by Howard Rauch, President, Editorial Solutions, Inc.

What is the key mission of today’s B2B editors? Obviously, the current emphasis on digital editing expertise is overwhelming. We are caught up in the excitement of delivering content to our readership in a host of new formats. And the web has facilitated our ability to be timely, as evidenced by our reliance on social media potential and increased frequency of e-newsletter delivery.

But in the course of putting finishing touches on an ASBPE editorial performance webinar presentation, I became aware of a consistent cautionary note expressed by my sources. That is … we are doing a great job quantitatively; however, this achievement is dimmed by an accompanying qualitative shortfall.

In fact, several editors have expressed this concern during the past year. There’s not enough time to engage in thorough research. Squeezed travel budgets have put a damper on our ability to expand our industry knowledge via productive field trips. There’s no time to adequately train new recruits so that they become star performers quickly.

Labels: editorial, Howard Rauch, Tests

By Howard Rauch

Although conventional in-print news sections supposedly are slated for an overhaul, they remain alive, but not necessarily well, via existing formats. So a word to the wise, especially when you run your next competitive analysis match-up: Include a scoring system designed to identify and quantify news coverage strengths/weaknesses.

Recently I revised my system to include evaluation of nine factors (as opposed to the previous seven). In the future, I expect further revisions. Reason? Section content must provide an increased analytical slant. We also must dump all those “obligatory” puff blurbs in the interests of achieving a more authoritative focus.

For me, news section competitive analysis starts with a 20-factor scoring tabulation. I then narrow it down to the following nine-factor scoring system:

1. Percent of news pages illustrated. Anything less than 100 percent is unacceptable.
   
   
2. Percent of pages using infographics. The majority of news sections I’ve reviewed during the past year rarely use infographics. For many, one infographic per section is a big deal.
   
   
3. Pages/graphics ratio. (Note: This is an addition to the previous system. You arrive at this indicator by dividing total illustrations section uses into total number of pages carrying news. Minimum target ratio is 1.5.
   
   
4. Story-start ratio. You arrive at this number by dividing news section editorial page count (as opposed to total pages carrying news) into the number of articles run. Shoot for a story start ratio of 1.5-2.0. Ratios over 4.0 usually reflect an absence of depth.
   
   
5. High-impact lead story. (Note: I’ll say more about this once the entire 9-factor list is presented).
   
   
6. Urgency percent. Here we are evaluating the presence or absence of high-impact content. To get the current picture for your publication, divide total news section page count into total number of articles addressing a strong benefit or threat. The result never should be lower than 80.0%.
   
   
7. Total end-user quotes. “End-user” refers to your key reader group. These quotes are tougher to come by, especially if your personal relationship with that group is severely limited.
   
   
8. Average Fog Index for section’s first page. Everybody knows how FI works, right? If not, look it up via your favorite search engine. Preferred FI grade level range is 10-12.
   
   
9. Five-factor headline evaluation. Sub-factors entering into this calculation include (1) headline story-telling value; (2) absence or presence of story-telling deck; (3) presence or absence of numbers; (4) overuse of “cute” low-value words/phrasing; (5) presence or absence of active verbs. Factor (3) is notable for its absence. Don’t we know that attention-getting numbers appeal to a B2B audience? Or do we just never insist that writers include hot numbers in their articles. (Hint: Create a staff hand-out listing several dozen questions that only can be answered with a number).

Every so often, I issue a client advisory concerning faltering news sections. My message usually identifies six shortfalls that require immediate upgrade:

• An illustration on every news page.
  
  
• A lead story that occupies one full page and includes direct quotes from three or four end-user sources.
  
  
• More frequent use of follow-up stories. For example, in the case of regulatory developments, obtain industry reaction from end-users (as opposed to the usual, more easily accessible association and consulting organization sources).
  
  
• At least one page per section using an infographic (preferably a chart).
  
  
• A minimum of one direct quote in every article using three or more paragraphs.
  
  
• Observation of Fog Index principles. At the very least, average sentence length per article should stay close to 20 words.

That covers everything for now. For additional quick tips on a variety of editorial topics, follow me on Twitter: www.twitter.com/editorialtype.

Labels: headline writing, Howard Rauch, news writing, Tests

By Howard Rauch, President, Editorial Solutions, Inc.

In competitive analysis focusing on e-news delivery, what’s the likelihood that outsourced articles usually will win out when the opposition’s content is staff-written? The answer is “not always” … but often enough, especially when it comes to basic editing practice.

For the purposes of this discussion, “outsourced” e-news pertains to those sites where, say, aggragated blurbs link directly to articles published in dailies. Other times, the source material may be provided by wire services. And then (argh!!!) there are cases where articles actually are press announcements reproduced in their entirety.

Right now, in a follow-up study that will involve 50 sites when finished, I’ve evaluated 31 sites. (Note: Findings of an initial 50-site Editorial Solutions e-news study were reviewed in the November/December 2009 issue of ASBPE’S Editor’s Notes publication — 556K PDF; available to ASBPE members only.)

