How lucrative are your editorial clients really? Keeping an eye on creeping costs (Part II)9/3/2015
We need to take care when making assumptions about how lucrative certain client types are, particularly with regard to the time each of us spends on elements of the process that are unbillable. Here's part 1.
In this two-parter, I consider the care we need to take when making assumptions about how lucrative certain client types are, particularly with regard to the time each of us spends on elements of the process that are unbillable.
These unbillable elements can occur during the booking phase of a project, during the actual project work, and after completion of the work. Part I considered the problems of defining how well clients pay and how fee expectations can vary even within, as well as between, client types. Then I looked at the booking phase of proofreading work, and considered how the situation can vary between a regular publisher client and a new non-publisher client. Part II considers how additional costs can creep into the actual editorial stage of a booked-in proofreading project, and into the post-completion phase – again comparing regular publisher clients and new non-publisher clients. It’s worth reiterating the point made in Part I: Not all of the scenarios considered here will always occur with each client type on each job. Rather, I aim to show that (a) extra costs are less likely to creep in with the regular publisher client, and (b) this needs to be accounted for when considering which types of client are ‘well-paying.’ Creeping costs during the editorial stage Here’s a fictitious, but likely scenario. Let’s put to one side any costs incurred to firm up the job at booking stage. Regular publisher client, PC, offers me the opportunity to proofread a 61,000-word fiction book for £17 per hour. The client estimates that the job will take 15 hours. Total fee: £255. Also in my inbox is a request from a self-publishing author, SP, with whom I’ve not worked before. It’s also a 61,000-word fiction book. I assess the sample of the manuscript that’s been provided (it’s in good shape and has been professionally edited). I estimate the job will take 15 hours, and quote a fee of £345, which is accepted. The job for SP looks much more lucrative on paper than the job for PC. I accept both jobs because even though the job from PC will bring in a lower fee, it’s still within my own particular required hourly rate. I do the PC job first. I’ve worked for this publisher for years. We have a mutually understood set of expectations about what is required. The manuscript has been thoroughly copy-edited and professionally typeset. As usual, I receive a clear brief and a basic style sheet. It’s a straightforward job that takes me 15 hours (the in-house project manager is experienced enough that he can estimate with accuracy how long a job should take). I complete the work and return the proofs along with my invoice. End of job. Next I tackle the SP book. It is in good shape and I should be able to complete the proofread in the time I estimated. However, I’ve underestimated the amount of hand-holding required. This client is a lovely person, but she’s a first-time author and she’s nervous. She sends me 13 emails during the course of the project, each of which takes time to read, consider, and respond to. I keep track of the time I spend on these. On average, each one takes 15 minutes to deal with – that’s an extra 3.25 hours of my time that I’d not budgeted for when I quoted for her. It’s also an additional 3.25 hours of my time that I have to find space in my day for. I have to find the time out of office hours in order to respond – time that I’d rather spend doing other things. The quoted fee was £345, based on 15 hours of work. This has turned into 18.25 hours of work. My hourly rate has gone from an expected £23 (cf. £17 from the publisher) to £18.90. It’s still within my required hourly rate, but my assessment that SP is more lucrative than PC is disappearing under my nose. Of course, I should have quoted her a higher fee that took account of the fact that she was an unknown entity to me and that the job might take longer. Again, it’s essential to consider the bigger picture when assessing the degree to which a particular client or client group ‘pays well.’ With some clients, it’s harder to predict how a project will progress. And with non-publisher clients, especially those with whom there’s no preexisting relationship, it’s essential to build hand-holding time into the assessment of how long a job will take, and then quoting accordingly, so that you’re less likely to get caught out. Creeping costs after completion of the project I’ve been proofreading for publishers since 2005 and in that time the post-project correspondence has tended to go something like this: Me: Thanks for the opportunity to proofread X for you – I really enjoyed it. Please find attached my invoice and my Notes & Queries sheet. Delivery of the proofs is scheduled for Y. If there’s anything else I can help you with, please let me know. PM: Cheers, Louise. Glad you enjoyed it! Are you free to proofread…? That’s the general gist of our post-project discussion – it’s friendly but concise. We’re already talking about forthcoming work. This recent job is closed. My PM’s schedule is as tight as mine and we’re both keen to move on. This isn’t always the case when we proofread directly for non-publisher clients. The following snippets of post-project emails from clients are fictitious but I’ve encountered the like many a time. Do they strike a chord with you?
It’s not unusual for these post-project discussions to take place. What is less usual is that editorial professionals manage them appropriately. Too often, they become unbillable costs that detract from the project fee. There’s nothing wrong with a client asking these things and it’s not that the editorial business owner shouldn’t have these conversations. They do incur a cost, though. If you regularly build post-project handholding time into your original quotation, all well and good. But if you don’t and you are prone to offering free, additional support to your clients, take a step back and ask yourself how much this is impacting on the value of each project, and your required and desired rates. If you spend an additional two hours emailing back and forth about these extras, that time needs to be set off against the invoiced fee; those hours need to be tracked so that you can work out exactly what the final value of the project is to you. A better solution is to communicate to the client, immediately and politely, that you’d be happy to discuss X or Y, and what the cost will be for the additional work. I appreciate that for some editorial folk this is very difficult because they’ve built up a strong relationship with the client during the editorial process, and the tone of communication may well have become informal, even friendly. However, we have to remember that we’re running a business and that our professional expertise has a fee attached to it. There’s no shame in putting a price on the additional work we’re being asked to carry out. Controlling creeping costs Here are some thoughts on how to keep control of creeping costs in editorial work:
By being aware of ALL of the time we spend on a project with our clients, we can develop insights into the financial health of our business. This enables us to make decisions about who we want to work with and what their actual value is to us. A quick summary: 5 things to remember when assessing client groups
A version of this article was first published on An American Editor.
Louise Harnby is a line editor, copyeditor and proofreader who specializes in working with crime, mystery, suspense and thriller writers.
She is an Advanced Professional Member of the Chartered Institute of Editing and Proofreading (CIEP), a member of ACES, a Partner Member of The Alliance of Independent Authors (ALLi), and co-hosts The Editing Podcast. Visit her business website at Louise Harnby | Fiction Editor & Proofreader, say hello on Twitter at @LouiseHarnby, connect via Facebook and LinkedIn, and check out her books and courses.
0 Comments
How lucrative are your editorial clients really? Keeping an eye on creeping costs (part I)11/2/2015
We need to take care when making assumptions about how lucrative certain client types are. Here's part 1.
Online discussions among editorial folk often allude to the issue of ‘poor' pay when it comes to publisher clients. And while there are some presses who, for various reasons beyond the scope of this article, offer rates that some freelancers consider to be unsustainable, it's not always the case.
I have extensive experience of working with regular publisher clients (around 400 books since I set up my business in 2005) and I've worked with businesses, independent academics, students and self-publishing authors. I've enjoyed pretty much all of the projects I've worked on, but the jury is still out on who pays 'well' and who doesn't. For the purposes of this article I’m going to take a look at how working with a regular publisher client contrasts with working for a new non-publisher client. I’ve chosen to use publishers precisely because they are a group that are often cited as being ‘low’ payers. In today’s article , I consider two problems:
I also look at the booking phase of proofreading work, and consider how the situation can vary between a regular publisher client and a new non-publisher client, and what this means in terms of creeping costs. In Part II, I look at the additional costs that can creep into the actual editorial stage of a booked-in proofreading project, and the phase after completion – again comparing regular publisher clients and new non-publisher clients. This isn’t to say that any of the scenarios considered here will always occur with each client type on each job. Rather, I aim to show that (a) extra costs are less likely to creep in with the regular publisher client, and (b) this needs to be accounted for when considering which types of client are ‘well-paying.’ How do we define 'paying well'? What’s a ‘good’ rate of pay? This is the first problem that arises when we make statements about how lucrative particular clients groups are, and it can confuse the new entrant to the field. Some national editorial societies offer guidance on suggested minimum rates (see, e.g., the Editors Canada, the Editorial Freelancers Association [United States], and the Society for Editors and Proofreaders [United Kingdom]). Note, though, that while many new entrants to the field will aspire to these rates, for others they may not be high enough. Rich Adin, An American Editor, advises using these guidelines as ‘a place to begin but not to stop’ (Business of Editing: What to Charge (Part I). I agree with Adin’s advice. This is because there are 3 rates we need to be aware of:
In reality, though, there is no precise number that makes pay rate ‘good’ or ‘bad.’ What we can do is to construct our own definitions of acceptable and unacceptable rates around our individual business requirements. Thus:
Consider the following (the figures are for demonstration purposes only):
In the above situations, which rates are good, and which are poor? Looking at the above three examples, you will have your own opinions about what’s acceptable. In example 1, £20ph exceeds my needs. For me, it’s a good rate. Yes, it’s below the figure suggested by my professional society, but it doesn’t have to meet the needs of the professional society, because the professional society doesn’t pay for my rent, food, and bills. Rather, it has to meet my requirements. If your required rate is £25ph, it won’t meet your needs so it will be a poor rate. In example 2, £27ph exceeds my required and desired hourly rate, so it’s a great rate. It also exceeds my professional society’s guidelines, though that has no bearing on my financial situation. My colleague still thinks it’s too low. Perhaps that’s because she needs to earn £30ph. But her needs are just that – hers. What she needs to earn has no bearing on my financial situation. It’s a poor rate for her but it’s still a great rate for me. In example 3, the market rate of £13ph is lower than my required rate. I therefore consider the rate to be poor. This isn’t because a colleague or a society thinks it’s too low, but because it doesn’t meet my required rate of £17ph. If I wish, I can still choose to accept the job, if a broader analysis of my accounts tells me that my overall business earnings will compensate for the shortfall. So, if you’re a new entrant to the field and you hear someone say, ‘Publishers don’t pay particularly well,’ or ‘Businesses offer great rates,’ bear in mind that your colleague’s experiences may not be the same as yours because the yardstick by which she’s measuring rates of pay is different than yours. What she needs to earn will probably be different than what you need to earn, and what’s ‘good’ for you might well be ‘poor’ for her. Define ‘well-paying’ clients first and foremost according to your needs, not those of others. Comparing publishers with other client types Another problem that arises when considering how lucrative publisher clients are is that of comparison. Are we comparing their rates with students, self-publishing authors, academics, multinational corporations, charities? The fact is that even clients from within a particular customer group have will have different budgets and expectations (not every academic will be prepared to pay the same fee per word/page/hour for proofreading; not every publisher will offer the same rate for copy-editing a 300-page sociology manuscript). You may well find that ‘bad,’ ‘good,’ and ‘good enough’ rates of pay (as defined by your own needs and wants) can be found both within and between customer groups. The rates that I earn from proofreading for publishers vary a great deal. I record detailed data for every job I take. This allows me to make some comparisons between clients, and more broadly between client groups. In my own experience, the income I can earn from somepublishers is what I consider to be a ‘good’ or ‘great’ rate of pay. This isn’t just because the fees offered for the jobs are flat-out higher than what’s being offered by other clients; it’s not just because I’ve been able to introduce more productive ways of working (see The Proofreader’s Corner: Rates, Data Tracking, and Digital Efficiencies (Part II) for more detail on how this can be achieved); it’s also because there are, in my experience, fewer creeping costs. Creeping costs One financial issue that has often snuck up and tapped me on the shoulder when working with non-publisher clients is that of creeping costs. I’m not going to pretend it’s never happened with publisher clients, but I’ve found it to be less likely. This is because publishers understand what I do, and I’ve trained to proofread in a way that enables me to offer them a solution to their problems. This isn’t always the case with a non-publisher client. Some non-publisher clients do, of course, have extensive experience of working with editorial professionals, so the process is well understood. But for many , the decision to hire a copy-editor or proofreader will be new – it’s the first time the independent author has self-published; the first time a marketing agency has hired a copy-editor to work on its promotional material; the first time a business executive has hired a proofreader to check its reports. First-time clients may need a level of support that publishers don’t. Support and clear communication take time – and inexperienced editorial folk can fall into the trap of not building the cost of this time into their quotations. Creeping costs during the booking phase When a regular publisher client hires me to proofread for them, the communication goes something like this: Dear Louise, Are you free to carry out a hard-copy proofread of the following book: Author/title? The job is as follows:
There’s no need for the publisher and I to have a discussion about what ‘proofreading’ entails; there’s no need for me to assess the manuscript prior to proofreading; there’s no need for us to agree on how I will annotate the manuscript; the payment structures are already set up and proven to work; and my client isn’t asking for a free sample proofread before I get cracking on the job. We have a mutual set of expectations about how the process will work. It will take me no more than 5 minutes to read the project manager’s request, check my schedule, and reply accordingly with a Yes or a No. The only thing that might extend the conversation is if I want to ask whether there’s any flexibility on the deadline, owing to my busy schedule. I can’t send the publisher an invoice for those 5 minutes, but we are only talking about 5 minutes. This contrasts quite sharply with an enquiry from a nonpublisher client with whom I’ve never worked. It’s not uncommon for me to receive requests to quote for proofreading jobs without having any idea of what kind of state the writing is in (and thus whether it’s ready for proofreading), what format it will be in (paper, PDF, Word), what the required time frame is, what the writer’s budget is, what other stages of editing the manuscript has been through, or whether the client knows how to work with Track Changes or other digital mark-up tools. It’s right and proper that the freelancer and the client do have an in-depth discussion about these issues so that both parties are in agreement about the overall terms and conditions of the project. But this is rarely a discussion that will take 5 minutes. Additionally, a client who’s not previously used a freelancer’s services might request a free sample proofread so that he or she can assess the supplier’s proficiency (for a good discussion of why free sampling isn’t acceptable to every editorial professional, take a look at Jamie Chavez’s No More Missus Nice Gal), just as the freelancer should request a sample of the manuscript in order to confirm that her skill set matches the customer’s requirements. Such negotiations can be lengthy and may even result in the customer needing to find an alternative supplier. All of which is right and proper. It’s therefore essential to consider the bigger picture when considering the degree to which a particular client or client group ‘pays well.' Even in the booking phase, there are costs to acquiring business, and these have to be accounted for. Time is money. In Part II, I look at the additional costs that can creep into the actual editorial stage of a booked-in proofreading project, and the phase after completion. A version of this article was first published on An American Editor.
Louise Harnby is a line editor, copyeditor and proofreader who specializes in working with crime, mystery, suspense and thriller writers.
She is an Advanced Professional Member of the Chartered Institute of Editing and Proofreading (CIEP), a member of ACES, a Partner Member of The Alliance of Independent Authors (ALLi), and co-hosts The Editing Podcast. Visit her business website at Louise Harnby | Fiction Editor & Proofreader, say hello on Twitter at @LouiseHarnby, connect via Facebook and LinkedIn, and check out her books and courses.
There many different and effective approaches to marketing an editing and proofreading business. There are several ways to make a hash of it too. Here are five mistakes that you should avoid, not just at launch stage but once your business is up and running.
Mistake 1: Not actually doing any marketing
Here are three ideas that I think we should embrace when launching an editorial business:
Let’s say I’ve completed the relevant training, acquired the kit I need, worked out who my target clients are, notified the tax authorities of my business plans, acquired some experience via my mentor, designed my stationery templates, created my accounting spreadsheet, and hired a professional designer to produce a fabulous logo. Now I need the clients. That means they need to be able to find me and I need to be able to find them. If ne’er the twain meet, I’m unemployed. Being discoverable is the first step to the success of any business, editorial or otherwise, because it bridges the gap between the services we offer and the people who need them. The second step is being interesting enough to retain the potential customer’s attention. Having found us, our potential clients need to feel they want to go further and actually hire us to solve their problems. No matter how much the thought of actively promoting your editorial business sends shivers up your spine, to not do so is a mistake. Marketing your business gives you opportunity and choice. It puts you in a position where, over time, you can develop the client base, pricing strategy, service portfolio and income stream that you require and desire.
Mistake 2: Stopping marketing when you have work
If the cupboard is full, this isn't the time to put business promotion on the back-burner. I know it might feel like the perfect time to take a breather, but trust me, it really isn't!
A healthy business is a sustainable business. Not knowing what's round the corner is about surviving not thriving, and that's stressful. Emergency marketing forces us to rush. We don't always make the best choices when we're anxious. Panic can even lead to inertia. Plus, we might find there's a lot to do and only a small window in which to do it. For example, one tactic for emergency marketing is contacting lots of publishers. However, gathering all the information required to do that effectively is time-consuming. If we build marketing time into our schedule when the cupboard is full, we can pace our plans so that we do a little on a regular basis rather than a lot all at once. That's a far more pleasant and productive way to tackle business promotion and helps us build a wait-list.
