Wrestling with Stories, Ideas, and Mental Burnout

I recently saw a discussion on the FreelanceSuccess.com forum of what to do when your idea well is running dry. The major schools of thought were to stop thinking about the problem - taking a break, basically - or to find sources of inspiration in a given topic.

That made sense to me in the light of my own experience - we all get that drained sense at one time or another - but I kept wondering why. What is it about getting away that helps? Why does seeing more on the same subject spark new ideas? The greater a grasp writers have of this issue, the more efficiently they might find a way out of the problem when it happens.

Then I saw some connections, literally. For a moment, consider the difference between an idea and a story. The former is a notion or concept that grabs your attention and interest. A story is when you take the initial idea and develop it - consider the questions it raises, understand its implications, find one facet (a story angle) on which you will focus, decide on what types of information and resources you'll need to explore the angle, and develop an expression of what is now a story that you can pitch to an editor. Development depends as much on the specific writer as it does on the idea. That's why two writers can take an identical angle on the same story and still come up with two entirely different treatments.

When writers feel that they are coming up dry, it's generally not in the story development. There you can run into barriers or difficulties - where to get this statistic or who might offer a cogent view and expertise on a specific area of knowledge. You're not going to fall into that desperate emptiness of feeling that you're out of ideas and nothing new comes to mind.

That is a problem whether you're doing editorial or corporate work, because in both cases you need to tell the story, and to do that you need the initial idea. Either you face economic problems by not being able to generate enough work, or your craft suffers as everything you write starts sounding the same.

Generally I've found that one of two things spark an idea - either a piece of information new to you raises questions or captures your interest, or you see a new potential relationship among things you knew before. But there's something common here. An "idea" for a writer seems to be an incomplete new path of association. The new information starts a chain of associations or a new developing chain suddenly links at least two things for the writer that weren't connected in that way before. You start with certain groups of information, and suddenly you wonder what the nature of something is, or what ramifications it has on the way people normally perceive or understand the world. A previously unconsidered new set of associations between information you may have had before suddenly presents a brand new picture.

That gives a way of looking at going dry. Nothing seems new because you are not experiencing a new set of associations - learning, if you will. You're effectively in a literal intellectual and emotional rut. Your wheels are stuck in those tracks and you keep running along the same thoughts and feelings. No wonder you can't get a new idea; every time you want to take a turn, it's as though you're on one of those kid's amusement rights where a fake antique car goes around a track guided by a rail. Steer as much as you want, you won't go in a new direction.

The reason it's necessary to understand this is practical. No technique for creating new associations will work every time, and if you don't understand what you're trying to do, one day you'll find that method doesn't give you the jolt you needed. To jump the tracks, you need new ideas, and if I'm right about the nature of ideas for writers, this could happen either on the side of what you know or on the side of how you associate things. From that, you can guess at some things that might help:

• take a course (an area that might help you write or something completely different from what you've done before)


• read a book (learn about a topic you know little about, gain exposure to good writing, read deeply about something where you have surface knowledge)


• get away from your desk and go someplace different (a "mini-vacation" or maybe the Starbucks phenomenon of working elsewhere)


• go to a source about a topic you cover where you're likely to learn new information or associations (attend a trade show, do a background interview of an expert)


• look differently at what you do know (draw as many connections as you can between things you have never looked at as related, ask new questions about topics you've covered, assume that something you think you know is wrong and see what logical conclusions that would create)


• take a topic and consider what it would be like in another place or time or with a different set of people or circumstances

These are only examples, but I'm sure you can see where it's going: when you know the two main factors that make up ideas, you can start consciously planning how to change them to break your old associations and free yourself up for a new idea. It becomes a way to methodically think and feel differently to create new associations - about how to new associations as a path to new ideas.

Electronic Rights Article

I recnetly saw a Mediabistro.com discussion about electronic rights where a number of people said they found the concept confusing. There's a good reason - they are confusing. So while I'm not a lawyer, I have put together my understanding of and research into the subject. You can check the Electronic Rights link under Writers Resources in the left hand part of the web page or just click here.

Free BBC Online Courses

If you've ever thought that doing some radio or TV might be interesting, here's a great resource: BBC online courses. From handling microphones and cameras to editing, production, and how to interview for the radio, there's a ton (or should that be tonne?) of solid information from people who are acknowledged experts. There are also other resources, including interviews with BBC reporters, BBC news style guides, and articles on improving your production skills. And if you're using the online materials and not looking for face-to-face courses, it's free.

Review: Disney Internet Group Standard Contract

Some people have sent me the standard contract from the Walt Disney Internet Group - online division of the Mouse King. Although I can't reproduce the whole thing, as that would be copyright infringement, I can address some of the points that jumped out at me, (though please remember that I'm not a lawyer and that this doesn't pretend to be legal advice, and you get no guarantee, promise, or even word of sympathy from me if you use my advice):

• In the first section, you'll likely be asked to suggest a hed and dek, each specified in the number of words or characters, respectively. It doesn't make any real difference, but it's interesting to see how formatting can play a role in deliverables. In the same section, you are to provide "a suggested byline" and a biography. That certainly makes it sound as though you aren't guaranteed a byline, though that point doesn't seem to be directly addressed at all in the contract.


