‘Freelancer’ – the term we should leave behind in 2016
The new year period is a time to take stock. What’s been good about the year gone by and should be continued and pursued? What’s been bad about it and should be consigned to the history books?
Taking stock of 2016, the year has been a turbulent one in many translation circles. It’s been a year of lively debate about practices in the profession and the direction that it is taking. Whichever side of an argument translators lie on, most have the best interests of their colleagues and the profession at heart, and are firmly interested in seeing the continued professionalisation of the sector.
There are many facets to this issue. Firstly, the definition of what constitutes ‘professionalism’, but not least the way we pursue and achieve it. In 2016, the argument that stuck out like no other was ‘become a better translator’. Work on your source language comprehension. Develop your translation skills. Strengthen your subject expertise. Go premium.
It goes without saying this is sound advice. But if we all became better translators, can we expect this to automatically change the impression of the profession to the outside world? Well, yes. If we become better translators, we should naturally become more confident in conveying our professional status.
But there’s one word which is holding us back in achieving greater professional recognition… freelancer.
When someone asks what you do for a living, what do you tell them? How would you describe your job as briefly yet as accurately as possible? If we polled a random sample of translators, the most common answers you’ll hear are ‘I’m a translator’, or ‘I’m a freelance translator’, or simply in some contexts ‘I’m a freelancer’.
But when someone asks me personally what I do for a living, I say ‘I’m a professional translator‘, or a ‘I’m a translation professional‘, or even better ‘I run my own translation business‘. Because these descriptions give more credit to the professional and business aspects of our job. Plus, they tend to invite more pertinent and interested questions that allow you to explain the full scope of your work and educate your interlocutor.
The term ‘freelancer’, on the other hand, while semantically accurate with regard to the self-employed and flexible aspects of the job, conveys a sense of casualness. As if translation is a hobby and not a ‘real job’. When you think about it, the word ‘freelance’ is a completely irrelevant part of our job description. Because it shifts the emphasis from what you do (which clients are interested in) to how you do it (which clients are not interested in).
Now we are not just translators, not just freelancers, but translation professionals and translation business owners, and it is imperative that we start using more accurate terminology to define our job and start to change perceptions for the better as part of our profession’s continuing journey towards professionalisation.
But in the grand scheme of things, isn’t this a trivial point? Well, no, not really. Translators berate the fact that their profession is relatively unknown and as such is often not taken seriously. Think of all the myths that surround the job: we work in our pyjamas, we just use Google Translate, we can translate while looking after the kids. Much of this lies in the way we present ourselves. It’s no wonder all of these myths persist when we so keenly and flippantly describe ourselves as freelancers. But by using more appropriate terms to describe our job, we can start to dispel these myths for good.
So, in 2017, when someone asks you ‘what do you do for living?’, think about it.
See also on this topic: Why you should never call yourself a freelance translator (And what to say instead) by Translators Academy.
Hi Lloyd,
Thanks for the interesting post.
Firstly, I have to say how delighted I was to read: ” In 2016, the argument that stuck out like no other was ‘become a better translator’. ” – the industry is doing something right, then! As you know, I truly believe that’s the first and most crucial thing we need to achieve if we want to get anywhere. And yes, more competence, not just at the level of each translator and their own career, but as a mass across the entire profession, has the potential to change the way translators are perceived.
Secondly, my initial reaction to the title was a bit mixed, and it’s probably still mixed even now. See, in Germany, being a freelancer is actually a legal status which protects people like you and me (i.e. translators who do not base their businesses on outsourcing) from corporation tax. To deny that I’m a freelancer to a client would be misrepresentation of my situation, and for it to “wash”, it’s possible my Impressum (legal info on my website) would end up inaccurate (eep!). So in that sense, I can’t really deny that I am a freelancer, but I’m also in a country where the word itself doesn’t have the same connotations as in the UK (although it’s still not great).
But – are we ever forced to state we are freelancers? Especially to clients? Not really, no. And in the UK, you’re a sole trader anyway, or you might have incorporated yourself, in which case you’re probably not going to call yourself a freelancer anyway (I’d hope not?).
