Blog

 

Even those who write for a living may not keep creating better translations top of mind. Because we work with people from a of variety cultures—at least in a cosmopolitan area like Silicon Valley—we tend to assume that everyone speaks and reads English pretty proficiently. We don’t think about how something we’ve written will sound when it’s translated into French or Bengali.

Val Swisher, the CEO of Content Rules and an expert in global content strategy, content development, and terminology management, thinks about better translations all the time. She finds that clients often blame translators when they learn that their translated content is poor. She comments, “Blaming the people doing the work might make sense. However, in my experience the cause of poor translation is often not the person trying their best to translate the content.”

There are three primary reasons for poor quality translations.

Poor source content

Source content is likely the first place to look. Long sentences are a big stumbling block. Ms. Swisher has seen 30-, 40-, and 50-word sentences. (Her all-time high is 95 words!) Long sentences are difficult to understand in English and impossible to translate. So limit sentences to 26 words or fewer. Grammatical errors are problematic for translators, so polish your grammar. Finally, be mindful of  tone of voice. Your company style may be warm and friendly, with “sentence fragments, made up words, and all sorts of punctuation,” but that can create a translation challenge.

Workflow issues

Ever worked on a project that was nearly finished, only to have additional input appear at the last minute? (Most writers have.) The same thing can happen during translation. Hiccups occur, when new and revised content appears late in the translation process. Software development typically requires feature freeze, and translation should require content freeze.

Another workflow issue is lack of competent in-country content review (ICR). This second set of eyes is critical. Otherwise, why go through the time, effort, and expense involved in translation?

Translation memory problems

Wikipedia defines translation memory as a database that stores previously translated content. The goal is to help human translators do their jobs faster and easier. Ms. Swisher has looked her clients’ TMs and found 1) multiple translations for the same content, 2) the same translation for the same content multiple times, and 3) mismatched source content and translations. A bloated or corrupted translation memory impacts translation quality and raises costs. The solution? Scrub your TM after every translation or at least at scheduled intervals.

The need to write for translation is not something most of us think of very often, but we should. I believe that when we consider potential translations, our own source content will be cleaner, clearer, and easier to read.

Aside from her role as CEO of Content Rules, Val Swisher is deeply involved with Translators without Borders, a humanitarian medical translation project. I think you’ll find this YouTube video inspiring.

Lamai Prasitsuwan — 123rf.com

A big thanks to Marcia Yudkin for offering a quick peek at stylometry, a field that—among other things—considers gender differences in writing. Stylometry examines sentence structure, punctuation, emotional intensity, and things vs. relationships to determine whether a writer is male or female. Note that the notion of gender differences in expression has also been furthered by the work of Deborah Tannen, a professor of linguistics at Georgetown, and the author of “You Just Don’t Understand: Women and Men in Conversation.” 

An article in the Chicago Tribune entitled “Gender shows up in writing,” draws on the work of a team of computer scientists from the Illinois Institute of Technology and Israel’s Bar-Ilan University to highlight specific gender differences in writing.

Here are a few of the differences the team—Shlomo Argamon, Moshe Koppel, Jonathan Fine, and Anat Rachel Shimoni­—came up with:

• Women use terms that apply to relationships, such as for and with, more often than men.
• Men use numbers, adjectives, and determiners, such as the, this, and that, “because they apparently care more than women do about conveying specific information.”
• Men and women use the pronoun he about equally; women tend to use she more often than men.
• Women are more focused on developing a relationship with their readers, while—according to Mr. Argamon—Men typically focus on “Here’s something I want to tell you about, and here are some things about it.”
• Both men and women write differently when they write for different forums.
• Factors such as content, knowledge of the material, and an author’s age, nationality, education, and experience all have an impact on writing. Women working in male-dominated fields, for example, tend to write like their co-workers.

Practically speaking, stylometry can be useful in homing in on anonymous communicators. This happened in the case of the Unabomber, whose brother compared his manifesto to his known writings and came up with his identity. And some readers will remember that the ransom note found in JonBenét Ramsey’s home was presumably written by a woman. Not surprisingly, computer scientists have developed tools like Gender Guesser and Gender Analyzer. They’re about 60 to 70% accurate, which is better than the 50% result yielded by random guessing.

