We should embrace neural machine translation as a historic opportunity to re-instate visibility for the expertise and added value that human translators and transcreators offer their clients. It is up to all of us to make intelligent use of that opportunity, with support from strong and active professional associations around the world.
Over the years, I have been approached by academics telling me that what I present as transcreation is really nothing else than what they teach as translation. What they do is basically tack the translation label onto any type of work that in some way includes a source and a target-language text. Which, in my experience, is not a good idea. “Why? What’s the problem?” you ask.
My workshops may be more business-focused than some expect when they sign up. Yet I often get feedback, sometimes even months or years after a workshop, where participants tell me they still use the material they got in my workshop, and how helpful it has proved over time. They have come to realize that the business side of transcreation is much more complex than they originally thought.
I bet that you have read somewhere that transcreation is a kind of “creative translation.” In fact, judging by Google results, “creative translation” appears to be the most commonly used term to describe transcreation.
Yet “creative translation” is a misnomer. Misleading at best.