Mistake 3: Marketing via a single platform
Relying on only one particular channel to make yourself discoverable to your clients is better than not doing any marketing at all. But it’s hugely risky – if that platform fails, so do you. One of my most valuable marketing assets is my website. It’s my shop front and it’s the only space in which I have complete control over the content and design. I’ve put a lot of effort into making it visible so that I can be found and visited. I use Weebly as my host. But what if the folks at Weebly ran into some horrendous problem and the site was inaccessible for a few days, or even a few weeks? It’s unlikely to happen, but even if it did it wouldn’t be catastrophic because I don’t rely solely on my website for work leads. It’s simply one tool among several.
EXAMPLE
James used to work for a major academic publisher but now he's gone solo and launched his new editorial business. He asks a former colleague who works in the journal production department if he can proofread for her. She agrees. The publisher has a huge journal list and his colleague keeps him busy with as much proofreading as he needs. He doesn't solely work for this press (here in the UK, HM Revenue & Customs wouldn’t like that) but it does supply him with most of his work and most of his income. Then double disaster strikes – the press merges with a competitor, and his colleague is made redundant. She gets a job for another press, though her new role no longer requires her to hire editorial freelancers. James doesn't know anyone in the newly merged organization (though rumour has it the press is taking journal proofreading in-house in order to cut costs). Plus, his former colleague can’t take him with her to the new press. He's scuppered. James won't let that happen again. He does the following:
Even if you’ve been able to establish a couple of seemingly stable and lucrative work streams, and you’ve found that one particular marketing platform or tool works well for you, take the time to investigate other channels. At the very least they’ll provide you with a backup. Moreover, by experimenting with new avenues, you could find that clients whom you’d been invisible to beforehand now have you on their radar. That means more opportunities and more choice.
Mistake 4: Focusing attention in the wrong place
Some new entrants to the field can make the mistake of giving information that focuses potential clients’ attention in the wrong place. Instead, focus on stand-out statements.
EXAMPLE
A well-educated material scientist has decided, for health reasons, to move out of the professional lab and work from home, copy-editing written materials relevant to his scientific educational and career background.
His clients don’t need to know most of the above because most of those facts don’t represent him in the best light. Instead, he should focus on his stand-out qualities and present them in a way that's client-centric.
If what you say doesn’t make you compelling, don't say it. Show how you can solve clients' problems. It should be all about them and what you can do for them. If you lack experience and an extensive portfolio, focus instead on positive selling points that make the client feel confident about hiring you to fix what they can't. Sell your positives, not others’ negatives It’s also imperative that your message does indeed focus on what you can do for the client. Just in case you are one of the few people on the planet who thinks that highlighting a competitor’s or colleague’s mishaps rather than your own skills is a good marketing strategy (I’m sure you’re not!), then here's a quick reminder about why it’s disastrous in terms of PR.
Mistake 5: Ignoring traditional marketing methods
Before Tim Berners-Lee invented the World Wide Web in 1989, editorial professionals had to promote their businesses using telephone and postal services, face-to-face meetings, and onsite networking groups. These methods worked then, and they still work now – don’t make the mistake of ignoring them in the belief that they’re out-dated. Social media profiles, websites, and emails are all excellent ways to make yourself discoverable, and the twenty-first century editor should embrace them. Bear in mind, however, that from the client’s point of view they're as easy to discard as they are to access, precisely because they're digital methods of contact. Consider also the following:
Balancing immediacy and permanence is key to a well-rounded marketing strategy. By using a mixture of the two, you'll enhance your visibility and spike a client's interest. Summing up
Louise Harnby is a line editor, copyeditor and proofreader who specializes in working with crime, mystery, suspense and thriller writers.
She is an Advanced Professional Member of the Chartered Institute of Editing and Proofreading (CIEP), a member of ACES, a Partner Member of The Alliance of Independent Authors (ALLi), and co-hosts The Editing Podcast. Visit her business website at Louise Harnby | Fiction Editor & Proofreader, say hello on Twitter at @LouiseHarnby, connect via Facebook and LinkedIn, and check out her books and courses.
Those of you with whom I'm connected on Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn will have seen my sharing of several posts written in the past few months by my colleague, technical writer John Espirian, on the Espirian blog.
I follow a number of editorial blogs, though I haven't added all of them to my blogroll because I need to keep the list manageable. I've added this one, however, because it offers me something a little different. I like technology because, when it works, it allows me to run my business more easily, more productively, and more efficiently. I like reading advice about digital editorial tools (such as macros, markup stamps, and Word shortcuts), and I particularly like it when someone helps me to understand things that I'd previously considered beyond my technical know-how. I'm a non-techie person who likes techie things but is sometimes wary of using them because I don't have the time or inclination to take them on unless someone can spell it out for me in my language! This is the niche that Espirian is filling.
Louise Harnby is a fiction line editor, copyeditor and proofreader who specializes in supporting self-publishing authors, particularly crime writers. She is an Advanced Professional Member of the Society for Editors and Proofreaders (SfEP) and an Author Member of The Alliance of Independent Authors (ALLi).
Visit her business website at Louise Harnby | Proofreader & Copyeditor, say hello on Twitter at @LouiseHarnby, or connect via Facebook and LinkedIn.
Whether we’re sending a letter, responding to a request for a quotation, writing website copy, designing a brochure, creating a directory listing or contacting a (potential) client via email, the call to action is always helpful but often forgotten. The best of them compel people to do something
What is a call to action?
A call to action tells your reader what you want them to do – and it does it in a nutshell, thereby creating a sense of immediacy. Even though the information the customer needs in order to respond may be included on the contact page of your website, your listing in an online specialist directory, the banner heading of your letter, or in the signature of your email, it’s always worth adding a reminder so that the reader doesn't have to spend time searching for the instructions you want them to find. What does the call to action look like? The 4C framework As with all things marketing, I prefer to avoid promoting strict rules because I worry they might impinge on the nervous marketer’s creativity. Instead, consider these 4 Cs as a framework for good practice:
Below is a partial screen shot of my home page. It shows two simple calls to action asking my readers to do two particular things: visit the author resources page and contact me. You probably use them already … Many of us use call to actions in daily situations without even realizing it. When we’re talking to friends and colleagues, it’s not uncommon to sign off with a summary sentence in which we round up what’s required, how it’s required and by when: “Right, you bring the wine; I’ll bring the cheese. I’ll see you at yours at 7pm” or “Good, that’s agreed – give me a call to confirm the meeting by lunchtime tomorrow” or "Great, send me the details by noon and I'll talk to X on your behalf." By summing up in this way, we’re informally clarifying everything that’s been discussed (perhaps at some length) beforehand, so we know exactly what action is required – who’s doing what, when, where and how. Using the same technique in our business communications works in exactly the same way. Why is using a call to action a good idea? The call to action focuses the client's attention. There’s strong evidence to suggest that whether clients are reading the information on a webpage, or scanning a letter or CV, they don’t dilly dally, and are more likely to do something when they're told to do it. Says Jakob Nielsen regarding websites: “How long will users stay on a Web page before leaving? […] Not very long. The average page visit lasts a little less than a minute” (“How Long Do Users Stay on Web Pages?”, 2011). And here’s Gill Wagner on the issue of letters: “[A]t most you have […] eight seconds before the decision-maker will make the first yes/no decision about whether to crumple and toss” (cited in Harnby, 2014). Nudging your client to take the action you want them to take is therefore crucial if your marketing materials (online or in print) are to have the biggest impact on time-limited readers. Solving the client's problems In “11 Kick-Ass Call to Action Examples, and Why They Work” (Word Stream, 2014), Dan Shewan takes a look at 11 very different calls to action used by a variety of businesses, including a résumé/CV builder, a credit-card reader, and a retailer specializing in products aimed at men. He shows how these businesses focus on the desires/needs of their potential customers, and how the calls to action (1) use language that reinforces those desires/needs and (2) offer the customer a solution that will lead to fulfilment. Encouraging engagement … Calls to action can say different things to different clients; they can be designed in a variety of ways; they can be placed in a variety of positions depending on the message you want to communicate and when you want to communicate it. Not everyone is a good copywriter, but that needn’t stop any of us from creating calls to action that help our busy customers navigate our marketing materials easily. Us the 4c framework to guide you.
Louise Harnby is a line editor, copyeditor and proofreader who specializes in working with crime, mystery, suspense and thriller writers.
She is an Advanced Professional Member of the Chartered Institute of Editing and Proofreading (CIEP), a member of ACES, a Partner Member of The Alliance of Independent Authors (ALLi), and co-hosts The Editing Podcast. Visit her business website at Louise Harnby | Fiction Editor & Proofreader, say hello on Twitter at @LouiseHarnby, connect via Facebook and LinkedIn, and check out her books and courses.
When starting an editing or proofreading business, it’s important to ask questions and seek advice about the big picture. The key is to not get stuck in a position where we’re incapable of moving forward without seeking validation about the detail.
The thought of taking on all the responsibilities that come with owning and running a proofreading or editing business can be daunting to the new entrant to the field, and to someone who’s technically experienced but who lacks confidence. One of two problems can arise:
This article focuses on the second problem. If you’re a new editorial business owner and need advice on editorial business planning, a list of valuable starting-out resources is provided at the end of the article. Why working for yourself is different Many people come to editorial freelancing after years of successfully working for other businesses. When we are employees, someone else takes care of actually owning and running the business in which we work. I was like that – I was one cog in a large engine. My cog was an important part of the business’s machinery but I only had to worry about me and the bits of my cog that touched the cogs nearby. Someone else owned the engine and worried about how it worked as a whole. Then I set up my own business and I was in charge. I had to make the whole engine run smoothly. Taking charge of the whole thing meant acknowledging 4 truths about owing my own business. 4 truths about editorial business ownership
Business owners take ownership of their businesses … It’s important to ask questions and seek advice about the big picture. The key is to not get stuck in a position where we’re incapable of moving forward without seeking validation about the detail. If I ask 50 colleagues how many pages a website should have I will end up with 50 personal answers. Some of the information I glean from 50 people will overlap but some of it won’t. There won’t be consensus. An inability to make your own decisions, based on your business model and your client's needs, can paralyse you. Paralysis means you’re not in a state of mind where you’re making the final decisions about your business, but hoping instead that someone else will do it for you. That’s potentially disastrous because other people’s decisions are based on their business models, their brand identities, and their clients’ needs. You’re the best person to make the detailed decisions about your business precisely because it’s your business, and your business serves your clients. A business owner, by definition, needs to take ownership, and that means finding the courage to act. Effective advice-seeking vs inertia-inducing thinking … Here are 2 short case studies that demonstrate the difference between effective advice-seeking and inertia-inducing thinking. These are fictional but are based on conversations that I’ve had with real new starters.
Effective advice-seeking
Ali has decided to set up a proofreading business. Let’s assume he’s completed high-quality training, and followed through with a mentoring program. In the course of his business planning he's recognized the value of having a website that can operate as his shop front. In the process of building the website he reaches out to editorial colleagues whom he’s met via his national editorial society and online editorial forums. He asks them about their experiences of website building and the choices they’ve made:
Ali’s colleagues provide a range of responses.
Overall, the answers to Ali’s questions supply him with insights into his colleagues’ experiences. And although the decisions he makes are influenced by these experiences, his final choices need to be based on his business requirements. These might be the same, similar or different to any one of the colleagues who contributed to the discussion. Inertia-inducing thinking Josh, too, has set up a proofreading business. Like Ali, he’s completed the requisite training and believes he has the technical know-how to provide a high-quality service. Josh is seeking similar guidance to Ali, but he frames his questions differently and in a way that could lead to inertia.
The answers to Josh’s questions are just more questions because:
Because Josh’s questions focus on the detail of his business requirements, which are known only to him, he doesn’t receive any definitive answers. As a result, he is paralysed by indecision. While Ali’s website is now live, and operating as a shop front that he can link to via a number of other online platforms (e.g., Facebook, Twitter, Yell, and several specialist editorial directories), Josh is still digitally undiscoverable because he’s waiting for other people to make the decisions for him, decisions that are based on a business that isn’t theirs. Too many cooks … Even a well-asked question that generates lots of responses can be problematic for the new entrant to the field because they don't have enough experience to evaluate the usefulness of the responses. In Ali’s case, 15 colleagues could advise having a separate blog, and 15 could advise attaching a blog to his business website. But how does he work out which is the best approach for his editorial business? Professional networks are fabulous resources, often rich in content, but we need to recognize that the responses we receive to well-asked questions are still dependent on who’s online that day, who bothers to join in the discussion, and what their particular experiences are. Sometimes there are too many cooks in the kitchen; sometimes the best cooks aren’t even in the kitchen. This can lead to confusion rather than clarity. If you’re a new entrant to the field who’s asking lots of good questions but feels overwhelmed by the diverse opinions on offer, consider consulting a business coach or mentor who can spend time focusing specifically on your business requirements and help you sift through the all the advice you’ve received. There’s no one true way to furnish a house … As the two examples above demonstrate, there’s no single way of building and designing an effective website. When we look at various successful editorial professionals’ websites, we see that there are a hundred different ways to do it. None of these is right or wrong; they’re just different ways that people choose to express the information they want to communicate to a client base. We each have to work out what we want to say and decide whether the information looks appealing, is easily navigable for our readers, and communicates a clear message that says we can provide solutions to our clients’ problems. In Josh’s case, it’s not about what I think or like – it’s about what what Josh believes his clients will think and like. This applies to all aspects of editorial business ownership. The editorial business is like a house. More established editorial pros can give us sensible advice on how to locate a plot, dig the foundations, construct the walls, and lay on a roof to prevent us getting wet during rainy days, but only we can furnish our individual houses in a way that suits our financial requirements, our particular skills, our backgrounds, and our clients. Seek advice by all means, but don’t wait for others to make decisions about the detail of your business. Research, ask, learn; consult a business coach/mentor if you’re struggling to clarify your thinking. Then place information within the framework of your own editorial business needs, and act.
Louise Harnby is a line editor, copyeditor and proofreader who specializes in working with crime, mystery, suspense and thriller writers.
She is an Advanced Professional Member of the Chartered Institute of Editing and Proofreading (CIEP), a member of ACES, a Partner Member of The Alliance of Independent Authors (ALLi), and co-hosts The Editing Podcast. Visit her business website at Louise Harnby | Fiction Editor & Proofreader, say hello on Twitter at @LouiseHarnby, connect via Facebook and LinkedIn, and check out her books and courses.
Exercising the right to accept or decline work is, in my opinion, one of the best things about owning one’s own business. And yet some editorial professionals feel guilty about saying no. What's to be done?
In Part 1, I looked at the reasons for accepting or declining work, how some editorial freelancers talk about feeling guilty, and how those statements stack up against the reality of what’s going on.
Here in Part II, I consider some simple ways of saying no that make it clear that the project is being declined, why this is so, and what the client can do to find an alternative supplier. I also explore the dangers of using an over-pricing strategy to deter an unwanted client, and consider how the guilt-ridden editorial pro might place her feelings within an adapted 10/10/10 framework in order to move forward with a decision that’s in her business's best interests.
Ways to say no
There’s nothing wrong with clearly and briefly stating your position to a client. Recall Sills, cited in Part I: Saying no isn't about negativity; it's about positivity (Sills, 2013). What's relevant is not the negative impact on the unwanted client, but rather the positive decision we take as business owners. The danger, especially with the desperate or emotionally charged client, is to get drawn into lengthy discussions, none of which are billable, about why you don’t want the work. Remember, you own your business, so it’s your choice. As several experienced colleagues have pointed out since I posted this article, honesty is often the best policy when giving your reasons for saying no, especially in the case of a client with whom you've had previous difficulties, because it enables them to learn from the experience, too. However, I do appreciate that for those who are prone to feelings of guilt, being honest about past problems can be so awkward as to cause even more stress. If it's the case that you would find being honest stressful, or you're worried about hurting your client’s feelings, you could choose an alternative stock answer to decline a project in a way that makes it clear that you’ve made your decision and the discussion is closed. Examples of stock answers for saying no might include:
Caution with the over-pricing approach
If you are contacted by a client with whom you don’t want to work because of reasons other than price, deterring them with an approach that you believe will price you out of their market can backfire horribly. This is because you don’t actually know what they are prepared to pay until they have accepted or declined your quotation. Let’s imagine the following fictional example:
I decide to price myself out of her market. I’d previously charged her £20 per hour for proofreading (which I accepted based on the bulk volume of the work). She’d negotiated me down from £23 per hour so I think I have a good sense of her top line. In order to deter her, I tell her that since we last worked together my rates have increased and I now charge £40 an hour – double the rate she paid seven months ago. To my horror, she accepts my quotation, telling me that I’m worth every penny. Now I’m stuck. It was never about the money for me; it was about the stress. The problem is that I didn't close the discussion – and having left the door open, she’s stepped through it. Now I have another decision to make: either I take on stressful work that I don’t want, or I have to go back and change my story, offering her a different reason: for example, that having checked my schedule, I can’t do the work after all but that I can point her in the direction of a good directory from where she can secure an alternative proofreader. This response implies that I didn't check my schedule properly in the first place, which is neither professional nor believable. I should have used the scheduling reason in the first place. Instead, I’ve wasted my time and my client’s time. I may not want to work with her but that doesn’t mean I shouldn’t respect that her time is precious too. I've also unnecessarily extended the correspondence.