In the end, does it really matter whether writing slants male or female? Both men and women are capable of producing good, clear written communications regardless of differences in expression. In my view, that’s what counts.

Hootie2710 — 123rf.com

Before the new year gets too much older, I’d like to reflect on they, which was Merriam-Webster’s word of the year for 2019. ()

In the words of this august organization, they “reflects a surprising fact: even a basic term—a personal pronoun—can rise to the top of our data.” Searches for they “increased by 313% in 2019 over the previous year.”

The folks at Merriam-Webster go on to say that the English language lacks a gender-neutral singular pronoun, and they has been used for this purpose for more than 600 years. Further, these experts note that they is now being used to refer to people of nonbinary gender identity. British singer Sam Smith, for example, has announced that they prefer they or them as their personal pronoun.

Hokay. Still sounds odd to me, but I’m onboard.

Now, here’s another use of they that I am not overjoyed about. For example: “XYZ Company has pioneered this technology. They are redefining … “ One can definitely make a case for XYZ Company as a collective noun that can be considered as singular or plural. (See page 220 in “Woe is I” by Patricia T. O’Conner. And yet, I find something jarring about its use as a plural. So if you send me something to edit that refers to what seems to be a singular entity as a plural, you’ll get it back as a singular pronoun and verb. As in “XYZ Company has pioneered this technology. It is redefining … “

And now, as a special treat, a Sam Smith video.

arloo — 123rf.com

Most likely the concept of celebrating your company’s brand flaws strikes terror into your heart. After all, your competitors may be doing a pretty good job of persuading your target audience of the wonderfulness of their products.

Yet there are reasons to focus on your brand’s lack of perfection, as explained by Richard Shotton (@rshotton) in his recent article, “How Flaws Make a Brand More Appealing.”  Mr. Shotton, by the way, is the author of The Choice Factory, a well-reviewed look at how our behavioral biases influence what we buy.

But I digress.

“Flaunt Your Flaws”

Mr. Shotton notes that one of the earliest examples of flaunting brand flaws was the Doyle Dane Bernbach Volkswagen ad campaign. If you’re old enough, you have truly fond memories of these little gems, which “gently mocked” the Beetle for its size, speed, and other attributes. Bill Bernbach, the advertising genius behind the campaign, successfully used the same approach with Avis.

Why does this approach work? Says Mr. Shotton, “Admitting weakness is a tangible demonstration of honesty and, therefore, makes other claims more believable.” Further, brands that admit their failings honestly are better able to persuade consumers that these failings are inconsequential.

“Make Sure This Tactic Suits Your Brand”

Mr. Shotton continues by cautioning that the “pratfall effect” works best when your brand is fundamentally sound and your competitors’ claims tend toward puffery.

Interestingly, men are more swayed by the pratfall effect than women who are, at bottom, supremely practical beings. “If your brand targets men then admitting weaknesses should be an approach you seriously consider.”

“More Than Just Ads”

You can talk about brand flaws in more than just ads. Consider the ubiquitous product review. One might think that perfect ratings are the goal, but something less than perfection, say in the 4.2 to 4.5 range, tends to prompt purchases. Perfect ratings lack credibility, “but negative reviews may have a positive impact because they help establish trust and authenticity.” Brand owners have been counseled to respond to less-than-favorable reviews with an apology for a bad experience and an offer to make things right. That is bound to have a favorable effect on credibility. (And I bet it also works in the world of social interactions.)

And now, a little clip that will bring tears to your eyes …

Iqoncept — 123rf.com

Every now and then, I get a bit lazy and recycle older posts. I hope you enjoy this trip down memory lane.

In December, Toni Bowers of TechRepublic re-published this CareerBuilder list of the expressions you love to hate . Her comment? “I cannot believe anyone with half a brain and/or an ounce of self-respect would continue to use these terms.”

Ah, c’mon, Toni. Haven’t we all caught ourselves using a cringe-worth expression? I know I do. And without a touch of irony.

Drumroll, please. Here’s the list.