Prior to launching the Phase II project, I handled a few competitive analysis projects where my client’s staff-written e-news came up short vs. the opposition’s outsourced content. My current study has evaluated several sites where outsourced articles confirm five strengths I found especially troublesome in the past:

(1) Enterprise level is considerably higher. Local reporters often obtain direct quotes from well-placed end-user sources that enhance article credibility.

(2) Visitors don’t get bogged down in foggy writing. Parades of incredibly long sentences are rare. On-target Fog Index Levels are the rule rather than the exception.

(3) Average scores are 15 to 30 points higher than those achieved by staff-written e-news packages, in most cases where articles are evaluated using my eight-factor scoring system.

(4) Executed correctly, provided e-news consistently addresses content of highest impact. Packages are not weighed down with rewrites of standard PR announcements.

(5) Staff does not have to spend time gathering material. That time probably is unavailable in the first place. This has to be a key consideration for the surprising number of sites – where the magazine has a monthly frequency – that are churning out daily and sometimes twice daily e-newsletter alerts.

Of course, there are many cases where staff-written B2B news packages can meet or exceed the standard set by sites featuring outsourced content. However, when that is true, most of the time it is because one or more dedicated on-line editors are part of the e-news team. It’s also true that sometimes, even given the advantage of a dedicated on-line crew, the resulting news stream is less than the best.

Now … how about those situations where all magazines serving a given industry rely totally on outsourced e-news? If you manage one of the sites in such a group, how do you prove – in the competitive analysis arena – that your package is the best? I’ve just begun considering possible factors to use in upcoming projects. The preliminary list includes number of items run per issue, exclusives (really hard to prove, it seems), scoops, quality of sources quoted, diversified formats and geographic scope. Another conceivable strength is the inclusion of exclusive information or editorial comment in the aggragated blurbs.

Despite the apparent advantages outsourced news may provide, we need to have more e-news sections dominated by high-enterprise, self-generated articles. However, of the 31 e-news packages reviewed to date in my Phase II study, only nine are star performers (average score = 60 or higher out of a possible 100 points). Of the 358 articles posted:

• 185 — 51.7% — did not reflect enterprise reporting.
• 136 —37.7% — were burdened by high Fog Index (grade levels exceeding 13.0).
• 110 — 30.7% — fielded average sentence lengths exceeding 25 words; too many parades of 30- and 40-word sentences were observed.

Look for another survey update late next month. Meantime, for ongoing commentary of various B2B editorial issues, follow me on Twitter: www.twitter.com/editorialtype.

Labels: e-news, editorial, Howard Rauch, study

By Howard Rauch

Discussions about today’s editorial workload dilemma usually focus on how we split our time percentagewise between online and print. I followed the same line of thinking while creating an editorial performance survey for an upcoming ASBPE webinar. But early input via initial telephone brainstorming sessions with survey respondents suggests the need for another mind set.

For instance, consider the point raised by a group editorial director who has embraced “web first” content creation. He believes online and print activities must be blended into one fluid process. “We have not changed the way we gather information, write it for the web and then repurpose it for print,” he said. However, significant changes have been made in production procedures, especially how deadlines are organized.

Another brainstorming conversation mulled pros and cons of expedience as the answer to making job ends meet. For instance, I’ve noticed some sites relying moreso on straight reruns of press releases. The editors don’t try to hide the fact that content is far from original. “We select only the most relevant stuff for rerun,” says one online editor. “It doesn’t matter if we’re not the source in every case.” My view? WRONG!!! Our content-creation emphasis must be on exclusivity and enterprise. Does anyone not understand why that approach is mandated?

Labels: Digital, Howard Rauch, Webinars

By Howard Rauch
Chairman, ASBPE Ethics Committee

Debating the precarious outlook for the traditional church-and-state doctrine preoccupies most discussions when the subject of editorial ethics arises.

Advances in the Internet, however, require additional B2B attention on ethics. Long-held principles are being shaken.

This is the situation confronting the ASBPE Ethics Committee. In response, the
committee is planning a dramatic expansion of activity this year (see news story for details).

Challenges to consider

Let’s now consider a partial list of noteworthy ethics challenges:

Labels: Ethics, Howard Rauch

By Howard Rauch

How to deal more effectively with mounting print/digital workloads will be my focus during an ASBPE June 17 webinar.

In advance, I invited all concerned editors to complete a questionnaire outlining their current responsibilities. Respondents were asked to focus primarily on their online workloads. They were challenged to identify their most time-consuming tasks.

During follow-up phone calls starting May 15, I’ll consult with each participant about possible ways to simplify workloads. An extra benefit: all respondents receive an analysis of e-newsletter content based on the eight-factor scoring system I outlined in a recent Editor’s Notes article (556K PDF; available to ASBPE members only).

Early returns reflect some significant patterns. Here are a few:

1. Production responsibilities are major time consumers. In several past editorial performance projects focusing on print, I often found production processes were hampered by burdensome practices. There is every indication that the same holds true for online. Of course, that depends on how you define “production.” I include assorted posting functions — coding, sizing photos, proofreading — anything else that’s distinct from original writing/editing tasks.

2. There is agreement that job overload has impaired editing quality. This is especially true in those cases where e-newsletter workload has doubled or tripled in the past three years.

