virtual stands and even virtual chat.

 

But, as an attendee, you quickly see that something is missing. At a real conference, many of the best moments arrive unplanned. A trip from the coffee station to the toilet can lead to a conversation with a key future client. A wander in the area around the venue can mean bumping into that person you have been trying to contact by email for weeks.

 

That doesn’t happen virtually. At a virtual conference, everything is controlled and deliberate. In fact, it runs precisely the way that some people try to act at conferences. Every booth visit is for a particular purpose and is timed to the second, every webinar runs exactly to time. Every interaction is scripted and rich in information but low in relationship.

 

At a virtual conference, the currency is information. At an in-person conference, the currency is relationships.

 

But In-person Conferences are Still Growing

 

When virtual conferences exist and save a fortune on air fares, it makes you wonder why the same organisation is now turning to in-person conferences, even ramping up the number it runs. If you are an events professional trying to read future trends, the answer is absolutely vital.

 

In an increasingly virtual and remote world, human contact is what justifies the fees and hassle. No matter how well your conference is run, the accidental moments will often be the ones that are remembered the best. When presenters go off-script, they often sound better and connect better. When people are free to interact on their terms, the quality of the interaction is better.

 

Perhaps the reason for the continued rise in in-person conference is precisely the yearning for real human contact and the freedom from communication mediated by technology.

 

At Multilingual Events, Presence is Everything

 

Applying this same principle to multingual or international events means that we can see why any moves towards taking the service providers away from the conference hall will be problematic. Is it as pleasant to order your drinks at a vending machine as it is to have a real human waiter? Is automated registration as nice as picking up your badge from a smiling person at a desk?

 

If we answer those two questions truthfully, we will realise the biggest drawback with virtualising interpreting services too. While interpreters work with language, they work in a business that is centred on people: what people are trying to achieve, who is listening and how people are reacting.

 

While it is often cheaper to try to get interpreters to work remotely, it rarely leads to a flawless conference. Here again, while the technology is fascinating and just about stable enough, it loses much of the human contact that is found in the conference room

 

The Future?

 

So, the next time someone tells you that the future of events is entirely virtual, take them out for a coffee and ask them to compare that with an exchange of emails. Event technology is here to stay but its future is found in enhancing real-world interactions, rather than replacing them.

When You Should Ignore Marketing Experts

By: Jonathan Downie    Date: September 8, 2016

We all know that, in general, language professionals are behind the curve when it comes to marketing. CRM is an entirely new concept for most translators and interpreters and the most popular CPD courses are those that aim to enhance business and sales skills. It makes sense that we should learn from professionals whose lives are spent marketing and selling. But are there times when their ideas should be ignored?

 

There is one place when that is definitely the case.

 

Marketing Tactics Translators and Interpreters Should Not Use

Marketing gurus will commonly tell you that you need to grow your list of client contacts. That much is absolutely true. Few people will go straight from website visitor to client. Having periodic emails to keep your name and email fresh in people’s memory is a great idea if you want people to book you.

 

While gathering email contacts is important, some of the tactics used to gather those emails are definitely not to be recommended. Go to the website of any leading marketer and you will likely be confronted with a pop-over window asking you to sign-up for updates. The most annoying part is that often you can’t actually read anything on their page unless you manage to locate that pesky close button.

 

While that tactic has always been sneaky and downright annoying, it will soon be an SEO nightmare as google are going to actively punish sites that use those tactics.

 

Let Users See Content Quickly

From a user standpoint, those changes are long overdue. Personally, I have started to simply leave any website that asks for my email before it has given me a reason to stay. Let me see the content first and then, if the content looks good, I might sign up.

 

Of course, if you are giving away something substantial like an entire book, then things are different. It makes sense, in that case, to give a sample for free and then swap details for the full thing. Even here, however, you are better to create a specialist landing page than have an ugly floating pop-up. For single blog posts, let people read first and subscribe later.

 

Google’s changes are even good from a marketing perspective. Do we really want email addresses from people who are only typing them to get rid of a stupid window?

 

So, the next time you refresh your website, remember to let people get to content as quickly as possible. The more directly we communicate with clients, the more likely that are to want to work with us.

Scheduled Social Media Posting and Marketing Your Business

By: Jonathan Downie    Date: August 11, 2016

calendar-1255953_640

As a trained researcher, I am a big fan of experiments. So, nowadays, whenever I go on holiday, I queue up a whole bunch of posts using a MavSocial campaign and watch my website stats. What do you think happens?

 

Before I get to the results, I want to explain something for those who are social media newbies. One of the biggest decisions you will ever make when doing social media marketing is deciding what to measure.

 

You can measure the increase in sales but then, given the complexity of most sales funnels, it can be difficult to unpick what might have caused any change. This is made even harder by the fact that any smart business should be marketing through several channels.

 

For example, I use social media, writing in professional magazines for my target market, guest blogging, in-person networking, and attendance at tradeshows. None of these on their own is going to increase my sales but using them together, alongside good old client retention strategies, just might.

 

At the other end of the scale, you can measure how many people see your posts. The problem with this is that it’s far better to have 5 potential buyers see your stuff than 10,000 people who will never be interested in what you offer. A qualified lead in the hand is worth 5,000 likes on Twitter, as the phrase should go nowadays.

 

Because of that, I measure something in the middle. All of my holiday posts have links in them and I measure how often those links are clicked. The deal is that, if I can just get people to my website, I can increase the likelihood that they will buy from me. At the very least, I will have raised their awareness of my services, which is a good step to take in marketing while you are sunning yourself on the beach.

 

Here is the rub, whenever I post new content to my website, traffic surges and I get lots of new interactions. But, obviously, when I am on holiday, no new posts will appear. So what about when I setup automated posting of content that is already there?

 

The first thing I have learned is that scheduled posting of existing content will not get you the same peaks as brand new stuff. Scheduled posting simple raises the default amount of traffic. What happens is that the boost from the latest piece of new content lasts longer, with traffic not returning back to normal until the schedule runs out of posts. Visit rates sit at between two and five times their default levels right up to the end of the schedule.

 

Strangely, both social and direct traffic numbers increase markedly during scheduled posting. It may be that scheduled posting encourages people to bookmark articles, which they come back to later.

 

In short, while having a schedule for reposting existing articles won’t give you the same pleasing peaks as regularly creating new and exciting content, it will encourage more background traffic to your site.