A modest proposal for shared investment…
Today, I want to pick up the topic from yesterday, but having a few hours to calm down and think about things. I took the morning off for a temper tantrum and a nap, and now I want to get back to the topic of editors, and the problems we indie writers face in working with them. Number one is, the flat fee full edit at pro rates. The editor wants to charge pro rates, whether they're working for New York or new guy. After all, you're buying their expertise, and that training remains the same no matter who they serve.
Great, and I'm not disputing that logic. But can't editors do something less…strenuous, for new guy and cut them a discount? Perhaps instead of full rewrites, you can go with a line edit? Maybe the work doesn't need more than few suggestions to put the writer on the right trail. How about just charging them for that advice at a lower consulting fee? If they're a really poor writer (financially) and the writing isn't awful in your educated opinion, maybe you could just do a skimming typo hunt and charge them on a sliding scale. Or offer a critique and charge a small reading fee.
The key point here is, you only do the work on the work you feel has merit, and you try to tailor your efforts to the available budget. You don't have to feel obligated to work on every little thing that comes in, or on work that falls outside your favored genres. In theory, you could be getting enough incoming proposals that you would need to be discriminating anyway.
[image error]Anything you offer will be more feedback than writers had on their own. So why go with the full service and fee if the price tag sends your client scurrying away? If they reply that they can't afford your full package price, maybe you could make a counter-offer and try to pull in another source of income. Sure, it's not as great as a full edit would pay, but a typo hunt for $200 will still pay a bill. A line edit for $400 on a short novel would not be unrealistic. Plus, if you sign on that sucker for one good job, you might find them willing to sign up for another edit, even an upgrade to line edits or full services.
The second hurdle is, editors have zero vested interest in the titles they edit. This doesn't sound like a problem to editors, but indie writers often feel alone in pushing their titles, and it is a pretty hostile market for self-promoted works, even when those works are professionally edited. (If you want me to go into a screaming rant, ask me about how much Redemption Lost cost versus how much it earned.)
Editing is a fire and forget job, and if an editor misses anything, it's not like they give discounts for it. (I'm not suggesting editors give discounts for mistakes. That was a joke.) While I loved my editor's work, and I felt her advice was valid for every book I've sent, in Redemption Lost, I discovered in the proof copy that she had missed a missing r from "through." Throughout the book, there were dozens of places that said "though" instead. The spell check sees nothing, the writer sees nothing and the editor…oh shit, the editor missed it too. (They were fixed before the book went to a final edition.)
And this is OKAY. I paid for the job, and I paid for another book after that, and another after that. My editor's last bit of work will be in A Perfectly Empty Vessel, and I feel her advice was worth every penny. (And she didn't miss a single through in that book.) But she was not perfect or infallible, and once the job is over, she doesn't have anything to do with the book. And this is a little frustrating, because even if it's not her responsibility, it would be nice if my editor got enthusiastic about launch day and ran out and told all her friends to buy my book. I'm not asking her to, and she's got no incentive to do so. We are totally cool. I love my editor like…like a writer loves an editor. Platonically, and with much respect.
I digress, editors have no need to pimp the titles they edit, except as a reference for future jobs, and then they only list the good books that sold well. Why mention that you edited Zit Lancing on a Budget when it only sold five copies? (And those five were review copies that got burned on YouTube.*) At present, there's nothing in it for the editor to work with the writer after the editing job, because their part of the job is pretty much done.
(*At the same location for the same video, in a huge bonfire with the author's effigy burning at the top of the pile. I have to admit, I really admire the dedication of those spiteful medical reviewers.)
I would like to see editors become more invested in the promotional side of the business, and to feel a bit more loyalty toward their indie clients. This means giving them an incentive to be salespeople and/or cheerleaders after their projects are published. I would also like to find ways to cut down the initial flat fee investment into something more manageable for writers who don't move 10K in book every six months. It's no secret that we need editors in the writing "minor leagues," but it's also no secret that we can't afford the full fees. That's why we usually skip the editors. We don't want to embarrass ourselves by running away after editors email a quote. I'm not talking about a 50% discount, but we just need a little something trimmed off the top. Too many zeroes together in a price tag makes us indie writers queasy. It's like almost a real medical condition. (>.>)
What I would like to suggest is that writers offer editors a small percentage of royalties from their book sales in addition to a partial advance payment for services rendered. This payment structure would give the editor a vested interest in selling the book during the first three to six months, because they are also trying to recover some of the costs of their editing job. In theory, it also might give the editor more incentive to be extra careful when they sell a full services package. Okay, if on a typo hunt something slips through, eh, it's a discounted job. We got a discounted result. Oh well. But on a full service job, an editor is stamping the work as being just as much their kid as it is the writer's. Or, I would like for the editors to feel this way, instead of booting the lil' bastard out the door to pull the next from the inbox.
