2011 Rates and Salaries Survey for Translators and ... Rates and Salaries Survey for Translators and ... Comparison of the outcomes from this survey ... French 100 5.8% 27 German 85

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

www.ciol.org.uk www.iti.org.uk

Title 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

Contents

Copyright © CIOL/ITI 2011 no part of this publication may be reproduced by any means without the prior written permission of CIOL ITI


advertising

2

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



advertising

3

Copyright © CIOL/ITI 2011 no part of this publication may be reproduced by any means without the prior written permission of CIOL & ITI www.ciol.org.uk www.iti.org.uk

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.

advertising

4

Generic information

Professional memberships

Chartered Institute of LinguistsResponse %

FCIL 66 5%

MCIL 1,055 79%

ACIL 192 15%

Registered Student 15 1%

Total responses 1,328

Institute of Translation & InterpretingResponse %

FITI 24 3%

MITI 482 65%

PCI 3 1%

Associate 219 29%

Student 15 2%

Total responses 743

Additional membershipsResponse

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

Age groupResponse %

Up to 29 81 5%

30-39 348 20%

40-49 464 27%

50-59 448 26%

60-69 293 17%

70 and over 88 5%


Average age 45.8 years

GenderResponse %

Female 1,175 68%

Male 547 32%


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.

1014 (86%) females and 444 (81%) males are freelancers. 148 (14%) females and 93

(19%) males are salaried staff.



advertising

5

Mother tongue, or language of habitual useLanguage Response % Second

English 937 54.1% 142

French 100 5.8% 27

German 85 4.9% 21

Italian 63 3.6% 16

Polish 62 3.6% 6

Spanish 55 3.2% 19

Chinese (Cantonese) 54 3.1%

Russian 34 2.0%

Greek 20 1.2%

Portuguese (Brazilian) 19 1.1%

Spanish (Latin American) 19 1.1%

Chinese (Mandarin) 18 1.0%

Portuguese (European) 18 1.0%

Welsh 18 1.0%

Arabic 15 0.9%

Dutch 14 0.8%

Japanese 14 0.8%

Chinese 13 0.8%

Turkish 13 0.8%

English (US) 12 0.7%

Czech 11 0.6%

Other 137 7.9%


Geographic location of respondentsResponse %

UK 1,256 73.6%

London 300 17.6%

East of England 221 13.0%

South East England 206 12.1%

South West England 128 7.5%

North West England 78 4.6%

West Midlands 72 4.2%

Scotland 68 4.0%

Yorkshire and the Humber 64 3.8%

East Midlands 50 2.9%

Wales 36 2.1%

North East England 27 1.6%

Northern Ireland 6 0.4%

Other European Countries 338 19.6%

Germany 59 3.5%

Spain 58 3.4%

France 50 2.9%

Italy 41 2.4%

Albania 17 1.0%

Belgium 14 0.8%

Switzerland 13 0.8%

The Netherlands 13 0.8%

Greece 12 0.7%

Other countries 61 3.5%

Rest of the world 107 6.8%

China 44 2.6%

United States of America 13 0.8%

Australia 12 0.7%

Canada 8 0.5%

Afghanistan 4 0.2%

Brazil 3 0.2%

Japan 3 0.2%

Argentina 2 0.1%

Other countries 18 1.50%




advertising

6

Number of years industry experience

FreelanceFull-time:

Translator

Part-time:

Translator

Full-time:

Interpreter

Part-time:

Interpreter

Responses 1,019 700 257 286

Maximum (years) 52 50 50 45

Minimum (years) 0.5 0.18 0.5 0.5

Median (years) 13 8 10 10

SalariedFull-time:

Translator

Part-time:

Translator

Full-time:

Interpreter

Part-time:

Interpreter

Responses 147 100 30 46

Maximum (years) 40 40 30 30

Minimum (years) 0.25 0.3 0.25 1

Median (years) 13 6 7 5

Employment status in most recent tax yearResponse %

Freelance 1,468 86%

Salaried 243 14%


1427 (96%) freelancers and 226 (93%) salaried staff are members of either CIOL or ITI.

Academic qualificationsResponse %

1st degree or equivalent - Modern Languages Translation

and or Interpreting 738 44%

1st degree or equivalent - other 536 32%

2nd degree or equivalent - Masters in Translation and or

Interpreting 374 22%

2nd degree or equivalent - other 395 24%

Further Education (FE) qualifications 227 14%

DipTrans (IOLET) 498 30%

DPSI 260 16%

Certificate in Community Interpreting 47 3%


Number of qualifications 3,075

Maximum 2

Respondents listing "other" qualifications 301 18%

Respondents listing "no" qualifications 17 1%

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.

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.

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.



advertising

7

As compared with five years ago, workload forIncreased Decreased Not changed

% No. % No. % No.Translation has 44% 594 30% 398 26% 345

Interpreting has 29% 147 45% 230 26% 133

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 £10,750,749 £517,417 £619,356

Responses 1,110 886 471 62 59

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 16

£75,000 to £99,999 16

£50,000 to £74,999 105

£40,000 to £49,999 95

£30,000 to £39,999 160

£25,000 to £29,999 111

£20,000 to £24,999 133

£15,000 to £19,999 118

£10,000 to £14,999 110

£5,000 to £9,999 130

Under £5,000 116

On average, current rates, as compared with five years ago areResponse %

Higher 599 42%

The same 550 38%

Lower 141 10%

Not applicable 141 10%


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.

571 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.

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.



advertising

8

Work for translation companies/agenciesResponse %

Work for translation companies/agencies 1175 82%

Do not work for translation companies/agencies 253 18%


When working for translation/interpreting companies/agenciesResponse %

Rates are set by them 871 47%

Rates are subject to negotiation 1057 69%

Clients generally payResponse %

In accordance with invoice terms 664 47%

7-10 days late 111 8%

11-30 days late 273 20%

31-60 days late 322 23%

61 or more days late 33 2%


Average 21.3 days late

Over the last three years, client payments haveResponse %

Remained the same 858 61%

Slowed down, but it is not a problem 192 14%

Slowed down, causing cash flow problems 145 10%

Not applicable/Don't know 120 9%

Improved 102 7%


Translation/interpreting contribution to household incomeResponse % Median

The only source of income 296 21% £31,686

The main source of income 283 20% £30,000

Approximately half the source of income 344 24% £24,000

A minor source of income 489 35% £8,000


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.

The 579 respondents who reported that translation/interpreting was their only or main source of income

received a median income of £31,000. Most 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.



advertising

9

Business websiteResponse %

Respondents who do have a website 445 31%

Respondents who do not have a website 975 69%


Approximate percentage of work it generated in last tax yearResponse %

7 Over 80%

3 Up to 80%

11 Up to 50%

13 Up to 25%

90 Less than 10%

Don't know 254 57%

378 25% Average

Response AverageTranslator 1,350 76%

Interpreter 491 39%

Teacher 284 24%

Project manager 141 9%

Director (e.g. of a translation company/agency), 115 9%

Other 233 24%

Trading statusResponse %

Sole trader 977 77%

Registered for VAT 309 24%

Registered as a limited company 128 10%


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.

