MotionPoint review

Marketing is a named practice, not just a menu item: there is a dedicated 'Transcreation for Marketing' product page and a multilingual marketing services page covering multilingual SEO, content marketing and localized paid campaigns. They also draw the distinction the category turns on in their own words: 'While our translation solutions are ideal for scaling full websites and product experiences, transcreation is purpose-built to adapt emotionally resonant campaigns and creative assets for new markets.' What is missing is attributable transcreation work. The case-study library is large and the client names are real and public (Southwest Airlines, JetBlue, Amtrak, ASOS, Urban Outfitters, Master Lock, Edmonton International Airport, Papa Johns, Aetna, Norwegian Cruise Line), but every case study I read is website or portal localization, not campaign work. I read the Southwest study first-hand: a Spanish-language version of the transactional southwest.com, not a campaign. The transcreation page carries no named client work at all, and neither does the marketing services page. The homepage's '99% customer satisfaction rate for marketing asset transcreation' has no published method behind it. Capped at Adequate: real named practice plus verifiable localization work at scale, but zero attributable marketing or transcreation output.

What this dimension measures: Is marketing work a real, named practice with attributable campaign or content work — or a service-page claim on a general translation business? Named marketing clients with described campaign work across stated language pairs scores 4-5. A marketing services page with no attributable work scores 2-3. Distinguish transcreation (copy reworked for the market, briefed like creative) from translation with a marketing label; vendors that explain the difference in their own materials tend to actually do it. Counts for 25% of the weighted score.

Evidence: partly checkable — corroborated in part against the sources below; the remainder rests on the agency’s own account.

A described model with named stages exists. The document translation page lists the workflow as 'Project management, File preparation, Translation, Editorial, Desktop publishing, Terminology management, Style guide review, Proofreading, Quality control', and their pricing blog states 'All team members are vetted, professional linguists, native speakers and industry subject-matter experts' with 'The same team works on your project at launch and ongoing.' ISO 9001 and ISO 17100 are claimed on the document translation page. I could not verify either certificate against a registrar first-hand, so the claim stays vendor-stated and rule 6 caps this dimension at Adequate. Separately, the MT posture is disclosed rather than hidden, which the rubric scores on its own terms: the FAQ describes 'Artificial Intelligence (AI), Algorithmic Translation, and Translation Memory, plus one optional human-layer of translation review', the translation page describes AdaptiveQE quality estimation and applying 'human review only where needed', and the homepage sells 'up to 60% reduction in human translation costs' through selective post-editing. That is honest, but it means the default unit of work is machine output with human review as an add-on -- including on the transcreation page, where the described flow is AI reshaping the message with 'optional human QA review'.

What this dimension measures: Who does the work and who checks it: in-country professional linguists versus anonymous pools, named review layers, and certifications that can be verified (ISO 17100, ISO 9001 — check the certificate claim, not the badge). A described model with named QA steps and verifiable certification scores 4-5. 'Native speakers' with no process detail scores 2-3. How the vendor positions machine translation matters: disclosed MT-plus-post-editing with stated boundaries is honest and scores on its own terms; undisclosed MT sold as human work is a red flag scored 1-2 where evidenced. Counts for 20% of the weighted score.

Evidence: vendor stated — the agency’s own claim, recorded as theirs rather than ours.

No rates are published anywhere I read. The /pricing/ page names the variables (per-language cost per word, site word count, CMS, chosen quality level) and routes to a quote form. What lifts this above bespoke-only quoting is that they do explain their own billing mechanics: their pricing blog states 'Like other vendors, MotionPoint charges a per-word rate for translation' plus 'A fair, flat subscription fee covers the technology and support', and that quality assurance, glossary and style-guide creation sit inside the all-in price. A buyer can therefore reconstruct the shape of the bill -- per-word by language, plus a platform subscription -- without being able to size it. Top of the stated-model-without-numbers band.

What this dimension measures: Published per-word rates, hourly transcreation rates, or stated pricing models by service tier score 4-5. A stated model without numbers scores 2-3. Bespoke-only quoting scores 1-2. This category bills by mechanisms buyers rarely see up front (per-word, per-hour, minimums per language); a vendor that explains its own billing mechanics scores toward the top of whatever band its disclosure earns. Counts for 15% of the weighted score.

Evidence: vendor stated — the agency’s own claim, recorded as theirs rather than ours.