3. Publishers not yet committed to dedicated digital staffs will never exploit online marketing potential to the fullest. Descriptions of current workloads make that clear. For instance, developing a strong package of high-value webinars and white papers requires several days a month of focus. Furthermore, it seems farfetched to expect besieged staffs can deliver a continuous flow of exclusive, high-enterprise content.

We’ll discuss all of the above and much more on June 17. Meanwhile, there’s still time for you to benefit from advance participation. Just complete a performance questionnaire and return it to me before May 15. For more information or to obtain a copy of the questionnaire, contact me via email (howard@editsol.com) or call (201) 569-7714.

Labels: Digital, Howard Rauch, Productivity, Webinars, Work Life

By Howard Rauch

Ask any editor about their current workload and you’re sure to get an earful. Tales of woe usually focus on the unfairness of triple-threat job descriptions involving print, web and digital publications. Individuals are quick to add that job descriptions have expanded in the face of staff cuts and salary freezes.

The truth is ... nobody (yes, that includes top management) is happy about the situation. Further, the publishing industry is not alone in being walloped by the economy. The typical editor’s problem in making the case for relief is an inability to describe existing job functions quantitatively. In other words, how long does each facet of your job take to complete from start to finish in a given month?

This is no easy task. Different functions of a typical editorial job load may be spread out across several days into small time components. Melding the parts into a whole is challenging, to say the least.

Well ... we really can’t wait any longer. A time-oriented performance study is long overdue. So I’ve decided to give it a shot. The objective of this study is not to bemoan our circumstances. Instead, we need to seek possible shortcuts that will speed job fulfillment. And I am inviting you to participate in a two-phase study that’s just begun.

Phase I involves completion of a questionnaire asking you to analyze your work schedule. Most of the 15 questions are easily answered. Others will require that you put on your thinking cap. For example, question (7) asks you – on the basis of 100 percent – to estimate the time component breakdown for print vs. web. Question (8) challenges you to create a multicategory job description for the web portion. In a preliminary meeting between me and ASBPE webmaster Martha Spizziri, we came up with a dozen possible categories. Now we’re interested in comparing notes with you. Question (11) is the toughest to tackle. Here is where you prioritize the list created in question (9) from most time-consuming down to least time-consuming. If you’re up to the challenge, we can work through the questionnaire together. Later on, in Phase II of the study, we’d have a follow-up interview to make sure everything’s been covered.

Here are other things you ought to know about this pioneer project:

(1) The results will be presented June 17 at an ASBPE webinar I am cohosting with fellow consultant John Bethune.

(2) Survey participants will receive a special tailored summary of study results.

Interested? For more information or to receive a copy of the questionnaire, call me at (201) 569-7714 or e-mail howard@editsol.com.

Labels: Howard Rauch, Management, State of the Industry, Work Life

By Howard Rauch

B2B editors unhappy with the state of ethics at their companies have yet to create written policy statements covering their concerns. Arising disputes are handled from scratch, on a case-by-case basis. For those of you seeking a better way, here are two approaches I found during some recent research.

Computerworld posts its policy online. Yep, you can’t miss the “Code of Ethics” link on the Web site’s "About Us" page. Visitors who connect see a modified listing of ten principles excerpted from a more detailed internal policy:

1. Computerworld’s first priority is the interest of its readers.

2. Editorial decisions are made free of advertisers’ influence.

3. We insist on fair, unbiased presentation in all news and articles.

4. No advertising that simulates editorial content will be published.

5. Plagiarism is grounds for dismissal.

6. Computerworld makes prompt, complete corrections of errors.

7. Journalists do not own or trade in computer industry stocks.

8. No secondary employment in the IT industry is permitted.

9. Our commitment to fairness is our defense against slander.

10. All editorial opinions will be labeled as such.

“The issue is not the code itself but how it is interpreted for a type of publishing that wasn’t in existence when it was written,” says Computerworld editor-in-chief Scot Finnie.

Before moving on to my next example, here is some additional advice about complaint-handling policy. In my preconsulting days, when I was VP/editorial of a leading B2B multipublisher, proper complaint handling was accorded high priority. We had a written policy in place. What’s more, periodically we would run a complaint-handling workshop for new editors and/or salespeople. The session usually was led by our executive vice president. Here are a few policy excerpts specifically directed to editors:

• If you receive a complaint via telephone, take down all the information – and make the caller aware that you are doing so. Do not argue, and don’t constantly break in to pass the buck to your printer, the advertising department or anyone else. For the moment, you are the magazine to the complaining party – and that party expects results from you.
  
  
• The very same day, a letter should be sent to the aggrieved party confirming the conversation, offering a solution, or indicating a deadline by which you will get back to that person with a solution. If appropriate, attempt to resolve the problem by offering to print a prompt correction, a letter to the editor or “compensatory editorial” in an early issue.
  
  
• Your readiness to resolve the complaint may in itself be the ticket to neutralizing the anger of the person at the other end of the line. Before you end the call, always ask the complaining party whether there are any other concerns that should be addressed.
  