Placing guilt in a 10/10/10 framework
If you’re the kind of person who struggles to say no to clients, try looking at it through a different lens. Business writer Suzy Welch’s 10/10/10 model (cited in Heath and Heath, 2013) asks us to consider how a difficult decision will make us feel in 10 minutes, 10 months and 10 years. In the case of editorial work, I think the time frames could do with being tweaked a little but the principle stands. Imagine you were to say no to one of the clients discussed in Part I (the strapped-for-cash client, the time-poor, emotional client, the manipulative client, or the inexperienced client).
If you’ve a tendency to feel guilty about declining work, you’ll probably still feel guilty 10 minutes later. In 10 hours you’ll probably feel relief that you stuck to your guns and kept your business schedule open for the kind of work that you need/want to take. And what about in 10 weeks? It’s likely that you’ll have completely forgotten the correspondence altogether.
Summing up
If you're encumbered with feelings of guilt when declining work, here’s a summary of tips to help you say no with confidence:
Let’s end with another quotation from Sills (2013): “Wielded wisely, No is an instrument of integrity and a shield against exploitation. It often takes courage to say. It is hard to receive. But setting limits sets us free.” We are the owners of editorial businesses. We set our own limits. We accept or decline work on terms that suit us, and are free to do so without drama, fear or guilt. This is nothing but normal business practice. Further reading Broomfield, Liz (2013). When should I say no? (Libro Editing) Heath, Chip, and Heath, Dan (2013). The 10/10/10 Rule for Tough Decisions (FastCompany.com) Sills, Judith (2013). The Power of No (Psychology Today)
Louise Harnby is a line editor, copyeditor and proofreader who specializes in working with crime, mystery, suspense and thriller writers.
She is an Advanced Professional Member of the Chartered Institute of Editing and Proofreading (CIEP), a member of ACES, a Partner Member of The Alliance of Independent Authors (ALLi), and co-hosts The Editing Podcast. Visit her business website at Louise Harnby | Fiction Editor & Proofreader, say hello on Twitter at @LouiseHarnby, connect via Facebook and LinkedIn, and check out her books and courses.
Exercising the right to accept or decline work is, in my opinion, one of the best things about owning one’s own business. And yet some editorial professionals feel guilty about saying no. What's to be done?
Some of us have experienced a situation where we have to withdraw from an ongoing project because of what one of my colleagues calls “scope creep”.
Here, the originally agreed terms of the work have been breached by the client, rendering continuation of the project non-viable unless new terms can be negotiated that are acceptable to both parties. This demonstrates why it’s important to clarify the parameters of any editorial project before an agreement is made to carry out the work. How to pull out of existing project work is beyond the scope of this article. Here I’m focusing on saying no to the offer of editorial work prior to commencement of the project, and how guilt should not be part of the editorial business-owner’s decision to so. In Part I, I look at the reasons for accepting or declining work, how some editorial freelancers talk about feeling guilty, and how those statements stack up against the reality of what’s going on. In Part II, I’ll consider some simple ways of saying no that make it clear that the project is being declined, why this decision is being made, and what the client can do to find an alternative supplier. I’ll also explore the dangers of using an over-pricing strategy to deter an unwanted client, and consider how the guilt-ridden editorial pro might place her feelings within an adapted 10/10/10 framework in order to move forward with a decision that’s in her business's best interests.
Reasons to accept and reasons to decline
I might decline a proofreading project for one, or several, of the following reasons:
I might accept a proofreading project for one, or several, of the following reasons:
See also Liz Broomfield’s (2013) discussion of what kinds of work you might say no to at various stages of your business’s development.
It’s my business and my choice
Whether I accept or decline, the choice is mine. I’m not bound to carry out proofreading work that, for whatever reason, I don’t wish to. There’s no boss telling me that our company is contractually bound to do A or B, or that I must work for X, even though I find dealing with X stressful, intimidating, infuriating, or upsetting. I choose the hours I need/wish to work. I choose the type of editorial work I carry out (in my case, proofreading). I choose the material I feel comfortable with. I decide whether a fee is acceptable based on my needs and wants. Ultimately, I can decline a project for no other reason than I simply don’t fancy doing it. End of story.
Feeling guilty
Despite having control over the choices they can make, it’s not uncommon to hear editorial freelancers say they feel guilty about not accepting a job:
In all of the above, the story is of the problems being faced by the client if the editorial pro turns down the work. However, we as business owners need to flip things around and look at the situation from our own point of view.
The reality ...
Now let's look at the above 4 scenarios from the perspective of the editorial business owner:
No isn't negative ...
Psychologist Judith Sills (2013) argues that “No – a metal grate that slams shut the window between one's self and the influence of others – is rarely celebrated. It's a hidden power because it is both easily misunderstood and difficult to engage” and “it is easily confused with negativity”. So, when we decline work, we need think of the decision not in terms of negative impact on our clients, but rather in terms of the positive impact on our editorial businesses. In Part 2, we’ll look at ways to communicate an uncomplicated “no” message, and consider an adapted version of Suzy Welch’s 10/10/10 framework that should help the guilt-ridden editorial pro to say no with greater confidence.
Louise Harnby is a line editor, copyeditor and proofreader who specializes in working with crime, mystery, suspense and thriller writers.
She is an Advanced Professional Member of the Chartered Institute of Editing and Proofreading (CIEP), a member of ACES, a Partner Member of The Alliance of Independent Authors (ALLi), and co-hosts The Editing Podcast. Visit her business website at Louise Harnby | Fiction Editor & Proofreader, say hello on Twitter at @LouiseHarnby, connect via Facebook and LinkedIn, and check out her books and courses.
Do we still need to learn how to use traditional proof-correction symbols given that most proofreading work is done onscreen these days?
My answer is an emphatic “Yes, you should learn them!”
As I'll show below, knowing how to use them will increase your efficiency, productivity, clarity, marketability, and professionalism. Traditional proofreading: Checking typeset proofs Many proofreaders work directly in Word, making actual changes to the text. In my experience, it's primarily self-publishing authors, academics, students and businesses that commission such direct intervention; almost all of my publishers want me to use the proof-correction symbols. That’s because I’m not editing the text; rather, I’m annotating pages that have been professionally designed – the pages appear as I would expect to see them if I walked into a bookshop and pulled the published book from a shelf. In this situation, I'm not just looking for spelling and grammar mistakes. I also need to annotate for problems with layout, for example:
So, if you plan to work on page proofs that have been professionally typeset prior to publication, and you hope to acquire this work from mainstream publishing houses, you will need to know how to annotate the pages correctly with these symbols, even if you are proofreading onscreen. What do the marks look like? It depends where you live. If you need guidance about proof-correction marks in your particular region, contact your national editorial society. In some countries, the UK’s BSI marks are accepted for proofreading and copy-editing practice. In the UK, there is a single set of industry-recognized symbols. These have been prepared by the British Standards Institution (BSI) and are entitled “Marks for copy preparation and proof correction”. Over time they’ve been updated. The current marks are identified as follows: BS 5261C:2005. If you’re working for Canadian or US clients, read Adrienne Montgomerie’s article, “The Secret Code of Proofreaders” (Copyediting.com, 2014). As she points out, the Canadian Translation Bureau’s Canadian Style guide marks are quite different from the marks preferred by the Chicago Manual of Style. Why are proof-correction marks useful? When we proofread typeset page proofs, there’s little room to indicate what we want to change. Recall that each page we’re working on appears almost as it would if the printed book had been published. Using industry-standard proof-correction marks is an efficient way to annotate the page with the desired corrections. The symbols are a short-cut code of instructions that tell the designer exactly what to do. Once you’ve learned all the symbols by heart, they’re much quicker to use than long-hand text and take up minimal space. Open the nearest book you have to hand and look at how much white space there isn’t between the text and the margin – it’s not uncommon for me to work on page proofs with a 2cm margin either side of the text. Notice, too, how small the space is above and below a single line of text. The book has been designed and there's little room to annotate. Now imagine that in a given line there is a missing comma, a spelling mistake, and a word that needs decapitalizing. The example below illustrates how these problems would be marked up using the BSI proof-correction symbols. The long-hand alternative might be something on the lines of <Change “fax” to “fox”> in the left-hand margin, and <Insert comma after “grass” and decapitalize “Legs”> in the right-hand margin. Given that we only have 2cm margins to play with, that each line is spaced closely to its neighbours above and below, and that in a real set of proofs there may be several corrections in multiple lines, any instructions to the typesetter are likely to become cluttered and confusing. Proof-correction symbols solve the problem.
The use of proof-correction symbols therefore offers increased efficiency, productivity, and clarity. And if you’re a proofreader-to-be who wants to ensure you’re marketable to as wide a range of clients as possible, acquiring the ability to use this mark-up process is a no-brainer.
Attending to professional standards In addition to enabling you to work efficiently, productively, and clearly, and maximizing your marketability, there is also the issue of professionalism. Membership of a professional editorial society often requires knowledge of the relevant nationally approved mark-up symbols as a standard of good practice.
Where to find the UK marks The BSI provides a laminated 8-page summary sheet of all the marks you need to know for proofreading. Also included are short notes that enable the proofreader or copy-editor to identify the correct mark for both marginal and in-text mark-up, colour of ink to be used, and positioning of the symbols. The CIEP has an arrangement with the BSI whereby members can purchase the sheet for a reduced price. How to learn to use the marks Any comprehensive proofreading course worth its salt should test your ability to use the marks according to industry standards. It's not just about using the right mark so that the instruction is unambiguous, but also about knowing when to use the mark and when to leave well enough alone. In the UK, the CIEP and The Publishing Training Centre are examples of organizations offering industry-recognized courses that attend to these issues. If you live outside the UK, ask your national editorial society for guidance. Further reading If you’re considering embarking on a professional proofreading career, you might find the following related articles of use:
Louise Harnby is a line editor, copyeditor and proofreader who specializes in working with crime, mystery, suspense and thriller writers.
She is an Advanced Professional Member of the Chartered Institute of Editing and Proofreading (CIEP), a member of ACES, a Partner Member of The Alliance of Independent Authors (ALLi), and co-hosts The Editing Podcast. Visit her business website at Louise Harnby | Fiction Editor & Proofreader, say hello on Twitter at @LouiseHarnby, connect via Facebook and LinkedIn, and check out her books and courses.
Like so many of my proofreading and editing colleagues, I never rely on my eye alone. I’m human, and my eye sometimes sees what it wants to see rather than what’s there, even when I’m working with clients rather than reading for pleasure.
TextSTAT: Creating a frequency list
One of my favourite tools is TextSTAT. Actually, it wasn’t created with the proofreader or editor in mind. Rather, the program was designed to enable users to analyse texts for word frequency and concordance. However, I use it to generate, very quickly, simple alphabetized word lists.
Time and again, those word lists have flagged up potential problems that I need to check in a proofreading or copyediting project. If I'm proofreading a PDF, I strip the text from the PDF proof and dump it into a Word file. I remove word breaks from that Word file (using "-^p") so that TextSTAT generates a list of whole words that I can compare, rather than thousands of useless broken words). If I'm editing in Word, I can obviously bypass the above steps. Identifying potential problems in text
Here’s a small sample from a word list I generated in TextSTAT. As you can see, there are several possible problems:
(The colour coding is mine; I've provided it for clarity only. TextSTAT's word lists are in plain text.)
Upon checking the actual proofs, some of these issues turned out to be fine. For example:
Some issues had to be queried. For example:
Some issues needed further checking and amending. For example:
When proofreading hard-copy or PDF proofs, would I have spotted these problems with my eye alone? I'm not confident I'd have got everything, particularly the issues with the names of the less well-known cited authors. And if "beginings" had been in point-9 italic text, my eye might have passed over the missing letter. Where’s the context?
There is no context – that’s the point. When using TextSTAT as a word-list generation tool, we’re just looking at one word and how it compares with words above and below it in our list.
We’re not reading phrases; we’re not paying attention to grammar and syntax. It’s just a long list of words in alphabetical order. Later, we can focus on the words in context – TextSTAT’s word lists are just a tiny part of a process that help the proofreader or editor to provide his or her client with a polished piece of work. Fast, free and offline
TextSTAT isn’t the only word-list generation tool available for free. However, I love it because it can handle huge chunks of text without glitching – it will quickly generate word lists for books with hundreds of thousands of words (the sample I gave above was taken from a project of over 150,000 words, but I’ve used the program for larger projects). It’s never crashed on me.
You can download the software to your own computer, so there’s no issue regarding confidentiality. My clients don’t want me to upload their content to third-party browsers without their permission, so when I use a particular proofreading tool to augment my eye, that tool needs to be able to sit offline on my PC. Furthermore, it costs nothing. Say the creators: “TextSTAT is free software. It may be used free of charge and it may be freely distributed provided the copyright and the contents of all files, including TextSTAT.zip itself, are unmodified. Commercial distribution of the programme is only allowed with permission of the author. Use TextSTAT at your own risk; the author accepts no responsibility whatsoever. The sourcecode version comes with its own license." Is it worth the effort?
Some might think that an hour or so trawling through a simple word list, and cross-checking any potential problems against hard copy or PDF, is a lot of extra time to build into a proofreading project. I think that time improves the quality of my work and increases my productivity.
When I come to the actual reading-in-context stage, I'm confident that some really serious snags have already been attended to. That gives me peace of mind and enables me later to focus on other important issues like the page layout, the sense of the text, and more. I've found that using this method for dense academic projects has been particularly worthwhile. However, I'll not forget a recent fiction project (a "big name"-authored book that's in its nth edition and was first published over two decades ago) where the main protagonist's name was spelled incorrectly in two places: an easy thing to miss again and again over many years and many proofreads. I caught it – not because my eyes are better than those who came before me, or because I'm a better proofreader than those who came before me, but because I used a simple tool that allowed me to concentrate on just the words. Want to try TextSTAT?
If you want to give it a spin, it’s available from NEON - NEDERLANDS ONLINE.
The usual caveat applies: generating word lists as part of the proofreading and editing process isn't the one and only true way. TextSTAT is an example of one tool that I and some of my colleagues utilize to improve the quality of our work. You might utilize different tools and different methods to achieve the same ends. All of which is great! How to use TextStAT
These instructions are correct as of 24 June 2021.
Louise Harnby is a line editor, copyeditor and proofreader who specializes in working with crime, mystery, suspense and thriller writers.
She is an Advanced Professional Member of the Chartered Institute of Editing and Proofreading (CIEP), a member of ACES, a Partner Member of The Alliance of Independent Authors (ALLi), and co-hosts The Editing Podcast.
The rate for the job can often be a sticky subject for new and more experienced editorial professionals alike. Newbies sometimes wonder whether they should charge a lower fee precisely because they are new to the field of proofreading and editing.
Some experienced colleagues have argued that newbies aren’t worth the higher fee that an established editorial professional could justify, precisely because they don’t have experience. So should the newbie offer a lower rate simply by virtue of their newbieness? There are three important considerations to mention first:
1. Relating newness to ability It may be that because you are a new editorial business owner you've not yet acquired the skill to carry out a particular editorial function. Imagine that you're asked to quote for copy-editing a medical journal article written by a client whose third language is English. You assess the sample and realize that the article needs a deep edit, and a knowledge of a particular style guide that you're only vaguely familiar with. Overall the requirements are complex. The question is not: "Should I charge a lower rate because I'm new?" This question is: "Do I have the skill to do the work?" On the other hand, it may be that you're experienced in some areas or editorial freelancing but still don't have the skill to carry out a particular job. If I were approached to work on the above-mentioned project, I'd decline. The fact that I'm an experienced editorial business owner is neither here nor there. The fact that I'm a specialist fiction proofreader and copy-editor is the key issue. I don't have the skills to do this medical copy-editing job.
