Create a No-Wordsmithing Zone

I hate the term wordsmithing - I have since I first heard it as a professional writer. The word, and the attitude it represents, are dismissive, placing the process of writing on the level of clever assembly line operations. You take what the client gives you and "massage" it until it reads better. There is that unspoken assumption that the writer adds window dressing only.

Of course this is absurd. Writing is about analytic thinking, the absorption of information, the analysis of this mental material, and the design and construction of an intellectual road map that can get readers from point A to point Z while leaving them feeling more intelligent than when they started reading. Of course they feel smarter: suddenly they grasp something. however, it's the writer that does the heavy lifting and leaves a paved path where once there was bramble and brush.

There was a time that I didn't flinch when I heard wordsmithing. That is no longer the case. When a client uses that term or something similar ("The document only needs a little editing."), I disabuse them of the notion. When a corporate client plays the editing card, I say, "No, you're looking to condense material and to find the most important points. That's not editing; that's writing." When an editor sits on an article for weeks and then suddenly surfaces and says, "I need this changes," I say, "That's fine - I can get them to you in X number of days."

The more you remain quiet when a client effectively dismisses what you do, the more value you help drain from your services and the lower you set your price. The next time someone asks you to wordsmith, point out that you don't polish words like so many pieces of silver plate. You're a writer, and the work takes time, skill, and proper compensation.

Blogs and What's In It For Me?

I saw a writer on a board ask about blogs and focus on the question, "What's in it for me?" It seems logical enough: you only have so much time for your marketing, and you have to decide what to pursue. But I think the logic quickly breaks down, because the question is wrong.

There is a fundamental flaw when you look at marketing and keep asking what the benefit to you is. Marketing doesn't provide a dollars and cents bottom line that you can bank. In marketing, you reach out to people that you can help and offer them products and services that they would want. The activity should be focused on the customer, not on the provider. The profit you make is a byproduct of how well you serve the needs of your customers. If you do that well, you can make money. But if you want every conversation to be about you and your needs, it gets a lot harder. It's tiresome to talk to someone who is that narcissistic.

In a blog, you can't count on getting sales or anything else. You might as well say that you write books only to promote yourself and to make more money in other activities. While a book might become part of a platform, if you've written a single one you know that that must be more to it than that.

For example, blogging about finding a topic you care for, writing about it, coming across other people who are also interested and want to hear what you have to say - and who want to say something back. It's building relationships with people in the context of the one topic.

If that turns into business, fine. If not ... well, then it doesn't. Blogging can make sense as marketing if you think that real marketing is building relationships. If that is your focus - if you want to find people and reach out to them because you have something to offer - then a blog can be marvelous, though it takes time to establish. You have the perfect opportunity to become your own publisher, to avoid large media as intermediary, and to find your own audience.

Difficulty in Covering Studies

Via Slashdot (a site for technology news and comment), I came across a thoughtful blog post by a scientist using about covering scientific studies. This should be a must read for every journalist, science writer or not. The author notes that any scientific study sits on a set of assumptions, and that it's common for someone to eventually show some of them are wrong, making the conclusions wrong. Journalists, who probably don't have an extensive background in the subject, now have a problem:

How, then, do you effectively cover a story laden with valid assumptions, some likely to be correct, many likely to be incorrect? Let us use climate models as an example. In order to avoid long computing times, the use of super computers, or simply (and usually) because the information does not exist, modelers are forced to typically make 100’s of assumptions when devising their code. Now, I’m not saying these models are not at all useful. Smart modelers have determined ways of lining up their assumptions with observations of the real world (often, modelers must predict what we already know to verify their assumptions - i.e. does it work?).

Here, the same problem exists - how do you, the science journalist, determine which of these assumptions could bring the entire model crashing down? Furthermore, if such an linchpin exists, is it an important one? How important? Is it likely to be incorrect? How likely? Unfortunately, these questions have no definitive answers, except with respect to each other, and with respect to the particular researcher.

His context is science, but it could be sociology, psychology, political science, linguistics. Any time you see a study or hear an assertion by some expert, it may be completely wrong, based solely on assumptions and not even considering self-interest that can drive the person to try spinning reality to his or her own advantage.