  
• If the complaint is serious to the point that you can’t arrive at a solution, try bumping the matter up to your boss. Attention from a superior often scores points with the complainant.
  
  
• A conciliatory approach may make a friend and avert a crisis!

Eight issues to consider when a proposed article involves an advertiser

Here is an interesting list I came across that at one time had been used by an association publication.

1. Where did the proposed story originate? If from the advertising department, is the motivation to inform the reader or to curry favor with the advertiser?

2. Is the article’s subject legitimate news or information regardless of who originated the idea?

3. Assuming the article is journalistically valid, is the editorial department free to pursue it independently regardless of where the story leads? Will the advertising department have any voice in determining sources to be interviewed? Will the advertising department have any censorship powers over the final version once the article is written?

4. Will publication of the article benefit one advertiser primarily or competing advertisers generally?

5. Will publication of the article give the appearance of weakening the editorial credibility of the publication? Can competing magazines use the article against you as evidence of a sell-out? Can competing advertisers claim foul or unfair influence?

6. Will publication of the article adversely affect morale among your own staff?

7. Taking all of the above into consideration, is there a way the article can be published that both the editorial and advertising departments can live with? Can the editorial focus be shifted in a way that permits editorial independence and still gives the advertising department something to take back to the advertiser?

8. Using your best journalistic training, experience and judgment, does publication of the article “feel right?”

If you have interesting examples of ethics policy statements that you are able to share with other ASBPE members, please give me a call at (201) 569-7714 or e-mail ethics.chair@editsol.com.

Labels: Ethics, Howard Rauch, Management

By Howard Rauch

You may have noticed that I am now chairing ASBPE’s ethics committee. As part of an orientation program, I read copies of all ethics guides posted in our site’s Industry Links section. What most guides have in common is an initial emphasis on a mandate to consistently deliver the highest possible level of editorial quality.

Reading through the guides, I was reminded of the reality that quality is more easily achieved when publishers enthusiastically endorse that goal. In today’s tough market, there clearly is concern that such support has been waning. So editors must take positive steps to re-enlist publishers, especially those new to the position, in a vital cause.

One possible solution materialized during a recent consulting assignment. My client and I had been discussing how to provide guidance for new publishers with relatively little editorial background. In those cases where a newly appointed publisher has such background, the supervisory challenge is easily met. But suppose we’re talking about a star salesperson with limited involvement on the other side. What then in terms of making appropriate decisions regarding matters of editorial content and/or performance? Sometimes the issues involved prove elusive even for experienced editorial managers.

After some additional mulling, I submitted a list of challenges – an editorial agenda of sorts – that could be followed, no matter what the new publisher’s background:

• Maintain or increase the frequency with which authoritative content appears. In this case, “authoritative” includes statistical reports. Also explore possibilities for conducting more Q&A interviews with top authorities from all industry segments (yes, that includes advertisers). Organize executive roundtables at conventions where publisher and/or editor functions as moderator.

• In conjunction with the editorial staff, create at least one A/V presentation that can be delivered at important conventions or during executive sessions at advertiser/agency premises.

• Write a regular column that is authoritative in its own right. The column should be totally different in direction from the editor’s page. However, it must reflect an excellent grasp of industry issues that stems from insider contact with leading movers/shakers.

• Explore possibilities for additional special projects in the form of quarterly supplements, one-shot white papers and/or webinars.

• When it comes to e-news, resist the temptation to load up with all the obligatory vendor-sourced stuff that has traditionally burdened many print sections. Web visitors are looking for the highest-value, insider-like reporting. That means plenty of originality and enterprise, elements that seem to be missing from many sites.

• Last but not least, defend the editorial budget so that efforts to maintain existing high-quality content are not discouraged.

Labels: Ethics, Howard Rauch, Management

By Howard Rauch

Labels: Editing, Howard Rauch, Journalism, Management, Writing

By Howard Rauch

Does “advertorial” deserve its rep among editors as a way to cloak a sales pitch in the guise of legitimate content? Or is it a marketing opportunity waiting to happen if handled creatively by a publisher/editor team?

When mishandled, advertorial management can be a nightmare from start to finish. On the other hand, the technique provides a way to offer B2B customers exclusivity that will make their message stand out from the crowd.

I started thinking about advertorials the other day as I was leafing through a bunch of digital magazines. Although there are supposed to be wondrous things you can do via animation, most content presentation was absolutely flat. Animated advertorials undoubtedly would be a knock-out. Whether they are affordable in this current economy is another story.

Anyway, in my VP/editorial director days, I supervised editorial preparation for dozens of advertorials. Here is what I learned along the way:

1. Advertorials don't have to be wall-to-wall puffy product pitches. Sponsored sections with a how-to, high-value editorial flavor can be sold if the right prototype is part of the presentation.

2. Editors must be involved in the planning stage because they are in the best position to identify newsworthy angles that dovetail with the prospect's marketing objectives.

3. Don't pin yourself down to the traditional standard-size format. Newsletters and even a series of one-page bulletins can make for a terrific campaign.

4. One editorial element that may close the sale is inclusion of exclusive research of interest to the magazine's readership.