2. Lower than what? There is no one fixed rate The terms "lower" and "higher" are problematic. There’s no one set rate here in the UK or anywhere else in the world for any editorial service. Different proofreaders and editors charge (and are offered) different rates of pay depending on whom they're working for and what service they're providing. It’s the same with other professions – e.g. plumbers, dentists, graphic designers and hairdressers. There are some suggested minimum rates available from national editorial societies, but these aren’t the law – they’re guidelines, and they pay no heed to your individual circumstances. So when you hear editorial colleagues talking about “low” or “lower” fees and “high” or “higher” fees, be cautious – what one person considers high may be considered low or medium to another. If you’re thinking about charging a “lower” fee because you’re a newbie, ask yourself the following: Lower than what?
Those are all quite different things! 3. We don’t always hold the balance of power When an independent author or business contacts me (say, via my website or one of the directories in which I advertise) with a request to quote, I can control the price. I hold the balance of power. The client may not like my proposed price and choose to go elsewhere, but I decide how I'll price a job. On the flip side, when I work for publishers, for example, the balance of power can shift in their favour. Negotiation is possible, but not always. Some publishers offer fixed fees for a whole job; others offer a fixed rate per hour and ask for work to be completed within a maximum budgeted number of hours. If I don’t like the hourly rate, the fixed rate, or the time frame, I'm free to decline the job, but the publisher might attempt to find someone else who’ll do the job within their preferred budget. Some agencies and businesses will expect to be charged a day rate, regardless of how long the work takes. Some clients will pay a premium for work carried out in unsociable hours. The upshot of this is a follows: the amount of money a proofreader/editor can earn is not fixed. I’m happy to throw some numbers at you based on my own experience, but don’t take these as The One and Only Way Things Are. They’re merely examples – other editors will have earned more and less, depending on job, client, complexity, etc. I’ve simply picked a few cases from my current and past years' annual schedules to show the variance. Some examples of my (extrapolated) proofreading/copy-editing rates per hour:
As I say, these are just examples. There's a mix of control here: in some cases I set the price; in others the client offered a price and I accepted. There's a mix of hourly rates, too, but I know that "high" or "low" are relative terms. In a nutshell, these numbers are not what you should be earning per hour; they are simply examples of what I have earned per hour. Some editorial folk don't even like to value their services by the hour; I chose to do so here because I wanted a straightforward way to present the information. USPs – then and now When we do hold the balance of power, and we're quoting for jobs, it’s useful to frame our quotations around the value we bring to the table. This is about how we advertise ourselves. Here’s a comparison of the USPs (unique selling points) I used at the beginning and middle of my editorial career and the ones I use currently. These are broadly the kinds of things that I use to talk to my clients in a value-on way – they tell the client why they should hire me. 2006
2014
2017
Let’s imagine for simplicity that I currently charge an hourly fee of £30 for working for independent authors, based on my 2017 USPs. But what if a new entrant to the field looks at the information about me in 2017? Should that person deliberately decide to charge only £15 per hour, even though they'd prefer to charge £30? To justify this to themselves they'd need to be able to persuade themselves and their potential client that they're not worth more. Why? Because, in this scenario, they'd have to believe that their newbieness means:
Is the above true?
Even if the newbie does believe that their miss rate will be higher, and that their less extensive time in the job and their smaller portfolio of work mean that they're not such a good bet for the client, how will the newbie frame this information? Value-off pricing – not a professional message When we quote for clients, whether we are new entrants or old hands, we're telling that person what we CAN do for them, not what we can’t. Ask yourself whether, as a newbie, you’d seriously consider supplementing your list of USPs with any of the following statements:
If you were a client and you received a quotation framed around all of the above, would you hire the editor? Your potential client doesn’t need to hear what you haven’t done or can’t do, and therefore why you think you're worth less than your colleagues. Rather, your client will appreciate the following:
In a nutshell, if it doesn’t sell you in a good light, don’t mention it. And if you’re not mentioning it to your client, why would you use it to justify a fee structure that is deliberately lower than the one you want/need to charge? What’s your message? Newbie or editorial professional? You may think of yourself as a newbie, and your colleagues may know that you’re a newbie, but your client does NOT need to know this. Your client needs to know that you are capable of solving their problems. On the inside you are a newbie, but as far as the world of potential clients is concerned you are an editorial business professional offering a specific editorial service based around a defined set of USPs. This is a value-on way of thinking, not value-off. Given that you are an editorial business professional, you're entitled to build a fee structure that reflects this. Offering yourself on the cheap because you ain’t all that is not an option. It isn’t how business professionals in any field market themselves. As my colleague Kate Haigh (personal correspondence) has reminded me more times than I care to mention: If you price yourself cheap because you think you’re worth nothing more, and you tell your client this, then you are indeed worth nothing more. Who wants to hire someone like that? Who feels confident about hiring someone like that? (See also Kate's excellent Because you're worth it! Charging what you're worth.) Recall the balance of power section above – you may still decide to work for clients who hold the balance of power and pay less than the fee structure you've defined for yourself when you're in control. But that’s not about being a new entrant to the field. That’s about making decisions about who you want to work for and what you will accept. Even established editorial folk make those decisions. I've worked for some publisher clients who offer an hourly rate way lower than the one I charge when I’m setting the price. Why? Because I wanted to and it was my choice. I liked their books. I enjoyed the work. I got tons of satisfaction from the jobs. I liked the regularity of the work on offer. And because it gave me some smashing thumbnail piccies on my site of well-known books by big-name authors. Pricing is part of the marketing mix … Pricing is part of marketing. When you set a price you're telling the market what you think your services are worth. If you can do the job, then you should do the job, and tell your clients you can do the job. If you want to reduce your fee to an amount below that which you think your services are worth, I’d recommend coming up with a better reason to do so than your newness. Charge what you want to charge, but make your decisions based on the worth you bring to the table and your ability to do the job, not the empty space you’ve yet to fill, or the youth of your business compared with some of your colleagues'. If you don't think you have the skill to do a job, don't charge less. Instead, refer the client to someone who has the skills. Furthermore, put yourself in your customer’s shoes – the client to whom you’re pitching wants to know what you can do, not what you can’t. Your pricing needs to reflect this. The minute you start knocking down your price through lack of confidence is the minute you shift the balance of power to your client – you’ve focused their attention on the money they’re forking out rather than the service you provide. It becomes all about how little they can spend rather than what they can gain from your capability. You encourage your client to become what Rich Adin calls a "shopper", "where the single dominant expectation is that price is the determining decision factor" (How Much Is That Editor in the Window?). So what should you charge? There’s no ready answer to this because it depends on so many factors. However, guidance can be found by returning to the “lower than what?” issue mentioned above:
You might also like to take a look at these articles that I published on The Proofreader's Parlour: “I want to be an editor – when will I start earning $?” and other unanswerable questions and Value-on or money-off? Putting a price on your editorial services. Don't forget that no pricing structure or quotation framework is set in stone – testing provides you with your very own market research. Even negative results are learning opportunities that you can use to tweak your pricing models and help you to identify which frameworks work best for you in particular situations. If, after visiting the resources above, you still feel yourself bending towards lowering your prices either because of a lack of confidence and/or because your business is young, take a step back and make sure you have your business hat planted firmly on your head. More resources
Louise Harnby is a line editor, copyeditor and proofreader who specializes in working with crime, mystery, suspense and thriller writers.
She is an Advanced Professional Member of the Chartered Institute of Editing and Proofreading (CIEP), a member of ACES, a Partner Member of The Alliance of Independent Authors (ALLi), and co-hosts The Editing Podcast.
Nick Lewis kindly asked me to share my experiences of self-publishing, using the tools I already have on my desktop, in a 3-part series on his blog. Here's an excerpt from part 3, in which I summarize the benefits and challenges of going down the self-publishing route ...
FIRST STEPS – TAKE ADVANTAGE OF OTHERS’ EXPERIENCE
You can read the full article over at the Nick Lewis Communications blog ...
Louise Harnby is a professional fiction proofreader and copyeditor. She curates The Proofreader's Parlour and is the author of several books on business planning and marketing for editors and proofreaders.
Visit her business website at Louise Harnby | Proofreader, say hello on Twitter at @LouiseHarnby, or connect via Facebook and LinkedIn.
There's no consensus about the best order in which to complete a proofreading project, but I thought I’d share some tips about how I choose to structure the process.
My structure is based on my work with page proofs supplied by project management agencies and publishers. If you don’t know what page proofs are, take a look at Not all proofreading is the same: Part I – Working with page proofs. As I state in this article:
The above are examples of just some of the issues I look out for – in no way do they represent a comprehensive checklist.
Riveting vs routine I tend think of the tasks involved in proofreading as falling roughly into two categories – riveting and routine. The riveting element is the reading bit – I get paid to read the text word by word, line by line, page by page. I’m engaged with the text and that’s the exciting part of my job. Whether I’m proofreading a short science-fiction novel, a gritty non-fiction piece about martial arts, or a dense tome about pharmaceutical patent law, there’s always something new to learn. For me, this is the best part of the job. The routine element comprises the kind of checks listed above – the word breaks, the running heads, chapter and part title consistency, positioning of page numbers and chapter drops, and so on. For me, this is the dullest part of the job. Hardest vs easiest The riveting element is the hardest part of the job for me – that’s because context is king and because every change I make in the main body of the text could have knock-on effects elsewhere. Furthermore, I need to take a different kind of care not to proofread too fast when I’m working on fiction. I’ve been lucky enough to proofread some absolute corkers – Jonathan Pinnock’s Dot Dash, James Herbert’s The Rats, Jennifer Egan’s A Visit from the Goon Squad, and Donn Pearce’s Cool Hand Luke, to name but a few – and it requires discipline not to get so engrossed in the story that one becomes a reader rather than a proofreader. The routine element is the easiest part of the job for me – that’s because the problems are usually obvious and easy to make decisions about. I might headscratch over whether to leave well enough alone, query, or mark up in the main body of the text, but if a page number is wrong in the contents list, it’s a no-brainer. A mislabelled table needs attending to. Same thing with inconsistent half titles and book titles, missing tables, incorrect running heads, and odd page numbers placed on versos (left-hand pages). Tricky first, easy last? I’m not sure why but when I began my proofreading career I’d carry out many of the routine elements of the project at the end. I imagine that my thinking was something on the lines of “I’ll get the tricky bit out of the way first – then I’ll do the routine stuff and close the project”. That worked just fine for a while and I carried on that way until one of my PMs contacted me with some feedback that said I’d done a great job with the main text but could I take care in future to double check that the book title and half title matched? I’d missed something so ridiculously obvious – something that stuck out like a sore thumb. How could that have happened? It's on my checklist. I was sure I'd done it; I'd just not seen the error. I apologized profusely (she forgave me!). Then I grabbed a coffee, sat back, and considered my method. The routine bit is supposed to be the easiest bit – it’s supposed to be the bit I can’t get wrong, but it’s also the dullest. Was that the problem? The mindset of project closure … I came to the conclusion that when I’ve finished the riveting part of my job, my brain goes into project-closure mode. The problem is that the routine element can take me an hour, even several hours if the project is large. So if I’ve finished reading the text, my brain’s saying, “You’re nearly done”, when in fact that’s far from the truth – there’s still some really important and routine tasks to complete that my publishers expect as standard. I was doing what for me was the dullest and easiest bit of the job when my brain was at its least attentive. The risk of a miss was higher given this mindset. I therefore decided to revise my method – I’d do the bulk of the routine work at the beginning of the project and commence the fun bit afterwards. The decision reminded me of when I was a kid and my mum would tell me that I needed to eat my green veggies before I stuffed my face with a third helping of her rather excellent roast potatoes! Scouting out the lie of the land … My decision had some unforeseen benefits. Few of my clients pay me for more than one pass. And yet by doing the routine work first I give myself the opportunity to get an overall of sense of the book – its layout, its various different elements, its themes, its overall structure – by working through my checklist one step at a time before I start the actual read itself. As I first check every single page number I’m moving through the book, one page at a time. Then I go back to the beginning and do the same with my running heads. Then back to the beginning again to check my lists of tables, figures and contents. Then back again to check the chapter drops … and so on and so forth, all the time building up a picture of how the book works. And each time I go to the beginning and start a new check I'm doing a tiny pass, over and over again. I like this method because it allows me to scout out the lie of the land. It often means I pick up on little oddities that I can make a note of to watch out for once the actual reading process begins. But, more importantly, my mindset is in start-up mode and that’s exactly where I want it to be when I'm attending to the more mundane aspects of the project. I don’t have to worry that my miss rate will be higher by the end of the riveting bit as a result of boredom, precisely because it’s the riveting bit, not the boring bit. Something to test? I still go back and do some double checks when I've finished the riveting stage. And I like to take a look at each page one final time and review any notes that I was given by the copy-editor or PM – just to reassure myself that I've done what I was asked to do. But, broadly speaking, I've reversed my method. My method may not be your method because you may be wired differently to me. But if you are the sort of person who does most of your routine tasks at the end, and you find yourself in project-closure mode a few hours ahead of schedule, don't be afraid to consider testing a revision of the order in which you do things. You might just find your new process works better for you.
Louise Harnby is a line editor, copyeditor and proofreader who specializes in working with crime, mystery, suspense and thriller writers.
She is an Advanced Professional Member of the Chartered Institute of Editing and Proofreading (CIEP), a member of ACES, a Partner Member of The Alliance of Independent Authors (ALLi), and co-hosts The Editing Podcast. Visit her business website at Louise Harnby | Fiction Editor & Proofreader, say hello on Twitter at @LouiseHarnby, connect via Facebook and LinkedIn, and check out her books and courses.
If you're tasked with proofreading designed page proofs, annotating for change is not always the best course of action. We're into the realm of when to mark up, when to query and when to leave things be.
A Facebook discussion about the role of the proofreader working on copy-edited proofs got me thinking about the issue of leaving well enough alone.
This was something that was addressed by my proofreading training course (via The Publishing Training Centre), and it’s a tricky nut to crack, one that on occasion still stumps me, even though I have years of practice under my belt. To clarify, this article is framed within the context of the proofreader who is working with page proofs, because this is the case where the artistry of sensitive and sensible proofreading practice really comes into play. What are page proofs? The mainstream publisher will usually require the proofreader to work on page proofs: “Page proofs are so called because they are laid out as exactly as they will appear in the final printed book. If all has gone well, what the proofreader is looking at will be almost what the reader sees if they were to walk into a bookshop, pull this title off the shelf and browse through the pages. The layout process has been taken care of by a professional typesetter who designs the text in a way that is pleasing to the eye and in accordance with a publisher’s brief” (Not all proofreading is the same: Part I – Working with page proofs). In this case, the proofreader does not amend the text directly. She annotates the page proofs. Why is proofreading an art? Proofreading entails finding solutions to any final problems that have escaped the author’s, copy-editor’s, and typesetter’s attention. These professionals are only human, and it’s unusual not to find at least a few problems in a set of page proofs, despite the fact that the manuscript has been reviewed multiple times. In fact, precisely because there are so many rounds of review, the opportunity for errors to be introduced is higher. The artistry comes in because it’s not enough to be able to spot those final pesky typos, misplaced apostrophes, incorrect running heads, missing captions, poorly aligned table figures, and so on. The good proofreader needs to know when to leave well enough alone. The Chartered Institute of Editing and Proofreading (CIEP) says: “… Part of the job is light editing within tight limits, but professional proofreaders do not re-edit the material. They intervene only with good reason [my emphasis]” (CIEP, n.d. FAQs: Proofreading). Here’s a brief summary of why proofreaders need to take care with the extent of their mark-up:
A cautionary tale and a lesson learned Have I ever over-marked? Have I intervened when I should have left well enough alone? Alas, yes. And I wasn't an inexperienced proofreader when it happened. I’ve elected to share my tale of shame in the hope that any over-enthusiastic proofreaders reading this will be able to learn from the mistake I made! A few years ago I proofread an academic book for a regular publisher client. The book was copy-edited by an editor with whom I’d worked on several occasions. She always does a super job. And, really, that should have been the only alarm bell I needed. The page proofs arrived and I noticed that the book was littered with whiches – rather than thats – being used for restrictive relative clauses. I changed them all. In pen. After all, I reasoned, even though in British English this usage is acceptable (though not always preferred), my publisher client is a stickler and the book’s market is international. Satisfied that I’d done a very fine job indeed I posted back the proofs to the copy-editor, who went on to collate my changes with the author’s. A week later I received a very polite email from a frustrated copy-editor. She informed me that though she, too, would have preferred to change every appropriate “which” to “that,” the author was particularly sensitive to having his copy amended and she’d had to settle for a lighter edit. She’d notified the in-house project manager and the decision had been agreed. “In future, if any extensive changes need to be made, would you be kind enough to check first? I'm going to have to stet a lot of your mark-up.” On an embarrassment scale of one to ten, I rated at least fifteen. My face was redder than my proofreading pen. I’d wasted my time and I’d wasted hers. And if I’d simply checked with her (or the in-house project manager) before I’d let my pen run wild, the problem could have been avoided. I still work for that publisher and I still proofread books for that copy-editor. But I learned my lesson. A note: A colleague who reviewed this article argued persuasively that the embarrassment shouldn't have been mine alone – in this situation I wasn't given a comprehensive style sheet detailing the decisions made. Either the copy-editor or the publisher could have supplied one – certainly many professional editors consider this to be not only good business practice but proper business practice. At the very least, someone could have emailed me with a brief heads-up. Nevertheless, since the proofreader cannot guarantee that they’ll receive such a style sheet, and busy editors and publishers are only human and sometimes forget things, my point about querying stands. It’s always, always better to clarify than to assume. Amend, query or move on? Editing is an art. But proofreading is, too. Sometimes we need to stop and think before we amend; sometimes we need to put down the pen and either query or move on. Knowing when to leave well enough alone can be a tricky call to make. We’re not here to re-edit. What we do sits in the context of a chain of decisions that have already been made by other professionals – decisions about budget, schedule, style, brief and design. Failing to acknowledge this fact can lead to time wastage at best, and harm at worst.
