Once, in my graduate school days, I spent hours writing and rewriting the introductory sentence of my thesis, only to have my Professor reply, “A great paper, but your first sentence was so convoluted that I feared the worst… you’re lucky that I continued reading.” So, for those of you who find the title of this article puzzling, I offer my sincere apologies. The images therein are inexcusably domain-centric, not suitable for a global audience and… well… not easily translatable. There is, however, a reason why I selected them.

For those of you ancient enough to remember, the Edsel was one of Ford Motor Company’s most ambitious and expensive projects, and unarguably, its most famous mistake. In an attempt to plug the mid-size car gap in 1956, Ford embarked on a broad campaign, setting up an entirely new division to build a car with an entirely new design. The car was to be completely unique - distinguishable from any angle. It was advanced; many of today’s feature functions first appeared on the Edsel. There was a massive advertising campaign and a great deal of enthusiasm was generated. On September 4, 1957 (“E-Day” as it was known), 2.5 million Americans flooded into Edsel dealerships. And promptly flooded right back out.

There are a variety of theories posited for the Edsel’s failure: a recession, manufacturing difficulties, price and even the funny name. But there is one simple and fundamental reason why it failed: it didn’t meet customer needs. No course correction or “reengineering to accommodate market dynamics” could help - it was simply the wrong car. Hold that thought for a moment while we clarify the second half of the title of this article.

Emmanuel Kant (1724-1804) is a central figure of Modern Philosophy. There is a reason for that: he sought to rebuild philosophy from the ground up and succeeded in permanently recasting the problems to be solved and the methods to be used. (I am sure that many of you were wondering whom to thank for that!) He did this in part by introducing new and specific terminology (like “noumenon” or “heteronomy”), and by providing a structure for discussion. One of Kant’s most famous works is Prolegomena zu einer jeden künftigen Metaphysik die als Wissenschaft wird auftreten können (traditionally undertranslated as Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics).

Now, with that erudite preamble out of the way, we can move on to the point of my article. My friends at Common Sense Advisory have conducted a survey, and they assure me that statistically the chances of the Ford Edsel or Emmanuel Kant's philosophy coming up during a customer consultation on GILT issues are 1 in 134,678,547. Nevertheless, there are lessons to be learned from both. A recent Globalization Insider article included the following alarming statement: “If your translation is excellent, but your processes are flawed, you might still, albeit with a considerable amount of stress and discomfort, successfully deploy your localized product. If it’s the other way around, you’re dead in the water.”

I will not attribute the quote because, in fairness, this is a belief held by many people, and one that I have heard with painful frequency. But it’s wrong. Translating a product that is not properly or completely enabled for multilingual use is painting the Edsel. It may be economically beneficial for translation companies or for the localization industry (sic) in the short term, but it is a disservice to customers, and in the long run, it will devalue our credibility and truly lead to commoditization. Translation is only one element of the total equation, and all elements must be addressed to ensure success. Customers look to organizations like LISA and its member companies for expert advice on how to do business globally (even if it is only one country or one geography at a time). We owe them a complete answer. Let’s not lose track of that.

I have heard many people complain, “Customers do not understand what we do (or appreciate the value of what we do).” That is an inverted view. Turn the telescope around. It is we who need to understand and appreciate our customers’ goals and processes. It is we who must examine those processes and determine all of the things that must be done (including translation). It is we who must be aware of applicable standards, trends and technologies that may apply. And it is we who must communicate those issues to customers in their terms. In short, it is we who must adapt and change.

What we need is a new GILT business model. We need to rebuild the current model from the ground up, change its methods and address problems from a new perspective. Sound familiar?

• First of all, we need to stop our intellectual narcissism. Ladies and Gentlemen, let me break the sad news. We are not the center of the Business Universe. Neither are we critical nor vital nor indispensable. At least not yet… someday perhaps. We are, however, knowledgeable professionals who offer services that can be of great value to customers.

• Next, we must use new terminology - not our own, unique, time-honored technobabble and trendy alphanumeric acronyms, but the vocabulary of the customer. Talking to a bank? Forget trying to delineate the fine distinction between internationalization and globalization. Speak online funds transfers and country-specific regulations first, and then locales. Talking to a car parts dealer about a multilingual website? Speak invoicing, tariffs and shipping first, and then cost-per-line.

• Understand the whole picture or partner with those who do. With few exceptions, we do a poor job of treating the customers’ global problems holistically. Instead, there is the natural but dangerous practice of defining the problem in terms of our own abilities to address it. (“To a man with a hammer, all problems look like nails.”) If you are one of those who complains that customers do not understand what we do, you need look no further for a reason. We each give them our own slightly skewed version of reality. Here is where LISA - the new and improved LISA - can help. Want your customers to get a complete and unbiased view of all of applicable standards and technologies they need to take into account? Use LISA. That is the new LISA role, not sales promotion.
• Focus on emerging standards… all GILT standards and related standards with GILT implications, not just those related to translation. Helping a customer deploy a hot new software application in China by translating the help screens? Great! But unless you understand the implications of GB18030, the application may never get deployed, and the translation will be useless.

• And then there is the most difficult change of all. Participate. Join. Share. I am not referring to the faux camaraderie of workgroups where members publicly point out the importance of common solutions, while privately striving to avoid altering their own assets. Nor am I talking about the technical “nudges-and-winks” that result in a “standard” so vague that everyone can implement it differently and still claim compliance. I mean genuine sharing that is in the best interest of customers. We are about to enter a business era when standards will be key to all customers’ success. They will have not only the motivation but also the ability to shop carefully. They want flexibility, growth potential and consistency, and they know that standards provide these.

The services that you provide or the proprietary technology you offer is unique, you say? Better rethink: the Edsel was unique.