The Localization Industry Doesn’t Get the Local Web

I heardten thousand whispering and nobody listening.

We are so constantly bombarded by theideology that the “world has been flattened” by the Internet that any contraryevidence gets short shrift. TheEconomist somemonths ago carried a short review of a study from the OECD and BostonConsulting Group on the global Internet that will surely not receiveany play among the Web 2.0 hypers and l10n ideologues. The main conclusion isthat “the global ‘network of networks’ is shaped by local forces.” Instead ofhomogenization, you have a plurality of cultural approaches and uses of theInternet:

the Internetwill continue to become more and more local: cultures are different, so themore people go online, the more the Internet will resemble them. “There will behundreds of internet flavours,” he says.

I can see that pretty readily in visiting,for example, the Spanish blogosphere. Very few people are using SEO to bringtraffic in from search engines. No one that I know of is planning to monetizetheir blog. Very few companies or individuals use them as a Trojan horse tosell other products. The translation blogosphere is very active and lively.Here in Spain, every single translator has a blog. Even T&I students comeout with their blogs and they get dozens of comments. I imagine that Spanishprofs at T&I departments are telling their students that it is a good wayto make yourself get known prior to graduation, but I don’t think professionaladvancement is the main motivator for most. However, the function of theseblogs is completely different. These blogs are, in my opinion, an adjunct tosocial media. It could sort of be considered networking, but a type ofnetworking in which the personal and professional are not as distinct as in theU.S. The scene is large and chaotic, but also very dynamic.
To take another example, KaiserKuo, a spokesman for Baidu who lives in Beijing (and is featured in this week’s episode of ThisAmerican Life) warns that the hysterical idea of a “Westernization”of Chinese media is erroneous. In his view, Chinese Internet culture takes alot of Western content and turns it into something completely Chinese (and, bythe same token, utterly incomprehensible to foreigners):

A lotof the memes that have become popular in China are sort of indecipherable toWestern audiences. And, of course, that is largely because they are irreduciblyChinese. So I think the idea that Chinese culture is becoming westernized is alittle misguided. I don’t think there’s a strict dichotomy between Western andChinese culture.

The idea Kuo is referring to is of an autochthonousInternet culture that is untranslatable. Or—to be more precise (sinceeverything is translatable)—the idea is that Chinese Internet culture does not need translation because it was nevermeant to be translated in the first place.The idea of different flavors of Internetculture shouldn’t be such a surprise to an industry that has been banging on (acritically)about localization for well-nigh over a decade. But now, faced with thechallenge of the Internet, a lot of the l10n preaching turns out to be a littlehollow. The problem is that the Lower Quality Translation Movement runs againstthe grain of local Internet cultures. This is because, at heart, the type of localizationchampioned by large agencies and its smaller tech competitors is aone-size-fits all model. The ideal is to take any text tailored for an Americanaudience and immediately multiply it into ten thousand languages, like aGremlin sprinkled with tap water. The concept of one Internet that is localizedusing cheap translation into every single language on Earth is nothing morethan the old model of traditional one-way, Anglo-centric, US-dominated mediathat produces a standard product which was then “localized” and distributedworldwide.
But perhaps a huge financial crisis and the“Rise of the Rest” open the door for another model. One in which localknowledge is prized above cheap instant translation. In this world,professional translation of commercial texts could be a competitive advantagefor smaller players wishing to distinguish themselves from the largemultinationals who, on the advice of tech-savvy “localization” providers, just pumpout a third-quality translation. The sum total of the expertise provided byl10n players and consultants is little more than “let the Chinglish chips fallwhere they may” or “let the crowd put a smattering of lipstick on thepost-edited pig.” In that world, one company communicates with its localaudience in a way the audience recognizes as comprehensible. Simultaneously, tenthousand “localized” websites using MT and crowdsourcing whisper in Chinglish,but no one listens.
I can just hear the ideologue in thebackground going: “Well, gee, the lack of homogeneity in the ‘global’ Web isactually an opportunity for morehomogenization through (subpar) technology and (commoditized) translation.” Please go back to the beginning of thisand read it again. (Jesus!) Thelocalization industry simply does not get the local Web.


Miguel Llorens is a freelance financial translator based in Madrid who works from Spanish into English. He is specialized in equity research, economics, accounting, and investment strategy. He has worked as a translator for Goldman Sachs, the US Government's Open Source Center, and H.B.O. International. To contact him, visit his website and write to the address listed there. You can also join his LinkedIn network by visiting the profile or follow him on Twitter.