Translate, transcreate or simply just write
Transcreation seems to be something of a buzzword in the translation and communication world at the moment. But defining exactly what it is can cause some issues. So why all the hullabaloo?
Japanese-web.com puts it like this: “transcreation is to translation what copywriting is to writing.”
Basically, the concept is that while a translation merely recreates the original in another language, a transcreation takes the feeling, ideas and messages, and renders them in the new language. And in order to do that, as the name suggests, a transcreator must be creative. They have to understand what connections the original text is making with readers, and carry that over into a new language, complete with the cultural references, idioms and expressions that make the original text work.
But not everyone agrees - especially not translators, it seems. And it’s not hard to see why. The concept of transcreation relegates translators to delivering a second-rate service. They are no longer specialists. Instead they become word-for-word automats blindly following the meaning - but not the essence - of the original. Suddenly, a transcreation agency can charge more than a translation agency. For some translators, the transcreation concept appears somewhat…well…created.
This is put rather nicely by John Yunker.
If the original text is rubbish so is the translation
We’ve all seen translations that are dull and poorly worded, falling well short of engaging an audience. But maybe this isn’t always the translators fault.
The current translation versus transcreation debate assumes one key point - that the original text is already excellent. This should be the case for high-profile ad campaigns (sadly, it isn’t always); but it’s rarely the case when a text has been developed in house by a non-professional copywriter. When this is the case, a translation has no chance of delivering great text, and transcreation becomes re-writing in another language.
May 12th, 2008 at 10:08 am
You bring up a really interesting point about the quality of the original text - often refered to as the source text. I agree that the results of a translation are so much better when the source is logically constructed and well written. The translation process is easy and very little discussion is required to produce a translated text that everyone is happy with. Fortunately, we’ve experienced many of these situations.
However, when the source text is not great, transcreation can give the writer more scope to deliver a great piece of work in the target language.
I’d like to note here that there are many possible reasons for a source text being poor quality. But a key reason is lack of time. Even the most skilled and experienced business writers will know what that’s like. Sometimes, you simply aren’t given the time to prepare a perfect text that has been planned, drafted, reviewed, edited and proofread before going for translation.
In cases like this, and if the transcreator can think of the source text as a more of a briefing rather than a perfect text, the end result can, in the right circumstances, also turn out to be excellent. But the transcreator has to be allowed to spend more time working out how best to express the messages behind the source text. And of course, he or she must be given creative license.
You also have to expect more dialog between the transcreator and the client - much like the dialog required for a copywriter to do his or her best.
The more I think about it, the more similarities I see between copywriting and transcreating. In fact, are there any differences at all?
May 29th, 2008 at 4:22 am
Dan,
Thanks so much for quoting our blog post on international advertising and transcreation.
In his comment, David brings up the practice of briefing the writer(s). You both may find our latest post useful: “Six steps for preparing a nuanced marketing campaign for a local translation… and getting great results.” See Step 1.
http://tinyurl.com/6foex9
And, by all means, feel free to comment on our blog!
L
January 25th, 2010 at 6:58 pm
Hey, This is a superb string. I found you on msn. Keep up the work.