2011 Rates and Salaries Survey for Translators and Interpreters

Transcription

1 Chartered Institute of Linguists & Institute of Translation and Interpreting 2011 Rates and Salaries Survey for Translators and Interpreters Copyright CIOL/ITI 2011 no part of this publication may be reproduced by any means without the prior written permission of CIOL & ITI

2 Title Contents Page Introduction to Survey (survey rationale) 4 Master Report 5 Generic information 5 Professional memberships 5 Age group 5 Gender 5 Mother tongue, or language of habitual use 6 Geographic location 6 Years of experience 7 Employment status in most recent tax year 7 Academic qualifications 7 Workload 8 Gross income 8 Rates as compared with 5 years ago 8 Work for translation companies/agencies 9 Client payments 9 Translation/interpreting contribution to household income 9 Business website 10 Time working in the sector 10 Trading status 10 Orders & contracts 11 Translator information 12 Subject areas 12 Word output 13 Source of work by geographic region 13 Urgent/out-of-hours/weekend work premium 13 Job cancellation 13 Project management 14 Independent revision 14 Proof-reading 15 Transcription 15 Non-standard formats 16 Subtitling 16 CAT and TM tools 17 Voice/Speech - recognition software 18 Interpreter information 19 Interpreter type 19 Specialist work areas 21 Work volume 21 Minimum charges 21 Cancellation fees 22 Simultaneous v consecutive charging 22 Charges for organisational services 22 Preparation 22 Urgent/short notice/out-of-hours/weekend work 23 Travelling time & expenses 23 Overnight accommodation 23 Subsistence 23 Remote interpreting 24 Voice-over 24

3 Title Page Salaried/staff information 25 Employed status 25 Employment term 25 Normal weekly working hours 25 Employment sector 25 Employed role 25 Employment team 26 Team size as compared to 5 years ago 26 Gross salary in most recent tax year 26 Training/professional development 26 Place of work 26 Translation and interpreting tables 27 Introduction to translation tables 27 Translation tables 29 Introduction to interpreting tables 39 Interpreting tables 40 Summary report 45

4 Introduction to the survey results Plans to carry out a joint ITI/CIOL rates and salaries survey had been afoot for many years and in the spring of 2010 a Working Group (WG) was set up by both Councils and tasked with the design and implementation of the project. The survey did not just look at rates of payment but also at the general terms and conditions and other relevant aspects currently applicable to the industry. The rates and fees data collected is historical to the end of the respondent s most recent tax year and is intended for use as a guide for those working in the industry. It is also hoped that the results from this and future surveys will be used not only for statistical purposes but also for trend analysis of the translating and interpreting profession. The online survey went live in August 2011 and by the closing date of 8 October 2011 over 1750 responses had been submitted. This figure is considerably higher than anything achieved in previous surveys of either institute and looks good even by international comparison. Comparison of the outcomes from this survey and those of the 1999 (CIOL) & 2001 (ITI) surveys could be problematic, as this survey population was much larger. Evaluating whether significant changes are due to market developments or differences in the survey population is therefore likely to be difficult, as one would not necessarily be comparing like with like. It would be much better to take these current outcomes as the benchmark for future similar surveys. In the meantime, we hope you will enjoy reading the results. Michael Cunningham, MCIL - Chair Christine Pocock, FCIL John Gardam, MITI Udo Jorg, MITI (adviser to the Working Group) This Master Report was prepared on behalf of the Joint CIOL/ITI Rates & Salaries Working Group (Chaired by Michael Cunningham, CIOL) The Working Group would also like to thank Pamela Mayorcas for her involvement in the development of the survey questionnaire and Alan Wheatley (Consultant) for his valued contributions to the technology element in creating the survey, and for the data analysis and preparation of the Master Report. Copyright CIOL/ITI 2011 no part of this publication may be reproduced by any means without the prior written permission of CIOL & ITI

5 Generic information Professional memberships Chartered Institute of Linguists FCIL 66 5% MCIL 1,055 79% ACIL % Registered Student 15 1% Total responses 1,328 Institute of Translation & Interpreting FITI 24 3% MITI % PCI 3 1% Associate % Student 15 2% Additional memberships Total responses 743 Response Translators Association 61 Association of Police & Court Interpreters 41 Cymdeithas Cyfieithwyr Cymru 20 AIIC 14 Other professional linguist association 332 Not a member of any relevant association 23 Total responses 446 Of the 1743 responses 379 are members of both CIOL and ITI. Ten respondents are members of 4 or more associations, 128 are members of 3 or more and 521 are members of 2 or more. 30 respondents are not members of CIOL or ITI, however they are members of other relevant language associations or organisations. This question also collected data on those who have achieved Chartered Linguist status, however this is not reported as there appears to be a misconception amongst respondents about the status. Age group Up to % % % % % 70 and over 88 5% Gender Total responses 1,722 Average age 45.8 years Female 1,175 68% Male % Total responses 1, (86%) females and 444 (81%) males are freelancers. 148 (14%) females and 93 (19%) males are salaried staff.

