Distinguishing Between a Story and an Idea

At times I've spoken with colleagues about a common problem for writers: you send a pitch to an editor and get the response, "It's an interesting idea, but there doesn't seem to be a story here." If you've been writing for any length of time, you've heard it. In fact, a friend and I were discussing the very topic the other day, as a newer writer had brought it up in a discussion.

It's a fine point to make, but what, exactly, does it mean? At first glance, this seems to be one of those distinctions that you can't exactly define, but you know it when you see it. However, that helps little when such a comment hits your inbox and you're absolutely convinced that anyone would wait in line to read your opus. A little analytic thought can come in handy at such times:

• There's a difference between something interesting and a story. The latter must encompass the former, certainly; if it's not interesting, who would bother to read it, and what editor would make an assignment?


• Think from the audience viewpoint, not your own. You want to write about things that you find interesting - nothing wrong with that. But unless the topic is interesting to enough people, there is no story that others will read. When considering your idea, ask yourself if you find it interesting because of a personal experience, and then ask how many other people might have had that experience. The question becomes crucial when considering a profile. When relatively few could have the same experience with the subject, then either a) the person must be well enough known to attract curiosity, or b) what you have could only be a personal essay. Yes, you can think of some counter examples, but their number is like unto zero when considering the enormous number of profile pitches that have no relevance to anyone other than the writer.


• A story is compelling. I might be stating the obvious, but a story much have the ability to force the reader - and, by extension, the editor - to care. That means the audience must have either the basic information, the insight, or the emotional experience. A good news story falls completely into the information nook; a tear-jerker narrative is definite an emotional ride. A good philosophical essay must offer the insight, but might bring in an emotional connection. Having at least one factor is a must, and more would be better. People have to give a damn about the read.


• Be specific. Many pitches fail not for lack of a good concept, but because of generality. What is more interesting, noting that children can feel disaffected from step parents, or Hansel and Gretel trying to follow a breadcrumb trail back to the cottage only to find that birds ate their market?


• Have a beginning, middle, and end. No editor worth a drop of ink (or byte of pixels) wants shapeless writing showing up. That means a story must come from one place and have another as its destination, with a clear path leading from A to Z. That's clearly true in a narrative, as tales that go "Someone wandered around and then eventually wandered more" have limited attraction. But there are equivalents for any type of story. Even if you're writing a service piece, with lots of bulleted advice, the writing has to move from a problem, though approaches to solve it, to at least the promise of resolution and aid. Your query should show (not tell) that you address the stages.

Like everyone else in the business, you'll still come up with the occasional commercial clunker, but if you keep these principles in mind, that should happen less often, and you'll also get to the heart of your reporting and writing more naturally and easily.

Bnet's Catching Flack Doesn't Catch Query Posting Problem

When I posted about HARO queries being posted on a blog, I guess I must have hit a nerve, as both Mediabistro's PR Newser and Bnet's Catching Flack picked up on it. (Must have been a slow news minute in the blogosphere.)

Unfortunately, I think that Jon Greet on Catching Flack didn't catch what was really going on. First, he seemed to take exception with Shankman's taking exception with the PR person taking the queries and putting them on a blog:

For starters, email is Internet content. It may not be de facto ok to republish it, but you can’t just tell people no. What’s to stop the offender from resubscribing via another email account and reposting the emails via an anonymous blog? Nothing, really. Or, what’s to stop a HARO subscriber from forwarding a HARO email to any number of their friends? Again, nothing.

A variation on the argument could be made that just because it's illegal to rob a store, what's to stop someone? Because it is illegal - and immoral and unethical. Similar to Profnet emailing queries, the HARO emails are copyrighted compilations, and the individual queries are copyrighted by the reporters.

Under both international and US copyright law, as well as the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998, people do not have the right to take copyrighted material and post it on the web, absent a fair use argument. Posting something in its entirety on a commercial site as a way to attract traffic could be a textbook example of something that was not fair use. And the person whose copyright has been infringed has a number of legal remedies, just as the shop owner who has been robbed has.