5. Have a contract that includes a deadline schedule covering a minimum 90-day period. This allows time for copy to be written and clearances to be obtained.

6. You need a designated contact at the client's company. Ideally that individual is somebody with enough clout to push things through.

7. Full-time staff editors should not be involved in writing advertorial copy.

8. “Show-in-print” sections are a multisponsor project that sometimes can turn a revenue-losing issue into a big winner.

9. Don't run advertorials sponsored by competitors in the same issue.

10. Despite your best efforts in terms of up-front planning, some projects will fail. And selling multipage supplements is no easy task. Even in the face of these difficulties, creative advertorials should be an option highlighted in your publication's marketing menu.

By this time, some of you may be wondering why I have taken up your time with a marketing matter. Is the above information going to make you a better editor? Actually, it might. Meanwhile, understanding your role as a marketer will make you a better publisher. And we are in the publishing business, not the editing business.

Labels: Howard Rauch, Management, Media Business, Writing

By Howard Rauch

Routine E-news Coverage Will Be Our Downfall!!

This commentary is based on the 50-site e-news survey I just finished and is a combination of my e-news philosophy and information that I found during the study that goes against that philosophy.

Reaction A: “Wow!!! What a terrific article!!”

Reaction B: “These people just don’t get it?!!?”

These two outbursts – clearly at opposite ends of the opinion poll – came to mind often depending upon whose e-news I was evaluating. The occasion of this evaluation was the several months spent conducting a 50-site study of B2B e-news delivery. Unfortunately, the former reaction was rare. The latter squawk occurred more often as I examined 446 e-news articles encompassing dozens of B2B industries.

Was the anguish justified? Maybe not. It depends upon which e-news philosophy you embrace. Mine is simple enough. No matter what day it is, breaking news highlighted in e-newsletters must be “best in show” calibre. Specifically, when assessing the presence of urgency on the basis of being High, Medium or Low, there is no room for Low. Knowingly or not, that is what we all signed up for when we embraced the web. Further, if enterprise is being judged on the basis of High, Medium or Low, “No” is not an option. Even so, two-thirds of the articles rated were in the “No” category.

Of course, there are obvious reasons – we all know them – why “best in show” remains elusive. “Time” tops the list. “Resources” also is up there somewhere. Most of us have had to add website responsibilities to a job description that includes print, show business and, most recently, digital. In some cases, the need to deliver hot news on a regular basis is a new adventure for veteran staffs.

With all this, we must do everything possible to avoid making routine coverage a regular habit. Here are five items … some major, others admittedly minor … that we might consider as we plan future e-news:

(1) Every e-newsletter edition must lead off with dynamite coverage. What is dynamite? Try this: When it came to reporting regulatory news, most items rehashed a press release and stopped there. On rare occasions, writers saw the wisdom of producing a reaction story. In at least one case, the staff in question definitely was hard pressed in terms of workload. But the desire to excel won out and a terrific reaction story was the result. When evaluated during my study, the article earned 89 out of a possible 100 points, making it number two out of 446 on the e-news delivery scale. The “best in show” article scored a remarkable 98. Most articles fell into the 40-50-point range.

(2) Clearly distinguish your coverage from competitors’. Before starting this blog, I was running some “like item” analysis as part of a competitive analysis project. “Like item” refers to how two competitive sites cover an identical event. In the case of one article, it immediately was clear that both parties rewrote the same news release. Even the quotes were exactly the same. Unfortunately, this happens a lot. It’s lack of enterprise coming back to haunt us.

(3) Make statistical articles more digestible. Numbers generate hot news, so it’s no surprise e-news reports often focus on the latest survey results. However, when you run a 600-700 word article that recites all sorts of percentage increases and decreases, you’ll probably lose the reader. Instead, follow the “one picture is worth 1,000 words” principle and run one or more quick-read charts.

(4) Use at least one stimulating quote in every article. Quote-barren articles definitely are insufficient if we’re looking to engage e-news visitors.

(5) Ban “source first, news next” articles. Yes, I keep harping on this one. If a person’s name, title and affiliation use up 11 words or more, please don’t launch an article with that albatross weighing it down. One factor measured in my survey is lead value. This is the number of words wasted before a key story point is reached. Most articles reviewed were pretty good, meaning the key point was made within ten words. But there were enough cases where anywhere between 20 and 150 words elapsed before a meaningful connection was made. “Source first” was the culprit in almost every case.

Labels: Editing, Howard Rauch, Journalism

By Howard Rauch

Occasionally we need to remember that there is life beyond websites and digital issues. Basic editing snafus — especially those of a legal nature — can land us in hot water. Even experienced editors fall into an occasional trap involving libel or some other snag. Here are three reminders worth including in your editorial manual if you have one … or in a policy statement distributed to all staff members.

1. Avoid midstream reporting of undecided legal disputes. For example, the fact someone is charged with committing a crime or otherwise violating a regulation doesn’t mean the accused will be found guilty. In my editorial director days, I dealt with several situations where an editor interviewed the plaintiff in a dispute while the case was still in progress. The interviewee took some serious pot shots at the defendant’s character. If the article made it into print, we would have been up the creek. However, we had a policy that all articles of an inflammatory nature had to be cleared by a member of top management. That policy kept us out of trouble.

