Life of a Salesman

I just got this message from Hulu: "Hulu is using the Super Bowl to turn your brain into #mushymush." Can someone tell me why this is a good marketing campaign?

Localization and the rules for saving money

On January 10, 2012, I was invited to speak to the Technology and Training Special Interest Group for the American Society for Training and Development (ASTD) here in Orange County.  

The audience was entirely appropriate for this talk, since trainers, technical writers and e-learning professionals are the #1 consumers of translation and localization services.  Having worked in the localization industry for 5 years, I felt that I could add to the audience member's knowledge by explaining "rules" for saving money.  

Before discussing the issue of saving money, I felt that I first had to address the #1 method used by consumers to evade having to save money on localization services:  Google Translate.   Despite the fact that everyone is wildly familiar with the game of typing a foreign word into Google Translate and laughing at the result, many people call localization vendors hoping that Google Translate or other machine translation tools - also known as "MT" - will cut the costs of human translation.  In this presentation, I did not tell the story of my young kids who can keep themselves occupied for hours typing the "Wienerschnitzel" into Google and watching the words, "penis pencil," come out the other end.  Instead, I used a fairly common sentence, i.e. the first word of the Bible, to demonstrate that Google will take a sentence in a foreign language and return an English sentence.  Yes, it's true, something will come out.  The question is, what?

Next, I explained the different between translation and localization.  In simple terms, translation includes the substitution of words in a source language into words of a target language.  In a more complex way, localization substitutes words from a source language (i.e. Spanish) into words of a target country (Spain), target language dialect (Spanish for Spain), target culture education level (college-level), target audience (doctors in hospitals), and regulatory requirements (proper formats and symbols in government-regulated document).  

Then, I explained that localization encompasses all types of documentation, including:

• PowerPoints
• Desktop Publishing Documents
• Software
• Websites
• Games, videos, and more!

The point is that, yes, everything can be localized.  But, there will be a price for any job!

Fortunately, the price of hiring a localization vendor is well worth it, and is, in the short and long run, cost-effective.  When one hires a localization vendor, one hires a company whose core competency is localization.  Localization vendors have the experience, manpower and resources, to provide the highest-quality ISO 9001-certified translation services.  By learning how to work with a localization vendor, a trainer could easily become an expert in localization, thuse increasing her value to her organization.

Beyond these recognitions, the rules for saving money are fairly simple: 1) put your files in order, and 2) know how to read a localization vendor's proposal.

Typically, a customer reading a proposal for the first time will focus on "per-word" charges.  But, cost and quality can be even more affected by proper document handling and document preparation, proper project management (especially when translation into multiple languages is required), and proper quality control.  Any extra service beyond word-for-word translation has a price, but quality cannot be assured without proper project management and quality control.  

Finally, it should be understood that cost reduction is much more in the customer's hand than in the localization vendor's hands.  Delivery "dirty" documents, making multiple changes during the translation process and not taking advantage of translation memory tools (TM tools) are cardinal sins.  Avoid them, and the cost savings will naturally follow.  Localization vendors who care about quality, such as TransPerfect, Enlaso and a few others, will be able to help you achieve your goals.

If you are interested in learning more about how to save money with localization, you can download the presentation, which I delivered to the ASTD (below).

Download Localization and Rules for Saving Money

Communists don't make good Capitalists

Some predict that China, a Communist-run country, will one day outstrip the good ol' U.S.A.  For example, some journalists, after visiting China, repeat the old saw about Chinese Communists being better capitalists than American businessmen.  

I don't buy it.  

American capitalism is more than a set of economic rules.  It is a culture.  And, in many ways, it is a culture that takes a lifetime to learn.  

If you've been raised in a Communist country, it is difficult to simply throw off the chains of oppression, and adopt the Western way of life.  

For instance, Eastern Europe was liberated almost 23 years ago.  Germans from the former lands of the GDR do not differ, either biologically or linguistically, from Germans who grew in the FRG.  So, what remains?  The cultural difference.  East Germans grew up in a police state.  The Eastern portion of Germany, like the Eastern portion of Europe, lags behind the West.  

