| Страниц в теме: < [1 2 3] > | payment terms + blueboard Автор темы: Ronald van der Linden (X)
|
|---|
| Yes, but.... | Jul 17, 2013 |
Yes, as long as payment terms have been agreed to by the freelancer and later abided by on the part of the outsourcer, then the former has no right to complain. But, in my view, no outsourcer that pays for work 60 or more days following completion deserves the implied accolades of a "5" rating (typically accompanied by nauseatingly unctuous comments about what a transformational and life-affirming experience it was to work for the agency in question, etc., etc.).
My reasoning? If a... See more Yes, as long as payment terms have been agreed to by the freelancer and later abided by on the part of the outsourcer, then the former has no right to complain. But, in my view, no outsourcer that pays for work 60 or more days following completion deserves the implied accolades of a "5" rating (typically accompanied by nauseatingly unctuous comments about what a transformational and life-affirming experience it was to work for the agency in question, etc., etc.).
My reasoning? If a critical mass of translators indicate that they are "definitely" willing to work again for outsourcers who pay after 60 days, then this will communicate the widespread acceptability of such terms on the part of freelancers. Under such a scenario, 90 days or more could come to seem fairly reasonable....
It seems to me that there are certain issues where lines must be drawn, and that this is one of them.
This is simply one more example of the weakness of the Blue Board as anything more than a rough gauge to estimate a listed outsourcer's likelihood to pay on time. The rating and comments treat all issues other than on-time payment (e.g., rates, responsiveness, clear communication, payment terms) as secondary, when they are addressed at all. Then there is the implicit tit-for-tat mentality of the raters who hope that they will be offered more work by agencies to whom they give high ratings. Finally, any negative comments a translator might submit regarding a given outsourcer are (in terms of my considerable personal experience) inconsistently and arbitrarily edited.
Don't get me wrong: The Blue Board is a valuable tool. But it also has its distinct limitations.
[Edited at 2013-07-17 20:04 GMT] ▲ Collapse
| | | | | A blunt answer | Jul 17, 2013 |
Ronald van der Linden wrote:
My initial questions:
What payment terms are acceptable to you in general?
Maybe you'll understand it from a blunt answer:
"Ugly women get married too."
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. What you consider ugly may be appealing to someone else, and vice-versa.
The Blue Board is quite subjective, as it tells us about translators "willingness to work for that client again".
While a translator living in Switzerland would despise an agency that offers low rates, another one in India may welcome these "low" rates as manna from heaven.
And then, if the rates are good, a translator in the USA (interest rate 0.25%/mo) might accept being paid 120 days later, while another one in Brazil (interest rate 8.00/mo) may consider that a 45 days payment term is abusive, despite the rates.
At best, the Blue Board, as it is, only reveals if an outsourcer keeps their promises, nothing further. You have to read it between the lines.
For instance, if an outsourcer has all WWA=5s, but all from free Proz users, you may suspect their rates are low. On the other hand, if they have many WWA=5s from PRO-tag translators in developed countries, there is a chance that they pay adequate market rates.
Yet you have to consider that an outsourcer having over a hundred WWA-5s may be one that demands that entry from every translator before processing their payment. The translators would have to show Proz good reasons to downgrade that score; and after they got paid, they don't have a leg to stand on for that purpose.
Bottom line is that there are no "general" terms acceptable worldwide. The smart outsourcer will know how to deal with translators in each country.
| | | | Christel Zipfel 
Local time: 13:00
Член ProZ.com c 2004
итальянский => немецкий
+ ...
| The Blueboard reflects substantially | Jul 17, 2013 |
whether the agreed terms have been respected. The agency pays peanuts? It pays at 120 days? Well, if the payment is made within the terms and everything went well, it could deserve a 5 rating.
I find this is perfectly logical.
| | | | Mark Benson (X)
английский => шведский
+ ...
| There is a better solution | Jul 18, 2013 |
While the BB obviously is what it is, I still have to agree with Ronald to some extent. That extent is the extent to which I realize that he is pointing towards a real problem/area of improvement, although I don't agree that it's in the BB.
The problem I see is that time goes to waste communicating with agencies that employ payment terms that are unacceptable to me. Right now, I don't need an agency that pays within 60 days after invoicing anymore than a client who wants an English ... See more While the BB obviously is what it is, I still have to agree with Ronald to some extent. That extent is the extent to which I realize that he is pointing towards a real problem/area of improvement, although I don't agree that it's in the BB.