• Payment is "conditioned on timely delivery," in clause 2. That sounds like a variation on the "time is of the essence" clause. You are essentially guaranteeing on-time delivery, and acknowledging that if you don't, that might be grounds for them to cancel the assignment.


• Section 3 makes this the terms that will govern anything you write for WDIG for the next year. Only the company can terminate the agreement; you can't. That means there is no way for you to force the issue of reexamining the conditions by terminating the contract before taking another assignment.


• Section 5 says that this is work made for hire, so the Mighty Virtual Mouse becomes the legal author and you lose any right to do anything else with the piece. They can do whatever they want with it and you don't get another penny. You also grant the company the right to use your name and likeness "in connection with the Work or in connection with the Service." That means you could be helping to promote something other than your writing. That might seem far-fetched, but it's explicitly allowed by this wording. That gets more complicated with section 8, in which you say they can "edit, remove, modify, or alter, in whole or in part, any Work done persuant to this Agreement, in WDIG's sole and absolute discretion." So they can change anything and not ask you, possibly introducing errors or slants with which you disagree, and still attach your name to them.


• Section 6 has you guaranteeing that you won't infringe on any rights - but it already contains the word "knowingly." So it's actually a pretty reasonable formulation - bully for them.


• For some reason, section 9 reiterates the warranty of section 6 and adds additional ones. This is also the indemnification section and is unisgnable, in my opinion, at least, because of the "alleged breach" language. It's one thing to indemnify what you actually do, but quite another to indemnify for something that someone claims you did, even if you didn't. Also, this contract is unusual in that it covers not just the article, but "any acts done or words spoken by you, unless such words have been specifically supplied by us..." What if someone claims you said something? How the hell do you prove that you didn't? The good news is that apparently the company is willing to drop the problematic language, so be sure to ask. A good point is that the company indemnifies the writer for anything it adds to your writing, which saves you from having to argue that in a court, should the issue come up - a good addition that all publishers should embrace.

As always, if you come across an interesting contract, feel free to send a copy my way.

Simon & Schuster Takes Aim at AG

Last Friday I mentioned the Authors Guild warning about the new Simon & Schuster contract changing so that a book could effectively be "in print" forever, and how that has been creeping into publishing for years.

Early this week, S & S decided to fire back with an open letter "To Our Colleagues in the Author and Agent Community." The company made its central point in the first two graphs:

The Authors Guild has recently perpetrated serious misinformation regarding Simon & Schuster, our author contracts and our commitment to making our authors’ books available for sale. Unfortunately, these distortions were released by the Authors Guild without their having undertaken any effort to have a dialogue with Simon and Schuster on this topic.

In recent years, Simon & Schuster has accepted, at the request of some agencies, contract language that specifies a minimum level of activity for print on demand titles. Our experience with the current high quality and accessibility of print on demand titles indicates to us that such minimums are no longer necessary. Our position on reversions for active titles remains unchanged. As always, we are willing to have an open and forthright dialogue on this or any other topic.

Let's start taking this apart. The first graph is rhetoric - distortions without having trying to have dialog? That's a corporate way of saying that unfavorable news leaked out. Surely the company knows how professional writers would react. Did it seek to have "dialog" with the Authors Guild? Apparently not; it put the clause into contracts and, according to the AG, agents are reporting that S & S will not remove the passage. I guess talk is talk and printed contracts are something else.

Now for the second paragraph. Historically, the minimums were never to ensure a given quality of printing; they were to ensure a sufficient level of commitment on the part of the publisher. If you have to keep inventory, then you have an inducement to get it the hell out of your warehouse. And, again with the dialog - who cares if they won't negotiate the point.

Then the letter goes on to ask authors and agents to consider a number of points:

• Through print on demand technology, publishers now have the ability, for the first time in history, to actually fulfill the promise which is at the core of their contracts with authors – to keep the author’s book available for sale over the term of the license.

Oh, please. A publisher is interested in profit. The core of the contract was to ensure that the publisher made reasonable efforts in exploiting the rights it was granted so that both it and the author could make money. Keeping something available for purchase means nothing if you aren't promoting the item, unless it has so much self-renewing demand - like The Catcher in the Rye - that the publisher almost couldn't screw things up even if it wanted to. Also, virtually every book contract I've reviews as ASJA Contracts Committee chair was for the length of copyright. That means past when the author dies. Having an ebook or POD text in a database isn't promoting the book.


• We view this progress as a great opportunity to maximize the sales potential for slow moving titles, and some of the best news for authors and publishers in a long time. The potential benefit for all concerned in incremental income for the publishing partnership far outweighs any imaginary negatives purported by the Authors Guild.

This may be good news for publishers - get a bit more from that old dog in the virtual warehouse. But for authors? Not a chance. If there are dribs and drabs coming in through someone finding a book online, why not use POD yourself and get all the money coming in and not some small slice of royalty. Also note that many royalty clauses actually reduce the percentage for POD and ebook versions.


• We and others are investing heavily in digitization so that authors and publishers can reap the maximum benefit of publication over the long term. New technologies including print on demand will extend the life of a book far beyond what has been possible in the past.

Yes, they will extend the life, but again it's the publisher that will really benefit. Most books never earn out their advances, so as these sales continue of their own accord and with absolutely no help from the publisher, the writer will likely never see another penny.