In addition, Greer called the letter a "hissy fit." However, he happened to have left out its middle - the part about openly posting the email addresses of reporters, which makes them subject to the harvesting of spambots. (I'd have added that open posting also presents competitive problems for the writers and publishers looking for sources, because it starts identifying which publications are looking at particular stories.) By leaving out that part, I think he badly and unfairly mischaracterized Shankman's reaction - and the reaction of the writers I know whose queries were posted.

This post isn’t about ethics. I could argue both sides of the ethics debate. What its about is that the Internet is a super-powerful communications tool and you can’t take for granted that pre-Internet rules of engagement automatically apply. You have to anticipate how the power of the Internet may impact what you are doing or want to do, and adapt. You just can’t make assumptions.

When you ridicule someone for objecting to a practice, you are talking about ethics in more ways than one. The issue in question was one of ethics, and by slanting the appearance of the letter, there's an entire other aspect of ethics that comes into play.

Finally, Greer argues the following:

So if Shankman wants to make HARO a strong and viable service that will survive, he’ll have to think through some of these implications and adapt or change the service. Otherwise, HARO is going to flame out, as journalists abandon it because they no longer find it to be an efficient and credible source of information.

Quite the opposite. To embrace having everything posted openly would be the kiss of death. Many writers got leery of Profnet when someone started posting those queries, and I know a number that had a similar reaction when the HARO ones appeared. You might argue that the reporters are being unreasonable, but then why not extend that to everything private, and have all of our information, no matter what, posted? Because that would be nuts, and just because something is possible doesn't mean that you should tolerate it. And that's exactly the point here.

Help a Reporter Query Service Getting Posted Online

You may remember the mini-furor of the other week when someone subscribing to PR Newswire was reposting all the queries onto the Internet. For a number of reporters who had become disenchanted with ProfNet, its new interface, and the quality of leads they thought had declined, this seemed the last straw, or close to it, for ProfNet. Then PR person Peter Shankman started his Help A Reporter service, which has been gaining quick traction. Ah, but now those leads are getting posted.

Independent PR person Nicole Lascelle has been posting the complete feeds to her site - certainly without permission, as I found one of my own queries on the list and no one had asked me whether I minded having such materials put out in the open. She's including email addresses, so if you find yourself on even more spam lists, this might be why.

When will PR people realize that journalists have lots of reasons not to make their queries generally available to the public - like not wanting to tip off what they're working on and for whom. I'll be dropping a line to Mr. Shankman to let him know what is happening. So much for common sense confidentiality.

Update

I received a reply from Peter Shankman literally within four minutes of my emailing him. He copied me on an email he sent to Ms. Lascelle and on the phone gave me permission to post it:

Subject: NO. YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO POST MY EMAILS ON YOUR SITE

Nicole:

You’re posting my HARO emails on your site without my permission.

REMOVE THEM NOW.

This is not subject to negotiation. You’re putting reporter emails up for Spam-bots to harvest. Have you lost your MIND? And you wonder why reporters hate publicists?

I notice that you put your own emails in (parens) so they’re not harvested, why would you not have the basic decency to do the same?

Take EVERY SINGLE ONE DOWN NOW, and NEVER post another one of my emails.

Peter Shankman

He also mentioned that he knows of PR people who, to curry favor from reporters, will pass on entire ProfNet lead transmissions, and noted that if someone gets the text version of the ProfNet emails, they can pass it on undetected by PRNewswire, which owns the ProfNet service.
In short, folks, if you don't want anyone else ever to be able to see a query, don't use one of these lead systems, because there is no way the owners can prevent the information from being passed around.

ProfNet Update

Yesterday I noted that someone was re-posting ProfNet queries onto an open site on the Internet. I have a call today and was told that things looked resolved, but would get an email when it was official. Just got the email:

The queries issue has been resolved. The site has been taken down and the person's ProfNet account has been terminated.

It's good that this particular episode is over, but this isn't the first time that it has happened. I'd say that anyone using ProfNet or any of the other query distribution services will have to be someone circumspect going forward and assume, like you must with anything written, that it could come back to haunt you publicly.

ProfNet Queries Posted for Open View

Many freelance writers use ProfNet to find potential sources that might not easily be located through other methods. In the past there have been some incidents of queries being made public, but now it appears that Vox.com is publishing entire ProfNet feeds on an open web site.