• Outside the box (31%)
• Low-hanging fruit (24%)
• Synergy (23%)
• Loop me in (22%)
• Best of breed (19%)
• Incentivize (19%)
• Mission-critical (19 %)
• Bring to the table (18%)
• Value-add (17%)
• Elevator pitch (16%)
• Actionable items (15%)
• Proactive (15%)
• Circle back (13%)
• Bandwidth (13%)
• High level (10%)
• Learnings (9%)
• Next steps (6%)

Argh. I think my positively least favorite is “learnings,” or “key learnings.” Since when, folks, has “learning” needed to acquire an “s” on the end? (“Circle back” is a close second, followed by “language” used as a verb.)

Let’s have an inpromptu “detest fest.” Tell me your favorite un-favorites, and I’ll share them with the world.

Studiostoks – 123rf.com

 

If you’re thinking about rebranding, you should ask yourself pointed questions. Chelsea Alventosa of Canva, a creator of a simplified graphic-design tool, has come up with ten good ones. Though the company’s focus is on logos, packaging, and imagery, these questions work even from a broader perspective.

Here are the five questions I liked, but all ten will make you stop and think. Check out the article. It’s lavishly illustrated with examples.

“Will a rebrand compromise your brand equity?”

If your brand name is well known and has a great reputation, you want to make sure you’re not confusing customers or negatively impacting hard-earned brand equity. Ms. Aventosa says, “Your goal when rebranding should be to give your brand a new twist that customers identify with and support, rather than going in a completely different direction.” In her view, IHOP did a great job of refreshing its logo while maintaining the colors that patrons associated with the restaurant.

“Can you identify a problem with your current brand?”  

“Before rebranding your business,” says Ms. Aventosa, “it’s important to ask yourself what problems there are with your current logo, or brand kit.” If you can’t identify a real problem, you should probably hold off. Gap revamped its logo in 2010 and got such bad feedback that it reverted to the design we’re all familiar with. I point to Agilent Technologies—a Hewlett-Packard spin-off—and Accenture—formerly Andersen Consulting—as examples of branding that, in my opinion, didn’t need to be fixed with silly suggestive names.

“Is your brand story still relevant?”

Does your brand reflect the values of your core audience? Have your customers’ values changed over the years? If so you need to change as well. American Eagle Aerie, for example, which now reflects a body-positive ethos—think Lizzo—in its sleepwear and intimate apparel line for young women.

“Have your service offerings changed over time?”

As what you offer has evolved, has your brand kept up? Does it convey how you’ve expanded or contracted your offering? Ms. Aventosa points to Uber, noting that its 2016 rebranding was intended to convey broadened services and a global identity. Ms. Aventosa counsels companies to be consistent in their use of colors and patterns throughout marketing materials so that their look will become “instantly recognizable.” Large companies, such as Cisco, typically create brand and style manuals to guide look, feel, and voice. And so should smaller enterprises. It’s never too early to start creating a consistent impression.

“Can people understand your message at first glance?”

“What information and feelings does your branding give at first sight? If people are confused about what you are trying to portray when they catch a glimpse of your website or product, they probably won’t stay long.” Ms. Aventosa points to Tesco, a UK-based grocer whose Everyday Value product line sold poorly until a packaging revamp conveyed a better quality-value message.

Clearly, rebranding should not be undertaken lightly. Branding touches on how a company feels about its customers and itself, its history, and where it’s going. And rebranding should prompt the same kind of self-examination.

Dizanna – 123rf.com

You may not be thinking about how your brand culture will react to hard times. But Chris Wren (@chriswrenla) certainly has. In a September 2019 article “Leveraging Brand Culture to Combat Recessions,” he discusses things brands may want to consider in what he—and others—believe is the coming recession. “Market volatility, tariffs, Brexit, upcoming elections in the US, and economic indicators point to the high likelihood of a recession impacting consumers and brands soon.”

But first, what is the culture we’re referring to? Actually, it’s workplace culture, and it’s “the mark a job leaves on people. It’s what people say about where they work when they leave at night. And when they leave for other companies. It’s the way that where they work makes them feel.” Equally important, culture is about what makes employees both happy and unhappy, listening to what you hear from then, and, of course, caring what they say.

Mr. Wren points out that the world is different than it was during the Great Recession of 2008. Social media scrutiny, as it has with everything else, puts brands “under the spotlight in the way they compensate executives, how their employees are impacted, and changes that can happen through the supply chain.”

