A transcreation programme is decided by two conversations: the brief at the start and the review in the middle. Suppliers are usually blamed for outcomes that were determined in the first one and could have been corrected in the second.

Neither conversation is difficult. Both are routinely skipped, because the brief feels like paperwork and the review competes with everyone’s day job. The cost of skipping them is a programme that produces accurate copy nobody is happy with, and no agreed way to say why.

This piece sets out what a transcreation brief has to contain, how to run the review loop so it converges, and what each side is accountable for.

Key Takeaways

  • A transcreation brief has to say what the content is for. A language pair and a deadline is a
    translation brief, and it will get you a translation.
  • Review against the agreed voice and intent, not against the English. Marking transcreated copy
    back towards the source undoes the work you paid for.
  • Name reviewers per market with a defined window and a decision rule for silence. Unnamed
    review is the single commonest cause of a stalled programme.

We define transcreation as “creative translation”, a process that adapts the emotional expressions and contextual relevance of the source message that goes beyond literal meaning of words. Four things have to arrive together for it to work: language, emotion, culture and your brand’s tone of voice.

What a transcreation brief contains

Eight things, and the first is the one most often missing.

  1. What the content is for. Inform, persuade, reassure, or comply. This decides the treatment, and without it a writer can only reproduce the words.
  2. The markets, named individually, and the written language each one needs — not a region.
  3. The audience. Who is reading, what they already know, and what they are deciding.
  4. The brand’s tone of voice, with examples of copy you consider on-brand and copy you do not. Examples are worth more than adjectives.
  5. The fixed factual spine. Facts, figures, ratings, categories and claims that may not be adapted under any circumstances.
  6. Terminology already settled, if any, and who owns the decision where it is not.
  7. Where it will be published, and the constraints that come with that — character limits, button widths, artwork panels, reading speed for subtitles.
  8. Who reviews it, in which market, by when.

The English copy is an input to that brief rather than the brief itself. A brief containing these eight items rarely produces an argument later; a brief containing files and a deadline frequently does.

Where the brief gets written

Two of the six steps exist to turn a brief into something a writer can work from.

Understand the Project Brief establishes the content, the markets, the purpose and the constraints. Pre-Transcreation Study is the research that follows: reading the brand’s own materials, settling style and tone for each language, and uncovering the market-specific technical jargon and colloquial terms the content will need.

That second step is the one clients are most tempted to compress, and it is the one that prevents the expensive rewrite. It is where the untransferable comparison, the wrong seasonal premise and the unsettled terminology all get caught, while they are still cheap.

How the work runs

A supplier that can name its steps can tell you which one you are in. Ours runs in six:

  1. Understand the Project Brief. The content, the markets, the purpose and the constraints.
  2. Pre-Transcreation Study. Reviewing brand materials, style and tone, and uncovering the market-specific technical jargon and colloquial terms the content will need.
  3. Transcreation. The writing, drawing on the Translation Memory built for your brand.
  4. Client Review. Your own market teams read the content before it is live.
  5. Update and Approval. Revisions, then sign-off.
  6. Final Delivery. Into the system it has to live in, or as artwork ready to print.

Running the review loop

Client Review is where the work is tested, and it only functions if it is designed.

Decision What works What fails
Who reviews A named person per market who markets to that audience “The regional team”, or whoever is free
What they are asked Does this sound like us, in this language, to this
audience?		 Does this match the English?
Batch size What a reviewer can genuinely read in their window The whole
estate at once
Window Defined, with a decision rule if nobody responds Open-ended
Form of feedback What is wrong and why, in the market’s terms A
rewritten sentence inserted directly into the file
Where changes go Back through the editorial team, so the voice survives the
revision		 Around them, straight into the CMS
Disagreements Market team decides what reads naturally; brand decides what it is
willing to say		 Whoever is most senior on the call

The last row is the one worth agreeing in advance. Most review deadlock is a disguised argument about authority, and separating ‘does this read naturally’ from ‘are we prepared to say this’ resolves nearly all of it.

The review instruction that costs the most

“Please check this against the English.”

Given that instruction, a conscientious reviewer will move the copy back towards the source, because that is what they have been asked to do. Every departure looks like an error. The result is a translation with extra steps, produced at transcreation cost, and a reviewer who has done exactly what was requested.

The instruction that works is narrower and harder: read this as a reader in your market, and tell us whether it sounds like us and whether it would persuade you. Then a separate, mechanical check confirms the fixed factual spine is intact — which is the only part that should be compared with the source. What to look for is set out in how to check translation quality before it goes live.

What each side owns

  • You own the brief, the brand’s tone, the fixed factual spine, the terminology sign-off, the named reviewers, and the decision about what the brand is willing to say.
  • We own the research step, the writing, the consistency of the voice across languages, the Translation Memory, delivery into your systems, and flagging anything that looks market-specific or legally load-bearing.
  • Shared: the schedule, and the content inventory that both sides work from.