• Contrary to the Authors Guild assertion, using technologies like print on demand is not about “squirreling away” rights, nor does it mean that “no copies are available to be ordered by traditional bookstores.” Print on demand is simply a means of manufacturing a book, making it widely available to retailers and consumers.

POD and ebooks are technologies, but they have an impact. They are considered "versions" of a book, and if your contract says that a title is in print so long as any version exists, that means the rights are perpetually theirs. The intent doesn't have to be focused on keeping the rights to make the effect that.


• Publishers must and will continue to invest in sales and marketing organizations that work on behalf of its books regardless of how they are manufactured.

A publisher works on PR and marketing - in a minimum way for the vast majority of titles and for only three months. After that, it's the author doing all the work. This claim of S&S is actually laughable if you have any experience in the industry. And then there are all the ways in which they claim to promote. Stores don't stock backlist books unless they move heavily, and the publishers are the whipping posts of the retailers. The sales team reviewing "inventory opportunities?" That means pushing new titles, not keeping old ones in place. Category promotions? How many of the backlist books actually appear?

Yes, POD and virtually warehousing provide important tools for publishers - and I think they should use them. But lets stick with some level of sales activity that they create. If they can't do that, then they're not doing their jobs, and they shouldn't keep the benefit of the rights that they licensed.

UPDATE: According to the Authors Guild, Simon & Schuster is now saying that it will negotiate the rights reversion clause "on a book-by-book basis."

Pen-Ultimate Freelance Job Site Guide

Sorry for the pun (alright, not really), and this isn't intended as the absolute "ultimate" guide, but the sites that you can find in the Freelance Job Sites link under Resources (on the left) work and don't require a fee. If you like checking Craigslist, then look at the FreelanceWriting.com Career Center, which, somewhere down the page, has a compendium of listings from the different CL locations.

Keeping Quiet About Your Problems

Gawker has had a couple of pieces recently that have been making the rounds on the writers boards. One is about a New Yorker writer looking for donations to pay for rescuing his digital images from a crashed hard drive. The other concerns a writer who allegedly used a pseudonym to keep touting the glories of his own writing to Gawker.

It amazes me the types of habits and predilections a writer will advertise in public. The New Yorker popular music critic has this request for up to $5,000 in donations posted on his home page - and he wasn't going to send individual thanks to the donors, though he's willing to post an "honor roll" of those who got his data life together. How the hell does he think people in the industry, including his bosses, are going to see this? Here's a clue: corporations often do things like running background and credit checks to make sure employees or job applicants aren't going to be tempted to steal or sell off inside company information.

As for promoting via a fake email address, don't writers read news stories about authors getting outed for posting anonymous reviews on their own books? Do such people really not realize that they're not as clever as they think? That many people don't know how to uncover subterfuges unless the perpetrator is unusually skilled in technology?

But before you scoff as these displays, consider what you might be doing without realizing it. Have you ever posted on a writers' board asking whether you could get away with something that might be seen as in an ethical grey area? Ever asked about something that you wouldn't want an editor or client to know? Depending on the discretion of strangers is unwise, and you never know when that editorial client might also have access to the same board.

There's nothing wrong with being ignorant of one thing or another. (If there were, we'd all be in constant trouble.) There's nothing wrong with asking for help or in asking "dumb" questions. And there's no value in pretending to be more than you are, because the truth generally works its way out.

However, there is such a thing as being too forthcoming. You hopefully wouldn't go around telling everyone in sight about your problems in relationships, money, and self-control. Why ever would you do the same for professional weaknesses? Develop relationships with colleagues you can respect, learn which ones you can trust, and ask what you need to ask so you can learn to improve. But don't take out the online equivalent of full page ads showing you dressed in fool's motley. It's a way of building and promoting a questionable reputation ... which isn't smart business.

Better Way to Web Pay Writers Say

The Writers Guild of America, both the East and West divisions, are the major professional organizations for those who write movie and television scripts. And the entire organization is pushing for writers to get a cut of what the studios will be making online, according to an LA Times story.

The studios are calling the stance an attack on the entire business and further demanding that the industry revisit how it allots residuals - the money paid for reruns and reuse of same movies and TV shows. They only want to start paying after a show breaks even.

Let's take this argument apart a bit. Here's something from the story:

Chief studio negotiator J. Nicholas Counter, president of the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers, called the demands an "assault on the entire industry."

"We are committed to making a deal — one that is fair to both sides … one that is realistic, reasonable and respects our contributions and our business needs as well as theirs," he said.

So, is the negotiator tacitly admitting that a percentage is fair and only disagreeing with the amount? Or is he pulling what newspaper and magazine publishers still claim to writers: that there's no revenue to be had from the Internet? If that's the case, then obviously there should be no problem in offering a percentage of the nothing they get. If there is revenue, it's unreasonable for the the studios to divert everything into their own pockets.

As far as residuals, when does "break even" happen? Anyone who has watched chronicles of the business dealings in Hollywood knows that the answer is often never, after the accountants are through with such things as deducing the money that the studio would have made had it invested in something else instead. After all, not not only are there expenses from money the studios spent, but from what they didn't spend. And are these people suggesting that they get free air time, free engineering, free ... everything, until they decide that they've broken even? Tell you what, as we're only writers, let's make it simple to understand and leave the high finance out. If the studio heads want writers to forgo their share of these new revenue streams, that's fine - so long as the studio heads have their entire compensation cut equivalently. I'm sure that will work; I hear that climate change is going to bring a freak snowstorm to the ninth circle of hell.