6 Mother tongue, or language of habitual use Language Second English % 142 French % 27 German % 21 Italian % 16 Polish % 6 Spanish % 19 Chinese (Cantonese) % Russian % Greek % Portuguese (Brazilian) % Spanish (Latin American) % Chinese (Mandarin) % Portuguese (European) % Welsh % Arabic % Dutch % Japanese % Chinese % Turkish % English (US) % Czech % Other % Total responses 1,731 Geographic location of respondents UK 1, % London % East of England % South East England % South West England % North West England % West Midlands % Scotland % Yorkshire and the Humber % East Midlands % Wales % North East England % Northern Ireland 6 0.4% Other European Countries % Germany % Spain % France % Italy % Albania % Belgium % Switzerland % The Netherlands % Greece % Other countries % Rest of the world % China % United States of America % Australia % Canada 8 0.5% Afghanistan 4 0.2% Brazil 3 0.2% Japan 3 0.2% Argentina 2 0.1% Other countries % Total responses 1,701

7 Number of years industry experience Freelance Full-time: Translator Part-time: Translator Full-time: Interpreter Part-time: Interpreter Responses 1, Maximum (years) Minimum (years) Median (years) Of those working as freelance full-time translators, 25 (2.5%) respondents reported working for 40 years or more, 148 (14%) for 25 to 40 years and 205 (20%) less than 5 years. Part-time translators reported 15 (2%) working 40 years or more, 56 (8%) between 25 and 40 years and 264 (38%) less than 5 years experience. Full-time interpreters who responded reported that 8 (3%) had 40 years or more experience, 28 (11%) had between 25 and 40 years and 177 (69%) 5 years or less. part-time interpreters reported that 11 (4%) had 40 years or more experience, 31 (31%) between 25 and 40 years and 91 (32%) less than 5 years experience. Salaried Full-time: Translator Part-time: Translator Full-time: Interpreter Part-time: Interpreter Responses Maximum (years) Minimum (years) Median (years) Of those working as salaried full-time translators, 3 (2.5%) respondents reported working for 40 years or more, 22 (14%) for 25 to 40 years and 32 (20%) less than 5 years. Salaried part-time translators reported 1 (1%) working 40 years or more, 6 (6%) between 25 and 40 years and 48 (48%) less than 5 years experience. Salaried full-time interpreters who responded reported that 3 (10%) had between 25 and 40 years experience and 12 (40%) had 5 years or less. Salaried part-time interpreters reported that 2 (4%) had between 25 and 40 years and 26 (57%) less than 5 years experience. Employment status in most recent tax year Freelance 1,468 86% Salaried % Total responses 1, (96%) freelancers and 226 (93%) salaried staff are members of either CIOL or ITI. Academic qualifications 1st degree or equivalent - Modern Languages Translation and or Interpreting % 1st degree or equivalent - other % 2nd degree or equivalent - Masters in Translation and or Interpreting % 2nd degree or equivalent - other % Further Education (FE) qualifications % DipTrans (IOLET) % DPSI % Certificate in Community Interpreting 47 3% Total responses 1,680 Number of qualifications 3,075 Maximum 2 Respondents listing "other" qualifications % Respondents listing "no" qualifications 17 1% Of those who listed "other" 1st degrees 170 have a BA, 57 a BSc, 36 an MA and 5 a PhD. Of those who listed "other" 2nd degrees 135 have an MA, 39 a PhD, 29 and MSc, and 8 an MBA.

8 As compared with five years ago, workload for Increased Decreased Not changed % No. % No. % No. Translation has 44% % % 345 Interpreting has 29% % % translators (96%) who responded that their work has increased are members of CIOL or ITI; 373 (94%) who reported decreasing rates are members of CIOL or ITI, 339 (98%) of those reporting an unchanged workload are members of CIOL or ITI. 142 interpreters (97%) who reported that their workload has increased are members of CIOL or ITI, 221 (96%) who reported a decrease are members of CIOL or ITI, as are 130 (98%) of those who reported no change. Gross income (GBP) from translating/interpreting in most recent tax year 2010 Tax year All regions UK only Europe only USA only Rest of world Total gross income 29,355,776 17,468,254 10,750, , ,356 Responses 1, Median gross income 22,000 15,000 17,000 2,767 4,625 Percentage 60.0% 36.0% 1.8% 2.2% Range Response Over 100, ,000 to 99, ,000 to 74, ,000 to 49, ,000 to 39, ,000 to 29, ,000 to 24, ,000 to 19, ,000 to 14, ,000 to 9, Under 5, There were 1,110 responses to this question and the analysis identifies that many respondents receive work from across the world. Almost 60% of gross income emanates from the UK and almost 36% from the rest of Europe. Although the variance reported here is significant, the survey suggests that a relatively small proportion of people earned over 50,000 per annum and it may well be that some of these respondents sub-contracted work to others and thus behaved as project managers/intermediaries, which considerably increased their income. In fact, in a following question 115 respondents stated that they were a director (e.g. of a translation company/agency). The median gross income covers full-time and part-time freelancers. The median gross income for full-time freelancers is as reported in a later question, 31,000. There was a large group of part-time respondents who earned less than 15,000. This data reports on gross income from the four regions and in many cases reflects the income for respondents who have worked across at least two or more regions. On average, current rates, as compared with five years ago are Higher % The same % Lower % Not applicable % Total responses 1,431 Of the 599 respondents reporting that their rates were higher than 5 years ago, 581 (97%) are members of CIOL or ITI. 530 (96%) reported that their rates were the same and are members of CIOL or ITI and 134 (95%) reporting lower rates are members of CIOL or ITI.