Written down once at the start of a programme, that division removes most of the friction that otherwise appears in month three. What a hotel group should expect of a long-term partner is in what a hotel group should expect from an appointed LSP.

We point to CSA research showing that 75% of consumers will not buy if the content is not available in their language. The advertising adage “can’t read, won’t buy” holds true.

What we can evidence

Long-running relationships where the review loop was part of the arrangement.

  • For Resorts World Sentosa we are the appointed language service provider to the Digital and Regional Marketing teams, covering Sitecore websites, leaflets, in-market brochures, display ads and eDMs in Chinese, Japanese, Bahasa Indonesia, Tamil, Vietnamese, Thai and more, with a Translation Memory maintained per language.
  • For Far East Hospitality we are an appointed language service provider, handling Sitecore websites and CRM content — in-room directories, sales brochures and fact sheets — in Simplified Chinese, Bahasa Indonesia and Japanese for the China, Indonesia and Japan markets.
  • For Millennium Hotels & Resorts we are an appointed language service provider, producing brand content for China, Taiwan, Japan, the UAE, Spain, Italy and France on Sitecore, with quality assurance before go-live.
  • For Gardens by the Bay we won a public tender that included trials in ten regional languages, then a two-year contract as a preferred vendor, producing marketing and media brochures in 10 languages with artwork proofing and Translation Memory reuse across the programme.
  • In 2008 Starwood Hotels & Resorts named us its “Preferred Asian Language Localisation” vendor, and our services and support continue today.

The appointed-provider relationships are the relevant evidence here. Resorts World Sentosa, Far East Hospitality and Millennium Hotels & Resorts are appointed language service provider arrangements rather than project engagements, with quality assurance before go-live built into the work for the latter two.

Asked why they chose us, our clients rank it as quality, turnaround time and service, in that order. Asked why they stay, they cite the quality, our understanding of their audience and their brand, turnaround, the cost savings a Translation Memory produces over time, and familiarity with their internal processes. Clients often arrive having experienced badly translated content — copy that was more direct than creative.

At IPPWORLD, we are an award-winning transcreation agency that specialises in creative translation and marketing localisation for the hospitality, travel, lifestyle and retail sectors. The award is Best Hospitality Creative Translation & Localisation Agency 2019, at the LUXlife Hospitality Awards. We have worked in this field since 1994, from Singapore, with an editorial team in Shanghai, and we work in 30 languages — 18 Asian, 10 European and 2 Middle Eastern.

Conclusion

Collaboration on a transcreation programme is almost entirely a matter of two documents and one habit: a brief that says what the content is for, a review model with named people and a window, and the habit of judging the output against the brand rather than against the English.

Programmes with those in place rarely need rescuing. Programmes without them produce copy that is nobody’s fault and nobody’s idea of good, which is a more expensive place to be than any rate negotiation.

Frequently Asked Questions

What should a transcreation brief include?
What the content is for; the markets and written language each needs; the audience; the brand’s tone with examples; the fixed factual spine that may not be adapted; any settled terminology; where it will be published and the constraints that come with that; and who reviews it, in which market, by when.
How is a transcreation brief different from a translation brief?
A translation brief needs the files, the language pair and the deadline. A transcreation brief also needs the purpose, the audience and the tone, because the writer is being asked to rebuild the argument rather than convert the sentences. Without the purpose, they can only reproduce the words.
How should we review transcreated copy?
Against the agreed voice and intent, by someone who markets to that audience, reading as a reader. Then a separate mechanical check that the facts, figures, ratings and claims are intact. Comparing the whole thing with the English will always show differences and will push the copy back towards a translation.
Why do multilingual review cycles stall?
Because reviewers are not named, the window is open-ended, the batch is too large, and there is no rule for what happens when nobody responds. Fixing those four things resolves most stalls. Review time is a real internal cost and should be planned as one.
Who decides when the client and the supplier disagree?
Separate the two questions. The client’s market team decides what reads naturally in their language; the brand decides what it is willing to say. Agreeing that split in advance resolves nearly all review deadlock, because most of it is a disguised argument about authority.
Should client edits go straight into the file?
Better not. Feedback that says what is wrong and why, routed back through the editorial team, keeps the voice consistent across the whole body of content. Sentences inserted directly tend to read as a different writer, which is exactly the inconsistency the programme exists to avoid.

Send us a brief you are about to issue and we will tell you what is missing from it. The process and the six things we hold ourselves to are on How We Work, and the category on marketing translation. Related reading: how to check translation quality before it goes live, what a hotel group should expect from an appointed LSP, budgeting and planning a transcreation programme and keeping one brand voice across every language.