Stalking the Wild Deal-Killer

For those who might not yet have run across the term, a deal-killer in the contract world is a condition that puts you at such potential disadvantage that you have walk away from the work.

Not all people have the same deal-killers. If a significant part of your business is reselling articles, you are more sensitive to extensive rights licensing than someone who doesn't bother reseller, or who is doing corporate work. One person might find pay on publication (where you don't get paid until the article runs) unacceptable while another will hold his or her nose because for other reasons a clip in a specific magazine could help increase a public profile.

But there are some terms that should be deal-breakers for all writers, because the danger so strongly outweighs the return. I ran into one this weekend on a book contract that sought not only indemnification if I breached a set of warranties, or promises, but if there was an allegation that, if proved true, would be a breach.

Now, the topic wasn't one that would cause a libel suit nor an action over having invaded someone's privacy. But there are a lot of kooks in the world, and the topic isn't new. Even though I know I wouldn't infringe someone's copyright, could I be that sure that no one would ever accuse me of doing so? Such unfounded claims are hardly unknown in the publishing world.

If I signed a contract with that particular phrase, I'd be liable for the economic damages, including legal fees, that the publisher would face - whether I had done something or not. And contrary to the opinions of many, and something I used to think myself, some major publishers actually do pursue reimbursement from writers over such things. As it stands now, I've let my agent know and we're waiting to hear back from the publishing house. Should they refuse to back down, I'll be walking away from the contract, even though it would be a handy amount of work to lock down.

Any time you look at a contract, you may be in a position where you feel that you need the income or the credit or the opportunity and that saying no is impossible. But realize that you might be in a position where saying yes should be unthinkable, once you realize what the cost could be. Read carefully; sometimes "No" is the best answer.

Ignoring Being Ignored

When clients don’t respond, don’t take it personally

You’ve read the writers guidelines or asked how the company prefers to deal with writers. After creating a pitch so perfect that the organization should use it as a model of what to do, you send it off. A week passes, then two, then a month, three, and … nothing. Not a single blessed word.

Every writer knows what goes through you at such a moment: rage, indignation, depression, self-pity, and the certain knowledge that you are a victim of cruel indifference. You want to pick up the phone and scream or dash off a nasty message. How dare they ignore you! After the time you spent writing the query or introductory letter. You’ve spent time and possibly even time that won’t come back, and can’t even get the courtesy of a reply.

Go ahead and let that howling inner voice shout – for about 30 seconds. And then … just … get … over … it. This is business.

Any time you deal with people as a writer (or an accountant or plumber or electrician, for that matter), you learn that the world is full of callous and indifferent people. Not all are like that, but many are. This happens to absolutely every writer, even big names. But one of the biggest differences I see between amateurs and true pros is the ability to separate writing from business.

Yes, you’re right. Common courtesy would suggest that at least a brief answer was in order. Like its cousin, common sense, courteousness is hardly customary. More often than not you’ll assume that clients must have astronomical star quality, because they are such black holes.

Nevertheless, it’s business. That means it isn’t and can’t be personal. This is a systematic attempt for you to gain some things that you want, not a touchstone for your ego. To keep it properly impersonal, set the right attitude. No matter how rude someone is, you must brush it off. When you think of it, to set your self value on the reaction of people you’ve never met is pretty silly.

More crucially, being ignored is unimportant. Are you writing to be famous and admired? (There are more efficient ways of achieving this.) Or do you wish to write things of worth that might help people? This isn’t a rhetorical question. Getting better known certainly means a greater chance of getting work published, but even then it’s using notoriety as a means to an end, and not the end itself. When the ego predominates, the quality of the word receeds.

To some degree, both answers are in each of us, and in one situation after another we all must choose between them, because at their essence they are incompatible. If you pick the former, then nothing really will make you happy. Trying to make art serve you never works and ultimately is always a disappointment.

On the other hand, if you pick the latter, then your duty is to your work and not your bruised feelings. The more of your energy you pour into anger, the less you have to be productive. To let yourself slide off into fury and stay there is not to justifiably react to an insult, but to actively cause harm to yourself and that work, which should be greater than you.

You best do justice to the higher cause of what you try to achieve by treating such problems as business – ironic, as creative people widely distain business as a base activity. After you’ve contacted a client, put on your business hat and don’t react. Use your imagination to remove the indignation. Unfeeling and uncaring oafs might populate a given organization – or some overwhelmed staff person could have lost your letter. Someone might have accidentally dropped your query into the “already answered” pile. People might be massively overworked and embarrassed. Emails might be going into a spam filter. (This is far more common than you might think.) Lash out and your action might be unfair and burn a bridge in a world that is small, and where people talk.

Even when – not if – someone clearly ignores you, gnash your teeth briefly if you must, and then forget it. Consider the value of the information you now have. A company that would treat writers as unworthy of a response is unlikely to treat you with respect should someone there ask you to take an assignment. Anyway, you can still get your answer. Wait the amount of time the organization requests, give it a couple of more weeks, and then contact it and politely and pleasantly ask where things are. If the representatives say they need more time, be gracious and agree – and ask when you should contact them again. Being pleasant and upbeat, you put them into a position of feeling an obligation of courtesy, and being persistent, they cannot hide.