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.

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.

Percentage of time working in translation/interpreting

sector



advertising

10

Clients provide written orders/contracts

Translating Response %Always 445 47%

Occasionally 427 44%

Never 81 9%

Total responses 953

Interpreting Response %Always 150 47%

Occasionally 121 38%

Never 49 15%

Total responses 320

Use own Standard Terms of Business Response %Yes 363 26%

No 1,028 74%


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.



advertising

11

Translator information

Translation subjectResponse %

Generalist 644 48%

Specialist 710 52%


Specialist areas of workResponse %

Law 255 36%

Other 254 36%

Medicine 182 26%

Marketing 163 23%

Banking & Finance 155 22%

Pharmaceuticals 136 19%

Computers/Data 124 18%

Mechanical Engineering 114 16%

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.

626 (97%) of those reporting to be generalists are members of CIOL or ITI, as are 684

(96.5%) of the specialists.



advertising

12

Approximate total word output in most recent tax year13 Over 1,000,000

41 750,000 to 999,999

90 500,000 to 749,999

92 400,000 to 499,999

118 300,000 to 399,999

204 200,000 to 299,999

108 100,000 to 199,999

104 50,000 to 99,999

293 less than 49,999

1063 responses 215,500 Median

Source of work by geographic regionResponse Median

UK 1,113 70%

Other European countries 947 50%

USA 237 10%

Rest of the world 191 10%


Urgent/out-of-hours/weekend work premiumResponse % Median

Charge a premium 540 46% 34% of fee

Do not charge a premium 629 54%


Charges for job cancellationResponse %

Charge for job cancellation 237 21%

Do not charge for job cancellation 919 80%


Job cancellation chargeResponse Median

After order confirmed, no work done 238 50%

After order confirmed, some preparatory work done 131 30%

After job commenced 165 50%

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 sub-

contracted work to other translators; in which case they could be acting as a project manager or intermediary.

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%.



advertising

13

Project Management serviceResponse %

Provide a Project Management Service 86 7%

Do not provide a Project Management Service 1,077 93%


Project Management charging basisResponse % Median

Daily rate 16 18% £250

Fixed fee for job 68 82%

Total responses 84

Percentage of income in last tax yearResponse %

68 20% Median

Independent revision of translations

(i.e. word-for-word checking of the SL and TL)Response %

Provide an independent revision service 722 62%

Do not provide an independent revision service 435 38%


Charging basisResponse % Median

Hourly rate 402 56% £33

Differently, depending on setting 142 20%

Word count - per 1000 words 129 18% £33


Total responses 721

Percentage of income in last tax yearResponse %

646 14% Median

704 of those who reported providing an independent revision service are members of

either CIOL or ITI. 323 'generalists' and 399 'specialists' offer this service.

85 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'.

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.

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.



advertising

14

Proof-reading service

(i.e. checking target text without reference to source text)Response %

Provide a proof-reading service 638 55%

Do not provide a proof-reading service 518 45%





Word count - per 1000 words 118 19% £42.50


Total responses 635

Percentage of annual incomeResponse %

631 19% Median

Transcription serviceResponse %

Provide a transcription service 231 20%

Do not provide a transcription service 911 80%






Word count - per 1000 words 16 7% £64

Total responses 228

Percentage of annual incomeResponse %

157 18% Median

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.

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.



advertising

15

Working with non standard formatsResponse %

Charge additional fees 237 21%

Do not charge additional fees 913 79%



Hourly rate 64 28% £34.50


Total responses 230

Subtitling serviceResponse %

Offer a subtitling service 102 9%

Do not offer a subtitling service 1,059 91%


Charge by the minute Response £

37 4.25 Median

Charge by the hourResponse £

20 50 Median

Charge per 1000 SL wordsResponse £

20 80 Median

Charge per 1000 TL wordsResponse £

7 100 Median

Percentage of income in latest tax yearResponse %

61 15% Median

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.

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.



advertising

16

CAT tools (including translation memory)Response %

Use CAT tools 667 55%

Do not use CAT tools 550 45%


CAT tools in useResponse %

Trados 420 63%

SDL 175 26%

Wordfast 147 22%

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

The use of Translation Memory systems (Computer Assisted Translation, CAT)

Discounts for Translation Memory matchesResponse %

Discounts are offered 350 53%

Discounts are not offered 308 47%

Total Responses 658

Percentage discount for repetitionsResponse %

263 63 Median

Percentage discount for 100% matchesResponse %

281 60 Median

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.

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.



advertising

17

Percentage discount for 95-99% matchesResponse %

225 53% Median

Percentage you discount for 85-94% matchesResponse %

202 50% Median


166 55% Median


87 50% Median

Experience working with CAT toolsYears

Average 7.2 years

Minimum 1 year

Maximum 28 years

Total responses 658

Voice/Speech - recognition software Response %

Use VR software 123 10%

Do not use VR software 1,091 90%


Voice Recognition software in useResponse %

Dragon 114 94%

Mac Speech 2 2%

Other 5 4%

Total responses 121

46% of translators have been using CAT tools for five years or less, with 35% using CAT

tools for between five and ten years.

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



advertising

18

Interpreter information

Interpreter type

Ad hoc/liaison interpreterSector Response %Business 215 74%

Other (NGOs, charities, non PSI community events etc) 150 52%

Commercial law 71 24%

Diplomatic 46 16%

Total responses 291

282 (97%) of those who responded are members of either CIOL or ITI

Public service interpreter (PSI)Sector Response %Police/courts 220 84%

Local government 165 63%

Health 148 57%

Total responses 262


Conference interpreterResponse

Conference 122


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%.



advertising

19

Conference interpreter - A language A language Response %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 languageB language Response %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%

Conference interpreter - C languageC language Response %French 19 35%

Spanish 12 22%

German 10 18%

Italian 8 15%

English 7 13%

Forty three 'B' languages were reported, the top four being English (55%), French (15%),

Spanish (7%) and Italian 6%

Twenty 'C' languages were reported, the top four being French (34%), Spanish (22%),

German (18%) and Italian 14%



advertising

20

Specialist work areas includeResponse %

Law 235 61%

Business/Finance 168 43%

Healthcare 156 40%

Immigration 138 36%

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

Approximate work volume (in days) in most recent tax yearResponse Days

226 67.5 Median

Minimum chargesResponse %

Claim a minimum charge 284 76%

Do not claim a minimum charge 92 25%

Total responses 376

What is it?Response % Median

Half day 104 39% £106

Full day 16 6% £287

Hourly 154 55% £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.

