|
Company/Product |
Slogan, Motto, or Tagline |
Messaging Highlight |
Marketing Value 1-5 (5=high):
Common Sense Advisory comment |
|
]project-open[ |
Bridging the gap between ERP and PM |
"...integrated Translation Management System (TMS) for translation agencies (SLVs, MLVs), translation departments and language service providers..." |
2: No attempt to pitch value to prospects. |
|
across Language Server |
Central repository, smooth processes, open interfaces |
"...seamlessly integrated project management and workflow control; new forms of collaborative work with your customers..." |
4: Over-use of adjectives, but effective message to LSPs. |
|
AIT Projetex |
Project Management Software for Translation Agencies |
"...simplifies task of corporate and freelance workflow management, data and files sharing within translation agency..." |
3: Comprehensive but uninspired. |
|
Beetext Flow |
Project Efficiency Solutions |
"...enhance your project management efficiency by up
to 70%..." |
4: Uses numbers as concrete examples. |
|
Idiom WorldServer |
Translation Management with Freedom of Choice |
"...accelerate translation and localization processes for any content, from websites to paper-based documents and software applications..." |
5: Sells the business benefits. |
|
Lingotek |
The Language Search Engine |
"...targeted glossaries, selected searches, spell checkers and other features that make the translation process as quick and easy as possible for a qualified linguist..." |
2: Shrill, trying too hard, unconvincing. |
|
LTC Worx |
One system for all your business needs |
"Know the status of your business; Manage all your language projects; Manage multiple sites; Manage your projects efficiently; Collaborate effectively; Create quotations quickly ... " |
3: A generic message does not effectively reach either LSPs or enterprise buyers. |
|
MultiCorpora MultiTrans |
A unique approach to Multilingual Asset Management |
"...combining multilingual search engine technology with all the features of a conventional translation memory and best-in-class Terminology Management solutions..." |
3: Too much clich? but generally solid explanation of benefits. |
|
Plunet BusinessManager |
...enables the processing and management of all organizational activities and processes on a single platform |
Adaptability = " flexible customization." Flexibility = " client -server application on a local network or via the Internet." |
1: No attempt to describe benefits; repetitive and illogical message. |
|
SDL TMS |
Unify the Translation and Localization Supply Chain |
"...automating many manual processes and driving the reuse of existing multilingual assets..." |
4: Lists benefits, then features. |
|
Thebigword.com LanguageDirector |
The total solution for all your language requirements |
"...central, server-based translation memory ensures cross-vendor translation re-use, capitalizing on cost and time efficiencies and maximizing consistency..." |
4: Strong enterprise message, but ambiguous or missing LSP message. |
|
XTRF |
Extend the limits |
"...easy to use and user friendly. Enjoy your work every day with X TRF!" |
2: Missing a compelling story about business benefits. |
A Brief History of Translation Management Systems
Four years ago we reviewed the TMS space in a report called "Rage Against the Content Management Machine" (Apr03). Finding a mere 50 sites deploying what all their developers then called GMS, we pronounced the sector dead. The CMS sector was catching up with them, customers were not pleased, the companies often competed with their CMS partners, pricing was inappropriately high for the functions offered, and marketing was abysmal. Indeed, the sector all but vanished in 2004. But not quite.
By early 2006, the GMS vendors, properly chastened and culled by acquisition to a more manageable few, began positioning themselves as translation workflow providers. CMS vendors, once poised to absorb translation workflow into their technology stacks, remained uncommitted. The surviving GMS vendors stopped competing with their CMS counterparts and instead positioned translation workflow as an add-in to the content management process (see "Global Content Management Technology", Mar06). The now-TMS suppliers pumped up centralized translation management — a key differentiator — and tailored their offerings to more intimately coordinate with project management and CMS solutions. For the most part, the TMS companies went after commercial accounts like Adobe, eBay, Hewlett-Packard, and Symantec and largely ignored LSPs.
While the larger or IT-savvy language service providers built their own systems for managing projects, many LSPs took advantage of a different set of applications aimed at small and medium-sized agencies. Smaller, generally self-funded software companies selling primarily to LSPs quietly established marketshare — these were mostly European companies like LTC, Plunet , and ]project-open[. They initially oriented their efforts around project and resource management rather than workflow, so these software products lacked the centralized TM component. However, those restrictions meant that they could manage the business aspect of a company's projects. Any system with a centralized TM will only handle "supported" file types for which a parsing engine exists. LSPs do not control what kind of file types their clients send to them, so they appreciate a system that does not constrain which projects can be put through the mill.
Given the number of choices now available in the market, the structural differences between system types, and the variety of buyer organizations, we wondered how TMS vendors market their wares to LSPs. For this article we surveyed the software makers to find out what messages they use to entice buyers. As might be expected in a new product category, we found confusion rather than consensus on the business benefits of using these types of application.
Post By：2008-3-25 21:18:47
上一篇：
发表、查看更多关于该信息的评论
将本信息发给好友
打印本页