9 Work for translation companies/agencies Work for translation companies/agencies % Do not work for translation companies/agencies % Total responses 1,428 Of the 1175 reporting that they work for translation companies, 36 are not members of CIOL or ITI. Of those who do not work for translation companies, 243 are members of CIOL or ITI. When working for translation/interpreting companies/agencies Rates are set by them % Rates are subject to negotiation % Clients generally pay In accordance with invoice terms % 7-10 days late 111 8% days late % days late % 61 or more days late 33 2% Total responses 1,403 Average 21.3 days late Over the last three years, client payments have Remained the same % Slowed down, but it is not a problem % Slowed down, causing cash flow problems % Not applicable/don't know 120 9% Improved 102 7% Total responses 1,417 Translation/interpreting contribution to household income Median The only source of income % 31,686 The main source of income % 30,000 Approximately half the source of income % 24,000 A minor source of income % 8,000 Total responses 1,412 The 579 respondents who reported that translation/interpreting was their only or main source of income received a median income of 31,000. of the other responses were from part-time translators.thus anyone who makes more that 31,000 can justifiably claim to be in the top half of earners. Of the 296 who reported "only source of income", 284 (96%) are members of either CIOL or ITI. For "main source of income", 270 (96%) are members of CIOL or ITI, for "half the source of income", 336 (98%) are members of CIOL or ITI and for "minor source of income", 479 (98%) are members of CIOL or ITI.

10 Business website Respondents who do have a website % Respondents who do not have a website % Total responses 1,420 Approximate percentage of work it generated in last tax year 7 Over 80% 3 Up to 80% 11 Up to 50% 13 Up to 25% 90 Less than 10% Don't know % % Average One third of those responding have a business website. Of those who have a website, one third are aware of its contribution to their workload. Of the 445 who reported having a business website, 428 are members of CIOL or ITI, while 943 who do not have a website are members of CIOL or ITI. Percentage of time working in translation/interpreting sector Response Average Translator 1,350 76% Interpreter % Teacher % Project manager 141 9% Director (e.g. of a translation company/agency), 115 9% Other % Many of those who responded work across industry sectors; it would appear that those who are translators and/or interpreters also sometimes work as teachers, project managers and directors. This would suggest, on average, translators spend three quarters of their time translating and one quarter working in another field, possibly included, but not identified, in the "other" category. Trading status Sole trader % Registered for VAT % Registered as a limited company % Total responses 1,268 The majority of those who responded to this question are sole traders, some of whom are registered for VAT. Others are limited companies and, again, some are registered for VAT. 950 sole traders reported being members of either CIOL or ITI, as did 295 of those registered for VAT, as did 122 of those registered as limited companies. 89 sole traders (9%) reported being registered for VAT.

11 Clients provide written orders/contracts Translating Always % Occasionally % Never 81 9% Total responses 953 Interpreting Always % Occasionally % Never 49 15% Total responses 320 Use own Standard Terms of Business Yes % No 1,028 74% Total responses 1,391 Although the data suggests that written orders/contracts are only provided in less than 50% of cases, when combined with the part concerning "own Standard Terms of Business", it is clear that some form of document is applied in the majority of cases.

12 Translator information Translation subject Generalist % Specialist % Total responses 1, (97%) of those reporting to be generalists are members of CIOL or ITI, as are 684 (96.5%) of the specialists. Specialist areas of work Law % Other % Medicine % Marketing % Banking & Finance % Pharmaceuticals % Computers/Data % Mechanical Engineering % Environment 98 14% Automotive Engineering 96 14% Management 94 13% Advertising 88 12% Patents 80 11% Economics 78 11% Telecommunications 72 10% Electrical Engineering 68 10% Insurance 67 9% Transport 64 9% Public Relations 62 9% Art 57 8% Electronics 55 8% Politics 54 8% Literature 51 7% Chemistry 50 7% Biology 47 7% Civil Engineering 47 7% Agriculture 42 6% Biochemistry 31 4% Chemical Engineering 28 4% Plastics and Polymers 25 4% Marine engineering 22 3% Aeronautical Engineering 21 3% Physics 17 2% Nuclear Engineering 16 2% Textile Technology 16 2% Mining 14 2% Mathematics 8 1% Total responses 709 Respondents were asked to list "other" subjects not contained on the specialist list. One hundred and twenty nine different subjects were listed by two hundred and fifty four translators. Tourism, EU, Education and Architecture are amongst the most popular.

