エージェントは競争相手か？

つまり、直接のクライアントを持つ翻訳者にとって、エージェントは競争相手か？

さらには、エージェントにとって、直接のクライアントを持つ翻訳者は競争相手か？　

という問いに対して。

フリーランスで仕事をしていますが、クライアントが直接のお客様の時もあれば、エージェントの時もあります。

結論から言うと、直接のお客様がいるからといって、エージェントのことをライバル、競争相手だとは思いませんし、エージェントから見ても、直接の顧客を持つフリーランスが競合であるべきだとも思いません。

選択肢が増えるということは市場にとって好ましいことですし、業界にとってもポジティブなことだと思います。

実を言うと、何年か前、直接の顧客を持ったり、ウェブサイトを持ったりしてそのことを告知することは、エージェントを敵に回すことになるのではないか、そんな心配をしたこともありました。

今はそのようなものではないのではないか、構図である必要はないし、そうではないんだな、と思うに至りました。

それは、案件によって、個人に適したプロジェクトと、エージェントに適したプロジェクトがある、と思うからです。

フリーランスになってしばらくは、エージェントからのお仕事がほとんどでした。

非常に大きなボリュームのものを大勢で手分けするというプロジェクトにも関わらせていただき、そのおかげで、大変勉強になりました。

そういった経験は、個人で終始対応するタイプの仕事では、まず得られません。

このように、エージェント経由のプロジェクトから翻訳者が得られるものは大きいものです。

では、個人、つまりフリーランスの依頼に適したプロジェクトには、どんなものがあるか。

まず、英語から日本語など、対象言語が単一で、量も小～中規模の場合は個人のほうが「取り回し」が小さくて済む分、コミュニケーションが単純化される。時間も労力もセーブできるので効率的だと言えると思います。

一方、エージェントへの依頼が適したプロジェクトは、個人ですべてまかなうことが不可能なもの、あるいはそれに向いていないものだと思います。

例えば、多言語化プロジェクトで、ボリュームが相当にある場合、言語をまたいだ統一感や統一性が求められます。

表記や表現などが統一されているかどうかは、翻訳のクオリティの良し悪しを左右する基本的な部分ですから。

専任のプロジェクトマネージャーがスタイルガイドをまとめたり、チェック作業を行う。それらを含めた一連のプロセスを一か所でまとめられるエージェントを利用するのが効果的だと思うのです。

また、ボリュームの大きな案件はどうか。個人で対応しきれるか。

これは納期に余裕があるのであれば、ひとりでも対応が可能だと思いますが、納期が悠々としている案件は少ない。つまり、量に対して納期がタイトなのであれば、手分けする必要が出てくるでしょう。

その場合、訳語や表現の統一など、品質管理が単独の翻訳者の場合に比べて、複雑になるので、その点に関しては注意が必要だと思いますが…。

では、納期は短く、量は多いので「それでは即エージェントに依頼！」かというと、残念ながら話はそれほど単純ではありません。

エージェントでも、対象言語に対応できるプロジェクトマネージャーを抱えていないところでは、たとえ多言語に対応しているエージェントであっても、日本語に対応できるプロジェクトマネージャーがいるとは限りません。

それなら、日本語を目標言語（アウトプットされる言語）にしている翻訳者でチームを組み、そのチームのなかでコーディネーターを決め、プロジェクトマネージメント、品質管理を行う方が賢明ではないか、と個人的には思います。

反対に、直接のクライアントの仕事であれば、中継点が少ないため、コミュニケーションの時間短縮が長所のひとつ。

その一方で、情報のやり取り、ファイルのやり取りやデータの保管など、その点におけるクライアントの不安材料を取り除く努力、エージェントが担っている責任を、直接自分が担うという認識を備えるなど、意識的な努力が必要になることも。

結局、直接のクライアントを持つ翻訳者にとって「エージェントは競争相手か？」

そして、エージェントにとって「直接のクライアントを持つ翻訳者は競争相手か？」

と考えてみましたが、私はエージェントとの関係は「競争相手」ではなく「パートナーシップ」だと思います。

No mic, no documents, no complaints? For appearance sake!!

A friend of mine went to a concert of her favourite band the other day and she told me how fantastic it was.  As she told me her experience there, I started to think about our job – interpreter – in terms of a singer, from a singer or concert’s point of view.  I thought of many questions, such as

“Can you imagine a concert with no microphone?”
“Can you imagine a singer not knowing what to sing?”
“Can you imagine she wasn't given the music or lyrics, either prior to the gig or even on the spot?”
“What if she was supposed to sing as she reads the lyrics as well as the music?”
“And she was expected to sing beautifully in such condition?”