In short, you can take the man out of Communism, but you can't take Communism out of the man.  

In my experience, a man who has grown up under Communism and who has accepted Communism will continue to hold on to his past and, in many cases, will not fully accept the American way of life, even if he moves to America and, by all outward means, demonstrates his complete assimilation.  

How will this attachment to Communism express itself?

Through a skepticism toward liberty.  

Liberty means giving others the opportunity to express themselves as individuals.

Even when pursuing capitalist goals, i.e. running a profitable business, a Communist will attempt to "rein in" in liberty and resort to "command and control" leadership as opposed to "democratic" leadership.

While a Communist can be successful in running a business profitably, the ends do not justify the means.  

Communist command-and-control leadership cannot lost long.  

And, as Nietzsche, once wrote, "Dauer ist alles."  Longevity is everything.

Can Adobe be an alternative to Microsoft and Apple?

What am I talking about?  Well, I am talking about productivity suites...

In the MS corner, we have: Word, Excel, and PowerPoint.  We've all grown up on these apps, and, for many years and many reasons, we use them 99% of our daily waking lives.  Do we like them?  Maybe, maybe not.  I guess the best that can be said about them is that they are reliable...and, of course, everyone else uses them/is stuck using them.

But, I don't find myself gravitating towards them, when I want to "write."  MS Word - especially 2007 with its "smart ribbons" - is overkill.  I prefer Wordpad or Apple's Pages.  I've written a 75K word novel in Pages, and I found the experience very pleasant.

In this vein, I have also tried for several years to go "cold turkey" on Excel and PowerPoint, using instead Apple's Numbers and Keynote.  Their simpler interfaces are inviting, but their incompatibility with other apps is a drawback.  Plus, I really only use spreadsheets for lists.  And, Keynote reminds me too much of Al Gore's presentation in "Inconvenient Truth."

Lately, I've wondered if I can just make the switch to Adobe and "opt out" of the MS and Apple universes.  And, for the last year, I've been living in the Adobe universe.

For writing, I use Wordpad or InDesign.

For spreadsheets...well, I don't use spreadsheets. 

And, for training presentations, I use Captivate.  And, I like using Adobe Presenter with PowerPoint.  It seems to me that these Adobe products take PowerPoint to an "11."  So, while I use PowerPoint, I don't use it without also using one of these Adobe products.  

Not only that, but the Adobe ecosystem has so many more advantages: using Illustrator for fun little drawings, using Photoshop for correcting and enhancing images, and the full version of Acrobat is superior to the MS and Apple plugins.  

And, my next goal is to re-design this entire typepad site using Dreamweaver.  How cool would that be?  

So, for now, I will continue to live in the Adobe universe, and I don't think I'll be upgrading anymore Apple or MS apps.

Oh, and as for Google...I'm already too dependent on them -- or afraid of them -- to go any further in that direction...

 

Because: the most powerful word in the English language

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." - John 1:1

Whenever I read this inscription on the wall of my Church, I wonder what was the "word."   Although the Evangelist says, the "word" was "God," this explanation never made much sense to me.  

OK, I get it.  "God!"  Word up!

But, what's the word?  It's not like I can use the word, "God," in a declarative sentence.  

For instance, "the sunset just looks God today!"

Or, "the wine illuminated subtle hints of chocolate, rasperry, aged French Oak, and God."

Or even, "what an amazing catch by the receiver.  It was God."

In others, if "God" is a word, which word is it?  And, if God can be translated into the English language, it would have to be the most powerful word in the English language.  

So, what is the most powerful word in the English language.

Well, "because" gets my vote.  So, it is my belief that God should be translated into the English language as "because."  

Yet, one wouldn't think that "because" is the crown jewel in the English language.  It is used too infrequently.  And, most people don't even think of using it more frequently.  

Therefore, I think that "because" should be used more frequently -- and what's more! -- it should be given its proper position in all of our communications with others.

Why?

Because "because" answers the question, "Why?"

All declarative sentences simply state the "What."