Louise Harnby is a line editor, copyeditor and proofreader who specializes in working with crime, mystery, suspense and thriller writers.
She is an Advanced Professional Member of the Chartered Institute of Editing and Proofreading (CIEP), a member of ACES, a Partner Member of The Alliance of Independent Authors (ALLi), and co-hosts The Editing Podcast. Visit her business website at Louise Harnby | Fiction Editor & Proofreader, say hello on Twitter at @LouiseHarnby, connect via Facebook and LinkedIn, and check out her books and courses.
When will I start earning a decent income from editing? That's a question many new editors and proofreaders want to know the answer to. The fact is this: it depends on many factors.
Difficult questions
It’s not uncommon for established editorial business-owning folk to be asked the above questions (or variations of them). It’s natural that any potential new entrant to the field wants reassurance with regard to the possibilities for “success”. Unless we own a business that provides editorial services for free, has no operating costs, and is owned by someone (us) who has an independent income that pays all our bills, we all need to earn money. However, there’s a problem – all these questions are impossible to answer by anyone other than the person asking the question. I would love to be able to give definitive answers:
But to respond as such would be misleading. However long we’ve been in business, however “successful” our businesses, we can’t know how a new colleague will fare. This is because the following are specific to each and every one of us: A How much we need to earn per month to meet our expenses B How many billable hours a month we have available for work C The customer groups with whom we are best matched D How much our target customers will pay E How much work per month (hours) they will supply us with Ultimately, we all hope to be in a position where D x E is greater than A (though we are limited by B). Getting to this point takes time and effort, so transitioning carefully with realistic expectations, thorough research, sensible planning and an awareness of what needs to be done to run a business will form the backbone of any advice an editorial pro can provide. A: How much money do you need to earn?
Financial viability is less about what you earn than what you need to earn. If Ms Editor earns ten grand a month from her editorial business but her mortgage is triple that, she’s in trouble.
If Mr Proofer earns ten grand a year from his editorial business but he has a large trust fund and a mortgage-free home, courtesy of a wealthy and generous relative, he’s laughing. These are extremes, I know, but the point is that each person’s requirements are unique to their situation.
All these issues and more will affect what you need to earn and therefore what financial figure will mean "success", "sustainability" and "viability" for you. B: How many billable hours a month do you have available?
Returning to the basic equation above, if D (what our customers will pay) multiplied by E (how many hours of work we can secure) only equals A (what we need to earn) when we bill for 40 hours a week, but we only have 20 billable hours a week available, we have a problem.
For example, in my household there is a young child who needs attending to, meaning I have 30 billable hours available. I have to factor that into my planning. Even if you have 50 billable hours available, are you sure you can work those hours? Proofreading and editing require a lot of concentration. There’s a lot of strain on the brain and the eyes. Some people can sustain this level of attention; others struggle. It’s therefore important to be realistic about whether it’s physically feasible to work the hours available. Heed Rich Adin's wise advice:
The usual scenario is that an editor ends the year having worked fewer than an average of 40 hours per week and fewer than 52 weeks during the year.
(The Business of Editing: Why $10 Can’t Make It, An American Editor, 2014) That's worth bearing in mind when doing the arithmetic. Furthermore, running one’s own business means that time has to be made for housekeeping issues that aren't billable – marketing, invoicing, equipment maintenance, troubleshooting, accounting, training, etc. If you have 40 hours you may well need to set aside 5 for your other business-essential tasks, leaving you with only 35 billable hours. Be sure to factor those in to your planning. Rich Adin offers some detailed advice about this on his An American Editor blog: see his posts tagged "effective hourly rate" or "EHR". C: With which customer groups are you best matched?
What services you are offering and to whom? Different client types have different expectations – of what editorial services cost and what they comprise.
An independent author might ask for a proofreader but expect the level of intervention that a copy-editor would provide; they might even need a structural editor (for a summary of these different levels of intervention, download the booklet Which Level of Editing Do You Need? Also worth noting is that a publisher with a set of typeset page proofs will almost certainly define “proofreading” differently from a business client with a Word file. And a biologist looking for an editor to check her journal article prior to submission might require that editor to have a life-sciences knowledge base that the fantasy fiction author certainly won’t. Knowing your customer and how their needs match your skills is important if you are to target effectively. Getting to those customers is key – earning money means finding clients; and finding clients means promoting your business. If you have 35 billable hours available but no clients, you're effectively unemployed. Assuming you are trained and work-ready, you need to be proactive with regard to those promotional activities that are most likely to bring you into contact with your customer. Effective marketing is not only about delivering the message via an appropriate channel, but also about ensuring that the message is on point. This can take a lot of tweaking – making sure that CVs, portfolios, website copy, letters/emails, directory listings, etc. communicate the right message to a particular customer. D and E: How much will your target customers pay and how much work will they will supply?
Even if you've identified appropriate customer groups and worked out how to get their attention, will they pay you what you need to earn? “Editing” is an umbrella term that incorporates a range of functions and a corresponding range of fees
See, for example:
Asking how one goes about getting into “editing”, how much it will pay and how long it will take to earn that money is a little like asking the same questions with regard to hospital work – it depends on whether you want to be an auxiliary nurse, a radiologist, a heart surgeon, an administrator or a cleaner. There are lots of different jobs that pay different rates. Opportunities for one role may come up less often than opportunities for others, and the skills/training required to be work-ready for those roles are different, too. (For guidance about suggested fees, check your national editorial society's guidelines.) You may find that, in the start-up phase of your editorial-business ownership, the clients who are offering you work don’t have enough of it to meet all of your financial requirements, or they have enough work but the rates they are prepared to pay mean that your total monthly earnings don’t match your outgoings. Furthermore, the editorial freelancing market is competitive. Some of your core potential clients may already have the suppliers they need, so even though you have the skills the customer wants, they don't yet have space to take you on. All of these factors mean that building an economically sustainable client base will take time, though exactly how much time will vary depending on whom you speak to. What to do ... asking answerable questions
Here's what to do:
Once you know what you’re spending you know what you need to earn. Now you’re in a position to start thinking about the types of people who will hire your services and how you will get to them.
Join editorial freelancing networks and use these to talk to your colleagues-to-be. In addition to the social media options, most national editorial societies offer opportunities for members to engage with each other. Using these networks, you can explore the following: None of the above will tell you whether their experiences will be the same as yours because you’re starting out now, whereas they were starting out then. Furthermore, your voice is different to their voice, so the way you present yourself will be unique. Still further, not all the online voices will be targeting the same customers as you or even live in the same part of the world as you; advice may be country- or region-specific and therefore not necessarily appropriate to you (though many core business issues are universal). What these discussions will do is guide you towards ideas and activities that can be tested. As Kate Haigh reminds us, when it comes to networking:
The support that we all offer each other is invaluable, not only with work-specific queries but also with ideas for training, ways of dealing with the peaks and troughs of work and, perhaps more importantly, just being there with an understanding ear.
(Best of enemies – the joys of seeing other freelancers as colleagues and not enemies. Find a Proofreader) No established editorial business owner will be able to hand over a ready-made plan that will guarantee a certain level of income in a certain time frame by carrying out a definitive list of activities. However, by doing the in-depth research and planning, you can still make sensible decisions about whether to jack in your full-time job and go freelance straight away, or whether to hold off and transition more gently as you hone your skills, explore your potential customers’ requirements, and build a sense of what work is available and how much income it generates. And don't forget that terms such as “success”, “viability” and “sustainability” mean nothing unless they are framed within the broader and unique context of what each of us requires to thrive. More resources
Louise Harnby is a line editor, copyeditor and proofreader who specializes in working with crime, mystery, suspense and thriller writers.
She is an Advanced Professional Member of the Chartered Institute of Editing and Proofreading (CIEP), a member of ACES, a Partner Member of The Alliance of Independent Authors (ALLi), and co-hosts The Editing Podcast. Visit her business website at Louise Harnby | Fiction Editor & Proofreader, say hello on Twitter at @LouiseHarnby, connect via Facebook and LinkedIn, and check out her books and courses.
If you’re thinking about becoming a proofreader, it’s important to understand that this term can mean different things in different contexts and with different client groups. This article focuses on working with raw text.
What type of proofreading you want to do and which group of clients you want to be work-ready for will determine the choices you make with regard to training.
Some proofreaders work directly with the creators of the written materials – independent authors, students and business professionals, for example.
These clients send Word files and the proofreader amends the files directly (often with Track Changes switched on so that the client can see what’s been changed). Others work for intermediaries such as publishers and project-management agencies. Here the author supplies the text files; then the in-house project manager (PM) organizes the various elements of the production process – including copyediting, proofreading, typesetting and printing. After copyediting and typesetting, the PM supplies page proofs to the proofreader, who makes annotations that identify where there are problems to be attended to. The proofreader does not amend the text directly. In Part I, I gave the new entrant to the field an overview of what it’s like to be a proofreader working with page proofs. Here in Part II, I consider proofreading that involves working directly with the raw-text Word files.
Which types of client want to work in Word?
Most of the proofreading done in Word stems from having been commissioned directly by the content creator – a business executive, a self-publishing author or a student. Academic writers, particularly those submitting articles to journals and for whom your first language is their second, are also likely to send Word files. Only one of my publisher clients asks me to proofread in Word. What is the proofreader looking for? It depends on the client's expectations (see below: Disadvantages) and your terms and conditions. Certainly, when it comes to proofreading for non-publisher clients, the definition of proofreading starts to look unclear and the boundaries between this and copyediting become blurred. Unlike with page proofs, we can't check the final designed layout of the file but we still need to read every word. Some of the issues dealt with in the list below would be acceptable to the proofreader working for an academic author but not when working with a Master's student. (Some clients might even want/expect a level of restructuring, rewriting and checking that a proofreader wouldn't consider to be within their remit.)
What are the advantages?
What are the disadvantages?
There are still legal issues to consider … Even if you are working directly with the primary authors of the content, you still need to get their permission to upload their text to third-party sites if you want to utilize software that's not on your computer. The files you've been sent from Indie authors, students and businesses are their property and they send them to you in good faith, so you must get permission for their content to leave your computer.
What does this mean for training?
Knowing the software ... If you want to proofread in Word, you'll need to be proficient in using it. Word is one of the most powerful pieces of word-processing software available, and there's a huge amount you can do with it if you want to proofread (or edit) efficiently. You might therefore need to supplement your proofreading training with learning that focuses on using macros, making the best of Find/Replace and wildcards, using Track Changes, and Microsoft Word usage in general. There's still the issue of how much to interfere ... If you do end up proofreading for a publisher client who wants you to work in Word, it will be necessary to consider the issue of when to leave well enough alone, as discussed in Part I. However, independent authors looking for a proofreader may actually be expecting a deeper edit and will be disappointed if you're not prepared to rewrite sentences for them. If you've not had experience of, or training in, editing, you may find that a 'proofreading' project ends up being a bigger bite than you can chew. One of my colleagues feels that specific training in editing isn't always critical when working with business clients, whereas for self-publishing novelists it would be very important. I'm inclined to agree. One person might be relatively comfortable suggesting improved sentence construction to a business client but very wary of doing so with an author of fiction. What this shows is how blurry the edges can become and how important it is to have a detailed conversation before you begin a project. I often encourage independent fiction authors looking for a proofreader to consider commissioning editing first. Editors with both editing and proofreading skills are better placed to take on jobs for non-publisher clients that fall in the editing camp, or somewhere between editing and proofing (proofediting). If you think you'll end up straying beyond the realm of proofreading, you might consider adding copyediting courses into your training mix. Think about what type of client you're going to be working for to help you decide what's appropriate. Summing up … Proofreading isn't some catch-all phrase that means the same thing to every client group. What you actually do, on which medium, how much you interfere, the extent to which you can use complementary tools, and the expectations of the client will differ greatly. This means a range of competencies will need to be acquired depending on whom you’re working for. Your training will need to match the requirements of various client groups – a publisher’s expectations in terms of industry-recognized standards will be different from a business executive’s or student’s, so take care to research any proofreading training syllabus carefully to make sure it’s providing you with the skill set relevant to your target client group. Your training should suit your needs, your business plan, your objectives – and what will be right for one person may not be right for another. Read this article's sister post: Not all proofreading is the same: Part I – Working with page proofs.
Louise Harnby is a line editor, copyeditor and proofreader who specializes in working with crime, mystery, suspense and thriller writers.
She is an Advanced Professional Member of the Chartered Institute of Editing and Proofreading (CIEP), a member of ACES, a Partner Member of The Alliance of Independent Authors (ALLi), and co-hosts The Editing Podcast. Visit her business website at Louise Harnby | Fiction Editor & Proofreader, say hello on Twitter at @LouiseHarnby, connect via Facebook and LinkedIn, and check out her books and courses.
Professional proofreading training provides you with more than just technical knowledge and skills. It also gets you into the mindset of good business practice: pacing, taking stock, and focusing on the detail.
I've been delighted to read how, at the time of writing, a number of UK-based proofreaders-in-training have successfully completed the Publishing Training Centre’s distance-learning proofreading course, a comprehensive offering that, along with the CIEP training suite, is well respected within the UK publishing industry.
I took this course in 2005 and I believe it provided me with a foundation that made me ready for the practical side of actually doing the job. Consequently I have no problem recommending it to those who ask my opinion on the matter. I learned a huge amount from this course (which I took seven months to complete) and also from colleagues in my prior workplace. Perhaps one of the most important pieces of knowledge I acquired, and that I needed in order to make a proofreading career viable from a practical point of view, was the necessary mindset. Old working practices I come from a publishing background. My first job was in the European marketing, sales and distribution office of Williams & Wilkins, the Baltimore-based STM publisher. I was a sales promotion manager. From there I moved to SAGE publications, a well-known independent social sciences and educational publisher (though their publishing programme has expanded somewhat since my day). I was employed as a senior journals marketing manager and remained so for the rest of my office-bound career. The colleagues with whom I worked most closely were commissioning editors, fellow marketing execs, and editorial production managers.