I imagine, in most of the cases No would be the answer to all above questions. You simply wouldn’t expect anything like that in a concert, would you?
Interpreters are different from singers, but shouldn’t we all be respected equally? I mean above kind of things, equivalent things, happen to us frequently. Something of the sort one way or another all the time.

You go to the venue for an interpreting assignment and discover there is no microphone in a conference room where there will be around 100 attendees and also several interpreters sitting beside them.  If no microphone is what you discover almost as soon as the conference starts…  What would it make you think? Or what would this tell you about the assignment?

Let me summarise how it all started – don’t forget it is one of the typical situations in our line of work.  One day, I received a call from an agency.  I never worked with them before, by the way, and they asked me if I could take on a conference assignment in 10 days.  The field was technology, and it was a large internal conference of a very large media corporation.  I had some qualification and experience in media field, so I told them I can make myself available but on one condition.  I emailed them describing the condition, I clearly stated that I need ALL the slide decks and hand outs from ALL the people presenting and/or giving speeches BEFOREHAND.  If they fail to meet the condition, I could not accept the job and would cancel.

The agency responded they agreed and sent me the agenda for the event.  A few days passed, I sent follow-up email to the agency – no progress. A week before the event, I tried sending a reminder to them – no progress.  Every day after that I sent slightly more assertive email to them, I restated that I will have to withdraw.

They couldn't provide any documents except the simple agenda but they couldn't afford to be cancelled so they tried to come up with alternative solution. They asked one of the assigned interpreters who had worked for the same assignment for the past several years to meet with me.  So, we met up, the fellow interpreter told me about the end client and how it is usually.  It was helpful, in terms of comfort, but it couldn't be too informative because the conference agenda is totally different each year.

The first discovery about the assignment was a negative sign signifying ‘bad organisation’ often goes hand in hand with ‘lack of understanding’ of our profession and ‘lack of appreciation’ as if it’s the cream on top.  Soon, we discovered there had been another Japanese interpreter that was booked but through a different route, and as far as they were concerned, it was a double booking, unnecessary cost.  The assignment was for 8-9 hours of chuchotage (whispering) each day, it was only practical and sensible to book two interpreters for each language combination but – no – they had had a number of global size conference every year, but they insisted on having only one interpreter for each language combination.  The agency told me no matter how many times they tried to convince their client that there should be two interpreters, they just wouldn't listen, as if quality didn't matter after all.  

I often hear that educating clients is pretty much part of our job.  Like many fellow interpreters, I suffer from and get frustrated with lack of knowledge, lack of understanding we find in our (end) clients.  It is true that they are who ultimately suffer from the consequence, however, it may not be as critical to them as it seems to us, interpreting professionals.  It seems to me as if there are different (hidden) agenda in having interpreters there for them.

What they care the most sometimes seems as if it is to say that they provided interpreters for the attendees, they at least respected the importance of the language being available and they provided that, so they can’t be blamed or held liable later on that “but I didn't understand the language (and it is a discrimination)” – yes, I am saying it seems as if our presence was used as a risk hedge.

Lack of appreciation is a problem I often face.  I’d like to think the Japanese (language) interpreter is the only one that exceptionally suffers from this, because I see many (end) clients or users who say things which shows how little they understand and how little respect they have towards our profession.  This tendency is not only prevalent among Anglophones but also Japanese speakers too.
Be it in Japan or in the UK, client with English almost non-existent or even fluent in English – surprisingly – it doesn't make much difference when it comes to lack of appreciation in other words a lot of them seem to think it only takes to speak a few languages to do interpreting and it is a soon-be-obsolete occupation anyway...!?

There is another issue, this is rather a very critical issue for corporations, much more relevant to companies than to ourselves in terms of impact should it be infringed, and that is confidentiality.  I think it is fair to say they actually don’t want to need interpreters.  A lot of people feel bringing in interpreters is costing money to elongate their meetings.  In this kind of people’s minds, it is something to avoid if they could.  They don’t want to have to have interpreters, but they cannot take the risk to be held liable but their unspoken message is “Japanese participants, learn English!”  If that could be the case, then the penny drops, our quality of performance didn't really matter, as long as they made the language available ostensibly.

At the end of the day, it’s not a matter of life and death like surgical operation done on themselves. Nor a matter that the performance could determine their course of life, it doesn't affect their individual life like in a law suit - it usually doesn't threaten their career if interpreters fail.  They would quite happily blame us for any problems or complaints in communication.  Is there a way to turn the tables?