A variation on this theme is that X, one party to a dispute, issues a press release announcing intent to sue Y. The release includes a description of stiff penalties Y would incur if found guilty. You publish that information at your peril. Instead, wait until the case is settled. Meanwhile, obtain a copy of the complaint as a way of verifying the accuracy of the information contained in X’s press release.

2. Fact-check information excerpted from other media before it gets printed. If certain details are misleading or totally inaccurate, you may end up on the wrong side of a complaint. The fact that the excerpted material did not originate with you is no defense. In my consulting practice, I constantly needle editors who frequently use excerpted material in news sections. The better practice is to use, say, a newspaper article as a lead only. Then develop your own exclusive slant by following up with sources cited. Most likely, you know the parties quoted in the original story. If not, now you have an opportunity to make a new contact.

A variation on the above theme occurs when editors routinely reprint information from websites without obtaining clearance to do so. Remember that copyright privileges apply. Aggrieved parties are within their rights to make your life miserable.

3. Beware of using “endorsement language.” At the very least, resulting infractions will haunt you forever with important contacts. In this case, typical goofs occur in the way we edit (or don’t edit) new product announcements. I’m sure you know the drill. A product announcement lands on your desk filled with glowing descriptions of an item’s value to your readers. Experienced editors assume a “glow must go” position and routinely red-pencil all the puffy stuff. But from what I’ve seen, this is not real life at every publication. Among the glitches that sneak through are statements alleging that product X is better than all competitors. Or the announcement will claim that the product is the only one of its kind out there … or the first one in its field. You had better verify that competitive claims are true. If you can’t do that, please have a policy in place describing how to field complaints from competitors who have a legitimate beef.

Howard Rauch is president of Editorial Solutions Inc., a consultancy focusing on B2B magazines. Rauch is the 2002 recipient of ASBPE’s Lifetime Achievement Award. You can contact him directly at howard@editsol.com.

Labels: Editing, Howard Rauch, Journalism

By Howard Rauch

Howard Rauch is president of Editorial Solutions Inc., a consultancy focusing on B2B magazines. Rauch is the 2002 recipient of ASBPE’s Lifetime Achievement Award. You can contact him directly at howard@editsol.com.

Labels: Digital, Email Newsletters, Howard Rauch, Writing

By Howard Rauch

What were some of us thinking when we launched an e-news program? Did we realize that content delivery had to be considerably better than the traditional approach found in print news sections? Some of us got the message and are doing a terrific e-news job. Others seem content to fill space regularly with press announcement rewrites. And far too many e-news packages are burdened by endless sentences and slow-poke leads.

The above harangue is based on current results of a 50-site e-news study I undertook several months ago. As of now, I have reviewed 31 sites delivering 279 e-news articles and expect to go beyond the 50 target. Here are a few basic editing practices requiring improvement:

• Identify an article's importance within the first ten words. Every time we use a source-first/news second format, we diminish immediacy. Further, if e-news is supposed to launch quickly into an article, too many of us head in the wrong direction. To illustrate, I found 123 articles (44.1 percent) where the opening sentence ran 30 words or longer.
  
  
• Observe the "universality of interest" principle. All breaking e-news story must impact the majority of our readers in some significant way. We defeat that purpose if we regularly run standard vendor announcements (like rep appointments, a new catalog or plant expansion) under the banner of hot news.


• Seek brevity at every turn. Of the 279 articles assessed, 151 (54.1 percent) defied readability thanks to Fog Index grade levels exceeding 13.0. You may recall that the preferred FI level range is 10-12. Further, 111 articles --40.9 percent -- had average sentence lengths exceeding 20 words. FI theory stipulates ASL should be 20 words.


• Build maximum urgency into headlines. As an ongoing judge of the "best headlines" category in ASBPE's awards competition, I apply two tests to every entry:
  

  (1) Does the headline reflect what was discovered as opposed to what was covered?
  
  (2) If the article is packed with hot numbers, does the headline exude a quantitative flavor?

  Within my current sample group, writers do okay with (1). But delivery on (2) is disappointing.


• Enterprise is a non-event. One reason for this shortfall undoubtedly is that many publications are not staffed up to deliver exclusive material. Many editors I know would love to do better, but website cost structures are steeper than anticipated. In those cases, we do the best we can. Anyway, evidence of enterprise is lacking in 182 articles reviewed. That's a disappointing 65.2 percent of total articles examined.

For additional details on survey findings, please consult my website: www.editsol.com. Competitive analysis has not yet become a significant factor in the e-news arena. When it does happen, many non-enterprising sites will be targets for more aggressive publishers armed with dedicated e-news staffs.

Howard Rauch is president of Editorial Solutions Inc., a consultancy focusing on B2B magazines. Rauch is the 2002 recipient of ASBPE’s Lifetime Achievement Award. You can contact him directly at howard@editsol.com.

Labels: Digital, Howard Rauch, Writing

By Howard Rauch

Labels: Howard Rauch, Management, Tests

By Howard Rauch
Editorial Consultant
Editorial Solutions Inc.