13 Approximate total word output in most recent tax year 13 Over 1,000, ,000 to 999, ,000 to 749, ,000 to 499, ,000 to 399, ,000 to 299, ,000 to 199, ,000 to 99, less than 49, responses 215,500 Median The survey returned a number of very high annual word outputs, over one million, which are likely to have been aided by CAT tools. Or it may also be that some respondents who claimed to be sole traders subcontracted work to other translators; in which case they could be acting as a project manager or intermediary. Source of work by geographic region Response Median UK 1,113 70% Other European countries % USA % Rest of the world % Total responses 1,272 This reflects the amount of work translators received from each of the regions. Respondents were able to choose more than one region, although the majority of translators received 100% of their work from the UK and Europe. 17% of translators receive over 90% of their work from the UK, while 7% receive less than 10%. 10% receive more than 90% of their work from other European countries, with 8% receiving less than 10%. Less than 1% receive more than 90% of their work from the USA, with 6% receiving less than 10%. 1% receive more than 90% of their work from the Rest of the World, with 4% receiving less than 10%. Urgent/out-of-hours/weekend work premium Median Charge a premium % 34% of fee Do not charge a premium % Total responses 1,169 Charges for job cancellation Charge for job cancellation % Do not charge for job cancellation % Total responses 1,156 Job cancellation charge Response Median After order confirmed, no work done % After order confirmed, some preparatory work done % After job commenced %

14 Project Management service Provide a Project Management Service 86 7% Do not provide a Project Management Service 1,077 93% Total responses 1, of those who report providing project management services are members of either CIOL or ITI. 51 of those providing the service are 'specialists' and 35 are 'generalists'. Project Management charging basis Median Daily rate 16 18% 250 Fixed fee for job 68 82% Total responses 84 Percentage of income in last tax year 68 20% Median Almost 50% of those who responded reported that project management work provides less than 10% of their annual income. 8% reported that this work provides 50% or more of their annual income. Independent revision of translations (i.e. word-for-word checking of the SL and TL) Provide an independent revision service % Do not provide an independent revision service % Total responses 1, of those who reported providing an independent revision service are members of either CIOL or ITI. 323 'generalists' and 399 'specialists' offer this service. Charging basis Median Hourly rate % 33 Differently, depending on setting % Word count - per 1000 words % 33 Fixed fee for job 48 7% Total responses 721 Percentage of income in last tax year % Median Of the 722 translators who responded that they do provide the service, 492 reported that independent revision accounts for less than 15% of their workload. 25 reported that this accounts for 50% or more.

15 Proof-reading service (i.e. checking target text without reference to source text) Provide a proof-reading service % Do not provide a proof-reading service % Total responses 1,156 Charging basis Median Hourly rate % 30 Differently, depending on setting % Word count - per 1000 words % Fixed fee for job 48 8% Total responses 635 Percentage of annual income % Median Of the 638 who offer a proof-reading service, 624 are members of either CIOL or ITI, of those who do not offer this service, 9 are not members of CIOL or ITI. There are 314 'generalists' and 324 'specialists' offering this service. When looking at proof-reading charged on a word count basis, the rates appear rather high and it may be that some respondents have inadvertently confused revision and proof-reading. However the above rates are those submitted and have therefore been included in the report. Transcription service Provide a transcription service % Do not provide a transcription service % Total responses 1,142 Charging basis Median Hourly rate 96 42% 33 Differently, depending on setting 86 38% Fixed fee for job 30 13% Word count - per 1000 words 16 7% 64 Total responses 228 Of the 231 respondents who provide a transcription service, 226 are members of either CIOL or ITI. 129 'generalists' and 101 'specialists' offer this service. Percentage of annual income % Median

16 Working with non standard formats Charge additional fees % Do not charge additional fees % Total responses 1,150 Charging basis Median Hourly rate 64 28% Fixed fee for job % Total responses 230 Of those who reported charging additional fees, 95 are 'generalists' and 142 are 'specialists', 235 are members of either CIOL or ITI. Of those who do not charge additional fees, 18 are not members of CIOL or ITI. Subtitling service Offer a subtitling service 102 9% Do not offer a subtitling service 1,059 91% Total responses 1,161 Of those who reported offering a sub-titling service, 101 are members of either CIOL or ITI. 50 'generalists' offer sub-titling, whilst 'specialists' account for 52. Charge by the minute Response Median Charge by the hour Response Median Charge per 1000 SL words Response Median Charge per 1000 TL words Response Median Percentage of income in latest tax year 61 15% Median

