Translation services: decision-maker alignment
Use this decision-maker alignment exercise to understand who uses, evaluates, funds and approves the work without dismissing the person in front of you. You are discussing a translation and terminology review project with a marketing manager publishing in a new market. The point of the practice is to make a useful decision together, including recognising when the offer is not a fit.
Agree a stakeholder map and a useful, permission-based way to answer outstanding questions.
The situation
In this fictional brief, the same product terms are translated inconsistently across materials. The buyer wants a reviewed translation with an agreed terminology glossary. Your offer is a translation and terminology review project, but you must first establish whether its scope addresses the actual need.
A relevant delivery constraint is that the client must identify the intended audience and final reviewer. Treat that as a fact in the exercise; do not remove it to make the sale easier.
| Your counterpart | a marketing manager publishing in a new market |
|---|---|
| Offer under discussion | a translation and terminology review project |
| Evidence available | a short translated sample with reviewer comments and terminology decisions |
| Terms to clarify | Define language variant, word count, file formats, review rounds and specialist checks. |
How to approach decision-maker alignment
A useful question for this stage: “What would help you explain this proposal internally?” Ask it when the conversation creates a reason for it, rather than reciting every question in order.
- Map roles rather than job titles alone. Ask your contact how they would like others involved and what information those people need.
- Ground the discussion in the buyer’s work. Ask: “Which product terms must stay consistent across every customer touchpoint?” Listen for a concrete example before making a claim.
- Use evidence relevant to the decision: a short translated sample with reviewer comments and terminology decisions. Explain what it demonstrates and what remains unverified.
- Agree a stakeholder map and a useful, permission-based way to answer outstanding questions.
An industry-specific concern
Buyer: “An automatic translation is almost free.”
Possible response: “It may be useful for a draft. Let us compare the audience, consequences of errors and the level of human review the material needs.”
Why this response helps: it acknowledges the concern, brings the discussion back to a verifiable requirement and leaves room for a different decision. Adapt the wording to what the buyer actually said.
Run the practice
- Prepare for two minutes. One person takes the seller role and one plays a marketing manager publishing in a new market. Read the offer and constraint separately from your preferred answer.
- Have a five-minute conversation focused on understand who uses, evaluates, funds and approves the work without dismissing the person in front of you. The buyer should answer consistently with the brief and ask for evidence when a claim is vague.
- Add this challenge: Your contact supports the idea but cannot share an approver’s details. Offer a concise decision brief they can use.
- Pause for feedback. Quote one useful question and one missed opportunity. Repeat the difficult exchange using a different response.
- Finish by writing the actual agreement. A sensible option, when it fits, is to translate a representative sample and agree the review standard. A clear decision to pause is also a useful outcome.
What to avoid
| Common mistake | Asking to bypass your contact because they are not the final approver. |
|---|---|
| A stronger direction | You know the internal process best. How can we help you prepare a useful discussion with the other stakeholders? |
| Scope and claim boundary | Do not claim legal certification or native-market validation unless provided. |
| What to measure in real work | consistency with the approved glossary and resolution of reviewer comments. Establish a baseline and definition before interpreting a change. |
An example conversation
Who will use the result, and who needs confidence in the decision?
Our concern is that the same product terms are translated inconsistently across materials. Also, the client must identify the intended audience and final reviewer.
Which product terms must stay consistent across every customer touchpoint?
An automatic translation is almost free.
It may be useful for a draft. Let us compare the audience, consequences of errors and the level of human review the material needs.
What would help you explain this proposal internally?
Your working sheet.
Make the exercise your own. Notes are saved in this browser when storage is available. Download a copy to keep; avoid confidential information on a shared device.
Example: the same product terms are translated inconsistently across materials; the client must identify the intended audience and final reviewer.
Example: What would help you explain this proposal internally? Industry question: Which product terms must stay consistent across every customer touchpoint?
Example: a short translated sample with reviewer comments and terminology decisions. Do not claim legal certification or native-market validation unless provided.
Example: Propose a clear next step, such as: translate a representative sample and agree the review standard. Confirm the owner and date.
Review your work
This is a reflection checklist, not an automated assessment.
Questions
Who is this translation services exercise for?+
Can I use the example as a script?+
How should I assess the result?+
Fictional training scenario. The dialogue illustrates response choices; it is not a customer testimonial or a record of a real sale.
Explore more sales resourcesTake the conversation further.
Read a practical guide to structuring your sales practice, or explore the current London sales masterclass.
Plan your sales practiceExplore Jordan Belfort in London