Around 40% of interpreters report to have worked fewer than 100 days with almost 20%

reporting working for 150 days or more.

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.



advertising

21

Cancellation feesResponse %

Charge a cancellation fee 181 48%

Do not charge a cancellation fee 193 52%

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 cancellationResponse Median

1-7 days before the event 162 85%




Over 90 days before the event 55 30%

Simultaneous and consecutive chargingResponse %

Charged differently 80 24%

Not charged differently 260 77%

Total responses 340

Additional organisational services (e.g. chef d'équipe, consultancy)Response %

Yes 41 12%

No 295 88%

Total responses 336

Percentage surcharge of fee based on hourly rateResponse %

17 31.5 Median

Percentage surcharge of fee based on daily rateResponse %

22 25 Median

Preparation chargeResponse %

Charge for preparation 33 9%

Do not charge for preparation 320 91%

Total responses 353

Charging basis for preparation

Hourly rate Response £

27 40 Median

Daily rate Response £

12 125 Median



advertising

22

Urgent/short notice/out-of-hours/weekend workResponse %

Additional charge 173 49%

No additional charge 182 51%

Total responses 355

Additional percentage of rate chargedResponse %

164 35% Median

Travelling timeResponse %

Normally charge for travelling time 302 83%

Do not charge for travelling time 62 17%

Total responses 364

Travelling expensesResponse %

Normally reimbursed in full 319 90%

Normally reimbursed in part 35 10%

Total responses 354

Overnight accommodationResponse %

Normally reimbursed 283 88%

Not normally reimbursed 38 12%

Total responses 321

Subsistence/per diem rateResponse %

Normally charged at cost 122 75%

Normally charge an allowance towards cost 40 25%

No charge for subsistence/per diem 148 47%

Total responses 310



advertising

23

Remote interpreting serviceResponse %

Provide a remote interpreting service 140 40%

Do not provide this service 214 60%

Total responses 354

Remote interpreting service typeResponse %

Telephone interpreting 135 97%

Video conferencing 37 27%

Telephone conferencing 35 25%

Total responses 139

SectorResponse %

Public sector 104 77%

Business & commercial 70 52%

Charging basisResponse %

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 chargeResponse %

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 serviceResponse %

Offer a Voice-over service 81 23%

Do not offer a Voice-over service 277 77%

Total responses 358

Rate by the hour Response £

64 60 Median

Rate by the day Response £

27 365 Median



advertising

24

Salaried/staff information

Employed statusResponse %

Fixed term contract 29 13%

Permanent contract of employment 191 87%

Total responses 220

Employment termResponse %

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%

Total responses 222

Normal weekly working hoursHours ResponseOver 50 11

Up to 50 44

Up to 40 126

Up to 30 28

Less than 20 13

Median 35 Total responses 222

Employment sectorResponse %

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 roleResponse %

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

92% of those who responded are members of either CIOL or ITI.



advertising

25

Employed teamResponse %

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 agoResponse %

Larger 83 38%

Smaller 55 25%

No change 43 20%

Not applicable 36 17%

Total responses 217

Gross salary in most recent tax yearResponse %

Between £35,000 and £50,000 58 26%

Between £25,000 and £35,000 53 24%

Between £15,000 and £25,000 48 22%

Over £50,000 34 15%

Less than £14,999 28 13%

Total responses 221

Training/professional developmentResponse %

Employer contributes to training/PD 113 52%

Employer does not contribute 106 48%

Total responses 219

Employer contribution to training/CPDResponse % Median

Full payment 86 78%

Contribution 25 23% 30%

Total responses 111

Place of workResponse %

Employer's premises 187 85%

From home 32 15%

Total responses 219



advertising

26


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 line1, yet others, such as the European Commission, ask for a price per page2, 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 median3 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 ‘Most 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 1 500 keystrokes excluding spaces 3 Half the figures lie above the median and the other half below

advertising

27


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 ‘Most 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 Most

frequent

Spanish (including Basque and Catalan) into English Response 80 74 77

Max 200 140 180

Median 87 70 80

advertising

28

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 Most freq. Highest Lowest Most freq. Highest LowestMost

freq.Highest Lowest

Most

freq.Highest Lowest Most freq. Highest Lowest

Most

freq.Highest Lowest

Most

freq.Highest Lowest

Most

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 151 143 145 8 7 8 5 5 5 14 13 12 191 188 186 5 5 5 9 9 8

Max 550 550 550 37 35 37 2.8 2.8 2.8 0.2 0.16 0.18 192 192 192 1.28 0.92 1.1 0.11 0.09 0.09

Median 95 75 85 32 18 27 1.15 1.10 1.10 0.10 0.06 0.07 75 62 70 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.08 0.06 0.08

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 42 42 39 49 50 48

Max 250 150 160 110 150 150

Median 85 68 75 75 60 65

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 77 76 73 29 27 26 121 120 119 5 5 5 31 31 27 7 7 7

Max 250 170 170 4.27 3.55 4.27 160 125 125 40 40 40 2.3 1.5 1.5 0.235 0.18 0.2

Median 100 80 90 1.20 1.05 1.16 85 65 75 30 20 23 0.88 0.75 0.80 0.08 0.08 0.08

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 80 74 77 7 6 7 80 81 80 5 5 5 5 5 5

Max 200 140 180 0.16 0.11 0.13 110 86 110 70 60 63 0.08 0.09 0.09

Median 87 70 79 0.08 0.07 0.07 70 60 65 26 22 26 0.08 0.05 0.06

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 5 5 9 9 8

Max 220 200 220 100 120

Median 135 135 90 77 89



advertising

29

Direct clients Agency clients


£ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £


freq.Highest Lowest

Most


Most

freq.Highest Lowest

Most

freq.Highest Lowest

Most

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 31 29 31 6 5 6 41 41 42

Max 200 180 200 60 52 52 200 150 180

Median 100 100 100 47 44 47 85 70 77

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 5 5 5 7 7 7

Max 190 160 160 212 130 141

Median 135 120 135 135 110 130

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 10 10 10 7 7 7

Max 140 90 100 108 80 85

Median 90 60 77 74 60 70

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 16 16 16 19 18 19

Max 163 140 140 135 90 110

Median 90 80 85 70 60 65

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 10 10 10 10 10 10

Max 200 95 100 135 75 85

Median 110 75 85 75 68 72



advertising

30



£ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £


freq.Highest Lowest

Most


Most

freq.Highest Lowest

Most

freq.Highest Lowest

Most

freq.