Will you still feel irritated from time to time? Of course; you’re human. But as you practice this approach, you’ll find that it bothers you less each occasion, and by taking your ego out of the way, you can make better decisions of how to move your plays forward.

Don't Flatter Those Clients - But Compliment Them

Anyone who has ever taken my marketing class knows I feel strongly that part of effectively placing your work and services is to unerstand the needs of the client, practical and emotional. Part of that emotional need may be ego. Yet I'd say never, never use flattery to land a client.

In a previous occupation as head of product marketing at a publicly-held direct marketer of specialty software and hardware, my department was responsible for deciding what we would actively carry and promote. When you are a professional buyer - and editors are certainly that - you become wary of people buttering you up, because it happens all the time. The act telegraphs that the product or service probably isn't that compelling, and that the salesperson thinks you enough of a rube to fall for a line. In other words, flattery becomes an immediate red flag.

Flattering someone for calculated effect has an undermining effect on your own psychology. It's manipulative, and so a distasteful activity. In addition, if you keep pursuing the tactic, you undermine your own confidence in your work, making you rely on flattery even more and undermine your own marketing and sales.

Instead of flattery, consider offering a compliment at the right time. Although they sound the same, they aren't. The former is praise either falsely given or delivered in excess in an attempt to influence someone. In its most obvious form, there is actually a rhetorical term, appeal to flattery, that is one of the classic logical fallacies.

But a compliment? It's something that you know is deserved, and it's rightful place is after you've worked with a client - possibly a number of times. The person who might distrust flattery can still appreciate a sincere expression of appreciation. Think of how you feel when a client praises a particularly good piece of work. Often, especially in editorial settings, the client (editor, in this case) also does work, and if the edit is particularly pleasing, definitely let the editor know that you appreciate the results.

Authors Guild Warns of "Simon & Schuster Rights Grab"

I've had a number of writers pass on news of an Authors Guild warning about book publisher Simon & Schuster. You can see the original message, but here's the heart of it:

Until now, Simon & Schuster, like all other major trade publishers, has followed the traditional practice in which rights to a work revert to the author if the book falls out of print or if its sales are low.

The publisher is signaling that it will no longer include minimum sales requirements for a work to be considered in print. Simon & Schuster is apparently seeking nothing less than an exclusive grant of rights in perpetuity. Effectively, the publisher would co-own your copyright.

The new contract would allow Simon & Schuster to consider a book in print, and under its exclusive control, so long as it’s available in any form, including through its own in-house database -- even if no copies are available to be ordered by traditional bookstores.

This may be new for S&S, but this is hardly news. Book publishers have for some years have been redefining "out of print." If you have a recent book contract, look and see if there is wording to the effect that a book is in print so long as at least one version is available. Now see if you granted rights to create e-books or print-on-demand delivery or even more general "electronic" rights that a publisher can use to make a title capable of being searched through an online book seller (think Amazon) or search engine (like Google). If so, and if they've produced such a version, then you, my friend, are stuck - at least until 35 years go by and, under US copyright law, you rescind any previous license.

Reading and understanding contracts is a vital part of having a viable writing business. You can't just look for a checklist that someone provides you. No guidelines that have ever been produced yet can envision every single possible twist and turn that business models and, as a result, contracts will take. Don't rely on what other writers tell you or what agents suggest. Learn enough about publishing contracts to smell when something is fishy, and whenever possible, get a good publishing lawyer to review the document. If you won't go to any trouble to take care of your own affairs, you'll find that no one else will, either.

No Coverage Outsourcing to India ... for Now

I had mentioned the story about a web site outsourcing Pasadena city council coverage to India. Now it appears that public attention has kept the site owner from doing the outsourcing. Some writers have been passing the word triumphantly, but if anything the problem for writers is simply postponed:

"We've been prevented from doing that due to the attention that we've received," Macpherson said Monday.

What happens when the attention focuses elsewhere? Or when the next web site, or magazine or paper, does it more quietly? Polish up those skills and increase the value now. Wait, and it may be too late.

How Bad Publishers Are at Managing Royalties and Rights

I'm a fairly cynical guy when it comes to trusting what publishers do, but Art Hutchinson, a strategic planning consultant and owner of the Mapping Strategy business blog, managed to surprise me. He had posted an interesting take on a New York Times article about publishers not having a clue as to why some books sell better than others. I responded in a comment and his answer is a must read for book authors, or those who wish to be. Go to this link, scroll down, and see his post about how one major publisher only paid attention to royalties and rights for big-wig authors, and otherwise didn't worry about things.

Market Research and What Publishers Don't Know

A New York Times piece suggests that book publishers largely fly blind, knowing nothing about their readers and so essentially publishing a lot of titles, hoping that some of them work out. The reason some get high advances is that the publishers think it will be a hit - but there is apparently little correlation. Numerical analysis does enter the equation:

In estimating value, editors rely heavily on an author’s previous sales or on sales of similar titles. Based on those figures and some analysis — about the popularity of the genre, the likely audience, the possible newsworthiness of the topic of the economy — they work up profit and loss projections.