The article doesn't even touch on another major area of error: poor statistical and sampling methods. Any time you collect sets of information and attempt to make inferences, you're in dangerous territory. I spoke with the chief marketing officer of a law firm. He had a PhD in market research, actually is one of the people who understands how the math works. As part of our discussion, he pointed out that if you had a study where you approached 5,000 professionals and eventually only got 500 to respond to a survey, the best accuracy you could get in the results would be plus or minus 20 points or so. That's enough variation to toss almost any conclusion out the window - and from my own study of the subject, that doesn't even include one of the biggest causes of error: the way the study phrases and orders questions.

I'm not saying to give up using studies, only to be more judicious and suspicious. To quote any sort of study in your work, you need to ensure an adequate grasp of some fundamentals. No, you don't need to apply to graduate school. But there is a lot you can learn in a short amount of time to help you see at least the obvious red flags. Here's an article from American Demographics that can act as a jumping off point for further learning. And here is a checklist of some aspects to consider.

Watching Vague Contract Terms

Yesterday, I had an email exchange with a colleague who is very active in negotiating contracts and in writers issues. The topic turned to vague contract terms. it's a big problem in many contracts. A contract will seem to state something, and yet when you look closely at the wording, you see that much is left up to the imagination, or later argument.

A good example, as I often mention, is the term "acceptance." Many writers are satisfied when they see payment on acceptance in a contract. And yet, what does acceptance mean, when does it occur, and who at a client (whether a publisher or other corporation) must provide it? Does acceptance happen when the writer's contact thinks the piece will work? Does it happen after the questions have been answered? After final approval of the piece right before it's about to be used? We've just gone from acceptance happening shortly after the client reads the first draft to some time after a second or later draft, to effectively on publication. You can find such problems in rights clauses. For example, what does "electronic rights" actually mean?

Not everything in a contract can be pinned down to something that neither side could dispute. Courts recognize terms like "reasonable effort," though there is no hard and fast definition to which you could point. But much in contracts is hazy, and the miasma can lead to a cloudy future in a future dispute.

Reading many hundreds of contracts between the two of us, we're both convinced that most of the problems are not the result of lawyers' conniving, but of sloppiness and ineptitude. What lawyer wants to explain to a boss that he or she didn't nail down the terms of a contract in an unambiguous way? The bell curve applies everyone, and just as many lawyers are below average as above. However, that doesn't matter, because if you sign the mistake, you're stuck with it. Writers need to learn to read contracts - go through the language carefully and read it literally. Don't gloss over anything, and don't excuse yourself from asking the necessary questions by saying that you can clear them up in an email. You won't end up sending the email, and even if you do, it's the contract itself that you signed.

Contract Review: Creating Keepsakes

I received a request at one point to review the contract from Creating Keepsakes. The PDF version can be found on the publisher's own site. Please remember that I'm not a lawyer, and that this isn't legal advice. Here's my take:

• Opening Paragraph The wording here should put a writer on alert. First, the agreement is for "any article or articles created in the past or to be created for or on behalf of Magazine in the future." So it is retroactive, and if you had a different arrangement in the past with the publisher, that is out the window. Also, if you got a modification on a future article, you might find that this wording still could hold legal sway.
• Section 2 - Editing There is something odd here. The magazine can keep reusing an article in any way it wants and can adapt it to any medium, with no additional compensation. So the publisher could create a book made up of projects featured in the magazine and pocket all the money. The curious thing is the phrase "The Author agrees to make such changes in the Works as Magazine may from time to time reasonably request prior to publication." If I'm reading this correctly, not only would the writer have to provide edits for the first running, but could technically be required to re-edit the article for additional uses in the future, again without any further payment.
• Section 3 - Consideration/Expenses It's a flat fee payable on acceptance - although the contract doesn't describe what that means to the publisher. This is often a snake-pit of an issue. I've seen magazines define acceptance as the final sign-off before the magazine goes to press - or, effectively, on publication. There is no mention about how soon after "acceptance" the writer should expect payment. Also, the magazine can decide not to publish the article, which appears to be separate from not accepting the article. In that case, it can reduce payment to 25 percent of the original fee. If you've already been paid, then I think you could be liable for sending back the extra 75 percent. Also, if an article is accepted, on principle the publisher should pay the full fee. The writer has obviously delivered what was agreed upon. If the publisher made a mistake in the commission, or changes its mind, the writer shouldn't be the one paying for the reconsideration.
• Rights in the Work Section The publisher gets a one year exclusive. Furthermore, the publisher can syndicate the work - sell it to other publishers. Between that and the one year exclusive, you can kiss a lot of the resale possibilities goodbye. The publisher also gets unlimited use in its own venues, and even gets extensive database, Internet, and electronic publishing rights.
• Author's Obligations Clause a is overly broad. Libel and obscenity have geographic definitions, so this would seem to leave the writer open. Given a later clause about interpretation under New York law, my point here might be moot, because I suspect the definitions would have to be under that state's definitions. The writer has to "fully cooperate" regarding "requested rewrites and revisions," which means there's no limitation on how often you can be asked to change things. Not only can the writer's name and likeness be used to promote the article, but to promote the magazine. So, if you made it big, they could keep using your name, in theory.
• Miscelaneous The sentence "Any claim or litigation arising out of this Agreement or its performance may be maintained only in courts physically located in New York County, New York, and Author and Magazine hereby consent to the personal jurisdiction of such courts" could be a problem. If you find that the publisher doesn't pay you, you'd have to go to courts in New York County to take action, not sue from your home territory. Now, as my publishing lawyer, who is in New York (I'm not) has explained to me, this isn't necessarily a big problem. New York courts understand publishing issues, and when they award damages, they tend to be large. But you'd probably have to appear at least once or twice, which adds travel costs. Generally companies add such clauses to make it tougher on the other party to take legal action.