The strongest dimension. The integrations page names specific connectors first-hand: Adobe Experience Manager, Drupal, WordPress via WPML, a Figma connector for design-stage content, a Salsify connector for PXM product content, and a REST API. The document translation page states the API 'supports a variety of data formats, including HTML, XML and JSON'. The homepage additionally lists Shopify, HubSpot, Salesforce, WooCommerce, Sitecore, Magento and BigCommerce. Continuous localization is explicitly supported rather than implied: 'New content is automatically detected and translated to keep your multilingual website in perfect sync with your original', with 'Trigger-based delivery keeps translation aligned with your publishing cadence'. The end-to-end flow is described (CMS change fires the connector, runs through Adaptive Translation, optional human review, content returns to the CMS for publish). The lock-in caveat belongs in the record: the flagship Managed Platform is proxy-based, with MotionPoint hosting and operating the translated site on its own infrastructure, and no exit or export path for that arrangement is documented. The Connected Platform, which returns translated content to the client's own CMS, is the option that avoids it. Strong rather than Excellent because the connector list was read only on their own site.

What this dimension measures: How work actually flows: TMS use, connectors into the client's CMS or design stack, stated file-format coverage, and whether continuous localization is supported for content that ships weekly. Named integrations and a described workflow score 4-5. Email-the-files-back workflow scores 2-3 — workable for a campaign, a ceiling for a content operation. Proprietary-platform lock-in with no export path should be named in the verdict. Counts for 15% of the weighted score.

Evidence: partly checkable — corroborated in part against the sources below; the remainder rests on the agency’s own account.

Better than silence, short of ownership. Their pricing blog commits to 'Access to Translation Memory and Microservices: Retrieve and repurpose previously-translated content for omnichannel use at any time at no extra cost', and elsewhere they describe a Memory Optimizer that reuses prior translations so a client never pays twice for the same string. That is a specific, on-the-record access commitment. But access during the contract is not ownership at exit: nothing I read on the FAQ, pricing or translation pages says who owns the translation memory and glossaries, or whether they leave with the client on termination. That gap bites harder here than it would elsewhere, because under the Managed Platform the vendor also hosts the translated site -- so at exit the client is asking for both their memory and their pages back, and neither is addressed in public.

What this dimension measures: The translation memory and glossaries built on the client's money are the client's accumulated asset, and whether they leave with the client at exit is the switching question of this category. Explicit client ownership of TM, glossaries and deliverables scores 4-5. Silence scores 2. A stated policy that the vendor retains the TM scores 1-2 — that is the client's spend converted into the vendor's moat, and it should be named plainly. Counts for 10% of the weighted score.

Evidence: vendor stated — the agency’s own claim, recorded as theirs rather than ours.

Launch-phase commitments are published and plausible: the FAQ states 'New translated websites are delivered in 60 days or less' and 'MotionPoint delivers all initial conversions in 60 days or less'. Two caveats keep this out of the top band. First, their own pages disagree -- the translation page promises 'Go live in as little as 30 days' against the FAQ's 60. Second, these cover initial launch only; no ongoing turnaround by volume or language pair is published, no rush terms, and no stated capacity across time zones. The '98% of translations completed in under 24 hours' figure comes from the Edmonton International Airport case study, so it is one customer's reported experience rather than a general commitment, and the '80% reduction in time to market' is a comparative with no published baseline.

What this dimension measures: Stated turnaround by volume and language pair, rush terms, and stated capacity across time zones. Published, realistic turnaround commitments score 4-5. Undisclosed scheduling scores 2. Score honesty over speed: same-day everything at marketing quality across forty languages is a claim to be sceptical of, not to reward. Counts for 10% of the weighted score.

Evidence: vendor stated — the agency’s own claim, recorded as theirs rather than ours.

A G2 profile for MotionPoint exists, but the review page returned HTTP 403 on both attempts, so I could not read it first-hand and cite no rating or count from it. What is checkable is the named-client roster, which is unusually deep for this category and is the procurement-reference evidence the rubric says matters here: Southwest Airlines, JetBlue, Amtrak, ASOS, Urban Outfitters, Master Lock, Edmonton International Airport, VITAS Healthcare, Mohawk College, Rio Bank, Gavi and a US health agency all appear as on-site case studies, and several are large enough that the multilingual sites themselves are publicly inspectable. Capped at Adequate under rule 6: no independent review base was readable first-hand.

What this dimension measures: Independent, verified reviews or named checkable references. A substantial verified base scores 4-5; a handful scores 2-3; none scores 2. Low weight deliberately — enterprise localization runs on procurement references rather than public reviews, so absence is weak evidence, and the practice evidence above matters more. Counts for 5% of the weighted score.

Evidence: partly checkable — corroborated in part against the sources below; the remainder rests on the agency’s own account.