Unfortunately, publishing success often hinges on something new that hasn't been a success in the past, so the publishers are effectively trying to drive a car by looking in the rear view window and seeing where they've just been.

Sounds like the recipe for an accident, and given the low profit levels of publishing, it has been. A friend pointed me to a blog entry by one of his friends, noting that the article made a big mistake by not talking to Amazon.com, because sure Jeff Bezos is sitting on a heaping pile of customer data. So someone - the online sellers - have a much better idea of what is happening in publishing. But even if they shared, the publishers would have to be willing to change the way they do business, and having dealt with a number of them as a writer, I'm not sure that they're willing. Suggest something new and the answer is almost inevitably, "But we've never done that before."

Inspiration, Perspiration, Desperation: Sayings for Writers

I figured a collection of sayings about writing, work, business, and life. Hope it makes for a fun break:

• Good. Fast. Cheap. Pick any two. (Anon)


• Your failure to plan is not my emergency. (Anon)


• I usually get more for that. (Tim Harper)


• When the going gets tough, remember the assignment will eventually end. (Erik Sherman)


• Storytelling reveals meaning without committing the error of defining it. (Hannah Arendt)


• Nothing is really work unless you would rather be doing something else. (Sir James Barry)


• Everywhere I go I'm asked if I think the university stifles writers. My opinion is that they don't stifle enough of them. There's many a bestseller that could have been prevented by a good teacher. (Flannery O'Connor)


• To be prepared is half the victory. (Miguel Cervantes)


• Publication - is the auction of the Mind of Man. (Emily Dickinson)


• Writing is an occupation in which you have to keep proving your talent to those who have none. (Jules Renard)


• Deliver me from writers who say the way they live doesn't matter. I'm not sure a bad person can write a good book, If art doesn't make us better, then what on earth is it for. (Alice Walker)


• Asking a writer what he thinks about criticism is like asking a lamppost what it feels about dogs. (John Osborne)


• Always be smarter than the people who hire you. (Lena Horne)


• I love being a writer. What I can't stand is the paperwork. (Peter DeVries)


• No matter who says what, you should accept it with a smile and do your own work. (Mother Theresa)


• The best thing about the future is that it only comes one day at a time. (Abraham Lincoln)


• Women do not always have to write about women, or gay men about gay men. Indeed, something good and new might happen if they did not. (Kathryn Hughes)


• Most writers regard truth as their most valuable possession, and therefore are most economical in its use. (Mark Twain)


• Critics are by no means the end of the law. Do not think all is over with you because you articles are rejected. It may be that the editor has his drawer full, or that he does not know enough to appreciate you, or you have not gained a reputation, or he is not in a mood to be pleased. A critic's judgment is like that of any intelligent person. If he has experience, he is capable of judging whether a book will sell. That is all. (Lavina Goodell)


• Writing is not necessarily something to be ashamed of, but do it in private and wash your hands afterwards. (Robert Heinlein)


• If I had to give young writers advice, I would say don't listen to writers talking about writing or themselves. (Lillian Hellman)


• Television has raised writing to a new low. (Samuel Goldwyn)


• Writers will happen in the best of families. (Rita Mae Brown)


• In certain kinds of writing, particularly in art criticism and literary criticism, it is normal to come across long passages which are almost completely lacking in meaning. (George Orwell)


• I write down everything I want to remember. That way, instead of spending a lot of time trying to remember what it is I wrote down, I spend the time looking for the paper I wrote it down on. (Beryl Pfizer)


• Rage is the only quality which has kept me, or anybody I have ever studied, writing columns for newspapers. (Jimmy Breslin)


• Writing is one of the few professions in which you can psychoanalyse yourself, get rid of hostilities and frustrations in public, and get paid for it. (Octavia Butler)


• Writing is the only profession where no one considers you ridiculous if you earn no money. (Jules Renard)


• If we could sell our experiences for what they cost us, we'd all be millionaires. (Abigail Van Buren)


• Every writer I know has trouble writing. (Joseph Heller)


• If you want to know what god thinks of money, just look at the people he gave it to. (Dorothy Parker)


• It is impossible to discourage the real writers - they don't give a damn what you say, they're going to write. (Sinclair Lewis)


• It is awfully important to know what is and what is not your business. (Gertrude Stein)


• I can't believe it! Reading and writing actually paid off! (Matt Groening)


• Striving for excellence motivates you; striving for perfection is demoralizing. (Harriet Braiker)


• The wastebasket is a writer's best friend. (Isaac Bashevis Singer)


• Too many people go through life waiting for things to happen instead of making them happen. (Sasha Azevedo)


• English usage is sometimes more than mere taste, judgment and education -- sometimes it's sheer luck, like getting across the street. (E.B. White)


• I long to accomplish a great and noble tasks, but it is my chief duty to accomplish humble tasks as though they were great and noble. The world is moved along, not only by the mighty shoves of its heroes, but also by the aggregate of the tiny pushes of each honest worker. (Helen Keller)


• Most of us can read the writing on the wall; we just assume it's addressed to someone else. (Ivern Ball)


• Never work just for money or for power. They won't save your soul or help you sleep at night. (Marian Wright Edelman)

The "Best Writer" Myth

If you've ever attended a writers' conference or read the first writing business self-help book, you've come across this dictum: "Show that you're the best writer for this job." It's been repeated so often that it has become a factoid, but like many factoids, it's not really true. It just sounds like it should be.