I just found one of mine up there, which is disturbing, because it now is open to anyone, including competitors of my clients. (I typically have used ProfNet to submit queries on some topics, but have restricted their being circulated to media companies.) Also, the contact information for the people submitting queries is also published, meaning that you might find yourself being put on various mailing lists without your permission.

Although I've used ProfNet for years, I'm wondering whether it's time to stop using the service. It would be a pity, as there are times I want companies that have certain experiences or background and doing searches of news stories would be unlikely to turn up what I need.

Using Profnet Effectively

I've seen many writers complaining about Profnet as of late. The dislike of the interface I can't do much about. But on problems with getting responses, there are a few pointers I can offer after using the service since its early days and having a fair amount of success in getting what I need from it:

• Strong Headline - I don't mean overly clever, but something that gets across the essence of what you're seeking. Be as clear and specific as you can, so when PR people glance through the headlines, they will notice your query and whether they have something applicable.


• Don't Cloak - There are times when you might absolutely have to, but in general, don't cloak your queries. This is an example of having to outguess the mental processes of the PR people. They're trying to get the most high profile press for their clients. If they know the name - and it's rare they're knowing is a significant problem - then they can either approach their clients or not without having to ask you for the name first, which they'll probably want, and reasonably so. What I do, however, is to make sure that in the recipient categories I do not check media. That keeps me from sending the query to potential competitors.


• Be Descriptive - I've found that writing an effective query has a lot in common with writing a good piece of marketing. I put in the material I'm looking for, but try to phrase it in such a way that I get someone's interest. Let them see their clients in the piece so they'll respond. Some clients will say no after hearing about it, but that's an occupational hazard and leads to the next point.


• Don't Sweat Small Stuff - There will be PR people who send you something off-target, or who talk about their clients and then say a day or two later that the client isn't interested. Just let it roll off your back. After all, you've lost, what, maybe 30 to 60 seconds of reading an email and replying? It hasn't been that big a burden. If someone is completely off base, just reply, "Thanks, but not a fit."


• Try, Try Again - This is something I've learned only recently. There was a time that you'd get a strong response any time you used Profnet. But now I've seen times when I sent a query and got nothing. But I've started trying to resend them on other days and, presto, I get some targeted sources. I don't know why everyone who catches it on a later date doesn't the first time, but it's easy enough to send a second time. Sometimes I'll even reword the head or body of the query if I think it will help improve response.


• Avoid Conflict - Here's another point where you have to put yourself in the PR person's shoes. They may not want their clients getting into a story that could prove embarrassing. So try toning down your word choices, using less inflammatory terms, and put a "happy spin" that still leaves you with the essence of what you're seeking. You can ask the tougher questions when the person is on the phone, but get them on the phone without using false pretenses. For example, I had to do a story on marketing people becoming obsolete for lack of continued training. Put that way, I got nothing. So I asked about where some extra learning or training meant the difference between success and failure, and suddenly I had some takers. No one wanted to say, "I am professionally obsolete." No wonder.


• Don't Say Pitch Thanks to a freelancer who took a full-time PR job and suggested not to say that you're working on a pitch for a publication. That's a red flag of a non-existent article that could have a source spinning wheels for no reason. If you can truthfully say so, instead say that you're preparing a proposal at an editor's request.

This won't cure all of your problems with Profnet, but it might help you get sources more frequently and with less hassle.

Prospect Resuscitation

You send a query or a letter of introduction to a prospect. You researched the market, tailored your approach and bio, and made sure you were sending it to the right person. Hitting the send button, you wait. And wait. And wait. Nothing happens for days, and then weeks, and then a few months.

You could write it off, but you don't have to. Don't assume that the potential client looked at what you send and thought, "Oh, give me a break! Who would ever want to hire that person?" It's far more likely that an email went into spam, that you got lost in a flood of other entries, or that the recipient took note and then forgot.

What you should do is dig out some of these old letters and queries as an experiment. Instead of writing again, telephone. Say that you had sent something and realized that you had never followed up, so you're getting in touch. At worst, the person ends up saying, "Send something again," without remembering you. At best, the contact may be far more satisfying.