Distillation of the Writer-Editor Relationship

Something light for today - a bit of sketch comedy on YouTube that may sound frighteningly accurate.

Short or Long - Investing in the Periodical Market

Short and long are stock market investment terms, but they also describe a different type of investment for a writer: time. If you work in the periodical area, you can take on short work - front of book (FOB), charts, and other pieces that are often in the 150 to 500 word range - or longer work like features or department pieces that could run 750 to 3,000 or more words.

Most writers understand that getting a check for $1,200 to $3,000 or even a lot more is nice. But shorts are worth far less, so are they worth the investment in your time? It actually depends on two factors. One is the hourly rate. Remember that you need to calculate how much you must make an hour to keep yourself in business. (See the business planning article in the writer resources area of this blog.) A short that runs, say, 500 words, that pays $1/word, and that you can finish in three hours, comes out to almost $167 dollars an hour.

That is a nice rate, but you have to really watch your time. Add up all the time - all interviews, all writing of all drafts, answering questions from the editor, and so on. When I hear writers estimate the time it takes to do something, I know that most significantly underestimate the time they actually spent, because people do in general. When I run my business planning class and have people closely monitor where their time goes, they are almost always shocked, if they've never checked it before.

But say that you are accurately monitoring your time. Why not then do a lot of shorts to make your income? Because there's another consideration - the time for marketing, billing, and overhead. If you make $500 for a short, then four of them pay as much as one 2000 word article paying $1/word. The amount of writing time might even be comparable. However, figure that a 500 word piece really needs two to three sources to come across as sold. You're now booking 8 to 12 interviews, versus the 6 or 7 that might be all you need for the longer piece. That means more time interviewing and scheduling your time.

You're also going to spend about as much time writing a query for a short as you would for a longer piece, plus you have to generate the ideas and pitch editors. So your marketing and sales time has just quadrupled. If you make a lot of your income from shorts, then you're probably spending many more of your hours marketing, interviewing, managing your time, and billing (and collecting). Now you see the real drawback - not the hourly rate, but the time you must invest to do enough shorts to make a living.

I'm not knocking shorts, and still do them sometimes myself if I think it makes sense. However, recognize that your time is valuable - because once its gone, you can't get it back. Maybe you could use a few more hours of sleep, or exercise, or reading, playing with the kids, writing a novel or play - you get the idea. Don't base your business planning only on hourly rates. Keep in mind the overhead and support you need to provide per piece and factor in how long a week you need to sustain the income you want.

Selling Articles and Photos

I'm actually writing this at the request of someone on Freelance Success, who had a question about selling photography and writing together to a magazine. The writer/photographer wanted an opinion on the wisdom of selling the two as a package and how to price photos when also writing the story. For example, should you round up the price of the story by 25 cents or 50 cents a word? The person also provides six month rights to photos and then resells them on a web site.

Let's break things down into two areas: payment and rights. Obviously, you want to maximize the pay you get. Remember that the photo department and its budget are usually separate from editorial. It always makes sense, then, to ask the photo department what it would normally pay for images.