Russian into English (rates per 1000 words for direct & agency clients only)

Response 15 15 14 26 25 24

Max 130 120 130 130 110 130

Median 100 65 85 88 65 71

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 12 12 14 22 22 21

Max 280 245 260 190 140 190

Median 125 95 108 90 80 90

Turkish into English (rates per 1000 words for direct & agency clients only; other rate categories included under rate categories with fewer than 5 responses)


Max 160 100 120 160 100 120

Median 108 70 90 90 75 83

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 9 13 9 5 5 5 6 6 5 13 13 12 7 7 7

Max 150 150 150 44 44 44 0.16 0.12 0.13 120 90 120 50 50 50

Median 100 90 95 30 30 30 0.08 0.05 0.04 80 70 79 23 20 20

Albanian/Bulgarian/Czech/Hungarian/Latvian/Romanian/Serbo-Croat/Slovak/Turkish/Ukrainian into English (rate categories with fewer than 5 responses)

Response 16 16 15 5 5 15 15 14 5 5

Max 120 90 100 60 60 120 90 90 60 60

Median 85 68 75 30 25 90 70 70 35 35



advertising

31



£ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £


freq.Highest Lowest

Most


Most

freq.Highest Lowest

Most

freq.Highest Lowest

Most

freq.

Arabic, Bengali, Malay, Tamil into English (rate categories with fewer than 5 responses)

Response 7 7 7 5 5

Max 120 100 100 120 80

Median 100 70 80 85 70

Chinese (including Mandarin and Cantonese) into English (rate categories per 1000 words for direct & agency clients only)

Response 6 6 5 5 5

Max 156 100 94 135 88

Median 98 79 88 80 70

French (incl. Belgian & Swiss), Italian, Portuguese (Incl. Brazilian Portuguese), Spanish into English (rate categories with fewer than 5 responses)

Response 7 5 7 7 7 7 15 13 15

Max 50 50 50 2 1.1 1.25 70 60 63

Median 29 34 26 1.10 1.00 1.10 21 21 21

Japanese and Korean into English (rate categories per 1000 words (direct & agency clients) only)


Max 130 130 130 120 120 120

Median 105 96 100 98 88 91



advertising

32

English into all languages - rate based on source language (SL)


Per 1000 words Per page Per 1000 words Per page£ £ £ £ £ £

Highest Lowest

Most

frequent Highest Lowest

Most


Most


Most

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 52 49 49 57 56 57

Max 300 200 270 160 150 150

Median 95 75 80 79 65 70

English into Italian


Response 26 24 23 34 32 32

Max 160 100 120 110 110 110

Median 78 63 70 73 54 68

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 51 49 51 56 54 55

Max 250 160 200 110 85 90

Median 90 80 80 80 65 70

English into Spanish


Response 41 40 38 38 37 35

Max 130 100 120 120 85 120

Median 80 70 75 70 60 65

English into Chinese (rate categories per 1000 words, direct & agency clients only)

Response 17 17 15 13 13 13

Max 500 140 200 300 110 150

Median 100 70 90 80 40 60

English into Czech (rate categories per 1000 words, direct & agency clients only)


Max 120 130 100 120 80 80

Median 100 80 85 83 73 68

English into Dutch


Response 8 8 8 13 13 13

Max 191 121 174 130 130 130

Median 90 75 83 85 70 75

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 5 5 5

Max 145 100 110

Median 95 85 90



advertising

4

advertising

4

advertising

4

advertising

4

advertising

33



Highest Lowest

Most


Most


Most


Most

frequent

English into Greek

Response 7 5 5

Max 100 85 85

Median 100 85 85

English into Polish


Response 30 29 29 29 29 28

Max 120 90 95 120 80 90

Median 80 60 70 65 55 60

English into Portuguese



Max 130 110 120 100 74 85

Median 85 74 80 80 55 72

English into Portuguese (Brazilian) (rate categories per 1000 words (direct & agency clients only)

Response 10 9 10 12 11 12

Max 105 90 100 120 70 90

Median 82 75 80 83 65 73

English into Romanian (rate categories per 1000 words, direct & agency clients only)


Max 150 140 145 110 90 90

Median 100 120 85 85 60 60

English into Russian (rate categories per 1000 words, direct & agency clients only)

Response 14 13 14 14 12 13

Max 200 100 120 120 85 90

Median 98 63 87 75 68 70

English into Spanish (Latin American)


Response 5 5 6 6 5

Max 120 80 85 70 80

Median 85 70 75 60 65

English into Turkish (rate categories per 1000 words (direct only); agency clients are included under rate categories with fewer than 5 responses below)

Response 6 6 6

Max 120 100 120

Median 90 69 84

English into Welsh (rate categories per 1000 words, direct & agency clients only)


Max 94 77 86 80 64 76

Median 80 60 65 70 60 70

(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)



advertising

34



Highest Lowest

Most


Most


Most


Most

frequent

English into French/Italian/German/Spanish (incl. Latin American)(Rate categories with fewer than 5 responses)(Rate categories with fewer than 5 responses)

Response 11 11 11 7 7 7

Max 80 60 65 70 70 70

Median 30 25 26 20 20 20

English into Albanian/Bulgarian/Estonian/Lithuanian/Ukrainian

No language with 5 or more responses


Max 140 140 140 109 95 95

Median 95 63 90 87 75 84

English into Croatian/Serbian/Slovak/Turkish (rate categories with fewer than 5 responses)

Response 5 5 12 12 11

Max 120 90 120 95 95

Median 90 80 80 70 75

English into Danish/Finnish/Greek/Hungarian/Norwegian/Polish/Swedish (rate categories with fewer than 5 responses)

Response 12 11 14 7 6 5 18 21 17 7 6 5

Max 225 225 225 45 30 30 225 225 225 40 25 25

Median 140 100 120 30 20 20 95 75 90 25 20 20

English into Arabic/Farsi

Neither language with 5 or more responses

Response 5 5 5

Max 176 160 160

Median 150 125 140

English into Japanese/Korean (rate categories per 1000 words, direct & agency clients only)

Neither language with 5 or more responses


Max 160 150 150 160 130 130

Median 120 100 100 103 85 103

English into Gujarati, Hebrew, Hindi, Mauritian-Creole, Mongolian, Punjabi, Thai

No language with 5 or more responses

Response 5 6 7 5

Max 180 130 180 140

Median 120 83 110 110



advertising

35

All languages into English - rate based on target language (TL)


Per 1000 words Per page Per line Per 1000 words Per page Per line

Highest Lowest

Most


Most


Most


Most


Most


Most

frequent

French into English (for direct and agency clients per 1000 words only; rate categories with fewer than 5 responses can be found below)

Incl French (Belgian & Swiss)

Response 20 20 19 35 35 35

Max 135 120 135 120 110 115

Median 85 70 80 70 65 66

Italian into English (for direct and agency clients per 1000 words only; rate categories with fewer than 5 responses can be found below)


Max 120 110 115 120 80 90

Median 100 60 73 68 55 68

German into English (for direct and agency clients per 1000 words and per line rate only)

Incl German (Swiss & Austrian)

