CATEGORIES
- NYC COVERAGE
- WEB STARTUPS
- WEB NEWS
- CONFERENCES
- WEB TECH JOBS
- VENTURE CAPITAL
- MICROSOFT
- INTERVIEWS
- ADVERTISING
- VIDEO
- ALL TOPICS
- ALL COMPANIES
CONTRIBUTORS
- ADRIAN CHAN
- ALICIA NAVARRO
- ALLEN STERN
- CORSIN CAMICHEL
- DRAMA 2.0
- DARREN HERMAN
- HANK WILLIAMS
- MARK DAVIS
- RICK TUROCZY
- SANFORD DICKERT
- SHANNON CLARK
- Comment on Breaking/Exclusive: Microsoft Adds 3rd Twitter Message! by Dean Higginbotham
- Comment on Breaking: Yankee Fan Tweets Boston Red Sox Fan by Curt Grymala
- Comment on USA Celebrates Its Independence; We All Celebrate Our Google Dependence by Allen Stern
- Comment on USA Celebrates Its Independence; We All Celebrate Our Google Dependence by Darren
Do local users want localization or local companies? re: YouTube/flickr
YouTube has announced today that they are launching new localized versions of their service. Flickr announced the same last week amidst concerns from German users over a concern about censorship.
What I wanted to discuss here is whether a user say in Italy would rather have a localized version of YouTube or an Italian company providing video sharing? Would a user in Germany prefer to have German flickr which is really just a translation of the American version or a German company providing similar features?
Flickr/YouTube have basically translated the site using a technique called "Internationalization and Localization" also called "i18n and L10n". Simplified, they take the bits of text across the site, translate them and can now offer a new version of the site in x language.
Franz Patzig posted (in German) some examples of the poor translations that Flickr is currently using. How many people will leave the service for this reason? I know that for me, when I use services that are clearly non-english oriented but where they attempted to make an English version, it doesn't sit well with me.
Here is a screenshot of the "new" Italian YouTube. You can see that the images have not translated. Does this piss you off as an Italian user? Does it seem like a "half-assed" job?
I don't have all of the answers but thought this might be a good bit for discussion. Till has posted a list of Flickr alternatives. Till is a German and his list is a combo of both German and not companies.
Which do you prefer, if any? A localized version of a service, a local company offering similar service, or neither, the original language version? For example, if you are a native Italian, will you continue to use YouTube in the "native" English? Please leave your thoughts in the comments.
From my experience, the company needs to offer more than translated text. Design elements need to be culturally sensitive but more importantly customer service needs to be localized. It’s the end to end experience not just the web interface. However all of this is trumped when you’re the only service provider for the market. My experience was with an e-gaming and when users want to use a service, they will put up with a lot of nuances to get the service.
Also,I think compnies need a presence in the country too…this doesn’t have to be physical but the company needs to be part of the community they are serving. This could be through active involvement with the userbase or through sponsorship or donations to better the community in generl. Personally, I think companies like Yahoo, Google et al need to be held accountable for giving back to communities other than the bay area or some feel-good cause of the week.
Both YouTube and Flickr should spend the time to do a better job of localization. Localization is basically opening your product to a whole new market of millions of people. Therefore I think it is worth it for companies to spend a bit of money making sure the localization is stellar, and then also creating a marketing/launch plan for those markets. Both YouTube and Flickr have enough money to take this seriously and it is worth it to get these great services in front of millions of people who didn’t have access to the service before.
I think the bigger question is that of culture. In today’s world of social networking almost all Web 2.0 websites have a community and culture aspect. The question I ask is would Facebook or MySpace be successful in the US if they had first launched in India or Brazil? My first thought would be that Americans would be reluctant to join these networks if there was already a strong Indian or Brazilian culture infused into the online communities. So does it make sense to take an online community that has a strong American cultural aspect associated with it and localize it for Italy or Germany, or is it better to rebrand the site and create a new site with similar features?
-Aseem
You raise some extremely valid points, Aseem.
However, I think, if done correctly, a site like YouTube or Flickr can be extremely successful when translated into different languages/cultures.
We all agree, though, that you can’t achieve that by simply translating the small snippets of text that appear on your site. You have to re-create the site essentially from the ground up. You have to hire people that are actually fluently bi-lingual to perform the translations manually. You have to present new site designs based on the cultural sensitivities of the country you are trying to target.
If you are simply going to translate text excerpts, then there is no point in even trying. The majority of countries these sites are targeting are, for the most part, bi-lingual. The majority of the users from those countries will speak/write/read English better than they can probably read the poor translations.
I made a complaint on my blog whether or not launching YouTube for the UK and separately Ireland was a good idea. We share the same language (nearly!) and pretty similar cultures. So why?