Web Localization and the Cobbler's Children
"Why don't we have our Web site localized?" my business partner asked. "We're in the business, and a localized site would show that we're willing to put our money where our mouth is."
Excellent question. Why not get our site, or at least the pages that pertain to localization, localized? So I looked into it.
It was going to cost about US$2000 per language, when all was said and done, so I asked my partner if he'd be willing to split the cost with me. Perhaps you can guess his answer.
It was an interesting issue, though. Assume that a prospective customer, who doesn't know much about the industry, goes shopping for a vendor. She finds a vendor whose site is in only one language, and another whose site is in eight languages. Which vendor has more credibility, especially to somebody who doesn't know (or even want to know) a lot about localization?
Mind you, I'm not completely representative of the entire industry. I'm not a "language service provider," so that bit of credibility is of no great advantage to me. Still, it brings up the old chestnut about the cobbler's children running barefoot: Isn't it odd to be in localization, yet not have a localized Web presence?
My rationale, aside from the expense, is that almost nobody who would want our services would want to read about them in any other language besides English. That's probably the case for almost everyone in the American localization industry, where the dominant language conveniently matches the world's current lingua franca. Other languages just confuse most Americans anyway, so one could argue that it would be a needless distraction in the sales cycle.
What do you think your customers and prospects want to see? Can you get by with your marketing presence (Web, collateral, datasheets) in one language?
If you enjoyed this article, have a look at "Why Localize at All?"
Excellent question. Why not get our site, or at least the pages that pertain to localization, localized? So I looked into it.
It was going to cost about US$2000 per language, when all was said and done, so I asked my partner if he'd be willing to split the cost with me. Perhaps you can guess his answer.
It was an interesting issue, though. Assume that a prospective customer, who doesn't know much about the industry, goes shopping for a vendor. She finds a vendor whose site is in only one language, and another whose site is in eight languages. Which vendor has more credibility, especially to somebody who doesn't know (or even want to know) a lot about localization?
Mind you, I'm not completely representative of the entire industry. I'm not a "language service provider," so that bit of credibility is of no great advantage to me. Still, it brings up the old chestnut about the cobbler's children running barefoot: Isn't it odd to be in localization, yet not have a localized Web presence?
My rationale, aside from the expense, is that almost nobody who would want our services would want to read about them in any other language besides English. That's probably the case for almost everyone in the American localization industry, where the dominant language conveniently matches the world's current lingua franca. Other languages just confuse most Americans anyway, so one could argue that it would be a needless distraction in the sales cycle.
What do you think your customers and prospects want to see? Can you get by with your marketing presence (Web, collateral, datasheets) in one language?
If you enjoyed this article, have a look at "Why Localize at All?"
Labels: localization costs, localization vendor, translators, why localize
posted by John White, Localization Guy at
18:08
2 Comments:
I also have been asked why our English-only website isn't localized. I said, it is localized - we are a German company and our website is in English, the language of our target audience. As long as you speak the language of your customers, you're all set.
By
Frank, at 02:40
Sehr gut gesagt!
By
John White, Localization Guy, at 14:44
Post a Comment
<< Home