So then the question turns to how we introduce ourselves. I quite like the first two options, which are most appropriate if you are not doing a lot of outsourcing and project managing. The last sounds a bit pretentious to me, but maybe that’s just my take on things. I very much agree with replacing freelance with professional.
However, I’d personally prefer to embellish that with a mention of my specialisation, or a move away from nouns towards verbs, i.e. what I help my clients do. For example, “I help Dutch global consumer brands reach the Spanish market.” If I’m in a situation where I have to say what I do, though, perhaps, “I’m a professional translator specialising in consumer goods.” is a good option. Again, in talking about our specialisations, it’s good to use the language the clients will be using. So rather than saying “legal”, perhaps talk about the areas of law or types of documents, or mentioning “consumer goods” and reaching a new market, rather than “food, clothing, and marketing”. Otherwise you’re just adding to the work your interlocutor has to do before figuring out if your services are actually relevant.
All in all, though, I agree with your approach. I don’t use the word freelancer in Germany, and when I eventually move back, I won’t even be one as I’ll found a limited company. I agree the connotations are best avoided, but I think it’s possible to go one step further and mention a specialisation. That, too, makes a huge difference to how we are perceived and can be a great conversation starter, much more likely to arouse interest.
Extremely useful insights, Rose. Thank you. This is of course written from a UK perspective, so you’re absolutely right about the legal aspects in Germany and other countries of using or not using the term freelancer. I’d certainly not suggest denying you’re a freelancer, especially in fiscal situations.
This view predominantly covers conversations with prospects, even members of the general public, when translators voluntarily (rather than being compelled) to describe themselves as freelance translators.
If the situation allows, though, I’d absolutely advocate elaborating with a specialism, as you describe, and in my own experience using the descriptions I mention in the post have led to more intriguing questions – very often: what kind of documents do you translate/what fields do you work in. Using ‘client terminology’ as you suggest can answer these questions before they’re even asked. ‘Freelance translator’ on the other hands suggests a jack of all trades, master of…how many was it again?
Nice post, Lloyd.
In addition to the various permutations of professional translator/translation business, I am always sure to include a snippet of detail as to *what* I translate (mostly) and, if possible, tailor that to the likely interests of the person asking the question. This serves to steer the conversation towards business long enough for my interlocutor to offer some information about themselves. It also delays the inevitable follow-up question about what languages I translate, by which time at least we will have passed the point where I have to field comments such as “French is such a romantic language” and other superficial remarks.
I see nothing wrong with the word “freelancer”. While it stands for “self-employed”, this term seems to convey the idea of a dog chasing its tail, viz. “I couldn’t get employed nor afford employees, so I employed myself”.
The “freelancer” concept means that a client will be hiring me, and shall hold me fully accountable for the outcome. As I once said to a client, “With me, you are dealing with the entire corporation. Whatever we agree to, it will be final.”
In Brazilian Portuguese – though people occasionally use the term “freelance” in English too – the term is “autônomo”, viz. “autonomous”, or self-standing. In spite of the insane Brazilian social security laws that render hiring an “autonomo” more expensive, somewhat lower taxes overall tend to offset that.
I see “freelancer” as a positive concept, since it clearly implies where the chain of supply begins. If there is any trouble at the end, searching for the root cause cannot go beyond a freelancer. If the freelancer blames any external provider, say, their e-mail service, their ISP, bad computer hardware or software, it was his/her personal choice, so the blame cannot be assigned further.
Compare that to negotiating a deal with a company CEO, who is fully empowered to make ANY decision, however who often has limited knowledge on the details of the job to be carried out.