17 CAT tools (including translation memory) Use CAT tools % Do not use CAT tools % Total responses 1,217 CAT tools in use Trados % SDL % Wordfast % memoq 94 14% Other 65 10% DeJa Vu 60 9% Client supplied 57 9% Star Transit 41 6% Across 28 4% Multicorpora 1 0.2% Total responses 664 Almost 55% of translators who responded are using CAT tools, with SDL/Trados being the dominant product of choice. Many translators use two or more products, either through personal choice or by client demand. The use of Translation Memory systems (Computer Assisted Translation, CAT) One of the most striking conclusions,when comparing the IOL 1999 survey and the ITI 2001 survey with the current one, is the steady growth in the use of translation memory software (TM). In the IOL 1999 survey only 11% of the respondents used it, but by the ITI 2001 survey the figure was 30% and now it has risen to over half (55%). There is no doubt from the responses received that Trados is still very much the market leader with 63% of the market in spite of big efforts by MemoQ, Deja-Vu and Wordfast to increase their market share. Surprisingly it would not appear to have had a big effect on the rates charged for work supplied by agencies, although the figures for work done for direct customers do suggest that the rate charged by freelancers who use CAT tools is about 12% higher than that charged by those translators who do not use these systems. It appears that many agencies obtain discounts on 100% matches and repetitions, which in effect, means that translators who have invested their money and time in buying and learning how to use these systems have gained little of the possible advantages. Where a text has a lot of repetition, it may be that translators can work faster with a translation memory system than without, but discounts for 100% matches, repetitions, and even fuzzy matches are now offered by more than half of the survey respondents. Discounts for Translation Memory matches Discounts are offered % Discounts are not offered % Total Responses 658 Percentage discount for repetitions Median Percentage discount for 100% matches Median

18 Percentage discount for 95-99% matches % Median Percentage you discount for 85-94% matches % Median Percentage you discount for 75-84% matches % Median Percentage you discount for 50-74% matches 87 50% Median Experience working with CAT tools Average Minimum Maximum Years 7.2 years 1 year 28 years Total responses % of translators have been using CAT tools for five years or less, with 35% using CAT tools for between five and ten years. Voice/Speech - recognition software Use VR software % Do not use VR software 1,091 90% Total responses 1,214 Voice Recognition software in use Dragon % Mac Speech 2 2% Other 5 4% Total responses 121 Use of this technology by translators appears to be extremely low but the survey shows that of those who do use it, Dragon is the dominant product of choice

19 Interpreter information Interpreter type Ad hoc/liaison interpreter Sector Business % Other (NGOs, charities, non PSI community events etc) % Commercial law 71 24% Diplomatic 46 16% Total responses (97%) of those who responded are members of either CIOL or ITI Public service interpreter (PSI) Sector Police/courts % Local government % Health % Total responses (96%) of those who responded are members of either CIOL or ITI Conference interpreter Response Conference (95%) of those who responded are members of either CIOL or ITI Conference interpreters differentiate between A-Languages (native), B-Languages (full active command) and C-Languages (full passive command). Those who responded reported sixty 'A' languages, the top five being English (35%), French (13%), Italian (9%), Chinese (Mandarin) & Spanish both at 6%.

20 Conference interpreter - A language A language English 46 38% French 16 13% Italian 11 9% Chinese (Mandarin) 7 6% Spanish 7 6% Czech 5 4% German 5 4% Dutch 4 3% Russian 4 3% Arabic 3 3% Conference interpreter - B language B language English 66 56% French 18 15% Spanish 8 7% Italian 7 6% Punjabi 3 3% Romanian 3 3% Turkish 3 3% Welsh 3 3% Albanian 2 2% British Sign Language 2 2% Chinese (Mandarin) 2 2% English (US) 2 2% French (Belgian) 2 2% French (Canadian) 2 2% German 2 2% Hungarian 2 2% Portuguese (Brazilian) 2 2% Russian 2 2% Forty three 'B' languages were reported, the top four being English (55%), French (15%), Spanish (7%) and Italian 6% Conference interpreter - C language C language French 19 35% Spanish 12 22% German 10 18% Italian 8 15% English 7 13% Twenty 'C' languages were reported, the top four being French (34%), Spanish (22%), German (18%) and Italian 14%

21 Specialist work areas include Law % Business/Finance % Healthcare % Immigration % Tourism 98 25% Medical/Pharmaceutical 82 21% Technical/Engineering 80 21% Sales & Marketing 79 20% Environment 75 19% Politics 73 19% Market Research 67 17% Media 65 17% HR 64 17% Manufacturing 55 14% IT 42 11% Religious 41 11% Scientific 39 10% Military 27 7% Other 86 22% Total responses 388 Over one hundred and fifty "other" specialist areas of work were identified,"education" being the most popular. The following data analysis covers all interpreting categories surveyed and is not broken down by type (conference, ad-hoc or PSI); when reading the report please bear in mind that each interpreting category has its own traditions/preferences. Approximate work volume (in days) in most recent tax year Response Days Median Around 40% of interpreters report to have worked fewer than 100 days with almost 20% reporting working for 150 days or more. Minimum charges Claim a minimum charge % Do not claim a minimum charge 92 25% Total responses 376 What is it? Median Half day % 106 Full day 16 6% 287 Hourly % 28 Interpreters quoting hourly rates are more likely to be working in the public sector, which has historically been and remains less well remunerated than other interpreting sectors.

