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 "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.