I know that is going to sound outrageous to many, but hang in for a moment. Editors say this repeatedly for two major reasons. One is that they hear other editors say this repeatedly, and who wants to look like a dope by saying something that colleagues might find wrong. The other reason is that they are actually, albeit inaccurately, trying to convey something they need, but that relatively few writers provide.

To get to the value, let's deconstruct this statement. Is there a "best writer" in any category? Obviously not. If there were, and if the editors were serious, you'd only see one version of any story. Imagine the quandary of of the women's titles or any specialty interest magazine. They'd never be able to run a second article on a subject. And if the editors were serious abut there being a best writer for a story, there would be such competition that editorial rates would actually - gasp - go up!

That's obviously a silly thought. Editors aren't so naive as to think that writers are this uniquely and singularly qualified. No, they're actually saying something slightly different. They want the best writer they can find for that topic at that moment without actually having to put in significant effort in looking. Best writer actually means some combination of seven things:

• The writer has an advantage in covering the story. That advantage may be expert knowledge, experience covering the topic, inside connections, proximity for something that needs live coverage, or any other factor that helps get a better story.


• The writer's style or voice lends itself to the topic or will provide a unique take that adds value to the reporting.


• The writer is well-known enough that having the person connected to the topic will increase sales of the magazine or newspaper issue.


• The writer's working style will mesh well with the publication's editorial process and needs.


• The publication can keep within its budget for the writer, which could mean that the writer is inexpensive enough, or that the necessary premium isn't too dear.


• The writer is available to do the assignment.


• The editor will look good in the eyes of his or her boss after the assignment is done.

As you can see, this is a subjective judgment of comparative superlative worth. The "best" writer for one publication might not be the "best" for another, and your standing at the apex of all possible writers drops quickly if the magazine decides that it can't afford you.

Now that we have the theory, let's get to the practical application. What editors really ask for when saying that they want the "best" writer is that writers pitching a story address these needs. In other words, we're back to thinking like the client and trying to meet the client's needs, both spoken and unspoken, material and emotional. To increase your fitness for that latest fitness story, weave answers for each of these points into your pitch. That doesn't mean the editor will see you as the best fit. It may be that someone else with a similar idea has a better degree of connection, or more expertise, or what have you. It might be that while two writers both have five out of the seven points, one has more of the ones that are a higher priority for that editor. But the greater a degree to which you can show that you will satisfy these needs, the better and better you look to an editor.

Turning Niche Publishing into $20 Million Annually

This is a pointer to a USA Today article about how an ex-musician turned graphic designer took his interest in one piece of software and turned it into a personal duchy - as I'm not sure that $20 million gross quite translates into an empire. (Then again, I'd be happy with a duchy, or even an upscale neighborhood.)

The important point isn't the amount of money in this case, but seeing that writers don't have to depend on publishers. It comes down to the degree of profitability you can see from niche publishing. Say you get paid $1,200 for an article on small business. If you added a bit more information, could you turn it into something worth $1.95 to a specific segment of businesses that have the particular problem you address? It would take about 615 copies sold to make the same amount.

Yes, the trick is finding the way to make the sales - and that might include tossing the idea of doing one article, combining a few different takes, and creating a $7.95 e-book. And then you only have to sell 151 copies. Catch enough of an audience and you might even switch back to traditional publishing if it makes sense. Or maybe you'll find a way to have ads accompany the book, or an ad-supported video on the subject. But you're already selling your ideas to editors. When you broaden the potential market to the readers, you have a much easier time of some group of them saying yes.

What's necessary is to stop thinking the same old way and to stop assuming that you have to work for someone else. That may seem a strange thing to say to freelance writers, but many continue to display attitudes of dependence once they've gone out on their own, waiting for someone else to make the decision, to give them the permission to succeed. If editors say no, go to other editors, or go around the editors. Directly address readers and sell to them. You could even do that with articles you've already written. Or you could put some of those together as a free e-book and give it away as a promotion to drive traffic to your site, or to help bring in sales for another book.

It's a different way of thinking. Instead of being the supplicant, you become the business owner and act accordingly. You don't have to succeed overnight. While you're still doing editorial or corporate work, start experimenting. Try different things and see how they go. Keep the ones that work and those that don't. And don't forget a big lesson: write about something that you enjoy and where you either have or could develop some expertise. Like Scott Kelby, you might find yourself with an empire. Or a duchy. Or a comfortable neighborhood.

Indian Outsourcing Teaches Business Lessons

I've seen a number of writers on writers' boards upset by news that a web site called Pasadena Now is outsourcing coverage of the Pasadena, Calif. city council to a couple of reporters in India. They are concerned that over time more reporting jobs will move overseas, putting them out of work. Their concern about the movement of work overseas is well founded. This is the way of the world, folks, and if what you do is purely intellectual in nature, there's a good chance that under the right conditions it could be done by someone in another country willing to charge much less than you. But the question is what makes up the right conditions?

In this story, you can learn three things about your business today. One is a concept called barrier to entry. That means something necessary to do a job and the difficulty of being able to supply it. In this case, the only barriers to entry for this reporting job were the ability to speak and write in English, a basic knowledge of news writing, the ability to see and hear the council meetings, and the willingness to work cheaply. What has taken people by surprise is that they assumed viewing the meetings could only happen in person.