Sometime publications will pay a daily rate plus expenses. Some pay by the image. Some have a flat fee in mind for a certain number of images. Generally, the amount is going to be significant in comparison to the writing. I've personally had assignments where the photos paid about as much as the writing did. In the worst case that I can remember, it was still about a third of the fee. There are cases where the photography could run more than the writing.

Only after you've understood the publisher's photo pricing can you know if a bundled price give you more money or less. The publication wants to minimize the total, because then it saves money is is more profitable. You can also reasonably guess that the publication is unlikely to pay you more in total than it might otherwise. Unless you have a sense of how the photo department pays, you won't know if you're maximizing your income. I wouldn't give a break in pricing for getting both parts of the business. By having only one person go to an event, the publisher is already saving on expenses. You want that to be the source of cost reduction.

When you bundle two services together in pricing without explicit acknowledgement of each contribution, you effectively devalue both. If the publication decides to use some extra photos, well, it's already paid for them in the word rate and doesn't need to pay the addition that it might. You've eliminated an argument for getting a future rate increase because the editor thinks that should include something additional - more photography. But for all you know, some writers might already get a higher per word fee than you.

Now lets discuss the rights portion. When you bundle things together, you also start lumping together rights. But photographers generally give less generous rights packages. Why should you be unable to sell the photos for six months? Because you think the publisher should have that long with the story? The idea of exclusive use for a period of time is usually to keep something away from competitors. But if you treat photography separately from writing, you can possibly get more nuance in negotiations. For example, if you sell directly from a web site to people who might like an image, that shouldn't be competitive, and so, shouldn't be part of an exclusive run. (I'd actually think six months was too long even for writing. Try three, or even two.)

In summary, by bundling, you impair your ability to get better terms on rights, and you potentially devalue your work. I think separate pricing and rights negotiations are usually the better choice to sell both writing and photography.

As for publishers who expect writers to provide photos for a single fee, consider what you're actually doing. Say that the photography would typically run half of the writing fee (and, again, that's not wildly optimistic). So you're selling 1.5X, where X is the writing fee. Now divide the package price the publisher offers by 1.5. If the amount is, say, $1,200, then your writing is actually bringing only $800. If someone offers $600, then the writing is only bringing $400. Ask yourself if the amount you get seems reasonable for the writing alone. If not, then pass on the project.

Don't Try Breathing Helium - A Foolish Predatory Freelance Market Concept

As you may know, breathing helium makes your speech sound high-pitched and cartoon-like. It's also unhealthy if you keep inhaling for any period of time, because you miss the oxygen that keeps you alive. According to this piece in the Boston Herald, you might consider avoiding the online site Helium.com. The company has been trying to do the "citizen journalism" thing, otherwise known as scoring effectively free copy to build traffic and get ad money. (A pittance goes to some writers, but that to me doesn't count.) Now the Andover, MA-based business is trying something new:

But a few weeks ago Helium began offering a new product simply called “marketplace,” in which publishers and editors can advertise for certain types of stories they need.

They post a description of the article, the expected price, length and deadline - and wait for writers to submit articles for consideration.

In other words, company CEO Mark Ranalli expects publishers to tip their hands about coverage, professional freelancers to send in spec work, and "victorious" writers to fork over 20% for Helium's doing nothing more than essentially acting as a classified ad site. Oh, and they money? From "$20 to $200 for each selected article." Ooh, ooh, I'm soooo excited.

I'll give it a month and then start looking to the eastern horizon for a giant plume of smoke from the crash and burn. I don't usually take pleasure in listening for the ascending engine whine as the vehicle plummets, but I'll make an exception in this case, bad enough to pass insulting and enter the realm of laughable.

Usually people who get commissions actually do some selling and don't expect payment for standing around. This sounds like a proposition that belongs with ones you might hear in seedy bars. Oh, wait, now I know why: Pimping is still pimping.

Story of a Blockbuster

The Wall Street Journal had a story last Friday (which may or may not be available depending on when you look at this and if you have a WSJ.com account) about how Viking used a series of calculated moves to turn "Eat, Pray, Love" into a best seller when it finally came out as a paperback from Penguin, another imprint owned, as is Viking, by Pearson.

