Leave with a sourced comparison with visible unknowns and next checks.
Start with a real buying situation
For the worked example, the audience is a marketing manager publishing in a new market. Their problem is that the same product terms are translated inconsistently across materials. The desired practical outcome is a reviewed translation with an agreed terminology glossary.
The example is deliberately bounded: the client must identify the intended audience and final reviewer. That condition should influence the promise, scope and next step rather than disappear from the marketing copy.
| Illustrative offer | a translation and terminology review project |
|---|---|
| Buyer question | Which product terms must stay consistent across every customer touchpoint? |
| Possible evidence | a short translated sample with reviewer comments and terminology decisions |
| Useful asset | a localisation brief and terminology checklist |
How to complete your competitor comparison worksheet
- Include doing nothing or using an internal process among the alternatives.
- Choose criteria that matter to the customer.
- Record sources and dates for factual claims.
- Mark missing information instead of guessing.
- Use the comparison to decide what to verify and what to explain more clearly.
Worked example
These entries are illustrative planning material, not research findings or customer results. Keep the structure and replace the content with verified details.
| Alternatives the buyer considers | Our a translation and terminology review project; the buyer’s current provider; an internal process; postponing the work. |
|---|---|
| Customer decision criteria | Scope, responsibilities, relevant evidence, dependencies and total cost on the same basis. Define language variant, word count, file formats, review rounds and specialist checks. |
| Verified facts and sources | For our offer, prepare a short translated sample with reviewer comments and terminology decisions. For other providers, add current sources and dates; leave unverified cells blank. |
| Unknowns requiring a check | Check how each option handles the dependency: the client must identify the intended audience and final reviewer. Do not guess the answer. |
| Implications for our offer | Explain where our scope fits and where it does not. Do not claim legal certification or native-market validation unless provided. |
Review before using it
A useful operational measure in this example is consistency with the approved glossary and resolution of reviewer comments. That does not automatically make it a marketing attribution metric. Define the source, period and owner before drawing conclusions.
- Could a reader trace each factual claim to current evidence?
- Check the delivery assumptions: Define language variant, word count, file formats, review rounds and specialist checks.
- Use evidence rather than promises. Do not claim legal certification or native-market validation unless provided.
- Discuss the draft with someone who understands the buying situation. Start with: “Which product terms must stay consistent across every customer touchpoint?”
- If the next step is a trial, define its purpose. One possible starting point is to translate a representative sample and agree the review standard.
Common mistakes and a better review
Do not fill a missing fact with an impressive-sounding number. Mark it as an assumption, explain how you will check it and give that check an owner. A short, honest document is easier to use than an elaborate plan built on unknowns.
| Watch for | A comparison designed so that your offer wins every row is usually not useful. |
|---|---|
| A real buyer concern | An automatic translation is almost free. |
| Useful response direction | It may be useful for a draft. Let us compare the audience, consequences of errors and the level of human review the material needs. |
| Evidence to collect | The buyer’s own account, a short translated sample with reviewer comments and terminology decisions, and records relevant to consistency with the approved glossary and resolution of reviewer comments. |
Your working sheet
Write your own version below. Notes are saved on this browser when local storage is available. Use Download to keep a separate copy; avoid adding confidential information on a shared device.
Example: Our a translation and terminology review project; the buyer’s current provider; an internal process; postponing the work.
Example: Scope, responsibilities, relevant evidence, dependencies and total cost on the same basis. Define language variant, word count, file formats, review rounds and specialist checks.
Example: For our offer, prepare a short translated sample with reviewer comments and terminology decisions. For other providers, add current sources and dates; leave unverified cells blank.
Example: Check how each option handles the dependency: the client must identify the intended audience and final reviewer. Do not guess the answer.
Example: Explain where our scope fits and where it does not. Do not claim legal certification or native-market validation unless provided.
Review your work
Tick only what you can support with your answer or practice. This is a reflection checklist, not an automated assessment.
Questions about this resource
How do I adapt this for my translation services business?
Replace the audience, offer and evidence with your actual information. Begin with a recent buyer conversation about why the same product terms are translated inconsistently across materials, then check which assumptions match your business.
Is the filled example ready to publish?
No. It is a working example. Verify claims, permissions, prices, current capabilities and any customer information before using it externally. Do not claim legal certification or native-market validation unless provided.
What should I do after completing the worksheet?
Use it to make one decision or have one focused conversation. The intended output is a sourced comparison with visible unknowns and next checks. Set a review date and update it when the evidence changes.
Illustrative business worksheet. No customer results, market rates, traffic volumes or performance benchmarks are implied. About these resources.