Response 32 30 31 14 13 13 54 53 53 13 12 13

Max 190 130 150 3.05 2.85 2.85 160 93 100 1.4 1.4 1.4

Median 90 80 85 1.29 1.28 1.28 75 65 70 0.85 0.80 0.85

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 13 13 13 16 16 16

Max 150 150 150 150 110 110

Median 80 70 70 70 60 65

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 5 5 12 12 10

Max 230 160 98 85 85

Median 90 70 79 63 65



advertising

36


Per 1000 words Per page Per line Per 1000 words Per page Per line

Highest Lowest

Most


Most


Most


Most


Most


Most

frequent

Polish into English (for direct clients per 1000 words only; rate categories with fewer than 5 responses can be found below)

Response 5 5 5

Max 130 100 120

Median 80 55 60

Russian into English (for agency clients per 1000 words only; rate categories with fewer than 5 responses can be found below)

Response 5 5 5

Max 100 85 85

Median 85 63 65

Swedish into English (for agency clients per 1000 words only; rate categories with fewer than 5 responses can be found below)

Response 6 6 5

Max 190 140 190

Median 89 75 80

Afrikaans/Danish/Dutch/Finnish/Icelandic/Norwegian/Portuguese/Scandinavian/Swedish/Welsh into English (rate categories with fewer than 5 responses).

Response 9 8 13 15 15 12

Max 200 150 210 104 80 100

Median 90 85 90 80 70 80

Albanian/Hungarian/Latvian/Polish/Romanian/Russian/Turkish/Ukrainian into English (rate categories with fewer than 5 responses).

Response 8 8 8 10 10 10

Max 100 80 90 100 80 80

Median 85 67 73 80 65 68

French/Italian/Spanish into English (rate categories with fewer than 5 responses)


Max 45 44 44 150 110 110

Median 30 23 27 30 22 26



advertising

37

English into all languages - rate based on target language (TL)


Per 1000 words Per page Per 1000 words Per page£ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £

Highest Lowest

Most


Most


Most


Most

frequent

English into French

Response 11 10 11 13 15 15

Max 140 100 105 95 95 95

Median 90 78 81 70 65 65

English into German

Response 10 10 10 7 7 7

Max 125 120 125 85 80 85

Median 93 80 84 78 69 70

English into Spanish incl. Catalan


Max 125 120 125 85 80 85

Median 93 80 87 72 68 70

No language with 5 or more responses in any category

English into Bulgarian/Czech/Hungarian/Romanian/Slovak (rate categories with fewer than 5 responses)

Response 7 7 6 6

Max 110 130 100 90

Median 100 70 85 70


English into Chinese/Chinese (Mandarin)/Japanese/Korean (rate categories with fewer than 5 responses)


Max 500 120 200 300 120 150

Median 115 105 110 100 80 100


English into Danish/Dutch/Norwegian/Portuguese/Welsh (rate categories with fewer than 5 responses)

Response 11 11 11 8 8 8

Max 175 86 125 90 86 86

Median 86 60 72 83 59 68

Neither of these languages with 5 or more responses in any category

English into Greek/Turkish (rate categories with fewer than 5 responses)


Max 140 100 120 110 85 95

Median 95 76 88 83 48 62

None of the results for 'per page', 'per line' or 'per character' categories met our reporting parameters and on the basis of the data collected

these would appear to no longer be standard/dominant methods of charging



advertising

4

advertising

38


Introduction to the interpreting rates tables 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 median1 for the various rate categories in each language. An example of these figures is given below for daily rates charged by ad-hoc interpreters working between English and Spanish for direct clients.

The first line indicates the number of responses received. The second line (Max) contains the maximum individual figures for all responses in respect of this language pair and the various rate categories. The ‘Highest’ column in this line contains the highest figure an interpreter charged at least once during the year, maybe for an urgent or highly specialised job. The ‘Lowest’ column contains the maximum lowest rate an interpreter charged during the year and the ‘Most frequent’ column contains the maximum most frequent rate charged. These maximum figures are given to show what can be achieved by experienced and specialised interpreters who can negotiate well. The third line gives the ‘Median’ of the ‘Highest’ rates charged by all 20 interpreters who responded, and the median of the ‘Lowest’ rates charged. The last figure is the ‘Median’ of the ‘Most frequent’ rate charged by this group of respondents. These figures give an indication of the spread of rates charged so that interpreters can position themselves in the market. Ad-hoc interpreters, direct clients, daily rate, between English and Spanish

Direct clients

Daily rate £ £ £

Highest Lowest Most

frequent English Spanish

Response 20 20 20

Max 650 400 600

Median 300 223 250

1 Half the figures lie above the median and the other half below

advertising

39

Conference Interpreter ratesDirect clients Agency clientsDaily rate Daily rate

£ £ £ £ £ £

Highest Lowest Most frequent Highest Lowest Most frequent

French into English

Response 6 6 5 5

Max 650 550 500 485

Median 352 250 300 250

French, German, Spanish, Italian into English (rate categories with fewer than 5 responses)

Note: French is included here as fewer than 5 responses were received for "most frequent" rates.

Response 6 6 10 6 6 10

Max 680 600 620 550 450 500

Median 500 400 325 325 288 288

Other European languages into English (rate categories with fewer than 5 responses)

Czech, Hungarian, Bulgarian, Dutch, Polish, Portuguese, Russian, Serbo-Croat, Turkish, Welsh

Response 12 12 10 10 10 8

Max 800 450 750 650 450 500

Median 463 315 295 400 288 310

Non-European languages into English (rate categories with fewer than 5 responses)

Arabic, Bengali, Chinese, Chinese (Mandarin), Japanese, Portuguese (Brazilian)


Max 750 554 554 750 450 500

Median 450 250 375 350 250 338

English into French


Max 650 500 550 500 480 480

Median 350 290 300 375 290 300

English into Italian


Max 600 500 550 550 450 500

Median 450 300 400 400 288 320

English into German and Spanish (rate categories with fewer than 5 responses)


Max 450 350 400 450 450 450

Median 350 275 290 350 313 315

English into other European languages (rate categories with fewer than 5 responses)

Albanian, British Sign Language, Czech, Dutch, Dutch (Flemish), Greek, Polish, Portuguese, Russian, Swedish, Turkish, Welsh

Response 14 13 12 17 16 15

Max 750 600 720 720 500 720

Median 475 350 375 400 300 350

English into non-European languages (rate categories with fewer than 5 responses)

Chinese, Chinese (Mandarin), Japanese, Mirpuri, Mongolian, Portuguese (Brazilian)