22 Cancellation fees Charge a cancellation fee % Do not charge a cancellation fee % Total responses 374 Of those who charge a cancellation fee, 176 (97%) are members of either CIOL or ITI. Percentage of quoted fee charged for cancellation Response Median 1-7 days before the event % 8-14 days before the event 80 50% days before the event 69 50% days before the event 59 50% Over 90 days before the event 55 30% Simultaneous and consecutive charging Charged differently 80 24% Not charged differently % Total responses 340 Additional organisational services (e.g. chef d'équipe, consultancy) Yes 41 12% No % Total responses 336 Percentage surcharge of fee based on hourly rate Median Percentage surcharge of fee based on daily rate Median Preparation charge Charge for preparation 33 9% Do not charge for preparation % Charging basis for preparation Hourly rate Total responses 353 Response Median Daily rate Response Median

23 Urgent/short notice/out-of-hours/weekend work Additional charge % No additional charge % Total responses 355 Additional percentage of rate charged % Median Travelling time Normally charge for travelling time % Do not charge for travelling time 62 17% Total responses 364 Travelling expenses Normally reimbursed in full % Normally reimbursed in part 35 10% Total responses 354 Overnight accommodation Normally reimbursed % Not normally reimbursed 38 12% Total responses 321 Subsistence/per diem rate Normally charged at cost % Normally charge an allowance towards cost 40 25% No charge for subsistence/per diem % Total responses 310

24 Remote interpreting service Provide a remote interpreting service % Do not provide this service % Total responses 354 Remote interpreting service type Telephone interpreting % Video conferencing 37 27% Telephone conferencing 35 25% Total responses 139 Sector Public sector % Business & commercial 70 52% Charging basis By the minute 47 35% By the hour 46 34% By the half day 3 2% By the day 1 1% Different rates, depending on setting 38 28% Minimum charge Have a minimum charge for remote interpreting 50 39% Do not have a minimum charge for remote interpreting 77 61% Total responses 127 Voice-over service Offer a Voice-over service 81 23% Do not offer a Voice-over service % Total responses 358 Rate by the hour Response Median Rate by the day Response Median

25 Salaried/staff information Employed status Fixed term contract 29 13% Permanent contract of employment % Total responses % of those who responded are members of either CIOL or ITI. Employment term Less than 1 year 8 4% 1 to 3 years 42 19% 3 to 5 years 27 12% 5 to 10 years 46 21% More than 10 years 99 45% Normal weekly working hours Total responses 222 Hours Response Over Up to Up to Up to Less than Median 35 Total responses 222 Employment sector Language service provider (company/agency) 65 29% Business/commerce 58 26% Local government/public service 29 13% National government (e.g. Home Office) 13 6% International organisation (e.g. European Commission) 13 6% NGO/Charity 9 4% Other 34 15% Total responses 221 Employed role Translator 96 43% Project manager 31 14% Director 26 12% Editor/reviser 26 12% Line manager 23 10% Interpreter 19 9% Other 71 32% Total responses 221

26 Employed team In a salaried team of 5 to 20 people 69 31% In a salaried team of fewer than 5 people 64 29% Work alone 39 18% In a salaried team of 20 to 50 people 25 11% In a salaried team of more than 50 people 23 11% Total responses 220 Team size as compared to 5 years ago Larger 83 38% Smaller 55 25% No change 43 20% Not applicable 36 17% Total responses 217 Gross salary in most recent tax year Between 35,000 and 50, % Between 25,000 and 35, % Between 15,000 and 25, % Over 50, % Less than 14, % Total responses 221 Training/professional development Employer contributes to training/pd % Employer does not contribute % Total responses 219 Employer contribution to training/cpd Median Full payment 86 78% Contribution 25 23% 30% Total responses 111 Place of work Employer's premises % From home 32 15% Total responses 219

27 Introduction to the translation rates tables As the R&SS Working Group (WG) was aware that some customers ask for quotations on /1000 words basis, others are keen to have a price per standard line 1, yet others, such as the European Commission, ask for a price per page 2, and there are even some who wish to be invoiced on a per character basis, it was decided to include all these options in this first joint survey. The responses showed, however, that the vast majority of the respondents quoted on a /1000 words basis and there were relatively few replies in the other rates categories. It was only in German speaking countries, mainly for German to English, that it was possible to report five or more responses for the per standard line rate category. Although an encouragingly large number of responses to the survey were obtained, there are a considerable number of languages, for some of which (the less common languages) only a relatively low number of responses were received. The WG therefore decided that for languages with five or more responses in any particular rate category, the associated data would be reported in its own right, but for those with less than five, the responses would be grouped with the data for languages in a similar language group. It was felt that rather than simply ignoring this data, this methodology would at least provide some insight. Knowing that some customers prefer to receive quotations based on source language (SL) word count and others on a target language (TL) basis, both options were offered in the survey. There are, therefore, two sets of reports for the different charging methods. When negotiating rates, members will reflect upon whether to quote a rate based on the SL or TL. It is important to take into account that with some language combinations the word counts can be significantly different, depending on which charging base is used, e.g. German to English charged on a TL basis per 1000 words, can result in a chargeable word count 15-20% higher than the source text. However, if the same text is charged on a per line count basis, the translated text, regardless of whether quoted for on a SL or TL basis has a similar line count. In the survey, members were asked to give their highest, lowest and most frequently charged rates for a language pair and from this the WG was then able to calculate the median 3 for the various rate categories in each language. An example of these figures is given below for Spanish to English for direct clients. The first line gives the total number of responses and the second, (Max), contains the figures for the translator who charged the highest rates of all the responses for this language pair. The Highest column contains the highest figure ( 200) he/she charged at least once during the year, maybe for an urgent job. The Lowest, ( 140) the lowest figure he/she charged during the year and the frequent figure the rate most often charged. These figures are given to show what can be achieved by someone who is likely to be a specialist translator with good negotiating skills. 1 A standard line consists of 55 keystrokes including spaces 2 A standard page consists of keystrokes excluding spaces 3 Half the figures lie above the median and the other half below Copyright CIOL/ITI 2011 no part of this publication may be reproduced by any means without the prior written permission of CIOL & ITI