I did this yesterday with an introductory email I had sent in either June or July. The editor remembered my name (maybe he was getting me confused with someone else, but that was fine because I was top of mind) and explained what they were doing. He requested me to resend the info, and I used what I learned in the conversation to further tailor it. He also explained that they give new writers a test assignment that should be easy to do - and I showed my understanding of the market by noting that it would probably be something easy for them to recover from should the writer mess up. He agreed - and I branded myself at least partly as a professional who understands the custom publishing (in this case) business.

I choose appropriate content - both multiple assignments from one custom publisher and an example from another that correctly suggested that I had done ongoing work, all of which will make me more palatable. At the end I said I'd be interested in a test assignment, because I had enough information to know this was the next step, and so I wanted a targeted call to action.

I'll be doing this with other leads that have fallen to the wayside. In fact, I emailed another editor who said that he still doesn't have budget to hire, but to check with him near the end of the year. Not all of this work will turn into assignments, but some portion will, and that's what counts.

The Evil Editor and Other Useful Web Sites

I happened upon one web site useful to writers the other day, which made me think about putting together a list of some that can offer helpful tips and backstage glimpses that can help you better understand publishing and how to navigate the business:

• Evil Editor: Why you don't get published is a hoot. Yes, you can laugh at unfortunates, if you are so inclined, but this is also a useful site. Aside from the mocking for amusement, the owners claims to be a publishing industry pro, and the reactions are telling, offering good clues on what not to write in a query. The brave can also submit their own queries and book openings for critique.


• Pub Rants is less snarky (a position that Miss Snark took with her when she stopped new blog entries) and is by a literary agent in Denver. She still rants - politely - and in some of her material there is useful information, such as this entry about mentioning a book by an agent's client in your query letter.


• Lyons Literary has a blog explaining terms, some book publishing contract basics, and some of the dos and don'ts that make agents either more or less disposed to considering you and your work.


• If you are concerned about possible scams - a reasonable attitude for writers - you might check Writer Beware Blogs! by A.C. Crispin and Victoria Strauss, who hunt down scams and their perpetrators.


• If you like to hear the story behind books, Backstory has them. By e-publishing pioneer M.J. Rose and Jessica Keener, fiction editor at Agni Magazine, it seems like light lifting - authors send in the back stories to their books. But who cares? It's an interesting concept.


• Shrinking Violet Promotions is worth a stop just because the name is so apt for the concept. However, if you consider yourself an introvert (or not), you might find some useful information about promotion here.

Watch Your Words in Pitches

With email, it's easy to quickly assemble a query or letter of introduction and send it to a prospect or client. Unfortunately, it's too easy to get sloppy, even when you swear up one side of the street and down the other that you'd never be guilty of the offense. The strongest piece of marketing you have is whatever you've written that is sitting in front of someone. If it is unclear in structure, the buyer will think that all of your writing is. Someone isn't going to ignore the email, because they'll assume that to be a clearer indication of your work habits.

Also be aware of reader sensitivities. As an example, the phrase "very unique" is unlikely to bring in additional assignments, but for people who count the phrase as silly (there are no degrees of uniqueness), it could be the kiss of death. When the phone doesn't ring, you'll know it's them. No mafia don will ever pay such heed to omerta, the code of silence.

Take a moment before you hit send, run spell check, and then read over the message yourself. Maybe you think you've never had a problem, but you'll never know who was unimpressed and decided to pass.

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.

How Not to Tick Off Editors, Agents, and Others

Sally Wiener Grotta is a writer and photographer friend of mine who has a great blog entry on what not to say to editors and agents.

It's on the book end of things, but I think the comments are applicable to anything a writer does, whether book, magazine, corporate, or non-profit. Outside of the usual culprits - like "Don't screw up my name when sending something to me" - are some particularly relevant ones. For exmaple, the impulse to talk about yourself can be off-putting and can set off a red flag that you are going to be high maintenence. This is a perfect example of starting to understand your prospects and doing things to make them comfortable and happy. And when the prospects are happy, they're more inclined to give you assignments.