Max 800 500 650 1000 500 650

Median 475 400 425 425 375 400

Excluding most frequent rates, which are reported immediately below (rate categories with fewer than 5 responses)



advertising

40

Ad-hoc Interpreter ratesDirect clients Agency clients

Daily rate Hourly rate Daily rate Hourly rate

£ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £

Highest Lowest

Most


Most


Most


Most

frequent

French, Italian, German, Spanish into and out of English

English French

Response 30 30 28 21 21 18 27 26 23 23 23 20

Max 600 600 600 60 45 50 550 500 480 40 40 40

Median 300 238 250 30 28 30 250 223 245 25 20 25

English Italian

Response 11 10 11 10 10 9 9 8 9 10 10 8

Max 600 600 600 80 50 70 470 300 400 60 40 42

Median 440 300 350 60 30 35 300 223 285 28 23 28

English (inc. US) German

Response 14 14 14 5 5 6 10 10 10

Max 1100 1100 1100 142 142 142 350 300 320

Median 345 290 330 25 25 33 300 258 258

English Spanish

Response 20 20 20 19 18 19 12 12 11 11 11 11

Max 650 400 600 60 56 60 330 320 320 50 50 50

Median 300 223 250 37 36 35 263 235 225 35 35 35

Other European languages into and out of English

English Polish

Response 11 10 11 21 21 21 8 8 8 18 18 18

Max 720 300 500 60 30 35 250 200 250 40 30 35

Median 200 180 180 30 25 25 210 180 180 27 20 25

English

Response 5 5 5

Max 550 450 500

Median 450 300 350

English (inc. US) Russian

Response 11 11 11 7 7 7 7 7 7 8 5 8

Max 400 300 350 50 38 40 350 300 300 38 38 38

Median 280 220 250 30 20 30 270 220 225 24 19 18

English Turkish


Max 300 250 300 300 250 300

Median 290 200 200 200 180 200

Excluding agency hourly rate, which is included under "Pre-2004 EU languages" (rate categories with fewer than 5 responses)

Excluding direct hourly rate and agency (daily and hourly rate), which are included under "Pre-2004 EU languages" (rate categories with fewer than 5

responses)

Excluding direct and agency hourly rate, which are included under "Post-2004 EU languages (rate categories with fewer than 5 responses)

Portuguese



advertising

41


Daily rate Hourly rate Daily rate Hourly rate

£ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £

Highest Lowest

Most


Most


Most


Most

frequent

Pre-2004 EU languages into and out of English (rate categories with fewer than 5 responses)

Danish, Dutch, Dutch (Flemish), Finnish, German (agency hourly rate only), Greek, Portuguese (direct hourly, agency daily and hourly rates)

Response 9 9 7 10 10 9 11 11 10 12 12 11

Max 800 800 800 125 100 110 800 800 800 100 100 100

Median 380 300 400 68 60 75 350 300 350 30 25 30

Post-2004 EU, and other European languages into and out of English (rate categories with fewer than 5 responses)

Albanian, Bulgarian, Czech, Croatian, Hungarian, Romanian, Serbian, Serbo-Croat, Slovak, Turkish (direct hourly and agency hourly rates), Ukrainian, Welsh

Response 11 11 7 16 16 15 12 12 8 16 16 15

Max 500 300 300 70 60 35 600 300 320 60 35 35

Median 300 250 280 35 30 30 280 235 253 30 29 30

Non-European languages into and out of English

English Japanese


Max 800 500 550 1000 450 600

Median 513 425 500 400 380 400

Chinese English

Response 8 8 8 15 14 13 5 5 6 7 7 7

Max 550 400 450 45 33 36 550 350 450 45 30 35

Median 304 204 254 28 20 23 300 300 254 20 18 20

Latin American languages into and out of English (rate categories with fewer than 5 responses)

Response 7 7 7

Max 350 300 300

Median 300 300 300

Indian sub-continent languages into and out of English (rate categories with fewer than 5 responses)


Max 45 26 28 25 20 20

Median 30 15 25 20 15 18

Non-European languages into and out of English (rate categories with fewer than 5 responses)

Arabic, Farsi, Indonesian, Japanese (direct and agency hourly rates), Korean, Kurdish (Sorani), Mongolian, Pashto, Thai

Response 7 7 7 11 11 11 6 6 6 10 10 10

Max 400 400 400 60 50 50 400 400 400 50 50 50

Median 256 256 256 30 28 30 303 278 303 25 19 20

Bengali, Hindi, Mirpuri, Punjabi, Tamil, Urdu

Note: fewer than 5 responses have been received for columns without reported rates. As this is already a language group, those values have not been reported.

Excluding direct and agency hourly rates, which are included under "Other non-European languages into and out of English" (rate categories with fewer than 5

responses)

Portuguese (Brazilian), Spanish (Latin American/Venezuelan)

Note: fewer than 5 responses have been received for the columns without reported rates. As this is already a language group, those values have not been

reported



advertising

42

Public Service Interpreter rates


Hourly rate Hourly rate

£ £ £ £ £ £

Highest Lowest

Most


Most

frequent

European languages into and out of English

English Czech

Response 5 5 5

Max 30 30 30

Median 30 20 30

English French

Response 17 16 15 16 15 15

Max 60 30 40 45 30 30

Median 30 25 25 26 20 20

English Italian

Response 5 5 6 6 5

Max 60 40 60 40 42

Median 30 30 30 23 20

English Polish

Response 23 21 22 23 24 23

Max 67 39 45 67 30 40

Median 30 25 30 25 20 22

English Russian

Response 10 10 10 8 7 8

Max 66 33 33 30 25 25

Median 29 28 29 26 16 18

English Spanish

Response 10 8 10 7 6 6

Max 50 35 35 30 20 28

Median 30 23 30 25 19 22

English Turkish

Response 5 5

Max 30 30

Median 30 30

Excluding direct client rates which are reported in "Post-2004 EU and other European languages" (rate categories with fewer than 5

responses)

Excluding direct clients most frequent rates which are reported in "Pre-2004 EU languages" (rate categories with fewer than 5

responses)

Excluding direct client rates and most frequent agency rates which are reported in "Post-2004 EU languages" (rate categories with

fewer than 5 responses)



advertising

43


Hourly rate Hourly rate

£ £ £ £ £ £

Highest Lowest

Most


Most

frequent

Pre-2004 EU languages into and out of English

Response 7 7 11

Max 60 45 45

Median 50 28 30

Post-2004 EU, and other European languages into and out of English

(rate categories with fewer than 5 responses)

Response 20 20 18 13 12 16

Max 69 60 60 35 35 35

Median 33 28 30 30 26 28


Chinese English

Incl. Cantonese and Mandarin


Max 67 33 36 35 28 28

Median 30 30 29 26 15 19

Indian sub-continent languages into and out of English


Response 6 6 5

Max 25 20 20

Median 20 15 20



Arabic, Farsi, Japanese, Korean, Kurdish (Sorani), Mongolian, Pashto, Portuguese (Brazilian), Spanish (Latin American)

Response 11 11 10 13 13 12

Max 85 30 30 60 45 30

Median 28 27 28 25 20 20

Bengali, Hindi, Mirpuri, Punjabi, Urdu

Note: fewer than 5 responses were received for columns without reported rates. As this is already a language group, those values

have not been reported.