But look at that list again. The barriers to entry were always absurdly low. Anyone who could write halfway decently and had read a beginning book on news writing would have been capable of doing the job. So ask yourself what barriers of entry there are for the types of writing you do. At writers' conferences, editors often say that they want to know what makes one freelancer the best person for the job. I think the formulation is a bit overblown, but still important. What value do you bring in terms of special knowledge, contacts developed over time, or abilities that would be difficult to duplicate? If all you offer is a willingness to make some phone calls and maybe an idea or two, your business is highly insecure. Smart writers keep improving their skills and areas of expertise and learning new ones as well as finding new ways to build relationships with clients and continually adding value that they bring to the table.

The second lesson is that you have to keep examining your current assumptions. Don't become a buggy whip manufacturer who scoffs at these new fangled horseless carriages. In the case of this story, people don't realize just what Internet distributed video makes possible. Instead of becoming a victim of technology, put it to work for you. Then you can go back to the first lesson and consider what extra value technology might let you bring. Maybe it's time to learn how to create your own photos, audio, and video so you can offer a full selection of media choices to your clients. Then you have the added benefit of additional revenue streams.

Third lesson is that value is a relative thing. I'd argue that being unable to question people both before and after the meetings meant that the coverage would be inferior. But the web site publisher in this case disagreed. Something is only of economic and business value if someone is willing to pay for it. While you're upgrading your skills and knowledge, it's time to upgrade your clients. Don't chase the cheapskates who think that there is no difference between the work of different writers. Leave them to writers who are apparently happy to work for little, because that's what they keep doing. Look for a better type of client, and when you find them, offer knowledge, skill, value, and professionalism that will keep them coming back.

Dealing With Take-It-Or-Leave-It Editors

The process of negotiation generally assumes give and take - that one party will give some on one point and the other will yield on another. But there are times that a person or entity is unwilling to bend at all. A writer recently wrote me (via questions I said I'd answer for The Renegade Writer blog) about such a situation, where the editor basically said, "I sympathize with your position, but if you don't give in, I'll find someone else because all our contributors sign this." The writer had felt beaten up in the process and wondered whether all the well-known writers in the title also capitulated.

The first step to better negotiation and business is knowing that there is no beating - only an irreconcilable difference of opinion. What you need for your business is the most important issue; something that works for one writer might not for the next. Or there may be a time that you are either receiving so much money or that you are in such desperate need for some paying work that you are willing to hold your nose and sign away the rights. That, too, can be a valid choice, presuming that you aren't giving in because you're afraid to ask for more.

Don't judge your needs by what others do. Many nationally-known writers sign bad contracts because they either don’t care, are foolish about business, or are scared to negotiate. There are also many whom editors perceive as bringing enough audience and value that they're willing to make changes.

That said, there are also plenty of editors who claim, “Why, no one has ever brought up that issue before!” Equine-generated fertilizer. Of course they have. The editor is probably hoping that you won’t know that.

Most reputable publishers will negotiate to some degree, because they realize that they need to. More established writers may have more advantage in negotiations because there is more of a drive to use their work. Also consider that if a publisher is so inflexible before you write word one, how reasonable will the edit process be?

The main attitude to shift is the idea that someone beat you up. Nope. You simply said no because the conditions were not acceptable to you. That’s called being responsible for your business. And you can only get to an irreconcilable point by speaking up and asking for what you want in the first place. Consider it a cheap price for greatly strengthening your business.

One More Wrinkle on Amending Contracts

A writer pointed out on a forum that in my amending contracts post I hadn't discussed the "don't ask, don't tell" school of editors that accept changes without comment if you make them but refuse any changes if you ask.

Unfortunately, although simply amending the contract may seem like a solution in such circumstances, it isn't because the editors obviously don't look at what you do send. If they did, you'd be back in trouble because they'd resent that you actually changed something without asking.

Also, ever get a signed agreement with the changes back from these editors? If not, the door open, in case of a legal conflict, for the magazine to argue that the original terms were the ones that governed the relationship and that you wouldn't have proceeded without getting a countersigned changed document. To win you'd have to go to court, but the results would be uncertain, and that means you'd have already lost considering the costs of taking legal action.

Problems of Amending Contracts

Many freelance journalists who don't like parts of their contracts will mark up the documents they receive, initial the changes, sign, and send the paper back in without talking to their editors ahead of time. They might think this is effective, but it generally is the single weakest way to address contractual issues and can cause problems down the line. Not only are you less likely to get what you want, but you might unnecessarily ruin the business relationship at the same time.

Consider the entire exchange from the view of the editor. You mailed a contract to a writer, received a signed copy, and put it in a stack to file. Your days are busy and you spend a week or two on deadlines. Eventually, after editing the article that the writer had sent and getting it ready for the next issue, you are doing some filing and come across the contract. Just before you forward it to the contracts people, you notice a pen mark. And another. And others. You've spent significant amounts of time on your end of the assignment only to realize that the writer isn't willing to work under the terms you had thought were set. Now everything might be up in the air, all without enough time to recover and find another writer or another article.

Take it a step further. The signed version shows up direc