If you can get a hold of a copy of the article, it's worth reading to get a sense of how publishers are trying to change their marketing, and how they approach the business. Note this bit:

The vast majority of books face a tough reality. New releases that fail to take off in the first couple of weeks -- when publishers often pay to place copies on stores' front tables -- are relegated to the back shelves.

That sentence alone is worth a wow. Up until now, I thought the usual practice had become a month on the shelves and three months of publicity and marketing. Apparently I've been over-generous. The only way this changes is if the publisher thinks the book has break-out potential.

That means a number of things. One is that platform, which has become a heavy stone crushing the chests of many authors, is becoming every more weighty. And the early reception to the book is critical. "Eat, Pray, Love" got an excerpt in O and a cover article in the NYT Book Review. Here's another reality check:

Each month Penguin publishes 15 to 20 fancy "trade" paperbacks -- high-quality editions that are larger in format and easier to read than their cheaper, mass-market cousins. But it only really lends its weight to one or two.

This is like literary Calvinism, only with clear proof of predestination rather than theological speculation. Penguin, in this case, invested in freestanding store displays and ads, and the marketing person in charge asked everyone in sales and marketing to read the book, so they could effectively convey enthusiasm. And now for the "beautiful author" part, as I mentioned in my writing and literature blog:

Selling Ms. Gilbert, the author, was just as crucial. Unlike many writers who don't like touring and are uncomfortable in front of crowds, Ms. Gilbert has a sunny, upbeat personality that plays well on television and in personal appearances. Notes Ms. Court: "When the writer of a book is attractive, generous, and funny, booksellers end up rooting for her."

Then it was touring, getting book club traction, and so on. Here's another tidbit that tells you how sales work these days in moving from hardback to paperback:

"One of the mantras of publishing economics of the 1970s and early 1980s was that mass-market paperbacks could achieve 10 times the sales of a hardcover," says Stuart Applebaum, a spokesman for Bertlesmann AG's Random House Inc. Then retailers started discounting hardcover titles, and the smaller, cheaper paperbacks lost ground.
Laurence Kirshbaum, a book agent who heads up LJK Literary Management in New York, estimates that the current ratio between hardcover and paperback sales is one to one -- mostly because so many hardcover books are so steeply discounted. "These days the bulk of the people who are interested in a book buy it in hardcover; that's what makes titles such as 'Eat, Pray, Love' so exceptional," says Mr. Kirshbaum. "They are throwbacks to the days when paperbacks sold huge multiples of the hardcover."

In case this isn't sinking in, most book authors don't have a snowball's chance in hell of mass market success. That means you have to find a different business model, and fast - one that doesn't rely on big publishers and traditional marketing, and one that doesn't leave you trying to eke out a living from a relatively tiny royalty.

Eons.com Restructures, Shrugs Off Professional Content

Eons.com, an over 50 social networking site started by Monster.com founder Jeff Taylor, laid off just over a third of its staff, according to various accounts, including this one from Mass High Tech. Part of the restructuring is a tightened focus on the social network area. If you had been thinking of this as a market - and it had cooled, demanding all rights for pitiful pay - think again:

While no product lines will be cut, according to Taylor, the company will take a more user-generated and user-aggregated approach to its content, including focusing more on the feature called "BOOMing" wherein members submit interesting online articles they have discovered. That will enable the site to rely less on content that requires heavy editing.

One reason for the heavy editing, from what I saw, was that Taylor didn't want to pay going rates in the first place. That resulted in either using less able people or in more experienced writers repositioning things they had already done.

One lesson to learn from this is that the whole "Web 2.0" view of the Internet is as inherently flawed as the dot com bubble of the late 90s. Companies buy into their own hype and think that just because they do something, people will come. But more often than not they don't. So if someone tries to get you to work for too little because theirs is the next big thing, just walk away and look for real business.

Re-Placing an Article

There are times that publishers will kill an article or, more often, turn down a pitch that you swear is perfect. You might send the idea out again to similar publications, but eventually you might find that you run out of "more of the same." But you may not be ready to retire the idea. here are some ways you can take a fresh look at where to send your query:

• Category Analogies You can get locked into thinking that a certain type of article has to go into a publication dedicated to that subject. But often, magazines with other focuses will still be interested. For example, an article on a parenting issue might have a home in a women's magazine with an appropriate demographic. A piece on a new audio technology for a home audiophile title might find a home in a men's magazine or something like Popular Science or Popular Mechanics.