The problem I see is that time goes to waste communicating with agencies that employ payment terms that are unacceptable to me. Right now, I don't need an agency that pays within 60 days after invoicing anymore than a client who wants an English text translated into Norwegian needs my services.
Translators are expected to meet the outsourcer's requirements. Shouldn't an outsourcer reasonably also have to meet translators' requirements? In practice, they do. It would benefit both if the process of finding a match was quicker and easier than at present.
That's why information about payment terms should be clearly visible for all outsourcers when they are acting on ProZ. There should not have to be anymore guesswork about these terms than there is about a translator's language combination or native language.
ProZ could save me, and I believe others, time and efforts. The principle would be to encourage companies who are active on the site to have payment terms stated in their company profile and job posts, possibly having this info stated in the BB as well. Because if they are here wanting to buy translations and hire translators, they must know what their payment terms are. Then they should also have the payment terms stated clearly upfront, or be willing to have them displayed clearly and live up to them. This is obvious.
And it wouldn't have to be difficult. A company profile can be marked as complete the same way a translator profile can; with a check mark or other similar symbol.
What speaks against complete company profiles and job offers (i.e. including payment terms)? ▲ Collapse
| | |
|
|
|
Shai Navé
Израиль
Local time: 14:00
английский => иврит
+ ...
You make a valid point and this information could be useful, but I see two problems with it:
1) Agencies (and "agencies") could argue that under the same logic all translators at ProZ should now be required to publish their fee.
2) The fact of the matter is that there is no one universal way of doing business. Although in theory translators and agencies are working together towards a mutual goal, in reality they are business partners, and when it comes to payment, they sometimes have... See more You make a valid point and this information could be useful, but I see two problems with it:
1) Agencies (and "agencies") could argue that under the same logic all translators at ProZ should now be required to publish their fee.
2) The fact of the matter is that there is no one universal way of doing business. Although in theory translators and agencies are working together towards a mutual goal, in reality they are business partners, and when it comes to payment, they sometimes have conflicting interests. What I'm trying to say is that some are able to negotiate better than others, or offer better value than others. For example, an agency's interest might be to pay after 60 days, but under some circumstances a translator might be able to negotiate "better" terms, while another not. The same goes the other way around, some translators will agree to less than optimal terms for them in certain scenarios. This negotiation aspect is part of doing business, and although I see how it can be useful in the context of a bidding platform (which I find almost useless to begin with), in a broader prospective it puts unnecessary initial strain and limits on the negotiation.
This is why any communication with a new potential client should be accompanied with one's Terms of Service. Sure, there are clients, especially agency clients, that try to dictate the terms in a take or leave it kind of a way (and treat the profession as a commodity), and if one is not comfortable with that, one could just walk away and move on. ▲ Collapse
| | | | | This is my beef too | Jul 20, 2013 |
Mark Benson wrote:
The problem I see is that time goes to waste communicating with agencies that employ payment terms that are unacceptable to me.
...
That's why information about payment terms should be clearly visible for all outsourcers when they are acting on ProZ. There should not have to be anymore guesswork about these terms than there is about a translator's language combination or native language.
And as for this concern:
Shai Nave wrote:
For example, an agency's interest might be to pay after 60 days, but under some circumstances a translator might be able to negotiate "better" terms, while another not.
I disagree with the implication here that potential "negotiation" would somehow be eliminated by publication of standard terms.
A translator who can see that a prospective client's published payment terms different from his or her own would absolutely still be free, if interested in the project, to contact that prospective client to attempt to negotiate "better" terms.
However, a translator who is not interested in taking the time to attempt this (as well as jump through all the other hoops involved in "bidding" for a job through this site) would certainly save a lot of time and frustration by being able to see the published payment terms and simply move on without responding.
As for this:
Agencies (and "agencies") could argue that under the same logic all translators at ProZ should now be required to publish their fee.
I don't quite agree that "the same logic" actually does apply.
Translation "fees" are (or at least, IMHO should be) variable, depending on quite a number of factors such as the language pair, degree of difficulty and complexity of the source text, research required, format of the source document and intended format of the target text, tools required or provided, other constraints or conditions placed on the final translation, when the translation is required to be finished (urgent/rush, overnight, weekend, holiday, etc.), whether proofreading by a second linguist is required, etc.
Translators could (and in some cases do) publish a range of fees, but there is no one fee that could or should apply.
By contrast, agencies - good agencies - should always have enough cash reserves/sufficient cash flow to guarantee payment to their providers (translators/interpreters) at any time, regardless of other conditions (disputes, delay in payment from clients, etc.). Which in turn means that they should be able to publish one set of standard payment terms (note: not rates, terms, e.g. "We pay 30 days from invoice, by either check within X countries, electronic transfer between X countries, or wire or PayPal for X countries").