Learning from editorial production … I finally left SAGE to dedicate a couple of years to child-rearing. My little family moved to the Norfolk countryside and we revelled in the stunning rural views from the windows of our home and enjoyed the space, the grass, the deer, and the short drive to the beach. And then I got itchy feet. I wanted back into publishing but I wanted it on my own terms – freelance proofreading seemed like the solution. But my editorial production colleagues had already taught me to ask an important question: Do I have the right mindset for the actual practice of proofreading? As I've said, my background was in marketing. I was used to being in a work environment that was about ideas and experimentation. I'm not saying that there were no processes to attend to or that I didn't have certain business parameters to work within. I did, of course. But following a brief, pedantic punctuating and a careful, methodical, almost plodding attention to detail weren't the criteria at the top of my job description. If I was going to transition to a proofreading career, I would need to ensure that the appropriate mindset was embedded in the way I approached my work. I knew I had a tendency to get a bee in my bonnet and jump in without looking where I was going. It’s in my nature! To be a proofreader I needed to slow down. I needed to be a detail person. Left field needed to be left behind! Learning from professional trainers … That’s why I chose the Basic Proofreading by Distance Learning course. I wanted a comprehensive training tool that would make me practice-ready, but I wanted to be assessed, too. I needed to be able to see where my weaknesses were, as well as my strengths. And I needed to practise being a detail person – to embed that mindset of attending to the method, the process, the instructions, so that I could do what the client wanted. A target market for me was always going to be social science publishers – I've a politics degree and in-house experience, so it made sense right from the start. I knew these publishers would have demanding expectations of their proofreaders and I wanted to be ready. Ready for the house brief, ready for the method, ready for the deadlines. Practising the mindset … How did I prepare? I read each chapter’s theory several times. I photocopied the exercises several times. I’d do them, trying my best to mark up in the way the chapter had advised. I’d mark my own efforts, make notes about my weaknesses, re-read the appropriate course material, and then put the exercise away for a few days. Then I’d do it all over again – this helped me see if I’d learned from my previous mistakes or whether the information had gone in one ear and out of the other. Then I’d do it a third time – leave alone for a few days and then repeat the exercise. When I was confident I’d nailed it, I’d photocopy the assessed test so that I had three copies. Then I’d do the test, put it away, re-do the test, compare, see if I was consistent, put it away, go through it one last time, attend to anything I’d missed, and then submit. It was laborious. But I learned to slow down; I learned what my weak points were; I learned a systematic method of working practice that focused on my client's instructions and objectives. I became so used to working like this that it embedded this careful attention to detail in my mind – something that I rely on every time I'm commissioned to work on a project. Of course my publishers don’t budget for me to do multiple passes on a piece of work, with several days of quiet reflection in between! Now that would be a luxury! But I'm glad I had the space to do this, to learn that mindset, to get used to being a detail person. So, if you fancy proofreading as a career, ask yourself the same question: Do I have the right mindset for the actual practice of proofreading? If you’re not sure, use your training* space to practise the careful, methodical process of attending to detail, according to the instructor’s brief. You won’t regret it and the time taken will be an investment that you can carry with you throughout your future career. * If you're still deciding which course to take, your national editorial society will be able to offer advice about the training options available in your region.
Louise Harnby is a line editor, copyeditor and proofreader who specializes in working with crime, mystery, suspense and thriller writers.
She is an Advanced Professional Member of the Chartered Institute of Editing and Proofreading (CIEP), a member of ACES, a Partner Member of The Alliance of Independent Authors (ALLi), and co-hosts The Editing Podcast. Visit her business website at Louise Harnby | Fiction Editor & Proofreader, say hello on Twitter at @LouiseHarnby, connect via Facebook and LinkedIn, and check out her books and courses.
If you’re thinking about becoming a professional proofreader, it’s important to understand that the term 'proofreading' can mean different things in different contexts and with different client groups. This article focuses on working with designed page proofs,
What type of proofreading you want to do and which groups of clients you want to be work-ready for will determine the choices you make with regard to training.
Some proofreaders work directly with the creators of the written materials being proofread – independent authors, students and business professionals, for example. These clients send Word files and the proofreader amends the files directly (often with Track Changes switched on so that the client can see what’s been changed).
Others work for intermediaries such as publishers and project management agencies. Here the author supplies the text files; then the in-house project manager (PM) organizes the various elements of the production process – including copy-editing, proofreading, typesetting and printing. After copy-editing and typesetting, the PM supplies page proofs to the proofreader, who makes annotations that identify where there are problems to be attended to. The proofreader does not amend the text directly. Here in Part I, I give the new entrant to the field an overview of what it’s like to be a proofreader working with page proofs. In Part II, I’ll consider proofreading work that involves working directly with the raw Word files.
What are page proofs?
Page proofs, traditionally defined, are so called because they are laid out exactly as they will appear in the final printed book. If all has gone well, what the proofreader is looking at will be almost what the reader sees if they were to walk into a bookshop, pull this title off the shelf and browse through the pages. The layout process has been taken care of by a professional typesetter or interior formatter who designs the text in a way that is pleasing to the eye and in accordance with a publisher’s brief. Page proofs from publishers and project management agencies are usually either in paper or PDF format. When working on paper, you'll likely still be supplied with a PDF (which comes in useful when using digital tools). In addition to the bulk of the typeset text, page proofs include the following elements: page numbers; running heads; a contents list; copyright information; cataloguing data; figures, tables and any other finished artwork; bibliography; and perhaps an index. The jacket may or may not be included, but there’ll usually be a title page and a half-title page. To reiterate, the pages have been professionally designed, so your job is not only to check for any final grammar, spelling or punctuation errors that have slipped in during the production chain; you're also tasked with ensuring that the appearance of the book is consistent and correct according to the instructions given to the typesetter by the client. Thus, you'll need to carry out a range of checks to ensure the following:
This isn't a comprehensive list but it gives you an idea of how this type of proofreading goes beyond just checking the text for typos. Download this free proofreading checklist if your client doesn't supply you with one.
Where are you in the chain?
The proofreader is one person in a fairly lengthy chain. Different clients work in different ways but the following is not uncommon:
The process is often further complicated by the ebook creation process. Text might be digitized at different stages of the process.
What does this mean for your working methods?
You're not actually changing anything … You can use digital tools to complement your eye – various scripted macros, consistency checkers like PerfectIt, and reference-checking software like ReferenceChecker. To use these tools you need to strip text from a PDF of the page proofs, place it in a Word document, and then run your digital tools. Any mistakes flagged up, however, need to be marked up on the page proofs – that is, on paper or PDF (as agreed with the PM). You don’t get to change the actual text – you only get to make marks on it (usually those little hieroglyphics that constitute, in the UK, the BS 5261C:2005 proof-correction symbols). But you're checking everything … Recall, too, that you're paid to check every word and every page. Relevant software is a brilliant addition to any proofreader’s tool kit, but it will only go so far because the proofreader’s job goes beyond error-checking. We’re looking for layout problems, too, because we’re working on designed text – the first draft of the final page proofs. There are legal issues … you can only use software tools that are already sitting on your PC. This is because of confidentiality issues. All of my PMs consider it unacceptable business practice for me to send the page proofs (or the text stripped from them) to a third party, as the following direct quotes demonstrate: Confidentiality is absolutely core … We send PDFs to proofreaders in good faith. The files must not be uploaded to external websites or distributed to third parties. We ask that anyone who receives a file from us in the course of their freelance work [...] does not share that file with anyone, does not post it to any remote server or LAN, makes no copies of it and deletes it after use. We send files to you on the strict understanding that they are for you to use only in completing the assignment we've placed with you.
What does this mean for training?
If you want to proofread for publishers, it’s likely that you’ll be working on page proofs. This means you’ll need to learn to use the industry-recognized mark-up language effectively and efficiently, and you’ll need to be able to carry out the necessary design and layout checks. If your training course doesn't teach you how to mark up using the relevant symbols or what to look out for in terms of layout problems, it’s probably not the right course to make you fit for publisher work. Furthermore, you’ll have to learn not to interfere beyond your brief. Not all publishers want every single inconsistency attended to. Amendments made at page-proof stage are expensive to implement so many publishers ask for 'minimal' correction. How they define 'minimal' will vary so you’ll need to work according to a clear brief. And if you’re not given a clear brief, you’ll need to ask for one. Assumptions about your remit are to be avoided – what one PM considers unworthy of change will be considered an essential error by another! The business of knowing when to leave well enough alone and when to interfere is one of the trickiest issues to deal with, so doing a course that has an assessment element is a good idea if you are working with page proofs and publisher clients. Summing up … Proofreading isn't some catch-all phrase that means the same thing to every client group. What you actually do, on which medium, how much you interfere, the extent to which you can use complementary tools, and the expectations of the client will differ greatly. This means a range of competencies will need to be acquired depending on whom you’re working for. Your training will need to match the requirements of various client groups – a publisher’s expectations in terms of industry-recognized standards will be different from a business executive’s or student’s, so take care to research any proofreading training syllabus carefully to make sure it’s providing you with the skill set relevant to your target client group. Your training should suit your needs, your business plan, your objectives; and what will be right for one person may not be right for another.
In Part II, I look at proofreading for clients who want you to work directly on the text in Word; how the line between editing and proofreading can become blurred; and how this might influence the type of training you do or the work you choose to take on.
Louise Harnby is a line editor, copyeditor and proofreader who specializes in working with crime, mystery, suspense and thriller writers.
She is an Advanced Professional Member of the Chartered Institute of Editing and Proofreading (CIEP), a member of ACES, a Partner Member of The Alliance of Independent Authors (ALLi), and co-hosts The Editing Podcast. Visit her business website at Louise Harnby | Fiction Editor & Proofreader, say hello on Twitter at @LouiseHarnby, connect via Facebook and LinkedIn, and check out her books and courses. Dear valued proofreaders and editors, Louise has presented a wide range of business and editing advice here on the Proofreader's Parlour. Some of it I refer to regularly. What I hope to contribute is an understanding of what developmental editors (macro level/substantive changes) do in the school market. That means the textbooks, handouts, exams and such that kids get day to day at school. First, I hope this insight will be interesting. Second, I hope it will alert everyone down the line in the publishing process to the intricate web of concerns that are woven into today's textbooks. Grab a cuppa and listen in. Most of the resources I work on are for the K–12 school market in Canada and the USA. That covers all schooling from the first days until university or college. Chemistry and physics topics make up most of my work; math comes after that. Though I am a certified copy-editor, substantive editing is so time consuming that it makes up the majority of my practice. That explains my POV. When material finally makes it to the copy-editor (and afterward, to the proofreader) it has been massaged to an astounding extent. Less of the author’s voice is left in these materials than in most others. The editors have taken into account:
That's off the top of my head. There's definitely more. Any changes I suggest had better move the manuscript closer to those goals. Reading level is high on my list of concerns when copy-editing. Because I edit tough subjects, it's important that the language not get in the way of the learning. Often we are aiming one full grade level below the audience. I have edited chemistry to the cadence of Green Eggs and Ham, and physics to the rhythm of Sherlock Holmes. Occasionally, another copy editor will “smooth” the language of a piece, raising the reading level eight years above the education level of the audience. There was a reason it was written that way. The style sheet in school products reflects current trends in education, propriety, and avoiding any possible sense of moral, ethical, or legal infraction. I have removed the image of a sculptor because he was working on a backside, I've struggled with wording about erecting structures, and I've flipped the terms Aboriginal with Indigenous because none of the consultants seemed to agree. I have also taken indigo out of the rainbow, and mourned the loss of Pluto’s planet designation along with the rest of my generation. Learning new things is one of the best perks of editing. Working on school materials brings a broad wealth of information to your screen. And the author’s enthusiasm? You can sense that from the sheer number of exclamation marks. My husband once admonished me: “If you’d worked that hard in school, you’d have done much better.” Well, they weren't paying me to go to school, and they didn't give me six solid months to work on one text. A lot has changed. ![]() Adrienne Montgomerie is a freelance editor in Canada where she lives on the shore of one of the largest lakes in the world, Lake Ontario, and enjoys time outdoors in all weather. She is a phonics app developer and a certified copy editor who works mostly on instructional material. You can learn editing tricks from her in online courses and in a weekly column at Copyediting.com. You can also listen to her posts on the Right Angels and Polo Bears podcast.
If you’re thinking about setting up an editing or proofreading business, and decide to call someone you've identified as having the necessary experience, these five tips aim to help you make a good impression. They’re based on a recent telephone discussion (and email follow-up) I had with a new starter – someone completely unknown to me – who really made me want to engage with her.
1. Recognize that you’re costing them money My caller acknowledged that her time on the phone with me was costing me money. I appreciated this because she demonstrated her respect for the fact that I'm running a business. Every minute I spend focusing on someone else’s business development is a minute I'm not spending on my own. If you were to hire a professional consultant, you might be expected to pay at least £50 per hour. The rates aren't important for the purposes of this discussion. Rather, the point is that you would be paying for a service – and whether it costs £30, £50, £100 or £200 an hour, it would cost you. So when your chosen specialist agrees to talk to you for half an hour for free, that’s money staying in your pocket and time they have to make up out of hours so that their income isn't affected. 2. Be prepared with the necessary information My caller was ready with the information I needed to know in order to guide her – key points about her educational and career background that enabled me to identify the next steps she needed to take. She didn't ramble on about how she’s good at spotting typos in newspaper articles and really loves reading. Instead, she focused on the fact that she wanted to set up a proofreading business and needed advice on what were the best steps forward. In other words, she concentrated on what she needed to do next, rather than what she already liked or felt. This made a super impression on me because I didn't feel I was spending my valuable time (and money – see above) having a chitchat with a stranger. Instead I was focusing on her business goals. With that in mind, before you pick up the phone (or write an email), make a bullet list of your career skills, educational achievements, any training you feel might be relevant, any transferable skills, and previous experience so that the editorial pro you’re talking to has an overall view of your potential fit within the market. 3. Listen When my caller had finished giving me the necessary background information, and answered a few further questions, I started to talk, and she listened. Again, this made my engagement with her a really positive experience – for me as well as her. I knew she was paying close attention to what I was saying because the only time she interrupted me was to ask me to repeat something she hadn't managed to scribble down in the notes she was speedily taking. She didn't spend my time/money telling me information that wasn't relevant to our discussion about her business plans (the liked/felt issues I mentioned in point 2), and she wasn't trying to be my new best friend (I already have one of those). If you call up an experienced colleague-to-be, have your note-taking gear to hand, keep your ears sharp, and ensure the conversation remains streamlined by not straying from the reason you phoned. 4. Be ready for the worst and the best My caller asked me for a brutally honest assessment of her prospects. This is really important because it showed me that she understood something fundamental – she was considering becoming a self-employed editorial business owner, and it wasn't going to be something she could just fall into without being engaged, active and organized. She didn't ring me up expecting me to tell her not to worry, everything would be fine if she just dipped her toe in the water, had a group hug with a few friends and waited to see how things went. She absolutely got the fact that there were things she needed to do, now and in the future, to have the best chance of developing a solid client base and regular work stream that would secure a sustainable income (as defined by her needs). I threw the kitchen sink at her, and she caught it. And I suspect that because she’s holding that sink, she’s better prepared for what’s ahead, and highly likely to get where she wants to be. Not everyone wants a kitchen sink thrown at them (which is fine), but then someone who doesn't want a sink probably shouldn't bother making the call in the first place. Imagine you paid a consultant fifty quid for some advice, and instead of offering you substantive ideas for your business development they just had a little chitchat with you for half an hour. Me? I’d feel short-changed. I’d want my money back! Toe-dipping is fine if that's your preference, but don't expect a stranger to spend half an hour of their working day to have a chinwag with you about it. They've other things they could be doing with their time. 5. Show your gratitude It’s such a simple thing, but saying "thank you" makes a huge difference. My caller followed up with an email that thanked me for the time I’d taken out of my busy schedule to help her. She told me that our frank discussion had helped her no end, and given her the confidence to pursue her dream job but with her eyes wide open. She also told me that she’s already taken some of the steps I’d recommended and would follow through on the others as she moved through her planning process. I’ll keep in touch with her. She impressed me with her professional and gracious attitude and I want to know how she gets on. I know that the time I gave her cost me something, but plenty of people give me free support and advice so that's fair enough – I'm happy to give my time, as long it's spent productively and the person who's contacted me has already put some work into thinking about the objectives of our discussion.
If your client wants sensitive end-of-line word-breaks in their text, and they will if they're asking you to proofread for print, this online tool will help you decide where to break the word and insert the hyphen.
For example, Oxford Dictionaries recommends the following:
There's always the trusty New Oxford Spelling Dictionary, an authority on spelling and word division. However, if you have clients that want every end-of-line hyphen checked, you'll need something more efficient than a book.
Perhaps you work on magazine articles, three columns to a page. Word breaks abound. And since the client pays on a flat-fee basis for each job, looking up these darn things impacts on your hourly rate in no small way. Oxford Dictionaries includes online access to its dictionaries and thesauri, New Hart's Rules and Pocket Fowler's Modern English Usage. It also includes a function for checking word-breaks. I'm not chucking away my print book quite yet. There are limitations to the online version. For example, 'wingless' doesn't have its own entry, but is part of the definition of 'wing', so the preferred break (wing | less) isn't offered. Still, productivity increases are only a click away if you have to check end-of-line word-breaks frequently. To access, go to Oxford Dictionaries.