28 The third line gives the Median of the Highest rates charged by all 80 translators who responded under this category and the median of the Lowest rates charged by 74 respondents. The last figure in this line represents the Median of the frequent rate charged by the 77 who responded under that heading. These figures give an indication of the spread of rates charged so that translators can position themselves in the market. Direct clients Per 1000 words Highest Lowest frequent Spanish (including Basque and Catalan) into English Response Max Median Copyright CIOL/ITI 2011 no part of this publication may be reproduced by any means without the prior written permission of CIOL & ITI

29 All languages into EN - rate by source language (SL) Direct clients Agency clients Per 1000 words Per page Per line Per character Per 1000 words Per page Per line Per character Highest Lowest freq. Highest Lowest freq. Highest Lowest freq. Highest Lowest freq. Highest Lowest freq. Highest Lowest freq. Highest Lowest freq. Highest Lowest freq. French (including French (Belgian and Swiss)) into English (all rate categories excluding per page rate (agency), which is included under rate categories with fewer than 5 responses below) Response Max Median Italian into English (direct & agency client per 1000 words rates only; all other rate categories included under rate categories with fewer than 5 responses below) Response Max Median German (including German (Austrian)) into English (all rate categories except per page/per character (direct), which are included under rate categories with fewer than 5 responses below) Response Max Median Spanish (including Basque and Catalan) into English (all rate categories excluding per page/line rate (direct) and per line rate (agency) which are included under rate categories with fewer than 5 responses below) Response Max Median Danish into English (direct (highest & most frequent per 1000 words) and agency clients per 1000 words only; other rate categories included under rate categories with fewer than 5 responses below) Response Max Median

30 Direct clients Agency clients Per 1000 words Per page Per line Per character Per 1000 words Per page Per line Per character Highest Lowest freq. Highest Lowest freq. Highest Lowest freq. Highest Lowest freq. Highest Lowest freq. Highest Lowest freq. Highest Lowest freq. Highest Lowest freq. Dutch (including Flemish) into English (rates per 1000 words & per page (direct) and per 1000 words (agency) only; other rate categories included under rate categories with fewer than 5 responses below) Response Max Median Finnish into English (rates per 1000 words for direct & agency clients only; rates per page included under rate categories with fewer than 5 responses) Response Max Median Polish into English (rates per 1000 words for direct & agency clients only; other rate categories included under rate categories with fewer than 5 responses) Response Max Median Portuguese into English (rates per 1000 words for direct and agency clients only; other rate categories included under rate categories with fewer than 5 responses) Response Max Median Portuguese (Brazilian) into English (rates per 1000 words for direct & agency clients only; rates per page included under rate categories with fewer than 5 responses) Response Max Median

31 Direct clients Agency clients Per 1000 words Per page Per line Per character Per 1000 words Per page Per line Per character Highest Lowest freq. Highest Lowest freq. Highest Lowest freq. Highest Lowest freq. Highest Lowest freq. Highest Lowest freq. Highest Lowest freq. Highest Lowest freq. Russian into English (rates per 1000 words for direct & agency clients only) Response Max Median Swedish into English (rates per 1000 words for direct & agency clients only; other rate categories included under rate categories with fewer than 5 responses) Response Max Median Turkish into English (rates per 1000 words for direct & agency clients only; other rate categories included under rate categories with fewer than 5 responses) Response Max Median Afrikaans/Danish/Dutch/Finnish/German/Greek/Icelandic/Norwegian (incl Nynorsk and Bokmal)/Polish/Scandinavian/Swedish/ US English/Welsh into English (rate categories with fewer than 5 responses). Response Max Median Albanian/Bulgarian/Czech/Hungarian/Latvian/Romanian/Serbo-Croat/Slovak/Turkish/Ukrainian into English (rate categories with fewer than 5 responses) Response Max Median