Danish, Dutch, German, Greek, Italian (direct clients and most frequent rates only), Swedish.

Czech (direct client rates only), Bulgarian, Croatian, Estonian, Hungarian, Lithuanian, Romanian, Serbian, Slovak, Turkish (direct

client rates and most frequent agency rates only), Welsh


Note: fewer than 5 responses were received for columns without reported rates. As this is already a language group, those values

have not been reported.



advertising

44



Summary Report Udo Jorg, John Gardam and Christine Pocock reveal some of the highlights of the survey Master Report in the summary below. Plans to carry out a joint ITI/CIOL rates and salaries survey had been afoot for many years. Eventually, in the spring of 2010, a Working Group (WG) was set up by both Councils and tasked with design and implementation of the project. After a great deal of work, the on-line survey went live in August 2011 and by the closing date of 8 October 2011, over 1,750 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. As this is the first joint survey, comparing results with previous surveys might be problematic, as this time the survey coverage was much larger and it might be difficult to evaluate whether significant changes are due to market developments or differences in the survey population; in other words, one would not necessarily be comparing like with like. This needs to be borne in mind whenever comparisons are made with the 2001 ITI or the 1999 IOL survey. It is also the first time that such a survey was open to linguists who are not members of either ITI or CIOL. As they could not be specifically targeted in the pre-survey advertising, it is not surprising that they only make up 3% of all responses received. The joint survey is considerably more comprehensive and complex than previous surveys and this has resulted in a wealth of data, which has been published in the very detailed Master Report. In this summary report we focus on some of the key findings. General 90% of respondents were between 30 and 69 years of age, with more than half falling into the 40-59 age bracket. Of the total number of respondents, just over two thirds were women. English was the mother tongue of more than half of the respondents and just under three quarters were based in the UK. 86% of respondents were working on a freelance basis and the median for years of experience ranged from 8 to 13 years. In light of the above-mentioned age distribution, this seems rather low. 1,100 freelance respondents provided figures on their gross annual income. 35% of the respondents were part-time freelancers with a median gross income from translating/interpreting of £8,000. The median annual gross income for those who reported being full-time translators or interpreters was in the region of £31,000. 137 of all freelance translators and interpreters (just over 12%) reported incomes of over £50,000 and 232, or 21%, over £40,000. 474, or 43%, reported incomes of less than £20,000. The top earners turned out to be translators rather than interpreters.

advertising

45



Fig. 1: Freelance translators/interpreters, distribution of annual gross income (£) in most recent tax year (a more detailed analysis can be found in the online Master Report). Of the 1337 who responded to the question about translation workload, 44% reported that their translation workload had increased compared with five years ago, 30% reported a decrease and 26% no change. The situation was worse for the 510 interpreters who responded, where the corresponding figures were 29% (increase), 45% (decrease) and 26% (no change). Of the 1428 who submitted a response to the question about working for translation companies/agencies, more than 80% said they did so on a regular basis. When asked to compare their current rates with rates charged five years ago, 42% of the 1431 respondents said they were higher, 38% indicated that their rates have remained the same and 10% reported lower rates; the remaining 10% had ticked ‘not applicable’, indicating that they had entered the profession fairly recently. About a third of 1420 freelancers have a website. In response to a question about whether they knew how much business it generated, two thirds of the 445 who responded could not say and of the remaining third, 72% indicated that it generated less than 10% of their business. Just ten respondents stated that their website generated over 50% of their workload. 77% of 1268 freelancers reported being sole traders and of these just 24% were registered for VAT. Freelance Translators The Master Report gives details of the rates charged per 1,000 words, based on both source and target language word counts for translations into and out of English for many languages. It provides median and maximum rates in three categories: lowest rate, highest rate and most frequent rate. These three subcategories offered respondents the possibility of indicating a range of rates for any specific language combination. Inspired by another major T&I association in Europe (thank you

Gross annual income of freelance

translators/interpreters

246 228 244

160

95

137

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

up to £ 9 , 999 £ 10 , 000 - £ 19 , 999

£ 20 , 000 - £ 29 , 999

£ 30 , 000 - £ 39 , 999

£ 40 , 000 - £ 49 , 999

over £ 50 , 000

advertising

46



BDÜ!), the WG introduced a ‘rule’ whereby only rates for language combinations and rate categories, for which we received at least five responses, would be reported. It was felt that this would ensure respondent anonymity and that the published data is more representative. Whenever we received fewer than five responses for a particular rate category or language combination, we attempted to group them in as meaningful a way as possible and have reported them accordingly. The following diagram shows the median figures for the most frequent rate based on source-language word count into English. This summary reports only on the median, most frequent rates and more experienced or specialised translators are likely to charge more. More detailed information on the maximum and median rates and data on the lowest, highest and most frequent rates charged can be found in the Master Report.

135

75 75 77 7985 85 85 85 88 90 90

100

135

65 70 70 65 70 65 71 7175 75

82 7791 90 89

100 107

130

£0

£20

£40

£60

£80

£100

£120

£140

£160

Italian

Albania

nPo

lish

Spanis

hFre

nch

Portug

eseRuss

ian

Portu

gese (B

razilian

) Chine

seGerm

anTur

kish Dutch

Japane

se and

Korea

nSw

edish

Finnis

hDani

sh

Agency cl ients Direct clients

Fig. 2: Translation of all languages into English, rates based on source language (£/1000), medians of most frequently charged rate for agencies and direct clients. Even though we have mentioned above that it can be problematic to compare the joint survey with previous surveys, we could not resist putting the results into some historical perspective. However, we have to reiterate the proviso that we might not be comparing like with like. Looking at the data in the 2001 ITI report, we note that in absolute terms, most agency rates in Fig. 2 have increased (with the exception of Albanian, which, on the basis of the 2011 responses, has remained the same, and Chinese and Turkish, which have actually gone down). The situation for direct client rates is similar; in absolute terms they all went up, with the exception of Turkish. However, in real terms, only the languages on the very right in the table managed to keep pace with inflation (Finnish for both agency and direct client rates and Danish for direct client rates only). One can only hope that affected translators will have tackled the dilemma of falling rates in real terms by boosting productivity through the use of CAT.

advertising

47



More translation rates are reported in the diagrams below:

69 70 7075 80 80 80 80 83 84 85 85 87 90

60 68 65 70 70 72 73 75

6068 70

60

103

90

140

65

100

£0

£20

£40

£60

£80

£100

£120

£140

£160

Welsh

Polish

Italian

Spanis

hGerm

anFre

nch

Portug

ese

Portug

ese (Braz

ilian) Dutc

h

Turkis

h

Romani

an Czech

Russian

Chines

e

Japane

se/Ko

rean

Finnis

h

Arabic/F

arsi

Agencyclients

Directclients

Fig. 3: Translation from English, rates based on source language (£/1000), medians of most frequently charged rate for agency & direct clients. There was insufficient data to report on agency client rates for Turkish and direct client rates for Finnish, Arabic/Farsi.

advertising

48



68 6670

80

60

70 70 7380

65 65

85

£0

£10

£20

£30

£40

£50

£60

£70

£80

£90

Polish Russian Spanish Italian French German Swedish

Agency clients

Directclients

Fig. 4: Translation into English, rates based on target language (£/1000), medians of most frequently charged rate for agencies and direct clients. There was insufficient data to report on agency client rates for Polish and direct client rates for Swedish.