My previous blog describing a productivity measurement system drew plenty of viewers, so apparently the topic is of interest. So let’s continue.

To recap briefly, you need to determine how long it takes to complete each of six job functions:

(1) original writing;
(2) editing the work of others;
(3) travel;
(4) production;
(5) detail/administration;
(6) supervision.

In each case, keep separate tabulations for time spent on print vs. web.

Once you start this documentation process, you may find many time management hurdles are posed by administrative stuff. Don’t be surprised if any of the following 10 performance infringers are bogging you down.

(1) Avoiding confrontation. You realize a staff member will never get up to speed, but you duck a performance showdown. Typical rationalization? If you let somebody go who at least can do part of the job well, you must train somebody else all over again — something you don’t have time to do.

(2) Destructive criticism. Staff members don’t take direction well, or so you think.

What actually happens many times, especially in the case of article critiques, is you engage in too much “management by adjectives.” You will besiege an author who wants to do better with “advice” such as “this lead is unacceptable; go back and try again” … “tighten up your writing” … “you spent too much time on this article; you have to work faster.”

In my early years in B2B, I remember one guy who always complained that my writing wasn’t “crisp.” I was at a loss for a defense. The same supervisor had the habit of leaving a copy of my first draft on my desk with one word of constructive criticism — WRONG!!! — scrawled across passages he didn’t like.

(3) Mail-opening ritual. You probably don’t get as much mail as I did before e-mail existed, but the post office undoubtedly still delivers a bundle of stuff on Monday morning. In many companies I’ve had as clients, the “responsibility” for opening mail gets dumped on a junior editor. That person may take hours to finish a job that a more senior person could handle in minutes. Check it out!

(4) Unrealistic quality standard. How dare I argue against quality? Because with the load that confronts most editors today, everything can’t be a work of art. You have to find an easy way out.

Here’s a typical situation. When I was an editorial VP, our company acquired a magazine with an editor who insisted that every feature be a round-up based on pithy quotes from at least ten sources. In many cases, single-source interviews with authoritative execs would have done the job just as well. But not for this editor! Result? The magazine always was late. Nobody met deadlines. Every staff member complained about too much night and weekend work.

Well, we’ll probably always have some of that. But don’t contribute to the problem by insisting on making every assignment a labor-intensive nightmare.

(5) Hiring from the hip. Has your screening/interviewing of applicants become a rush job? Do you knowingly hire candidates hoping they’ll work out because they had all the right answers and great samples? Instead, do you regularly use a comprehensive editing test to confirm a candidate’s capabilities? Do you use an interviewing checklist you can complete as the interview progresses?

(6) Anti-‘floater’/intern sentiment. Many beginners just out of J-school may already be star performers. So don’t routinely stick them with all the clerical junk. They may give you a terrific productivity lift in a pinch.

(7) Outside interference. I mentioned this hurdle in my previous blog. Outside calls from information seekers clearly are time-killers. In some cases, you have to take such calls. But you can control the process.

One top B2B magazine in the marketing field had a policy that editors would be happy to provide information . . . but only between 4:00 and 5:00 p.m. on Tuesdays and Thursdays. When I was editorial director of a retailing magazine, we always were inundated with phone calls about market trends. Finally, we did a study and found that dozens of callers were seeking the same information. Once we realized this, we created an FAQ booklet covering most of the bases. Armed with this tool, it only took a few minutes to advise inquirers that our booklet covered everything they needed to know. Thus, we saved hours of phone work without being abrupt to outsiders.

(8) Production quagmire. Does every editorial staff member on your publication spend four or more days a month engaged in proofreading, layout, working with the art department, or whatever? If so, you need some shortcuts, especially if your editors do a lot of design. Inevitably, you will need to invoke maximum time limits for completing production tasks.

(9) Web work. This includes time spent writing blogs, e-features and e-news. When the Internet was still in its infancy, I found that most editors at one client spent at least an hour a day surfing websites for news leads for their publications. An hour a day?! Do the math. That’s five hours a week … at least 20 hours a month … or close to three days in surf mode. I’ll bet it’s much more than that now. Of course, there’s also the time spent pruning received e-mail. That’s a prime time productivity inhibitor that may never go away!

(10) Searching. I am still as guilty as the next person when it comes to shuffling papers in search of a document “I know is on my desk somewhere.” I’ve gotten better since regularly scheduling clean-up days once a week. But when you have a minute, do a quick mental calculation of time per day your staff collectively spends searching.

So that’s my list of performance inhibitors. If you have any pet peeves I haven’t mentioned, please chime in!!!

Howard Rauch is president of Editorial Solutions Inc., a consultancy focusing on B2B magazines. Rauch is the 2002 recipient of ASBPE’s Lifetime Achievement Award. You can contact him directly at howard@editsol.com.

Labels: Howard Rauch, Productivity, Tests

By Howard Rauch

Probably nothing good can be said about B2B’s editorial productivity dilemma. Tales of staff cutbacks in the face of heavier workloads are recounted almost every day. Under the circumstances, engagement in performance analysis can’t be delayed.