The fact that some do not (cannot?) pay within 30 days should (IMHO) raise alarm bells, but that is slightly off-topic here and can be discussed elsewhere.
I also happen to agree with this:
Robert Forstag wrote:
If a critical mass of translators indicate that they are "definitely" willing to work again for outsourcers who pay after 60 days, then this will communicate the widespread acceptability of such terms on the part of freelancers. Under such a scenario, 90 days or more could come to seem fairly reasonable
...
It seems to me that there are certain issues where lines must be drawn, and that this is one of them.
| | | | Shai Navé
Израиль
Local time: 14:00
английский => иврит
+ ...
| My comments were made in the context of operating within this website | Jul 20, 2013 |
First, I just want to repeat what I said earlier, how I can see the value of the requirement to publish the outsourcer's payment terms within the narrow context of the bidding platform. But due to the type of "agencies" these platforms tend to attract, and the message they send about the service that we offer, I don't think that they deserve any attention in the capacity of a professional conversation
I disagree with the implication here that potential "negotiation" would somehow be eliminated by publication of standard terms.
One of the problems is that too many independent translator/interpenetrates already think that the "agencies" hold all the power. That they are the ones dictating the fee, terms, etc.
Some also think that what goes on in a certain website and/or its bidding platform is what the "marketplace" has to offer, and all of this combined leads to the some serious issues. For example, if many outsources will start stating 60-120 days as their payment terms, I'm pretty much convinced that this may lead to the notion that this is the norm and a translator/interpreter now has to accept it or be left without work.
In a way, it is like having the outsources state what they are willing to pay, and the global effect of such information on the translators' "rates" is quite clear as it is in my opinion. It is not about the room for negotiation (that, at least in theory, always exists), it is more about the message being sent.
Translation "fees" are (or at least, IMHO should be) variable, depending on quite a number of factors such as the language pair, degree of difficulty and complexity of the source text, research required, format of the source document and intended format of the target text, tools required or provided, other constraints or conditions placed on the final translation, when the translation is required to be finished (urgent/rush, overnight, weekend, holiday, etc.), whether proofreading by a second linguist is required, etc.
I completely agree, but an agency (not that I'm trying to plant ideas in anyone's mind) could argue that they have a "budget" and it would save them a lot of time and frustration when searching for a translators/interpreters if they knew in advance what their "standard" fee.
Overall I think that it could lead to an even greater focus an emphasis on numbers and less on value.
Conversely, if independent translators/interpreters will start approaching outsources stating their Terms of Service, the effect might be reversed. Outsources being constantly asked by professionals to, let's say, pay after 30 days will have to adjust or resort to using the translators who will just accept whatever term they throw at them (usually the inexperienced, desperate, or those who are in it just for the money) or their business might take a hit.
Yes, this is much more complicated than this, and even if what I describe above will happen there will still be agencies trying (and succeeding) to dictate their terms.
I just think that in the narrow context of ProZ and similar websites, less focus on "numbers" is sometimes better.
I do think that the BB system should be updated and overhauled, and payment terms should be one of the aspects taken into consideration. But if the purpose of the BB remains as is, I, personally, don't think that adding the payment terms to the company's profile will be much beneficiary outside of the bidding platform.
[Edited at 2013-07-20 16:07 GMT]
| | | | | I think we're talking about the same thing | Jul 20, 2013 |
Shai Nave wrote:
For example, if many outsources will start stating 60-120 days as their payment terms, I'm pretty much convinced that this may lead to the notion that this is the norm and a translator/interpreter now has to accept it or be left without work.
Which in a roundabout sort of way kind of makes our point for us, as was stated (apologies for the repeat):
Robert Forstag wrote:
If a critical mass of translators indicate that they are "definitely" willing to work again for outsourcers who pay after 60 days, then this will communicate the widespread acceptability of such terms on the part of freelancers.
In other words, it is especially the appearance that this is not only normal but acceptable - because there is no "downgrading" in the Blue Board - that we wish to combat.
Forewarned is Forearmed. The whole "bidding process" - but also just responding to private inquiries - can be incredibly time-consuming, and many of us simply want to know as much information ahead of time as possible. The Blue Board was (I thought) devised to give us information that will help us decide whether to even bother with this process, so (IMHO) the more information, the better.
I do think that the BB system should be updated and overhauled, and payment terms should be one of the aspects taken into consideration.