So, given that such a high percentage of employees are living paycheck to paycheck, Mr. Wren discusses approaches such as pay cuts and emergency loans, which can foster an “we’re all in this together” camaraderie. But he also notes the downside: these programs may not be enough. Proactivity is important. “When the recession hits, step up your internal corporate communications and encourage employee engagement.”

Like companies anticipating bad times, we should all think about how we manage our personal economics. They are integral to our brands. I was raised in a household that functioned by the maxim “Use it up, wear it out, make it do, or do without.” I’ve strayed, of course, from this New England austerity, yet, when I’m in adherent mode, I feel better. And I’m betting companies do too.

Alexlmx – 123rf.com

Shana Pilewski, a senior content marketer at Dynamic Yield, has come up with nine crucial branding mistakes to avoid. Branding mistakes can cost your organization money and the time required to fix them—assuming they’re fixable—and of course, they can impact image and reputation. As Ms. Pilewski says, “Your brand is a window into the heart and soul of your business… Branding is not just a buzzword for getting a one-time campaign right—it encapsulates everything you want to communicate to your customers.”

Getting branding right is enough of a challenge, but keeping it right is critical, because it must evolve along with your customers.

Here are my three faves of Ms. Pilewski’s tips, though they’re all part of a package, so you probably want read her blog post.

Missing out on the value proposition

Value proposition has sort of an academic sound, but at bottom, it’s what distinguishes your brand from all others out there. Ms. Pilewski recommends against overusing buzzwords, vague terminology, mimicking your competitors too closely and, here’s a biggie— “not communicating the problems you solve.” As so many marketing pundits have put it, no one cares that you’re faster, sleeker, or gorgeous beyond words. What they do want to know is “What’s in it for me?”

Not adhering to brand guidelines

I’m sure we’ve all heard snarky comments about the “brand police.” Perhaps we’ve even made them ourselves. But the truth is, brand guidelines exist for a reason. Ms. Pilewski says, “Brand guidelines serve to demonstrate what you represent, and what differentiates you from your competitors.” So, you need to pay attention to color schemes, how you use your logo, fonts, voice/messaging, and imagery.

A few years back, I worked on a couple of branding and messaging projects for Taproot Foundation, a truly excellent organization the provides pro bono services to non-profits. What I recall vividly is presenting really well-though-out branding recommendations to a couple of clients who essentially said, “Well, if we don’t like them, we’ll combine them with some stuff we already have or we’ll just ignore them.” Ouch. At the end of the meeting, I think we had our clients convinced that piecemealing would be a big branding mistake, but you never know. These well-meaning folks were amateurs, frankly, and they probably perceived us as the hated brand police.

Forgetting what makes your brand distinct

What happens if your customer demographics change? Ms. Pilewski says your branding needs to address a new subset of customers and connect with it appropriately. She uses Lord & Taylor as her example, noting that the store rebranded itself to appeal to millennials, while attempting not to alienate its original clientele of well-heeled older women. It seems as though the effort was only partially successful. Lord & Taylor has closed its flagship Fifth Avenue store and expected to close up to 10 of nearly 50 locations in 2019.

Yes, I’ve rolled my eyes and spoken derisively of the brand police in the past. Yet, these folks are more enforcers than positioning and messaging geniuses, and their true function, in my opinion, is to keep us from making branding mistakes that cause problems for our organizations and may be difficult to fix.

everydayplus — 123rf.com

Recently, I read an interesting article on cooperative competition by Chris Wren, who writes for Branding Strategy Insider.

Mr. Wren starts by describing an interaction between McDonald’s and Burger King in Argentina. On McHappy Day, which dedicates the proceeds of sales of Big Macs to fighting childhood cancers, Burger King responded by deciding not to sell Whoppers and asking customers to help McDonald’s as much money as possible by buying a Big Mac.

Burger King customers responded positively to the request, and many people were thrilled when “the King” visited a McDonald’s to promote the campaign.

Interesting, eh, but perhaps not as unusual as one might think. Mr. Wren points to an article by Paul Friederichsen, which says “ … brands must recognize that in the face of growing challenges, it is no longer enough to provide a quality product or good service. Brands must also provide evidence of a ‘higher calling’—a desire to build a legacy—their legacy.” In my opinion, cooperative competition will likely become more important as companies seek to court millennials whose reputation for seeking out socially conscious brands is well documented.