Interesting article, but it leaves off pretty much half of the equation: however we call ourselves, professional translation has become a cheap commodity in the hands of highly profitable corporations, as demand increases and labor laws fade away. In other words, despite a few exceptions, success is more than a semantic definition of a profession; it means also opportunities to grow and make a dignified living. Being an interpreter, either freelancer or not, requires hours of dedication and a high level of skills that need constant updating and specialization. No wonder in the past 10 years, as big software companies invest heavily in ever better but still not quite there translation technologies, the industry has experienced a big boom of multinational companies that take advantage of cheap labor across nation, and have infinite ways to avoid paying benefit due to archaic legislation. And no wonder the term ‘freelancer’ has got such a negative connotation: 4 out of 5 professionals have no fixed income, or regular employment, and are forced to chase customers, take gigs for less than $10 p/h, and often go unpaid or treated in a demeaning way, all the while keeping tax accounting up to speed, just to be able to pay bills. It’s almost ironic that, as country borders disappear and the need for qualified interpreters is ever crucial, linguists are at mercy of greedy corporations, that used to be restrained by organized labor. Perhaps more than any other profession, translators and interpreters need to unionize or they risk being relegated to the equivalent of dishwaters (nothing disrespectful about it): entry level positions, that pay less than what good looking hostess and receptionists (idem ibidem) earn. Thank you
You said it yourself, Wesley Coll… If translators get organized, unionized, single-priced, etc., all these big, low-cost-driven corporations will switch to FREE online machine translation.
In fact, that’s what I expected from bottom-feeding low-quality translation agencies by now, which hasn’t happened yet. The truth is that they are hiring mere scapegoats, not translators; they need human beings to blame for the low quality they deliver, they can’t blame software for bad translation, especially when it’s free!
If (human) dishwashers got unionized, secured minimum wages, etc. it would make sense for every mall to include a common industrial dish washing machine as part of the package offered to the tenants in their food court. The pretty hostess could be replaced by a self-service numbers dispensing machine (which has become usual in many places already).
The traditional solution remains, demanding quality and paying what it costs. If greedy corporations want to resell cheap, low-grade translation services, it’s their game. If their clients eventually realize that it is possible to obtain better* quality online for free, they’ll lose it.
* Some clients now and then ask me to grade translation tests sent by online applicants. They advise me to give them the lowest possible score on all criteria if the use of machine translation is evident. So I usually run the source text through Google Translate. To my astonishment, quite often GT delivers better – though not good enough – results than these human translation samples!
Good arguments, José, thanks. But again, they miss the point. A translation software, even a top of the line one, can’t replace a human in one-on-one interactions. And I’m still to go to a restaurant whose hostess is a good looking robot. As in any profession, there will be highly trained workers and interlopers, to whom speaking the language is enough to apply (and they may be good looking, etc). I don’t believe that unions are the panacea to all the ills of the market, but by the power of numbers, they’re better at pressuring companies to provide more dignified terms of employment for workers. Besides, almost anything would be an improvement to what it’s happening now. Unwittingly, I’m sure, you use the same argument that upper management, on behalf of their bosses, use to discourage workers from organize: ‘unions are bad for business, they won’t make a difference, etc.’ I recently came across a help wanted ad, from a major New York translation company, that asked for a professional with a PhD in Linguistics and, a plus, a medical or related degree. It was for a freelance position, no benefits. Hourly wage: $7.50, with bonus and whatnot to those really outstanding candidates. You may be one of those rare exceptions, an excellent professional who’s being paid $64 p/h and/or is a full time employee, who’s been able to pay your mortgage and send your kids to college. Well deserved and good for you. The majority of those who make a living translating and interpreting, however, are far from these seemingly ideal conditions. It’s only fair that we all support their struggle to make it better for themselves. Thanks and now it may be time to open the floor for other professionals to express their own opinions on this topic. Cheers
On the question of what to call oneself, several people commenting here and elsewhere have suggested “translation professional” or “professional translator”. I have doubts about this. I’ve never heard anyone from a well-established profession call themselves, for example, a “professional lawyer” or “professional doctor” even though they may be working part-time or self-employed. I think “translator” on its own is good. If asked what i do I don’t normally say “I’m a staff translator” or “I’m a translator and an employee”, just “I’m a translator” and wait for the next question “what languages do you speak?”. The matter of how we work can become part of the conversation that follows.