In the past, the prospect of productivity review dismayed many editors. The long-standing objection has been that quantitative values cannot be assigned to qualitative work. That attitude is past its prime. Today there are benefits to be accrued when you are able to document how long it takes to tackle the daunting task of generating content for magazines and websites.

Having said that, I want to describe a basic approach to performance analysis:

• Each staff member should keep performance data for one or two months.
  
  
• During that time period, document how long it takes you to engage in each of six job categories:
  

  (1) original writing;
  
  (2) editing the work of others;
  
  (3) travel;
  
  (4) production;
  
  (5) detail/administrative stuff like meetings, reading e-mail, general correspondence, training, interviewing job candidates, article recruitment, filing, etc.;
  
  (6) supervision (depending upon your position) of staff or freelance.
  

• Keep separate tabulations for time spent on print vs. web.
  
  
• Your target is an estimate of the number of days each task requires.
  
  
• Within the framework of a given month, start with the assumption that total time spent should be equivalent to 20-22 days. Undoubtedly, your calculations will drift beyond that level.
  
  
• To facilitate your analysis, create a time-management form that brackets time into 15-minute periods.
  
  
• In addition to the above documentation, keep a telephone log showing time spent on incoming calls. Categorize the nature of these calls.
  
  
• If your day load total does rise to a scary level, look for possible shortcuts. For example, a recent analysis involving a senior editor found that an unreasonable effort was being devoted to editing single manuscripts. Another time, an associate editor was spending a frightening number of hours per week surfing the web for story material. The production process often is an area where work duplication abounds. The web clearly seems to be a place where limited staffs are being asked to fulfill overly-ambitious quantitative requirements. For instance, it’s unclear whether jumping from weekly to daily e-news updating has been accompanied by necessary workload adjustments.

This is probably enough about performance analysis for you to mull in one sitting. Once an editorial staff has a realistic handle on quantitative achievement, you have a more useful way to update top management on the exceptional value you now deliver every day!

Howard Rauch is president of Editorial Solutions Inc., a consultancy focusing on B2B magazines. Rauch is the 2002 recipient of ASBPE’s Lifetime Achievement Award. You can contact him directly at howard@editsol.com.

Labels: Howard Rauch, Productivity

By Howard Rauch

Labels: Career/Employment, Howard Rauch, Journalism, Management, Tests

By Howard Rauch

When it comes to e-news delivery, many articles don’t adhere to published recommendations pertaining to brevity and originality. I alluded to the brevity problem in my previous blog post. Now, with two e-news studies completed, there’s more evidence that room for improvement exists.

During the past month, I conducted two separate e-news studies. The first was a pilot project involving seven e-newsletters. Each newsletter carried blurbs for five or more top news articles. I followed each link – 46 in all – to the full article appearing on the website.

Each e-news item was judged against eight factors. I’ll provide details here on the four most critical considerations: high relevance, enterprise, lead value and average sentence length.

Regarding the first factor – high relevance – various degrees of relevance exist. News items exhibiting the “high” quality provide information that conveys an important benefit or threat. Of the 46 articles reviewed, 32 made the grade, 12 earned a “no” and another four were doubtful.

Enterprise reflects evidence of original writing as opposed to reshuffling a press release. Only three of the 46 articles involved extra digging.

Lead value indicates the number of words required to arrive at a key story point. Because website visitors reportedly are scanners, each article must corral their attention within the lead’s first 10 words. Thus . . . a lead falling within the -21 to -30 range wastes 20 or more introductory words. A -5 lead would be dynamite, especially if you could do it every time.

Among the 46 article leads reviewed, 27 stayed below -10. Another 12 were in the -11 to -20 range. The other seven were higher. As an aside, some feature article evaluations have encountered several cases of -100 leads or higher. How come? It’s those verbose opening anecdotes that invariably have difficulty connecting to the story focus.

Average sentence length traditionally is a high hurdle. In my sample group, only 16 articles had ASL of 20 words or lower. Another 12 fell into the 26-30 word range. Six more had discouraging ASL’s exceeding 30 words.

Most recently, I finished a more extensive study involving 67 websites. In this case, evaluations covered the top news story highlighted on each site’s e-newsletter connection. There was evidence of enterprise in only 10 cases. This study involved Fog Index calculations, where the preferred grade-level of writing falls into the 10-12 range. Over half of the articles reviewed could not meet the challenge. Several articles clearly ran amok, ending up with grade levels above 17.

Even articles that stayed within the 10-12 range reflected too high a preference for long sentences (25 words or more). The 67 articles reviewed collectively used 975 sentences. Of that number, 336 sentences – 34.5 percent – ran 30 words and beyond.

Obviously you can’t draw a hard conclusion about lack of merit based on one news item per website. However, the four factors used for review purposes are worth employing during your next website news section post-mortem.

Howard Rauch is president of Editorial Solutions Inc., a consultancy focusing on B2B magazines. Rauch is the 2002 recipient of ASBPE’s Lifetime Achievement Award. You can contact him directly at howard@editsol.com.

Labels: Electronic Style Guide, Howard Rauch, Writing