Well then, maybe we don't disagree after all. This was what the OP was discussing, and it is certainly fine by me as well.
Ronald van der Linden wrote:
Why do organizations on the blueboard have 5 star ratings when their payment terms are > 60 days net? What is acceptable for you? I think it should not be possible for companies that pay later than 30 days to have a rating of 5.
Shai Nave wrote:
But if the purpose of the BB remains as is, I, personally, don't think that adding the payment terms to the company's profile will be much beneficiary outside of the bidding platform.
Personally, I'm not all that fussed about where the information is available, as long as it's available.
I'd be more than happy if it were a required piece of information for all jobs posted through the site. As the OP stated, I personally would (also) like this information shown or taken into consideration in Blue Board ratings. If neither one of these were put into practice, then maybe as a kind of last resort it could be required on the company's profile page. I certainly wouldn't mind, however, if it were "encouraged" as an "optional" piece of profile information to start with.
When Proz.com changed the way rate/budget information was provided in job posts, it also started including a caveat:
Note: There is no obligation to quote within the given budget range.
If payment terms were made public (wherever), I'm sure the same kind of notice could be given for those.
-----
PS:
Shai Nave wrote:
Conversely, if independent translators/interpreters will start approaching outsources stating their Terms of Service, the effect might be reversed. Outsources being constantly asked by professionals to, let's say, pay after 30 days will have to adjust or resort to using the translators who will just accept whatever term they throw at them (usually the inexperienced, desperate, or those who are in it just for the money) or their business might take a hit.
Well, all of the colleagues I am personally in touch with (AKAIK) *do* actually state their terms of service up front. If there is a conflict, they may negotiate or walk away, their choice. But this option is already out there, and it is already being used.
However, it has not stopped the trend or reversed it. Outsourcers "resort" to using translators like that all the time - we all know it because we've all seen the results.
Shai Nave wrote:
... but an agency (not that I'm trying to plant ideas in anyone's mind) could argue that they have a "budget" and it would save them a lot of time and frustration when searching for a translators/interpreters if they knew in advance what their "standard" fee.
Many translators (myself included) already provide information on fees, fee ranges, or starting or minimum fees, and many (many) agencies already "argue that they have a 'budget'" and look for or even specifically request precisely those translators who fall within the parameters of that budget. I personally don't mind this process at all - I am very happy not to be bothered by lowballers - good riddance!!
However, by posting potential projects, it is the outsourcers on this site who are *proactively* advertising, not the translators. I believe that in and of itself gives the outsourcers no standing to "demand" that translator profiles display rates.
[Edited at 2013-07-21 03:04 GMT]
| | |
|
|
|
Niina Lahokoski
Финляндия
Local time: 14:00
Член ProZ.com c 2008
английский => финский
+ ...
| BB is not just 5 or 1, why not give a 3 or 4? | Jul 21, 2013 |
While I might occasionally accept a client with payment terms longer than 30 days, it usually affects my likelihood or "willingness" to take projects from them (they are of lower priority). So on BB, instead of a full 5, I might give them a 4 instead and explain my reasons in the comment section. Of course, some clients' NDA strictly prohibit disclosing any info about the financial agreements etc., and these kind of comments are out of the question.
| | | | | The Blue Board is already damaged for life | Jul 21, 2013 |
Niina Lahokoski wrote:
BB is not just 5 or 1, why not give a 3 or 4?
While I might occasionally accept a client with payment terms longer than 30 days, it usually affects my likelihood or "willingness" to take projects from them (they are of lower priority). So on BB, instead of a full 5, I might give them a 4 instead and explain my reasons in the comment section. Of course, some clients' NDA strictly prohibit disclosing any info about the financial agreements etc., and these kind of comments are out of the question.
If you read the definitions of the options for the Blue Board:
Likelihood of working for this outsourcer again
5) Most definitely (I would be delighted to work again with this outsourcer)
4) Definitely (I would work again with this outsourcer)
3) Maybe (I might work again with this outsourcer)
2) Doubtfully (I would probably not work again with this outsourcer)
1) No way (I would definitely refuse to work again with this outsourcer)
... most entries everywhere should be 4s. Yet many translators would look suspiciously at an outsourcer whose average were, say, 4.1. So, if it's 'not bad at all', they get a 5. This prevents the truly excellent ones from standing out against the 'just good enough'.
If there were actually so many all-5 outsourcers around as they are on the Blue Board, translators would live in a permanent state of ecstasy from such "delight".
| | | | Shai Navé
Израиль
Local time: 14:00
английский => иврит
+ ...
| It is more about the appearnce and message being sent | Jul 21, 2013 |
Well said José Henrique.