You might have to pay for an account. However, if you're a member of a UK library, access is free. Pop in your library card number (1) and click on the LOGIN button (2).
Now select the language.
Type in your word, then scroll down to FOR EDITORS AND PROOFREADERS. There you'll find the recommended break where the word should be broken and the hyphen inserted.
Louise Harnby is a line editor, copyeditor and proofreader who specializes in working with crime, mystery, suspense and thriller writers.
She is an Advanced Professional Member of the Chartered Institute of Editing and Proofreading (CIEP), a member of ACES, a Partner Member of The Alliance of Independent Authors (ALLi), and co-hosts The Editing Podcast. Visit her business website at Louise Harnby | Fiction Editor & Proofreader, say hello on Twitter at @LouiseHarnby, connect via Facebook and LinkedIn, and check out her books and courses. Note from Louise: I've been charmed in the past two weeks – three special guests sharing their wisdom on the Parlour! This time it's my colleague Sophie Playle. Sophie and I met at our SfEP local-group meeting in Norwich. She's a talented writer (more on that in a future post) and has a very specialist skill set within her service portfolio – manuscript critiquing. I asked Sophie if she'd tell us a bit more about it, and she kindly obliged ... ![]() How I ended up offering a critiquing service My journey to where I am now – a freelance writer and editor who offers critiquing (or manuscript appraisal) as one of my services – evolved partly organically, and partly with focused purpose. It's a familiar story, but I have always wanted to write. At school, I never really knew what I wanted to do with my life in terms of career, but I did know that I loved the escapism of books and the swooning elegance of language. While choosing a university degree, I followed my passion and went for the English Literature with Creative Writing BA offered by the University of East Anglia. I loved the writing element of the course more than anything, and from my first to my final year, I went through a steep learning curve. Our final-year creative writing group consisted of a small core of writers. We would write short stories and submit them for our fellow group members to tear apart. It was invigorating. We all knew the value of criticism, and both craved and respected the feedback we received, eager to improve our craft. It was a tough but safe bubble. In one of my private tutorials, my tutor complimented me on the quality of my feedback to other students (our feedback contributed 10% to our grade, but I was more motivated by the thought of genuinely helping my fellow writers). She asked if I had ever considered a career as an editor. Getting this endorsement certainly gave me encouragement, and nudged me towards my future career. Leaving university, I began to apply for jobs at publishing houses for entry-level editorial assistant jobs. I also began a long distance-learning course in copy-editing. Eventually, I landed a full-time role at a large educational publisher. Before long, however, I was craving fiction and creativity and writing again. So I decided to take the plunge and do an MA in Creative Writing at Royal Holloway, University of London – while still keeping in touch with my publishing house for the odd freelance project. The focus of my MA was novel writing, and each of us on the course was plunged into the task. As with my final-year undergraduate class, each week we would critique each other's work – from sentence-level, language and grammar issues to the developing bigger issues such as point-of-view and voice as our novels progressed. Much of our course was also focused on reading and analysing critical theory related to literature and the craft of novel writing, so that our constructive criticism had a sound academic foundation. I absolutely loved the experience, and my writing and editing skills developed dramatically in the challenging environment. During my time working in publishing, I also set up my own literary publication called Inkspill Magazine. I decided to host a short-story competition, where all entries received a free critique, to test my critiquing skills in the real world. I received lots of positive feedback and, upon completing my MA, I decided to offer critiquing as a freelance service to writers. My academic foundation and publishing experience (and the various tests I set myself) provided me with the confidence to offer a critiquing service. So, what is a manuscript critique? A critique sounds a bit daunting, akin to the word criticise – but it's not a harsh deconstruction. Essentially, a critique looks at the "big picture" elements of a manuscript (plot, pace, characters, voice, etc.) and offers a constructive analysis, with the aim of showing where the writing succeeds and where it could be improved, to better inform the writer's next step. It is often called a Manuscript Appraisal, but I favour the term "Manuscript Critique" because what I provide goes beyond an assessment, also offering possible ways to address the issues I might highlight. The critique is offered as a report, which is usually between 5 and15 pages (though I have written reports of up to 25 pages) depending on how many issues I feel need to be addressed, or depending on the length of the manuscript. It doesn't include any sentence-based editing, though if there is a recurring issue throughout the manuscript, I would flag it up within the report as a general area to look at. Who are the clients? Most of my critiquing clients are writers on a journey to self-publication, or writers who want to increase their chances of representation for traditional publication. Generally, a critiquing client will be interested in making sure the core of their novel is as good as it can be, and looking for external professional confirmation and/or suggestions for development. This type of assessment comes before any copy-editing or proofreading, and can be used to test ideas (with a sample of the novel plus a synopsis) or strengthen complete novels when the writer feels there is more work to be done but is not sure how to go about it. The benefits of a manuscript critique A critiquing service is not needed for everyone, but it can help a writer gain a professional outside perspective, help them develop their manuscript, provide confirmation of its quality, and help inform the next step of their project – in the worst-case scenario, that might be to put the novel in a drawer and chalk it up to valuable experience, and in the best-case scenario, it might be to immediately send the project out to agents and publishers! (Often, it will be the steps to take for a further draft.) Often, beta readers (friends, colleagues, etc.) can give a writer a useful "big picture" perspective on their writing, but a professional critique goes much deeper – with the added benefit of an honest appraisal (something that might be skewed by kindness from friends!). Writers are often told that they need a thick skin – and that certainly comes in useful with a critique. Though I attempt to critique with the utmost sensitivity and respect, I feel the biggest injustice to a writer would be to offer them hollow advice and empty praise. Sometimes the assessment can be a bit of a shock to the writer, so it is important to remember that the critique is designed to improve the project, and not to negatively criticise the writer as an individual. It's often very difficult to accept that there might be some fundamental issues with a manuscript that will need substantive work, so when a writer sends their novel to be critiqued, I would say: be prepared for some more hard work ahead! Copyright 2013 Sophie Playle Sophie Playle offers writing, editing and critiquing services to independent writers. Find out more: Liminal Pages.
Independent author T.P. Archie recently published A Guide to First Contact, a post-apocalyptic novel set in 2060.
His search for editorial assistance initially led him to me. However, after some discussion about what was needed, we agreed that he’d benefit from an developmental and line editor, not a proofreader. I pointed him in the right direction and he hired one of my SfEP colleagues to work on the manuscript. Now he’s been kind enough to take time out of his busy schedule to talk to the Parlour about this experience, and his independent publishing journey more broadly.
Parlour: First of all, congratulations on publishing your book! Can you give us a short synopsis of the novel and tell us how the idea for Guide came about?
T.P. Archie: Hi. Thanks for inviting me in. Guide alternates between the present day and a post-apocalyptic Earth. On the edge of the solar system, Star Beings plan the next phase of their work. New life. An animite must be hurled onto the third planet. The impact will scatter organic compounds throughout Earth’s biosphere. But there’s a problem: the animite goes missing. A hundred thousand years later, it’s the 21st century. A space mission to a near-earth object makes an amazing biological discovery which is brought back to Earth. This American secret is trumped when France announces contact with creatures from outer space. Then disaster strikes. Technologies in key industries begin to fail. The West collapses … It’s now 2060. Most cities are long abandoned. All that remains of the once-mighty United States is the Petits États, centred on New England. Outside of there, civilisation survives in Enclaves, relying on the confederation of Sioux Nations for protection. For forty years a genetic plague has ravaged humanity. It began just after Earth was contacted by aliens. A new and mysterious power – the mandat culturel – controls access to advanced technologies.
Triste, hopeless with girls, but good with guns, is a bounty hunter. He has all the latest ordnance. His contracts pay well but are dangerous. They take him to the ruined cities; he spends a lot of time in the former urban area of New York.
His current mission is to reconnoitre a long lost laboratory. He encounters a ramshackle band of opportunists whom he sends packing. In doing so, he meets Shoe. They find the lab. It has secrets linking it to the collapse of Western civilisation. Shoe is running from her family. She has other secrets. In the dead shell of Manhattan lurks a secret pensitela base. Their alien biology protects them from the brutal savagery of the place. They have their own reasons for being there. From the edges of the solar system, a Star Being monitors Earth. It has a plan – and Triste meeting Shoe isn’t accidental. His troubles have just begun. Eventually he is faced by the hard truths behind the fall of the West.
At its most basic, Guide is a series of interlinked narratives that combine to reveal how the apocalypse comes about. Other readings are possible. One of my objectives was to explore different kinds of first contact.
However, Guide didn’t start like that. It began as a test of Novel Writing Software – yes, there’s a product really called that! I planned to write three chapters, which I thought would be sufficient for my purpose. So out it churned, an endless stream of 'hero takes on hordes from hell'. At about 8,000 words I took stock. I already knew it wasn’t intellectually satisfying yet I had found a writing rhythm. It occurred to me that while I was in my stride, I should experiment. Why didn’t I add something with a bit of interest? I had a few characters kicking around in my head. "Everyone has a novel in them," I told myself; all I needed was a theme to link them together. In they went; and the violence was trimmed. That was it; I was hooked. I wrote and added themes. There’s gender reversal – the story won’t work properly without it – and Darwin’s theory of evolution (these two are linked). Then the never-ending Anglo-French rivalry; followed by a drip feed of classical Greek philosophy. Each theme had a purpose. Why? I want SF that makes sense, including the cosmogony. Depicting aliens, for example, requires some attention to how they might see the universe. In retrospect, I realise I’d grown away from SF/Fantasy; little of what was available appealed to me. I was sitting around waiting for someone to write the stuff I wanted, which wasn’t happening. Parlour: Could you tell us a bit more about yourself and how you started writing? T.P. Archie: I qualified as an accountant in 1990. My mother was born to a family of Estonian farmers and my father began life as a cobbler. I grew up in a one-parent family. Most of my early life was lived in Stoneyholme, a deprived part of Burnley. My mother rented from a block of terraced houses. There was plenty self-inflicted misery, but it was rarely safe to observe. As the son of an immigrant with a German accent, it was my duty to avoid the occasional beatings that were due to me. Grammar school education informed me that the oppressive reality of working-class life stopped at the edge of the estate. I began reading SF/Fantasy in my teens. This was later complemented by an interest in classical philosophy and history. Once I started writing, I found a great deal to say. Parlour: Who are your biggest influences (from a literary point of view)? T.P. Archie: My formative years were very much influenced by genre authors, e.g. Asimov, Clarke and Heinlein. I continue to be impressed by Tolkien’s myth building and the universe of Frank Herbert’s Dune. Outside the genre I have found Dostoyevsky, Kafka, Pasternak, George Eliot and Doris Lessing to my taste. I am also partial to Plato and the works of Idries Shah. My writing is also influenced by the work of Orson Welles. (Oh, okay – he didn’t really write :) ) By the way, I’m ridiculously pleased with my Philip K. Dick collection, tatty Ace editions and all. Dick is best known for Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep, which inspired Bladerunner. Dick didn't need to spell out apocalypse, yet his settings work. His characters think a great mix of the mundane and the profound. Seemingly omnipotent creatures are driven by biology or freely admit their fallibility, as Glimmung does in Galactic Pot-Healer. Many of his works are laced with dark humour and are worth a reread. Parlour: Like many other authors around the world, you've decided to go down the independent publishing route. Self-publishing requires the wearing of many hats in addition to the writing. What have been the upsides and the downsides of this decision? T.P. Archie: Upsides: you control everything. Downsides: you control everything. Okay, that was tongue-in-cheek. The main benefit is that you are in control over the pace of your development. Once you have a deal, you are locked into it. As an indie author, I don’t feel the constraint of writing to fit genre style/house style. Ask the right questions at author events and the strictures of formulaic writing become clear. I've read widely in my chosen genre, including many of its standards. There are many themes to explore/treat differently. The most significant drawback was in the narrative – devising a practical approach to self-editing. While shaping ideas, I’d revisit text. If words didn’t come, I’d use "next best", i.e. placeholder terms, and work it until it was there or thereabouts. This resulted in intermittent problem areas. Sometimes I attempted to clean these up but this was a chore. I’d ask of myself, "What comes through in the narrative? Does it need reshaping?" I was too close to answer that, and a long way from feedback. I moved on. In my heart of hearts, I knew there were better approaches but I lacked the comfort of funds, so investigation wasn't an option. Besides, it was still a hobby. Did I plan to go DIY? I saw no choice. New authors produce first novels. First novels are best kept locked away in a drawer, hoping no one reads them; or (in my case) kept for practice. Many new authors go on to sell a few copies to friends and families. It’s a hobby and a fine one. You learn how to put a PDF together; you Photoshop-up a half-way reasonable cover – and if that doesn't appeal there’s plenty of stock imagery out there. Then you get to make friends with local book-sellers and libraries. Soon your edition has gone from sales of 10 units to say 100 and you can get stuck into decisions such as how many to print (economic order quantity for the business inclined). That’s a long road which begins with up front financial commitment, a dry garage and benign family arrangements. So, back to me – before I spent, how ready was I? How much confidence had I in my book? What was acceptable quality? What did I do to reach that bar? These are big, big questions which each author must decide for themselves. Anecdotal evidence suggests that a high proportion of self-published product doesn't make the grade. The follow on question to this, kind of asks itself: Am I self-critical enough? The only way is feedback. Parlour: So tell us about that. What was your experience regarding feedback? T.P. Archie: Completing that first draft gave me a tremendous burst of energy. There was so much more to write. What did I do? Jump the gun or wait? There were troublesome areas but I was too close to it to deal properly with them myself. I needed feedback and had none. So I seeded drafts to those who thought they might like to read it through, and I waited. I hoped that this would put me in a better position to know if it was worth writing more. It was only hobby time, but I might as well get it right. I waited for feedback ... and waited. It was a long time coming. That time was frustrating, to put it mildly. While I waited, I reacquainted myself with the rudiments of grammar and punctuation. I joined writing groups and reluctantly practised short stories. There’s nothing like reading out loud for finding flaws in your work. Finally I got feedback from my draft. It became clear that I needed to reshape Guide. I realised there was still a long way to go and I had to up my game. The stage points of that journey weren't yet clear. I continue to practise short stories, which, contrary to my initial opinion, gave significant benefit. Parlour: How long did it take to get Guide from the conception stage to the marketplace? I ask because some of the conversations I have with more inexperienced indie writers leave me worrying that they might not be being realistic about the length of time the process takes. T.P. Archie: A quick answer is four years. Could I have done it quicker? No. Longer answer: At the time, I thought I would be finished with the process in six months. Having said that, it’s worth pointing out that my original objective wasn't writing per se. In fact, it didn't matter if I couldn't write; my objective was to test a software package. It was only when I’d "done enough" for that initial purpose (my target was 8k words) that I realised I had something to say. Basically, I was a committed hobbyist who got sucked in. My early view changed from "let’s do 8k words" to "I bet I can finish this off in 60k words". I gave myself three months to get to first draft (it took three and a half) and a further three to tidy things up. This latter goal was totally unrealistic – it assumed a level of proficiency in editing my work that I didn't possess. The three months for first draft misled me because the effort, although considerable, was compacted together. Much longer was needed to give Guide a finished gloss. How long would I allow now? It would make me uncomfortable to imagine I could do it in less than a year. At the moment I’d calculate the minimum time as:
Why all that extra time? There’s little chance that Guide could have been ready earlier than it was. I wanted to get things right. While I waited for feedback there were things I could do that wouldn't be a waste of time. First things first: a test of commitment, learn the ropes. I learned Lulu (POD/ Print on Demand), dabbled with Photoshop, put work into devising blurb, table of contents, copyright, permission to quote. The drip of feedback began. I got stuck into editing. The more I did, the bigger Guide got. It started at 60k words and grew to 80k. Then I received good-quality feedback. A complete rethink was required. I needed to convince myself that there was mileage in the next step. Plusses and minuses two years after first draft would have read:
With hindsight, I now know that my product wasn't ready; I needed to develop as an author. What wasn't clear was how much time was required to become half-way competent. Much of the past four years has been spent looking for feedback and dealing with it. I've a better idea how much work goes into publishing. Using other expertise means you spend more time in your comfort zone. I've spent a lot of time in business, enough to know that I've little interest in activity that adds little value. Successful authors should prioritise and focus on what they’re good at: writing. During this time the stages I went through were:
Parlour: Some independent authors take a completely do-it-yourself approach to the self-publishing process – including the cover design, editing and proofreading. Why did you decide to hire an editorial professional, how did you go about the task, and what qualities were you looking for? T.P. Archie: By 2012 I’d done all I could, Guide could progress further. I rested it. A change of circumstances made that extra investment possible. Browsing on Goodreads gave me the idea that it needed other eyes, and that proofreading might be worth looking into. I ranked proofreaders; you came top. Hiring an editor was a leap in the dark. I’d little idea of how to proceed so I went with gut instinct. Stephen Cashmore became Guide’s editor. Parlour: What were the biggest benefits of hiring an editor? T.P. Archie: It smoothed out my style and helped me understand what worked and what didn't. This has given me confidence in my other projects. Parlour: Any challenges? T.P. Archie: Definitely. The main one was to disengage thoroughly from the story design in mind – i.e. what I meant to convey – and actually deal with the editorial comment. I flip-flopped on some changes; in others, what I thought I needed to do didn't work. At times I needed to check my original intent; fortunately, my notes plus backups were up to the task. I found the editing process to be very helpful. Parlour: If you could do it all over again, would you do anything differently? T.P. Archie: Interesting question. As far as the actual writing goes, things fell out as they did. The main characters had been in my head for some years. I felt little urge to write something I could get over the counter; the piece was always going to become complex. The decisions affecting the outcome couldn't be envisaged until after first draft. Some were merely opportunities, which if not pressed would have held me back – e.g. I pushed for the local writing group to reform, even though I knew little of writing and less of those who would come to make up that group. Selecting an editor was an act of faith but there was a real choice. I wasn't entirely sure how things would progress. Different outcomes were possible – but given a rewind, I’d be unlikely to do anything differently. I still have more to learn. Parlour: Many of this blog’s readers are editors and proofreaders. Is there any advice you’d like to offer to us about dealing with independent authors so that we can do our very best for you? I currently publish a set of Guidelines for New Authors, and, like many other editorial professionals, I'm keen to ensure I offer indie writers the information that’s most helpful to them. So what should we be doing and what might we do better? T.P. Archie: Many potential clients don’t have a literary background and so won’t understand the value of your services. I think it’s worth taking me as an example ... In 2012, Guide had progressed as far as I could take it, yet I was certain that its story was worth extra effort to get it into the marketplace. However, what to do wasn't clear. I had little idea what could be achieved and I put it on one side. I came across the SfEP by accident, while following up a comment made on Goodreads by a US proofreading business. I ran a web search, ranked the results, emailed the top ranking proofreader who helped me find an editor. Encountering you (and hence the SfEP) wasn't a guaranteed outcome. It takes courage for first time indie author to let a professional look at his work. The edit began. Issues were identified and ranked into major/moderate/minor. Changes were proposed. I prioritised my effort. Nearly all the minor changes were accepted without question. Suggestions for other issues were helpful and I followed many of them. Guide had several types of problem. The story structure required a rethink, the style was inconsistent, and the text was too fragmented. In many places, the pace of the plot was let down by the narrative. The benefits from the edit were significant. I put Guide into chronological order. Style excesses and inconsistencies were smoothed out. Fragmented text was joined up. I dealt with problems on a case-by-case basis. Some solutions came from my editor; dialogue translation was provided for the one chapter where Russian is spoken. This added authenticity without detracting from the pace. In another case a solution evolved in the to and fro of the edit – a lengthy dialogue was demoted to the appendices, where it actually plays better. The overall result is more readable. The edit kept me in my comfort zone and solved a major headache; knowing how much to edit, and when to stop, was now solved. I had a better idea of what worked and what didn't. In addition I got an idea of where the boundaries of taste lay (where Guide strays near the edge, it is for story purposes). The whole thing has given me a great deal of confidence; I now know thorny problem areas can be identified and improved. I'm certain my editor would agree with me if I said I was slow on the uptake. For this, and other reasons, what editors and proofreaders do needs to be out there and spelt out. A book on this sounds a good idea. [Editorial freelancers] are more likely to find value from those who are already seeking out their services. Parlour: Having now achieved that final goal of getting your novel to market, what advice would you give to any indie author who’s considering self-publishing? T.P. Archie: Self-publishing requires an author to get a lot of things right. Some of these are tasks with steep learning curves that can take an author away from his/her comfort zone. New authors need to make judgements on where their expertise stops. Where the processes are mechanical (e.g. POD formatting) it is clear if you have this right or not. As far as the actual writing goes, you are too close to your work to make that call. Any indie author seriously considering first-time publication would do well to consider putting it through copy-editing. I plan to do this with my next novel. In the case of Guide some kind of final check was needed. Proofreading seemed a good idea; it actually needed copy-editing. That process was well worthwhile. Parlour: What does the future hold? Do you have plans for future novels, and, if so, will they be in the science fiction genre? T.P. Archie: I have four genre pieces in progress. In 2012, I dared to look forward, on the heroic assumption that Guide could be finished; I asked myself “What I would like to write next?” The ideas I liked were:
I've made starts on each of these. There are also a number of themes coming out of Guide that I would find interesting to follow up. Before that happens I’ll do a little marketing. I'm on Goodreads, where I'm planning a "giveaway". I also want to tell local newspapers about Guide. There’s a press release, some bookstores to visit and, in between, I might read a few extracts onto YouTube. I promised to inform Octagon Press, agents to the written works of Idries Shah, as well as the Department of Public Affairs at Mayo Clinics ... Parlour: Thank you so much, T.P. I think independent authors and editors/proofreaders can all learn a huge amount from the experiences you've so generously shared!
To buy A Guide to First Contact, visit Amazon or Lulu:
You can contact T.P. Archie as follows:
Louise Harnby is a fiction copyeditor and proofreader. She curates The Proofreader's Parlour and is the author of several books on business planning and marketing for editors and proofreaders.
Visit her business website at Louise Harnby | Proofreader & Copyeditor, say hello on Twitter at @LouiseHarnby, or connect via Facebook and LinkedIn. If you're an author, you might like to visit Louise’s Writing Library to access my latest self-publishing resources, all of which are free and available instantly. I was recently contacted by someone needing advice on how to go about getting in-house roles within UK publishing houses. She has no experience and, to date, all of her applications for editorial assistant-style jobs to the large presses have been unsuccessful. Now she's in the process of rethinking her strategy. She believes, rightly, that she needs to give herself a competitive edge and is contemplating enrolling in an MA in publishing. The fees are an issue for her, though, so she asked me if this was the only route in and whether I had any other advice to impart. That's a tough one. It’s been some years since I worked in-house, and last time I actually applied for a staff role was way back in 1993, after which I joined SAGE Publications. Things have changed a great deal in that time. In my day, two of the most popular places to look for publishing roles were the Guardian newspaper's Marketing & Media section and The Bookseller magazine. And I'm talking about the print versions of these publications. Mainstream use of the internet or email was in its infancy, Facebook had yet to be founded, and a tweet was a sound that a bird made. In 1993, experience counted – it always has and it always will. Having a degree helped, too (fewer people had these so they made you stand out more and they were a useful way for recruiters to filter the applications). However, the number of graduates looking for entry-level positions in any field is far greater than two decades ago, making the competition stiffer than ever. It's not that it was ever easy to get a job in publishing, but it was definitely easier. So, what about that MA? Would it be a good investment or are there other options? Needless to say, I was wary of offering advice that was hopelessly out of date. With that in mind I asked a few in-house pros what their recommendations were. Here’s a ten-point summary of the advice my staffers had to offer. 1. Competition – the reality Yes, its competitive, more so than ever. Some houses are making staff redundant rather than hiring, meaning there’s a higher number of applicants and a smaller pot of jobs. For every editorial assistant job they advertise, one of my respondents receives at least “70+ applications … unfortunately, it’s simply not possible to reply to every applicant to let them know they will not be invited for an interview”. For many organizations, the application rate is much higher. 2. Training courses “Short courses at the Publishing Training Centre are a cheaper alternative to an MA, and probably more relevant.” The PTC was mentioned by all of my respondents. If you’re not familiar with this organization, it is highly respected and often the training provider of choice for publishing houses in the UK, not only when they’re evaluating CVs but also when they’re organizing in-house staff training. There was general agreement that MAs are certainly not the only option, though they are one route. 3. Using the side door Be prepared to start at the bottom and work your way up. Some junior editorial and production staff start their publishing careers in administrative roles such as secretaries, PAs, receptionists, or similar. This route gets you "in publishing", and, once in, you'll have the inside track on recruitment opportunities. More importantly, you’ll have the chance to form friendships with staff in the department you have your eye on. You can learn from them informally, and register a strong interest in any future positions that become available. 4. Internships Internships are increasingly the name of the game – both paid and unpaid, and sometimes several rounds for a number of different companies. They give you an on-site taster of exactly what the job entails. Send in your CV and a letter enquiring about work experience/internships. Anthony Haynes, on his Monographer blog, advises finding the actual names of the relevant people. I wholeheartedly agree. Your letter is less likely to fall foul of the crumple and toss if it ends up on the appropriate person's desk. One of the publishing people I talked to suggested that companies will keep CVs on file for about six months and get in touch if any opportunities do arise. And while you may baulk at the idea of working for free, having no experience can only do you harm in today's market. “Work experience reflects well as it demonstrates that someone is prepared to work hard for an insight into the industry and is unlikely to ‘flake out’ after trying the job for only a few weeks/months. There’s nothing worse than training someone who claims to be sure they want the role, only for them to quit when they realise it’s not all ‘pretty books’ and grateful authors!” Publishers offering internships must take care to operate within the law. Unpaid internships are illegal in certain circumstances. See the UK government's Employment rights and pay for interns. 5. Use social media and the web If you don’t already have a Twitter account, get one and start following all the publishers you are interested in. This will provide you with a one-stop feed that will inform you when these companies are recruiting or when they are doing an internship drive. Check out all the publisher websites for similar details. Take the utmost care with your presentation at all times, even when using social media informally – you never know when the person to whom you’ve sent your CV is checking your social media feeds: “Sloppy grammar (even on Facebook), is a little worrying, as it says to me that this person only switches on their ‘attention to detail’ when they think necessary, which doesn’t fit the profile of someone genuinely interested in and capable of undertaking such a role.” 6. Open days Some publishers, like Penguin, run open days for graduates who want to get a feel for the kinds of opportunities available and the skills needed. Attending these can be an excellent way to get valuable advice from those in the know. 7. Spotless grammar and spelling All of my staffers agreed that top-notch spelling and grammar are absolutely essential! Your covering letters and CVs need to be spotless. "Attention to detail is of the utmost importance … a silly typo or poorly constructed cover letter and CV mark the difference between a positive and negative outcome,” said one of my respondents. 8. Recruitment agencies Sign up with publishing recruitment agencies like Inspired Selection and Atwood Tate. Some publishers recruit solely through them. They will also be able to give some helpful advice on your CV, interviewing skills, etc. 9. Don't focus solely on the large houses While some of the larger presses such as Random House, Macmillan, Faber and Penguin do regular internships, they naturally attract more applicants. In addition, consider contacting smaller presses about work experience. This can be invaluable experience because in smaller presses in-house staff often have to work within a broader remit. The breadth of your learning experience might well enable you to bring more to the table when you are selling on your experience. I know I don't need to say this, but just in case you don't realize, "small" doesn't equate to "less respected". Small presses are doing mighty things within the publishing industry. One of my local independents, Salt Publishing, has a Man Booker shortlisted author on its books. And the Independent Publishers Guild Awards are an annual industry highlight! 10. Cast your net wide When I was applying for publishing jobs in the 1990s, I learned quickly that if you want to maximize your chances of success, applying for a job here and a job there won't make the cut. Be prepared to cast your net as wide as you can. I sent a lot of applications – and I mean a lot. I got no reply to most, a "thank you but, no, we won't be taking your application any further" from a few, and the opportunity to interview for even fewer. But I landed a job eventually and once I had a foot in, other doors opened far more easily. The rest is history. Tenacity will always pay higher dividends than narrowly focused pessimism, so keep trying! Summing up One of my publisher contacts summed it up nicely: "Looking at my own career trajectory, and of those colleagues hired just before or in the months after me, in roles similar to, or within a grade or two of mine, and asking people I know in similar publishing houses, it seems that there isn't a single route into in-house roles. Internships, moves across [departments], and MAs in publishing can all be seen.” There are no rights or wrongs. You’ll need to be committed and persistent, and the more experience you can gain and the more contacts you make, the better your chances. I hope these tips are useful. Good luck on your publishing journey! With thanks to the in-house publishing pros who took the time to share their knowledge and advice.
Recent weeks have seen the publication of a number of really interesting resources* that focus the editorial freelancer's attention on pricing structures. I thought I'd jot down my views on the issue, particularly since it's one of those that new entrants to the field are often most curious about.
An effective pricing strategy is central to any serious marketing plan, since marketing our services is about making ourselves interesting to potential clients. How we present our prices to our clients is therefore important. I'm actually less interested in what my colleagues charge than how they present that fee. Talk of pricing in our community has a tendency to generate controversy, as discussed in my colleague Adrienne Montgomerie's recent post on Copyediting.com.* That's because one of the most well-used concepts in the world of sales – that of the discount – can end up being overused, not because members of the editorial community are deliberately trying to undercut each other, but because many of us live in a culture where deals are the norm. Whether we're in the supermarket or the book store, we'll be confronted with BOGOFs, three-for-two offers, or 25% discounts. Sales take place all year round these days and there's always a bargain to be had somewhere. What does this mean for editorial freelancers? Is giving money off the only way to get attention? In a comment that I wrote in response to Adrienne's excellent article, I put forward the idea of value-on thinking, as opposed to a money-off approach when considering the pricing of editorial services. What's wrong with discounting? There's nothing intrinsically wrong with the concept of discounting. This strategy has been used effectively since people began trading goods and services, but my own view is that it needs to be used with care. Here are three reasons why:
Putting yourself in your customer's shoes There are ways of presenting a quotation to a client that have a value-on rather than money-off focus. And they're not hard to find, even for the newbie. One simple way of working out how to structure your own quotations in a value-on way can be achieved by putting yourself in your customer's shoes. Take my recent purchase of a new computer, for example. Prior to visiting the store I jotted down some notes about what I wanted, in order of importance:
It was obvious to me that I wasn't going to get that package by looking for the cheapest pc on the market. If I wanted cheap, I'd have to sacrifice my top three preferences. I did have a budget in mind before I started my research, but it was never going to be about just the price. This was going to be my new business computer – I needed it to do what it said on the tin, first and foremost. It's not that I had a bottomless purse, but price was one factor among several and had to be balanced against functionality. A value-on alternative to editorial pricing I believe that a lot of my customers are just like me – they have a list of things that they want from me. Price will be in there, but it will be one factor among many. I like to structure my quotations with that in mind. As part of my request for a quotation I therefore do the following:
In this way, the price I offer them is framed within the value of what I'm bringing to the table. They can see what they're getting and why I think I'm worth it. Rather than getting their attention by talking about what they save, I focus on what they gain. Don't be afraid If you're a new entrant to the field, it can seem like the most obvious thing in the world to say, "Okay, I'm new at this so I'd better not charge too much. And even if I'm good at this, I don't have a huge portfolio of clients to brag about so I better go in low – that way I'll get the client's attention." You may be right. You may well attract those clients that are only interested in the cheapest deal. But it's worth considering that not all clients are looking for cheap. In fact, that's not top of the list for many customers. Most of the people who ask me to proofread for them want a top-notch job and don't baulk at the fee I suggest. Many self-publishers and business owners may not have used a proofreader or editor before. They're therefore more interested in trust, engagement, ability and quality. If you can think about the interesting things that you bring to the table and that are of value to the client (for example, previous relevant career experience; industry-recognized training; testimonials; professional code of conduct; a commitment to quality; a readiness to take the time to understand exactly what they need), then you can use these USPs as part of your quotation. By placing your price within a framework of value, you shift the emphasis towards the professional, high-quality service that you offer and away from the financial hit they'll take. *** What do you think? Do you use the discount as a primary sales tool when quoting for a new client or do you have alternative ways of framing your quotations?
* Related resources:
|
BLOG ALERTSIf you'd like me to email you when a new blog post is available, sign up for blog alerts!
TESTIMONIALSDare Rogers'Louise uses her expertise to hone a story until it's razor sharp, while still allowing the author’s voice to remain dominant.'Jeff Carson'I wholeheartedly recommend her services ... Just don’t hire her when I need her.'J B Turner'Sincere thanks for a beautiful and elegant piece of work. First class.'Ayshe Gemedzhy'What makes her stand out and shine is her ability to immerse herself in your story.'Salt Publishing'A million thanks – your mark-up is perfect, as always.'CATEGORIES
All
ARCHIVES
July 2024
|
|
|