• Change Focus Don't get stuck on your original focus. You can always consider changing the specific subject of a narrative, the problem or solution approach for a service piece, or the entry point of a think piece.


• Turn it Inside Out This is a more extreme version of changing focus. You might be able to take an article that you thought was one type and completely transform it into another. What you might have originally conceived as a reported article might actually work as a personal essay. Your experience, that was the center of an essay, might also spark ideas for bullet points in a service article. If you can't sell it one way, try another.


• The Consumer/Trade Shift You can get unnecessarily stuck if you think of yourself strictly as a "consumer" or "trade" writer. They often have different styles, but the gulf isn't that large. If something is old news for a trade, it might be the first time the consumer mag has heard of it. If the latter finds a topic too "inside baseball," the former might think it right up their ally (to mix the metaphors). Or you might find, as I have at times, that both trades and consumer pubs have similar tastes at times.

And here's the bonus: you don't have to use these techniques only to find a first home for a story. You can use them to get new spins and markets for work you've already done.

Read the Business Pages

What do sub-prime mortgages, debt-backed equity derivatives, and growing credit card debt have to do with writing? Nothing, if you don't cover financial matters. But they have everything to do with a writing business. You not only have to crank out words, but you need to properly plan your business, understand where you should be steering it, what external blockades their are to your progress, and what pitfalls lie ahead. Of course that means studying markets and particular publications, but it also means understanding the business climate.

The global economy affects clients of all sorts. Publications depend on ad revenue. Corporations depend, ultimately, on people buying something. People depend on having enough spare money to make their purchases. Trip one area up - like a credit crunch hitting consumers and investors while tripping the housing market, which has been artificially inflated and the source of much of the wealth people thought they had but didn't - and the rest may also take a spill.

When you see an impending economic black hole, it's time to consider your potential strategies. If you focus on the financial markets, then you have to ask yourself if your clients are overly involved in these problematic areas, because when they run into a wall, so might your client. If you're not specifically in the financial area, then you should consider the possibility that within six to eight months, there is a good chance that companies may need to reduce their spending. To keep your business humming, that means you need to diversify, not just among different industries, but also among different companies.

If you have a significant portion - 20 percent or more - tied up with a single client, consider backing off a bit and not being so dependent. Generally diversification is a smart risk-management practice, but in times like these, it can keep you from getting crushed. When you spread the risk, you're not in as great a danger of that one big client cutting back on its work flow.

I'm not suggesting that anyone panic, and, obviously, I have no way of knowing what the economy will do exactly. I'm no financial expert, but I do read the business pages, particularly the articles that talk about broad economic trends. I also try to read between the lines and connect information I get from various sources. This is a case where, if I'm wrong, diversification won't hurt. But if I'm right, it could save my bank account. Maybe a little preemptive risk management could do the same for you.

Address Problems When They Arise

A noticed a writer discussing a situation that has become too familiar - after taking an assignment and signing a contract, the client wants to change the terms. That in itself isn't necessarily unreasonable. Both you and the client (whether a corporation, a non-profit, or a publisher) anticipated certain conditions, but the client has realized that it made a mistake or that a situation had unexpectedly changed. Each side needs to remember that business, as well as life, has its twists and turns, and sometimes you need to be flexible.

However, changes may have an impact on how you and the client will work together. It may be that your contract addresses that; for example, it might provide payment by length, with additional material generating additional revenue. But what if someone wants to cut an assignment after you are in it and have committed the time that can no longer be contracted out to another client? Does the contract specify a minimum flat fee? Is there an expectation that as the scope drops, your pay drops? Does a flat fee bring into question whether an expansion will gain increased payment?

It's normal for questions to arise, and the time to bring them up is when they occur. Do not continue working until you resolve them. In the case I saw mentioned, the writer was asked to provide more material with an editor saying, "Oh, don't worry, I'll cut it down." Then, suddenly, the editor decided to run something twice the length and now, supposedly, had to get the top editor to authorize something. More likely, the editor in question was hoping the writer wouldn't say anything, and once the writer did, was now caught and didn't want to bring the situation up with the EIC. I had this happen recently with a corporate client that wanted to pretend that some commissioned work didn't happen, asking to be billed for one part and not another.