Janet, I also don't think that we are in disagreement, we are just looking at this from different angles. You made very valid points and they have a lot of truth and substance to them. However, personally, I'm still concerned here more about how things appear, the message that they send and how it could ultimately affect the already fragile notion of who is in "charge" (at least in the context of websites like this one), and who sets the tone.
... See more Well said José Henrique.
Janet, I also don't think that we are in disagreement, we are just looking at this from different angles. You made very valid points and they have a lot of truth and substance to them. However, personally, I'm still concerned here more about how things appear, the message that they send and how it could ultimately affect the already fragile notion of who is in "charge" (at least in the context of websites like this one), and who sets the tone.
Again, I'm addressing the BB in its current form and purpose. If its purpose will change and it will become a more reliable, more meaningful, and less vague tool, then I'm all for adding the payment terms (as well as several other parameters) to the equation. ▲ Collapse
| | | | | My two cents | Jul 21, 2013 |
In theory, in a simplified view, you agree to their terms of payment, and so you shouldn't complain. However, there is more depth to the issue, and there are a lot of agencies with abusive practices or poor terms or both, who have extremely good ratings.
I do believe that the way leaving negative feedback is discouraged in practice (or simply deleted) is contributing to a false image outsourcers create of themselves as supposedly being so great to work with. This is disappointing in... See more In theory, in a simplified view, you agree to their terms of payment, and so you shouldn't complain. However, there is more depth to the issue, and there are a lot of agencies with abusive practices or poor terms or both, who have extremely good ratings.
I do believe that the way leaving negative feedback is discouraged in practice (or simply deleted) is contributing to a false image outsourcers create of themselves as supposedly being so great to work with. This is disappointing in the light of the BB being a paid-for service and one of the primary selling points and advertising points of paid membership.
And the fact that my post will likely get removed within a couple of hours by a moderator is disappointing too (if one does, please forward my complaint to those higher up right away). ▲ Collapse
| | |
|
|
|
Sheila Wilson
Испания
Local time: 12:00
Член ProZ.com c 2007
английский
+ ...
| Apparently, LWA is the only comment that's allowed | Jul 21, 2013 |
We can say "Yes, I'd love to work with these people again".
We can say "No, I don't think I'm likely to work with this company again".
But there isn't much else we're allowed to say when it comes to "BIG NAME" agencies who wield a lot of power. This is the official ProZ.com comment at the top of the BB record of one of them:
Please limit your LWA entry comments with your likehood of working again only
Censorship in all its forms is disturbing, AFAIC.
| | | | | An assessment of likelihood in future | Jul 22, 2013 |
Łukasz Gos-Furmankiewicz wrote:
In theory, in a simplified view, you agree to their terms of payment, and so you shouldn't complain.
I just wanted to point out that LWA is not a complaint process per se, it's literally the service provider's assessment of the "likelihood" that he or she will "work again" with the particular client.
IMHO, it is (should be) perfectly valid to leave an entry that says in so many words "I agreed to these terms once/worked with this client in the past, but I would not be likely do so again, and here is why..."
| | | | | Education on feedback | Jul 22, 2013 |
Łukasz Gos-Furmankiewicz wrote:
I do believe that the way leaving negative feedback is discouraged in practice (or simply deleted) is contributing to a false image outsourcers create of themselves as supposedly being so great to work with. This is disappointing in the light of the BB being a paid-for service and one of the primary selling points and advertising points of paid membership.
After this thread, we may have a better idea of what "works" and what gets deleted.
At that point, we would at least be in a position to start a thread that "educates" our colleagues on how - if they feel required - to leave low LWA scores and explanations that will not be removed.
Just a thought.
| | | | | Страниц в теме: < [1 2 3] > | To report site rules violations or get help, contact a site moderator: You can also contact site staff by submitting a support request » payment terms + blueboard | Trados Business Manager Lite | Create customer quotes and invoices from within Trados Studio
Trados Business Manager Lite helps to simplify and speed up some of the daily tasks, such as invoicing and reporting, associated with running your freelance translation business.
More info » |
| | Trados Studio 2022 Freelance | The leading translation software used by over 270,000 translators.
Designed with your feedback in mind, Trados Studio 2022 delivers an unrivalled, powerful desktop
and cloud solution, empowering you to work in the most efficient and cost-effective way.
More info » |
|
| | | | X Sign in to your ProZ.com account... | | | | | |
Login to reply/comment 
Translation news