32 Direct clients Agency clients Per 1000 words Per page Per line Per character Per 1000 words Per page Per line Per character Highest Lowest freq. Highest Lowest freq. Highest Lowest freq. Highest Lowest freq. Highest Lowest freq. Highest Lowest freq. Highest Lowest freq. Highest Lowest freq. Arabic, Bengali, Malay, Tamil into English (rate categories with fewer than 5 responses) Response Max Median Chinese (including Mandarin and Cantonese) into English (rate categories per 1000 words for direct & agency clients only) Response Max Median French (incl. Belgian & Swiss), Italian, Portuguese (Incl. Brazilian Portuguese), Spanish into English (rate categories with fewer than 5 responses) Response Max Median Japanese and Korean into English (rate categories per 1000 words (direct & agency clients) only) Response Max Median

33 English into all languages - rate based on source language (SL) Direct clients Agency clients Per 1000 words Per page Per 1000 words Per page Highest Lowest frequent Highest Lowest frequent Highest Lowest frequent Highest Lowest frequent English into French (rate categories per 1000 words, direct & agency clients only; per page rates (direct & agency) are included under rate categories with fewer than 5 responses below) Response Max Median English into Italian (rate categories per 1000 words, direct & agency clients only; per page rates (direct & agency) are included under rate categories with fewer than 5 responses below) Response Max Median English into German (rate categories per 1000 words, direct & agency clients only; per page rates (agency) are included under rate categories with fewer than 5 responses below) Response Max Median English into Spanish (rate categories per 1000 words, direct & agency clients only; per page rates (direct & agency) are included under rate categories with fewer than 5 responses below) Response Max Median English into Chinese (rate categories per 1000 words, direct & agency clients only) Response Max Median English into Czech (rate categories per 1000 words, direct & agency clients only) Response Max Median English into Dutch (rate categories per 1000 words, direct & agency clients only; per page rates (direct & agency) are included under rate categories with fewer than 5 responses below) Response Max Median English into Finnish (rate categories per 1000 words (agency clients only), direct client rates are included under rate categories with fewer than 5 responses below) Response Max Median

34 English into Greek Direct clients Agency clients Per 1000 words Per page Per 1000 words Per page Highest Lowest frequent Highest Lowest frequent Highest Lowest Response Max Median frequent Highest Lowest frequent (rate categories per 1000 words, direct (highest & lowest) & agency (highest) clients only; other rate categories are included under rate categories with fewer than 5 responses below) English into Polish (rate categories per 1000 words, direct & agency clients only; per page rates (direct & agency) are included under rate categories with fewer than 5 responses below) Response Max Median English into Portuguese (rate categories per 1000 words, direct & agency clients only; per page rates (direct & agency) are included under rate categories with fewer than 5 responses below) Response Max Median English into Portuguese (Brazilian) (rate categories per 1000 words (direct & agency clients only) Response Max Median English into Romanian (rate categories per 1000 words, direct & agency clients only) Response Max Median English into Russian (rate categories per 1000 words, direct & agency clients only) Response Max Median English into Spanish (Latin American) (rate categories per 1000 words, direct & agency clients only; per page rates (direct & agency) are included under rate categories with fewer than 5 responses below) Response Max Median English into Turkish (rate categories per 1000 words (direct only); agency clients are included under rate categories with fewer than 5 responses below) Response Max Median English into Welsh (rate categories per 1000 words, direct & agency clients only) Response Max Median

35 Direct clients Agency clients Per 1000 words Per page Per 1000 words Per page Highest Lowest frequent Highest Lowest frequent Highest Lowest frequent Highest Lowest frequent English into French/Italian/German/Spanish (incl. Latin American) (Rate categories with fewer than 5 responses) Response Max Median English into Albanian/Bulgarian/Estonian/Lithuanian/Ukrainian No language with 5 or more responses Response Max Median English into Croatian/Serbian/Slovak/Turkish (rate categories with fewer than 5 responses) Response Max Median English into Danish/Finnish/Greek/Hungarian/Norwegian/Polish/Swedish (rate categories with fewer than 5 responses) Response Max Median English into Arabic/Farsi Neither language with 5 or more responses Response Max Median English into Japanese/Korean (rate categories per 1000 words, direct & agency clients only) Neither language with 5 or more responses Response Max Median English into Gujarati, Hebrew, Hindi, Mauritian-Creole, Mongolian, Punjabi, Thai No language with 5 or more responses Response Max Median

36 All languages into English - rate based on target language (TL) French into Incl French (Belgian & Swiss) Direct clients Agency clients Per 1000 words Per page Per line Per 1000 words Per page Per line Highest Lowest frequent Highest Lowest frequent Highest Lowest frequent Highest Lowest English (for direct and agency clients per 1000 words only; rate categories with fewer than 5 responses can be found below) Response Max Median frequent Highest Lowest frequent Highest Lowest frequent Italian into English (for direct and agency clients per 1000 words only; rate categories with fewer than 5 responses can be found below) Response Max Median German into English (for direct and agency clients per 1000 words and per line rate only) Incl German (Swiss & Austrian) Response Max Median Spanish into English (for direct and agency clients per 1000 words only; rate categories with fewer than 5 responses can be found below) Incl Basque & Catalan Response Max Median Dutch into English (for direct and agency clients per 1000 words only; rate categories with fewer than 5 responses can be found below) Incl Dutch (Flemish) Response Max Median