6065 65 70

6270

78 81 84 88

110100

£0

£20

£40

£60

£80

£100

£120

Polish

Spanis

hFre

nch

German

Greek/T

urkish

Chine

se

Agency clients

Directclients

Fig. 5: Translation from English, rates based on target language (£/1000), medians of most frequently charged rate for agencies and direct clients. Of the 1217 freelance translators who responded to the question about CAT (translation memory [TM] systems), 55% reported using such a system, which is an increase on the 31% reported in the 2001 ITI survey. The market leader is still Trados with 63% of the market. 53% of translators using translation memory offer

advertising

49



discounts. For a detailed breakdown of discount averages by level of match, please see the Master Report. Whilst TM may increase the number of words translated per day, it does not appear to increase the rates paid per 1,000 words when working through agencies. When working for direct clients, however, TM users appear to charge direct customers about 10% more than non-users. Of the 1,063 freelancers who gave feedback on their output, about half reported translating 200,000 words a year or more. Again, for a detailed breakdown, please refer to the Master Report. Of the 1214 who responded to the question about voice recognition software, only 10% reported using it, with Dragon Dictate still being the leading brand. Freelance Interpreters The survey differentiates between 3 different interpreting types (or settings), all with their own specific characteristics and traditions: conference interpreting, ad hoc interpreting and public-service interpreting. This summary reports only on the median most frequent rates and more experienced or specialised interpreters are likely to charge more. Maximum rates and data on lowest and highest rates charged can be found in the Master Report. As with translators, we have reported only on language combinations and rate categories for which we received at least five responses, which ensures respondent anonymity and that the published data is more representative. Conference Interpreters 122 respondents identified themselves as conference interpreters. Some conference interpreters (especially when working in the simultaneous mode) work into their mother tongue only, whereas others also work from their native tongue into another language, of which they have full active command. We have therefore differentiated between rates when working into English and from English. For conference interpreters working into English, we did not receive sufficient responses to be able to report on any one language combination. The WG therefore decided to group languages in as meaningful a way as possible, in order to be able to report at least some results. Please bear in mind that the grouping of languages might lead to results which appear unusual at first sight. Unless otherwise specified in the following table, further details about which specific languages have been grouped together can be found in the Master Report.

advertising

50



Fig. 6: Conference interpreters into English, medians of most frequently charged daily rates (in £) for agency and direct clients. For conference interpreters working from English, we had sufficient responses to report on two specific language combinations, but, again, had to merge data for several others in as meaningful a way as possible.

Fig. 7: Conference interpreters from English, medians of most frequently charged daily rates (in £) for agency and direct clients. Ad hoc Interpreters 291 respondents identified themselves as ad hoc (or liaison) interpreters, working mainly in business, commercial law, diplomatic and other non-PSI and non-

advertising

51



conference settings. Ad hoc interpreting work is bidirectional, i.e. interpreters work both into and out of their native language. The survey asked ad hoc interpreters to supply both daily and hourly rates. Overall, responses indicate that the majority of ad hoc interpreters who work for direct clients charge on a daily-rate basis. The data for ad hoc interpreters working through agencies was inconclusive in this respect. Again, all language combinations and rate categories, for which we received fewer than 5 responses, were grouped in as meaningful a way as the data sets allowed. Details on which specific languages have been grouped together can be found in the Master Report, as can information and data on hourly ad hoc interpreting rates.

Fig. 8: Ad hoc interpreters (into and out of English), medians of most frequently charged daily rates (in £) for agency and direct clients. There was insufficient data to report on Portuguese agency client rates.

advertising

52



Fig. 9: Ad hoc interpreters (into and out of English), medians of most frequently charged daily rates (in £) for agency and direct clients for grouped languages (fewer than 5 responses per language combination). There was insufficient data to report on agency rates for Latin American languages

advertising

53



Public service interpreters 262 respondents identified themselves as public service interpreters working for the police, courts, local government or the NHS. Public service interpreting work is also bidirectional, i.e. interpreters work both into and from their native language. Again, all language combinations and rate categories, for which we received fewer than 5 responses, were grouped in as meaningful a way as the data sets allowed. Details on which specific languages have been grouped together can be found in the Master Report.

2018 19 20

22 22

30

25

29 29 30 30 30

£0

£5

£10

£15

£20

£25

£30

£35

French Russian Chinese Italian Polish Spanish Czech

Agency clients

Direct clients

Fig. 10: Public service interpreters (into and out of English), medians of most frequently charged hourly rates (in £) for agency and direct clients. There was insufficient data to report on Czech direct client rates

advertising

54



Fig. 11: Public service interpreters (into and out of English), medians of most frequently charged hourly rates for agency and direct clients, grouped languages (fewer than 5 responses per language combination). There was insufficient data to report on either direct client rates for Indian sub-continent languages or agency client rates for Pre-2004 EU languages. Comparing interpreting rates with previous surveys is even more problematic than comparing translation rates, as it is not only necessary to bear in mind that the enlarged overall survey population might have had an impact on results, but also that changes in the reporting format need to be taken into account. In the 2001 ITI survey, for example, the interpreting categories were different to those in this joint survey (only conference interpreting remained the same), and there was no differentiation between agency and direct-client rates. For this reason we have not attempted a historical comparison. However, it is probably safe to say that even for languages where rates have increased over the past decade in absolute terms, the increase will most likely not have been sufficient to keep pace with inflation. This means, in real terms that most interpreters will have had to cope with lower rates and – unlike translators – have not had the benefit of a tool such as translation memory at their disposal to boost productivity.

advertising

55



Staff translators & interpreters Of the 243 respondents who indicated they are salaried, 220 provided data on their contract and, of these, 191 were permanently employed. 51 were working part-time and 11 claimed to work over 50 hours per week. 65 worked for language service providers/agencies, 13 for national government and a further 13 for international organisations. Some 15% of staff translators worked from home. For more information please see the Master Report.

Fig. 12: Staff translators/interpreters, distribution of annual salaries (£) in most recent tax year

This summary 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.

advertising

56

advertising

Documents

2011 Rates and Salaries Survey for Translators and ... Rates and Salaries Survey for Translators and ... Comparison of the outcomes from this survey ... French 100 5.8% 27 German 85