Why “Turnkey”?

From the client’s source audio/video files, images or websites through to delivery of identical products translated and localized to the client’s target market, if your product is any kind of complex media, then the only guarantee of a quality service is a TURNKEY service.

That is, a service from A to Z, from the initial ‘home’-localized product, through all the various intermediary stages and media components up to delivery.


Because we know our job; we know the restrictions of the various stages of the job; our processes are tried, tested and optimized with the absolute objective of quality. And to reach this objective, any compromise in the process is costly. To us, and to our client.

A good example is video translation.

Video is a complex media. It is made up of film images, still images, graphics, animation, on-screen text (still or animated) – sometimes laid over other images, a soundtrack (or several) consisting of music, sound effects, voices in one or more languages, and even “hidden” soundtracks designed to play to different audiences and language groups. Then there is the video format: the screen size and aspect ratio, the resolution in pixels, the framerate, the bitrate, the hundreds of codec variations and configurations. Etcetera.


That is why we will generally ask “what do you want to do with this video?” This is not an impertinent question. It is so that you, and we, do not waste time and money producing something you think you want but which may not serve its intended purpose.

Consider a hypothetical video translation case drawn from real experience:

A client asks for a promotional video presentation to be “translated”. The video features clips including scenes in an American environment, images, on-screen texts and a soundtrack with music+sound effects laid over with an American voice.

The client wants a quote specifically for: a Russian voice and Russian subtitling of on-screen text. He could also ask for a range of options, such as complete localized post-production of the video: replacement of typical American scenes with Russian scenes that he has provided, replacement of on-screen English text with Russian text, recording of a convincing Russian voice to take the place of the American one and replacement of the background fiddle music with something more classical and Russian.

If the video is to be one from among the client’s 100+ media items available to a Russian audience from the media library page deep within his company website, the first version might be sufficient, although future higher-profile use of the video should also be taken into account. If it is to serve as the front-page video advertising his company’s services, the full-quality option would be essential. The cost would of course not be the same, but the consequent income potential would be vastly different too. However, that is a calculation that the client must do for himself.

Part of that calculation is of course, outlay. And if I can have it transcribed cheaply by some third-party transcription service or agency, why include that in a turnkey service?

If I have a Russian speaker in the company who can translate the transcription and the on-screen texts, why include translation in a turnkey service?

If my trainee can do the timing of the translated texts why include that in a turnkey service?

If my DTP department can import the Russian text into the original US images, why include that in a turnkey service?

Will my Russian target market really mind having some nice American fiddle music in the background or the odd fleeting image of US marines, $ signs or hamburgers?

The short, quick, and ultimate answer is: Quality. If it is not pervasive in every aspect of your target product, it doesn’t have a capital “Q“.

The more detailed answer would take into account any one of all the possible flaws of any one stage of the process that is not included in the turnkey service and see its exponential effect on the rest of the process.

Just a typing mistake in the transcription can lead to a mistranslation of enormous proportion (see “Reset” & Hillary Clinton in one of our previous blogs).

Not paying attention to speaking rate in the voice translation could mean it is impossible to record the Russian voice in the time available (or it must be sped up to Mickey Mouse proportions).

Having a text “timed” in a Word file may be superfluous as this format cannot be exploited in a titling configuration tool, and will have to be done again, precisely.

Every stage of the process must be checked by a target-language professional linguist who knows the technical, linguistic and target-market requirements of the project. And even still, our processes are designed to reduce all possibility for human error to an absolute minimum – retyping from one page into another, copy-&-pasting or “assuming” what is meant. We welcome and encourage consultation and communication with our client at every point in the process. A question with an “obvious” answer is still better asked than guessed wrongly.

Our language professionals are trained and qualified, which means not only that they know the language, but they know and recognize the different quirks of the culture, and can make those little adjustments that, if they were not made, could have extensive, negative effects.

Various professional studies have emphasized the commercial effect of web-based video to market footprint for most companies. However, if the video quite obviously originates from a different cultural market, it loses effect and this footprint is decidedly diminished.

Just ship us your project to analyse cost-effectively, and relax while we make your media work for you across all your target-language markets.

Viral video buzz networking thingummy quoi?

It’s definitely not television, is it?

In fact, although I watch TV less and less, whenever I do, I now get this strange, vacuous, helpless sensation, from the knowledge that despite all my best reflexes, I cannot change or interact with what is happening in front of me.

I can’t tell the producers what I think of their programme, I can’t personalise news/information/documentaries to the items I want to hear about. I can’t return to the weather for my region if I’ve missed it… and the channel has no idea what I really want to see; they’re just happy to dilute it to the lowest common denominator among their target audience…

And I can’t submit my own material to them even where the channel is close to my issues of interest.

With WebTV, however, I can submit content to a number of Web video channels dedicated to my specific audience, interact with viewers, change, improve and adapt my content, on my own channel, on various hosts. (My own example: http://www.metacafe.com/channels/VoxAppeal/)

The question remains though, with social network hosting services exploding in such numbers that it’s getting harder & harder to keep up: Are they losing the focal impact that they have had until now?

Before they’ve even mastered the means of reaching across cultural boundaries?

Several Buzz sites are cross-linked – WordPress to Twitter, Twitter to Facebook and Facebook to YouTube, etc., but as they cross-link and multiply (see the “Share” list below), the walls dividing each language group from the next are as high as ever. If not higher still, as the impression of comprehensive reach to anything that matters is greater than ever, so you just don’t know what you’re missing on the other side of that wall. In fact, we no longer even notice the wall because we think that the whole world is speaking in our own language.

I have noticed that some subjects are better covered in specific language communities than in others. English is of course the most widespread, but still only accounts for about half of all web content, including content created by 2nd-language English writers. But for example, I have found a huge amount of information on Web programming on French sites and forums, and the Japanese are way ahead of the rest in terms of digital subtitling techniques, software and references (drawing from a rich Manga culture, no doubt). I can’t begin to list what I am missing in languages I don’t understand, let alone emphasise the importance of simply understanding the cultural particularities of each community.

How others see us?
“I hate America”
– How others see us?

Also extremely useful would be to know, for example, how Iranians, Chinese or Latvians report their news and views, in contrast to how the English contributions to Twitter, WordPress and the BBC report them.

Maybe that final frontier of networking, the language barrier, could be crossed with the creation of a global translingual social network (the fact that “translingual” just showed up underlined in red tells me it really is a more foreign concept than I had imagined!)?

Or maybe what we need is an optional tweak at the root of Google (or any other search engine) allowing the search of translations of websites into the searcher’s language, before displaying the list?

Or maybe both would be required before either could work properly?

In the interim, it feels like we are sinking into that TV-sofa passivity again, where we’re happy with what we’ve got, because it’s a bit better than what we had before. At least until, eventually, frustration sets in again.

Enfin, ça viendra, un jour.
ﺎﺒﻳﺮﻗ ءﺎﻘﻠﻟا ﻰﻟا

Blinklist Blogmarks Blue Dot Bumpzee DotNetKicks Connotea Del.icio.us Digg Diigo Bumpzee DZone Facebook Fark FeedMeLinks Furl Google Igooi Lilisto LinkaGoGo Windows Live Mr Wong Yahoo MyWeb Netscape Netvouz Newsvine Onlywire PlugIM PopCurrent Recruiting Reddit Rojo Scoopeo Scuttle Simpy Slashdot SphereIt Spurl Squidoo StumbleUpon Taggly Tagtooga TailRank TalkDigger Technorati ThisNext WebRide Wists
Subscribe: subscribe