You cannot let this sort of situation pass, even if you think that you will permanently lose the client. Not only do you set a precedent, but you will feel terrible for letting yourself be bullied. There is a world of clients out there, and no matter what the size of one, you don't need to do business with it. Bring up the problem when it arises and don't meekly accept your fate.

This reminds me of a story an academic and consultant told me of a small manufacturer doing business with Wal-Mart. Over a few years, the retailer pushed for one concession after another. Eventually the small company said, "We're sorry, but it's no longer profitable for us to do business this way," and it walked away. The tiny margin on the volume didn't make up for all the hoop-jumping. Wal-Mart pointed out that it could find another supplier, and did. Interestingly, though, a couple of years later, the chain went back to the manufacturer, asking if it would be willing to take the business under better terms. What happened was that Wal-Mart had forgotten what the small company had remembered - that you have to look at the value of the entire relationship. When it went with another vendor, there were huge customer service problems that increased the overall cost of doing business, no matter how cheap the products seemed to be. But even if Wal-Mart hadn't come back, the company would have been better off, because it didn't back down from what it knew was its own interest.

Whether a client comes back or not is immaterial. There is more to life than money, and to keep your own self-respect, treat your business dealings as though you have the right to equitable treatment. If you won't, no one else will, either.

Go Ahead and Negotiate

I've seen on a couple of writers' boards recently news of freelancers being successful in negotiating with magazines. In one case, it was a writer pushing a major publication to significantly change contractual terms - and being told that most writers didn't bother to even ask. In the other case, someone pushed to get an assignment up from 50 cents to 65 cents a word.

No matter where you are in your career and no matter whta the circumstances, you can always negotiate and improve a business deal. There is almost never a downside to at least asking for what you want, and often you'll get at least a significant portion. That happened with me last week when a book publisher gave in on a number of terms that were bothering me. You won't know unless you try - and the more people try, the more pressure the publishers are under to change the way they do business.

It's popular to think that writers are a dime a dozen, and often publishers seem to think that way. But the smart ones know that they need ideas, and stories, and writers who can bring all of it together. Don't ask other writers what you can and cannot negotiate - find out by pushing in a pleasant and business-like manner. The companies that are unprofessional enough to walk away if you even dare ask for changes are the ones you don't want to do business with. The others will give in at least some, and possibly more than you realize.

Challenging Interviewees and Tossing the Question List

Many reporters subscribe to the Dragnet school of interviews: have a list of questions and ask for "just the facts, Ma'am." I can't fault doing homework or listening. But I've found that some of my best interviewing comes when I challenge the person on the other end of the conversation. I don't mean jumping in and getting verbally ugly for the sake of conflict, but more having a lot of background research done and questioning people's answers when they don't make sense. It may be that you're not really getting the point, or it could be that the person is saying something off-base - or a combination of the two. But in that case, don't simply take down what the person says. Leave stenography to PR representatives.

In the same vein, be ready to toss out your list of questions. Certainly get the who, what, when, where, why, how, and which out of the way, but also be ready to ask what whim suggests. If you lock yourself too tightly to a preconceived agenda, then, in your own way, you're approaching the interview no differently than a PR person might, knowing what you want to get out of it in advance. Give yourself and your subject a chance to be surprised, and you will be happy with the results.

Emerging Term on Agent Contracts

Book authors have directly felt the pinch of falling advances for a time. Royalties are all well and good, but the vast majority of titles don't earn out, which means that the money you see up front is likely to be all that ever comes your way.

But now there seems to be the possibility of a secondary bite. A writer had asked if I would review an agency contract. One of the interesting terms was in the commission section. If the book didn't sell for more than an $X advance, then the commission automatically jumped from from 15 to 20 percent.

There are a number of problems, here. One is that the agent is supposed to get the best deal possible. This clause can actually give the agent a disincentive to get the best deal possible when things are borderline. Let's pretend that the point at which the commission changes is $10,000 and a publisher has offered $9,000. The agent has done work with the publisher before and knows that it might be possible to get the advance up to $11,000 with an accommodation elsewhere in the contract. But work out the numbers: 15 percent of $11,000 is $1,650, and 20 percent of $9,000 is $1,800. It pays the agent better to take the deal that is poorer for the writer. Of course, the author wouldn't know that $11,000 would have been a possibility. The net amounts to the author are even worse: $7,650, versus $9,350.