However, "because" can be added to any declarative sentence, in order to answer the "Why" of the "What."  

Take the beginning of this email as an example:

"Hi John, I am excited about your new proposal, because it offers an alternate use of our limited resources. Jim."

If the email simply had the declarative sentence, "I am excited...," then John wouldn't know why Jim was excited.  

I might add: the sentence would have little or no meaning.  

And, isn't that what God does?  God gives meaning to the world, just as Because gives meaning to a sentence.  

In conclusion: even if you don't believe in God, you should still try to use "because" more, and recognize it as the most powerful word in the English language.

The Eighties: a brief history

It's impossible to think about the Eighties without listening to the music.  Music shaped popular culture.  Music brought the walls down. And punk rock was the music that set the rules.  

The rules were simple:

#1: You didn't need to know how to play.

#2: You didn't need to be pretty.

These 2 rules unleashed a decade of unparalleled creativity.  

The first rule democratized music: Guitar solos and other virtuoso displays were banned.  If three chords was enough to generate a riff, then anyone who could learn three chords could start a band. 

The second rule democratized art: A sort of anti-aesthetic, based on dissonance, evolved. What the music lacked in soaring transcendence, it made up for in agression, raw emotion and authenticity.  

It was the only way to kill the Seventies.

Negative. Destructive. Nihilistic. Those were the words they used to characterize punk rock philosophy.

But who used them first?  Wasn't it the baby boomers who filled the world with peace, love, and understanding, and slogans, like "make love, not war."  How did that work out?  

Western civilization was in decline. The boomers tried one strategy to revive it.  The punks tried a different tactic.  As a result, all over the world local scenes thrived!

Bell bottoms were out. Long hair was out. Organized sports were out.  Everyone rode skateboards. The girls rocked.  And it was just as cool to like Michael Jackson and Prince, as it was to listen to Bauhaus or The Cure.  

With walls coming down everywhere, it was inevitable that the biggest wall would come down just as the decade was wrapping up.  

It turns out that the quote that defined the decade was not Jeff Spicoli's "Hey bud, let's party!" Nor Gordon Gecko's "Greed is good!"  

But Ronald Reagan's famous challenge to Mikhail Gorbachev to "tear down this wall!"  

 

Is this concrete all around, or is it in my head? - David Bowie

Training follow-ups, assessments, and testing techniques: a modest proposal

Anyone who has undergone a training course -- whether it be software training, leadership training or skills training -- should have to sign an agreement with the trainer.  

The agreement should state that the trainee volunteers to be secretly abducted at any time during a six-month period following the training course.  It is understood that the abduction will be safe, not be intended to cause undue stress, and will only last 5 minutes.  

During that 5 minutes, the trainee will need to demonstrate that he has maintained his competency in the skill for which he was trained.  If he does, he will be congratulated, and he will be allowed to keep his certification.  If he does not, he will still be allowed to keep his certification.  

...but, he will not be congratulated...and his training will be considered a "failure" for the purpose of the assessment metrics.

Recruiters love their boolean searches on LinkedIn

If anyone hates fitting square pegs into round holes, it's a recruiter.  Since recruiters represent -- and get paid -- by their clients, their customer service effort is towards their client.  

Nothing wrong with that.  Perfectly understandable.

But, as a result, they will spend little effort trying to fit a square peg into a round hole.  Or, making the case that a candidate will be a good "fit" and capable of the job responsibilities.

Instead, they will look for someone with experience performing the exact same job for a different company in the past.  After all, fitting round pegs into round holes is a lot easier.

Nothing wrong that.  Perfectly understandable.

Then, along comes the fascination with boolean searches on LinkedIn.  Now, candidates must not only be roundpegs who fit into round holes.  They must also be perfectly SEO-optimized for the recruiter's new favorite tool: boolean searches.  

If you are not a "project manager" and "SAP" and "FI/CO" and "Deloitte" and "Chicago area" and...and...or...not...not...

...well, then, good luck even having the opportunity for being considered for that job.

"The whole is other than the sum of its parts." - Kurt Koffka