Agree what drives the concern and compare at least two honest options, including keeping the original scope.
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 price objection handling
A useful question for this stage: “If the price stayed the same, which part of the proposal would still feel uncertain?” Ask it when the conversation creates a reason for it, rather than reciting every question in order.
- Acknowledge the concern. Identify the comparison and the decision criterion. Make the scope visible before discussing alternatives.
- 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 what drives the concern and compare at least two honest options, including keeping the original scope.
Example exchange
An illustrative exchange. Real conversations will take a different path.
SellerWhen you say the price is too high, what are you comparing it with?
BuyerOur concern is that the same product terms are translated inconsistently across materials. Also, the client must identify the intended audience and final reviewer.
SellerWhich product terms must stay consistent across every customer touchpoint?
BuyerAn automatic translation is almost free.
SellerIt may be useful for a draft. Let us compare the audience, consequences of errors and the level of human review the material needs.
SellerIf the price stayed the same, which part of the proposal would still feel uncertain?
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 identify whether the concern is affordability, comparison, confidence or scope before discussing a concession. The buyer should answer consistently with the brief and ask for evidence when a claim is vague.
- Add this challenge: The buyer asks for an immediate percentage discount. You can change scope or timing, but you cannot invent margin or authority.
- 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 | Offering a discount before discovering what the buyer is worried about. |
|---|---|
| A stronger direction | Let us check whether we are comparing the same scope and responsibilities first. |
| 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. |
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: the same product terms are translated inconsistently across materials; the client must identify the intended audience and final reviewer.
Example: If the price stayed the same, which part of the proposal would still feel uncertain? 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
Tick only what you can support with your answer or practice. This is a reflection checklist, not an automated assessment.
Questions about this resource
Who is this translation services exercise for?
Founders, salespeople and account managers preparing for a conversation about a translation and terminology review project. Adapt the brief to your real offer and authority before using it at work.
Can I use the example as a script?
Use the questions as prompts. Listen and respond to the buyer’s actual meaning. The target is to identify whether the concern is affordability, comparison, confidence or scope before discussing a concession, not to deliver a memorised speech.
How should I assess the result?
Agree what drives the concern and compare at least two honest options, including keeping the original scope. Use the three review questions below. The checklist is for reflection; it is not a validated prediction of sales performance.
Fictional training scenario. The dialogue illustrates response choices; it is not a customer testimonial or a record of a real sale. About these resources.