Then there are other considerations. If the book does really well, the agent is now getting 20 percent of all additional money, and not seeing a drop in commission for what the writer and publisher have actually pulled off. Such deals become even more problematic when you're looking at the series books, where the advances really do hover in this range - and it's in this range that I've seen the demand for a commission escalation. I'm sure some agents would say that they can't make a living doing 15 percent deals at such money levels. I'd counter that the authors don't have the luxury to move to more profitable projects once they've locked into the one, while the agent can go sell other properties.

If you get a contract from an agent and see this sort of provision, I'd strongly advise against signing the paper, and even reconsider whether you want to do business with an agent who isn't willing to take his or her share of the selling risk.

Exchange Rates and Other Markets

If you follow economic news, you might have heard that the dollar has taken a beating, and that its value has significantly dropped over the last few months. But forget any nationalistic fervor and put on your business hat. What does a company do in such circumstances? See if there is a potential advantage.

I was traveling in Canada a couple of weeks ago and was surprised to find that the US dollar was trading almost at par with Canadian currency - perhaps at a 5 percent premium, but no more. I've never thought that much about approaching Canadian publications because they had the reputation of relatively low pay further discounted by the exchange rate. However, if the two currencies are almost even, that opens some possibilities. A publication paying $1.50 Canadian would be roughly $1.42 in US. Now extend the concept. Is there a UK publication that pays maybe 60 cents a word? The pound is about double the value of the dollar, which would turn that pay into $1.20.

There are some additional considerations - possible bank fees in processing foreign checks or wire transfers, and possibly some loss in the currency conversion process. But there are a lot of doors now open that may have been closed before.

The big lesson is to take a corporate view and the news and see how it could affect your business on a global basis. Now is a good time to explore other markets, while it is economic to do so.

Doing Things When You Can't

Some writers - and people, in general - seem flustered when they must develop new skills or capabilities, like calling prospects and selling, or interviewing intimidating people. "But I can't do that," they say.

There is a chance that if you're reading this, you fall into this category at least part of the time. We all do. But you can't let that distract you. Of course there are aspects of this business that you can't do. No one is born ready to run a business. People with the most natural affinities for business must learn - a lot. No, you don't know how to do all of this this, but you can develop the skills and experience you need. Just start. Pick an aspect of what you don't know how to do, and then do it. Even if you do it badly, that's fine: Do it again. Again. And again. If you have ever learned how to ride a bike, then you've gone through the process. Eventually you suddenly find yourself doing what was impossible. That's how you grow your business, the impossible made possible, one step at a time.

Writers' Business Planning Course

I'm thinking of teaching another business planning for writers online course. It would run from late Sept./early Oct. to the middle of Nov., ending before Thanksgiving. Here's the info, and if you're interested, please click on my profile and drop an email.

Learn how business planning can help you take control, get more done, make more money, have more fun, and generally see things take off.

This isn't some dry, head-pounding, hair-tearing forced march to a written business plan, but practical techniques that can help you make the big decisions and then put them into practice. Calculate just how much money you actually need, and explore what is important to you and how that can connect to your business. Rank your clients and assignments to see how they fit with your goals, and use simple analysis to anticipate assignment and pay crunches while you can still do something about it. The course ends with some time-management techniques that will help you keep on top of what you want to achieve.

Here's what some people who have taken the class in the past have said:

• "I really got a lot out of this class. It forced me to make some decisions that are actually getting me to move ahead, and that is very good news."


• "I just wanted to let you know how much I learned from the biz planning class ... What was most beneficial to me was developing formulas to track, on an ongoing basis, which clients/types of work represent the majority of my income."


• The frame of reference you've provided is quite useful, and I feel I've already gotten my money's worth."

The class runs six weeks and is meant for people who already have some experience in freelance writing.

Planning Class Syllabus:

• The need to plan


• Self examination to set the direction


• A layered approach to planning


• Using results to improve planning


• Baseline financial analysis


• Establishing bare bones and and full budgets


• Performing a time utilization analysis


• Determining client and assignment mixes


• Identifying personal inertia points


• Taking personal work inventories


• Evaluating past and current clients


• Calculating minimum rates


• Building a foundational financial plan


• Identifying areas for expansion


• Balancing work/client categories for plan optimization


• Taking stock of planning efforts so far


• Creating a planning feedback loop


• Cash flow analysis


• Discounting expectations and assignment values


• Other metrics


• Time management


• Developing time-based plan implementation


• Juggling tasks