News

The booth was beautiful. Custom-built. Soundproofed. LED backlit. Cost us around $28,000 for a three-day conference in Frankfurt. Two interpreters per language channel, rotating in 20-minute shifts. Total interpretation bill for the event: $67,000 including equipment rental, travel, hotels, per diems, and the agency markup.

Sixty-three percent of the attendees joined remotely.

They didn't use the booth. They weren't in the room. They couldn't hear the floor audio directly. They experienced the event through a Zoom stream that had a 2-second delay on the interpretation channel because the signal had to travel from the conference room to the booth to the encoding equipment to the CDN to their laptop.

We spent $67,000 on a premium on-site interpretation setup. The majority audience experienced it as a slightly laggy Zoom feed with decent audio quality. And the remote attendees — the ones who were actually most of the audience — couldn't interact with the interpretation at all because the Q&A channels weren't set up for multilingual switching.

That was 2022. I run event operations for a trade association with members in 14 countries. Every conference season we'd go through the same ritual: book the venue, hire the interpretation agency, confirm the languages, test the equipment, cross our fingers. It worked. Sort of. The on-site experience was fine. The remote experience was an afterthought grafted onto infrastructure built for physical rooms.

Then we tried RSI — Remote Simultaneous Interpretation — and I want to talk about what actually happened, because the sales pitch from RSI vendors doesn't match the operational reality, and the people writing about it online have apparently never run a live multilingual event.

What RSI actually is (and what it isn't)

Remote Simultaneous Interpretation means the interpreters work from a remote location — their home office, a hub facility, wherever — and deliver interpretation through a cloud platform that feeds into the virtual meeting interface. Attendees select their language channel the same way they'd select a audio track on Netflix.

That's the technical description. Here's the operational one: you don't need to fly anyone anywhere, you don't need to build booths, you don't need to rent ISO-compliant equipment, and your interpreters can work from Lisbon or Seoul or Nairobi while your conference is happening in Frankfurt or Las Vegas or wherever the remaining on-site attendees actually are.

The catch — and there is always a catch — is that RSI works well only when the technical infrastructure is solid and the event production team actually understands what they're doing. I've seen RSI fail spectacularly. I've also seen it work so seamlessly that attendees forgot they were listening to interpretation. The difference is usually about 72 hours of preparation that nobody wants to budget for.

The money. Because that's what decision-makers actually care about.

Let me give you real numbers from our events. Not vendor estimates. Actual spend.

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

That's a 52% cost reduction. For us. Your numbers will be different depending on languages, duration, interpreter rates in your target markets, and whether you still have on-site attendees who need interpretation at all.

But the cost savings aren't even the main benefit. The main benefit is that RSI scales with your remote audience without additional infrastructure. When we went from 37% remote attendees in 2022 to 63% in 2023, our on-site interpretation costs didn't change — we were still paying for booths and equipment based on the venue, not the audience. With RSI in 2024, our cost per language channel stayed flat whether we had 200 remote attendees or 2,000.

For hybrid events, you need to decide whether the on-site experience is important enough to justify maintaining both systems. In our case, we went fully virtual in 2024. The 12% of attendees who would have preferred being in person adjusted quickly. Nobody has asked for in-person events since.

Okay, that's not true. One board member asks every quarter. But he's been asking for in-person everything since 2019 and the vote always goes the other way.

Where RSI falls apart (because vendor blogs won't tell you)

The biggest failure I've seen was a client event — not ours — where the RSI platform went down 40 minutes into a keynote. Turned out the platform's load balancer couldn't handle the spike in concurrent language channel connections when 800 people tried to switch to Spanish simultaneously after the keynote started. The vendor had never stress-tested for that pattern. Everyone who'd selected Spanish got disconnected. The backup dial-in number was in the vendor's contract but nobody had briefed the moderators on how to switch to it.

It took 22 minutes to get interpretation back. Twenty-two minutes of a keynote in English for an audience that was 40% Spanish-speaking. The client lost credibility with their Latin American distributors that day.

The lessons from that incident, and from our own close calls:

1. Test the platform under realistic load. Not with 5 people in a test room. With the actual expected audience size, simulating the channel-switch patterns that happen when a session starts. Most platforms handle steady-state connections fine. The problem is the spike when 500+ people simultaneously switch from the main audio to a language channel.

2. Have a backup plan that the moderators actually know about. Not in the contract appendix. Briefed. Practiced. The moderator should be able to switch to backup interpretation within 60 seconds of a platform failure.

3. Interpreter internet is non-negotiable. We require interpreters to have hardwired ethernet connections with minimum 25 Mbps uplink, tested within 24 hours of the event. One interpreter tried to work from a hotel WiFi in Bangkok during a 2023 event. It didn't work. The audio cutting in and out during simultaneous interpretation is essentially unusable — unlike consecutive interpretation, there's no pause to recover.

4. The platform needs to integrate with your meeting tool. If your attendees are on Zoom and your RSI platform requires them to open a separate browser tab or download a separate app, you'll lose 15-20% of your audience at the channel-switch step. The best platforms integrate as a Zoom app or Teams integration where language selection is one click from the main interface.

I keep saying 'operational reality' because the gap between RSI vendor marketing and RSI actual experience is significant. The marketing says 'seamless interpretation for your global audience.' The reality is that seamless interpretation happens when a production team spends three days configuring, testing, and rehearsing the technical setup. Skip the rehearsal and you'll find out what's broken during the event. In front of your audience.

We budget 72 hours of preparation for a 3-day multilingual conference with RSI. That includes interpreter briefing sessions, platform load testing, backup plan rehearsal with moderators, and a full technical run-through 24 hours before go-live. Most vendors will tell you that you need 8-12 hours. That's technically sufficient for a simple setup. It's not sufficient for the kind of event where a failure would damage your brand.

What this means for conference organizers making the switch

If you're still running on-site interpretation for conferences where more than 40% of your audience joins remotely, the math is straightforward. You're paying for infrastructure that the majority of your attendees can't use, and the remote experience is degraded because the interpretation wasn't designed for virtual delivery.

If you're fully virtual, RSI isn't an upgrade — it's the baseline. On-site interpretation equipment doesn't work for virtual audiences. You need either RSI or a hybrid setup where remote interpreters feed into your virtual platform.

The decision framework I use:

• Less than 30% remote attendees: on-site interpretation still makes sense. The cost premium is justified by the in-room experience.

• 30-60% remote: hybrid. On-site interpretation for the room, RSI for the virtual audience. Accept that you're running two systems and budget accordingly.

• More than 60% remote: go RSI-first. Build the event around virtual delivery and add on-site interpretation only if the physical venue audience is large enough to justify it.

• Fully virtual: RSI only. Don't even think about on-site equipment.

The one thing I'd emphasize: choose your RSI vendor based on platform stability and integration quality, not price per interpreter hour. We switched vendors in 2023 because our original platform's Zoom integration was unreliable — language channels would randomly disconnect during sessions longer than 90 minutes. The new vendor cost 15% more per hour but had a rock-solid Teams and Zoom integration. The cost increase was invisible in the overall budget. The reliability improvement was visible to every attendee.

Artlangs Translation provides Remote Simultaneous Interpretation for multinational conferences, webinars, and executive meetings in 230+ languages. We handle the operational complexity — interpreter briefing, platform configuration, load testing, backup planning, and moderator training — so your event team can focus on content, not troubleshooting. Our interpreters work from hardwired connections with tested uplink speeds, and we stress-test every platform under realistic audience loads before go-live. If your remote attendees are getting second-class interpretation because your workflow was built for physical rooms, that's a fixable problem.