Obviously, a full royalties option is not desirable for an editor. It's way too much risk with nothing upfront for their work. Even a partial advance with a cut of the sales for x number of months is taking on a level of financial risk with every writer. (Though not necessarily with every title. Once an editor knows they can trust a writer to be honest, and they can also demonstrate the ability to move units, the relationship should be relatively smooth for future stories.) But in this way, the freelance editor becomes a partial investor in the publishing process with the indie writer.
The risk for the editor is lower, because they get paid the larger part of their normal flat fee. But they also lose a part of their fee if they just fire and forget, moving on to the next job. If they act aggressively to sell projects they really like, there's also the potential to make a bonus from each job, an amount above and beyond what they would have earned with flat fees.
This creates a two-person sales team for indie titles, and the editor's voice adds a note of authority that could become more important as editor/investors become more common. This gives freelance editors a better chance to brand themselves by investing their names with the titles they edit. Just as we see writers online advertising their wares under their favorite genres, we might also see editors with sites selling their services under standard pre-made contracts alongside a catalog of the books they've edited. So having a current backlog of titles on your web site isn't just a bragging board. It's a chance to earn residual income.
Writers can submit work via queries to editors through email in much the same way that they would with a publisher. But there is no promise from the editor that a book is getting published. It's not the editor's job to front the cash for publishing. They don't even have to warrant that their work will lead to publication. These jobs remain with the writer, should they choose to submit to a publisher or self-publish.
But, what if the book is never published? The editor needs a clause in the contract allowing them to recover their remaining fees. It's the writer's responsibility to get the work into the market. If the writer never completes this step, the editor shouldn't be forced to take on extra financial burdens. They still take on part of the burden, because depending on how the writer publishes the work, there can be a long, long delay before the editor sees the chance to earn residual income after the release.
But, once the book is out, the editor can help reduce their investment risk by promoting the stories. This is an arrangement that need not take a lot of the editor's time, but I'm sure some editors think it's completely unfair that they should spend any time marketing books. I totally agree with that sentiment, but as much as I hate marketing, I have to admit, I do like when people buy my stuff. When editors earn residual incomes on every sale, I think they will like it too. Sales happens more often around the times that I say "Buy my book, please." But, being that I'm a self-published writer, I still have the problem of people who won't read me because they think I don't edit at all. So, it would be totally cool if my editor spent a few weeks throwing the same kind of marketing efforts that I did. Nothing that requires money, mind you. They can do a few guest blogs, or podcast interviews, or even just do some shout-outs in the right forums. Their promotion would carry a LOT of weight if they said, "I'm the editor of this book."
Having the editor be a part of the sales team helps build the reputation of an editor, and every book advertises the editor's services to every writer who reads it. This represents a great way to recruit new jobs. Writers see a clean edit and hey, there's the freelance editor's email address and web site right at the front of the book. Hmmm…
This gets back to the idea that freelance editors can brand themselves just like indie writers, so they would want people to buy the last books they edited and see their work. And not just because the editor liked the story, but because they're earning part of their residual income from the promotion. They also want to tell writers what to pick up when they ask "What kinds of books do you prefer to work on?" Which in theory might mean less slush to wade though. (Yes, that was exceedingly optimistic. Stop snickering.)
If we worked together, it might get to the point when people look at an indie-produced book and see two names; the writer and editor. (Or three; writer, editor, and cover artist.) And it may be that readers see a book from a first-time writer and don't know them, but they buy the book because they know the editor and know their reputation for picking good writers. The editor becomes something between a publisher and a publicist for a brief time after the launch of a title. After say, one year from the release date of the title, the editor's cut of royalties ends, and then they have no more responsibility to the project even if they are still associated with it.
I would like to think that the combination of two promoters and an added sense of writing quality could lead to higher sales for indie works, so that freelance editors who take on the right writers will always find themselves earning bonuses from every project. But this isn't a perfect world, so it's more likely that this arrangement could be fraught with pitfalls. The editor might pick a few stories that, good or not, just never catch fire with the public. They could also pick a major bomb.
There's also major trust issues surrounding keeping track of royalties, and clauses that need to be discussed when a writer fails to live up to their end of the deal. (ie: they use a cover from hell, or they have an odious sales persona and the editor wants to avoid being associated with them.) Also, there needs to be clauses protecting the writer from a lazy or bad editor. (ie: I shouldn't have to pay for "services rendered" if the edit is poorly conducted and misses major mistakes.) This kind of "simple contract" is really not so simple, and cannot be drummed out overnight.
Which is why I would like to open discussion to both indie writers and freelance editors. If you were going to consider a contract like this, what terms would you need to see to feel comfortable with it? Writers, think long and hard about how very useful an editor can be, and ask yourself how much you think that initial investment is worth. How much are you willing to give upfront, and what percentage of your sales would you be willing to temporarily grant your editor? And editors, if you could cherry pick your editing projects and work more on the kinds of stories that excite you instead of taking whatever comes down the line, would that be worth enough to you to accept some financial risks and invest in writers to help develop their talent?