Here are the three ways in which cooperative competition can benefit brands.

It strengthens the “higher calling” message

Everyone knows that companies are in business to make money, but cooperative competition is transcendent. Mr. Wren cites the example of Tesla supporting open source regarding its intellectual property. By encouraging customers to buy a Big Mac on McHappy Day, Burger King was reinforcing the message that helping children with cancer was paramount.

It humanizes the brand

Mr. Wren points out that “ … it’s much more than defining personality traits and changing the style of communication. It’s about actions.” He then notes that charismatic CEOs have taken stands on issues that need support. Check out his article about Patagonia, IKEA, and Salesforce.

It creates an opportunity for reciprocity

One of the executives behind the Burger King campaign commented that his client loved that asking customers to buy from McDonald’s was the kind of thing Burger King would do but McDonald’s probably would not.

Years ago, at a networking event in California, I spoke to a fellow professional who had recently moved to Portland. She commented on being shocked at how withholding her peers were. “They seem to be afraid to help each other out,” she said. “In California, my partners and I were always making referrals when we didn’t have capacity or thought someone else could do a better job. We always found that came back to us in good ways.”

Rawpixel  — 123rf.com

According to three Australian business school professors—Mara Olekalns, Ruchi Sinha, and Carol T. Kulik—women face negotiation challenges unique to their gender. And because “ … negotiations are woven through the fabric of our everyday working lives,” it is critical that they master the skills they need to manage themselves, their teams, and their work effectively.

Aside from negotiating for pay or promotions, the three most common negotiations for women involve work resources, professional development, and work-life balance. In all these areas, many of the women interviewed in the professors’ recent study saw negotiation as a “battlefield where a lack of information or clarity on what you (or others) want is a disadvantage.”

Professors Olekalns, Sinha, and Kulik have identified three unique negotiation challenges for women.

#1  Balancing self-advocacy and communality

Women have often been reluctant to advocate for career advancement out of fear of being regarded as “pushy, unlikeable, and undesirable team members.” ( I recall hearing both men and women describe Hillary Clinton this way.)

The professors recommend balancing warmth and assertiveness during negotiations, first showing that you understand the needs of the others involved. They also recommend framing your ask in the context of your team. For example, you might “frame a salary increase as fair compensation given your contributions to the team (rather than as an Individual want.)“

#2  Managing difficult emotions

This is a biggie. Women have reported feeling anxious and worried, because they perceive that a  negotiation might not end well. During negotiations—and after—they have described the challenges around managing frustration, anger, and hurt.

You may be able to reduce anxiety through a strategy of defensive pessimism where you reduce your expectations and consider how a negotiation could unfold. Assuming things will not go well can help you prepare better for resistance and be ready to provide your opposite number additional information. The underlying theory is that the more you prepare, the more you will reduce your anxiety level. Understanding what triggers your negative emotions will help you distance yourself from them and the damage you can cause by an imprudent response. Focusing on how you can do better next time will help you leverage your experience going forward. Of course, training yourself not to become attached to a specific outcome pretty much  without saying.

#3  Overcoming interpersonal resistance

The authors point out that negotiators may use power plays to influence or undermine. Respondents in their study cited such examples as a manager missing a scheduled meeting, overreacting to an ask, or behaving in an unpredictable or volatile way. They comment, “We know that women face more resistance in negotiations than men, and building capacity to persist despite it emerged as a clear theme in our interviews.”

So what to do? “Building grit is key.” Recognizing that one is in it for the long term and persisting are critical to building strength and resilience. So is mobilizing the confidence to overcome obstacles. In this environment, it’s important to see setbacks as opportunities to learn more about those with whom you’re negotiating and to develop constructive responses.

This is such a rich article. I’ve only touched on major points and recommend you read it in its entirety. Though the authors see these three challenges as unique to women in negotiations, I can’t help but think they also apply to men. After all, how many men have you encountered who have confessed that they don’t look forward to negotiating and wonder if they have the skills to be successful.

Dmitrii Shironosov — 123rf.com