When you hire a marketing communications writer, her responsibilities should include a final, pre-publication look at the piece, just before the train leaves the station. Your responsibilities should should include giving her that opportunity.

Marketing writers don’t write; they suggest. You don’t need to apologize for changes you make to drafts, but you owe it to yourself to give your copy – once it has traveled the long and winding road to final format – to your writer for a final scan.

One writer did a rush job for us last week, hammering very rough copy into a product datasheet, FAQ and sales teaser. She also added a lot of good content and figured out how to make the pieces tell our story, much better than it had occurred to us to do.

All of the copy ran the gantlet here, and everybody had revisions to make. A couple of the sales and marketing managers had misgivings about running it past the writer one last time before we sent the pieces to print – “What if her nose gets out of joint over the changes we’ve made?” – but I argued that it would be silly not to let her go over them. “What’s a marketing communications writer for?” I asked rhetorically.

I sent her PDFs with our revisions on Wednesday afternoon, and she had returned embedded comments – don’t forget you need more than just the free Adobe Acrobat Reader to make those – by Thursday morning. Among the things she noted:

• Two sentences with missing words – Somebody was writing too fast.
• Two occurrences of “Best-in-class” in adjoining paragraphs – This was a qualifier we had added. She pointed out, “This phrase adds nothing, and may even detract from the technical value of the piece.”
• Three clunky sentences that she re-plumbed to make more sense.
• A hail of phone numbers in our company information box – “People who have this datasheet in their hand will need just one big, fat toll-free number.”
• Disclaimer language for mentioning other companies’ trademarks – Without a phalanx of lawyers poring over ever sentence we publish, we sometimes forget about fine points like this.

She told me it took her less than a half-hour to review and make comments: thirty minutes our marketing communications writer invested in making us look good. She also mentioned that she always offers her clients a pre-publication review of content, even for projects on which she has not worked.

“Most clients don’t take me up on it,” she noted. “I don’t know why not.”

Do you give your writer this opportunity? You’re leaving money on the table if you don’t.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Don’t Go Well but Result in a Good White Paper

These are like the basketball games in which you make mistakes, bad passes and poor shots, but you win anyway, mostly in spite of yourself. Warning signs:

• Creeping Review Loop – If it takes you too long to obtain, vet and summarize comments from your reviewers and get the changes back to the writer, you can burn out a lot of people on a project like this. Some conscientious managers worry about taxing the writer’s patience, but that’s the last thing I worry about. The more people you pull into the review loop, the clunkier and less focused the paper can become; then you start to tax the patience of the interviewees, subject matter experts, graphics team, designers and execs through whose inboxes the paper moves over and over.
• Creeping Scope – In a similar situation, the original scope may become obscured by newly suggested topics we want the paper to address. Beware of this if you envision a “thought-leadership” paper, because the project will attract lots of new thoughts in which we want to be considered as leaders. I had one of these projects that went on for six months as execs added more content to it. The result is a splendid paper, but it’s too long. The download numbers have been good, but I doubt that anybody is really reading it.
• Ego – Nobody wants to touch this one with a 10-foot pole, but everybody knows it’s there. Sometimes there’s too much of it, especially when an exec commissions a paper, has Marketing hire a writer, makes life difficult for the writer and the manager, then guts the paper and rebuilds it because the message is wrong. Sometimes it’s the writer’s ego that gets in the way. You can get a good paper out of this, but the process is painful for everybody.
• Deference – If you’re going to have multiple managers involved on a white paper project, somebody needs to be the designated driver. On one project, I had two product managers so concerned about peaceful collaboration that the writer never got clear direction because neither PM wanted to offend the other by taking a stand. The writer was a good sport about it – and was getting paid to keep up with our tergiversation – but we all learned the lesson about too many cooks in the kitchen.

Still, at least you get something out of these projects. I’ll post shortly on the other category, projects that don’t go well and result in a bad white paper (or none at all).

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

This is not uncommon (you should pardon the double negative). Most engineers don’t understand that the role of Marketing is to initiate the conversation as a result of which their products will be sold, so when they see a marketing manager coming, they assume we’re there to organize the next company party. They often have trouble giving us the benefit of the doubt when it comes to translating their technology into the plausible, persuasive story that is a white paper. They often prefer either to write it themselves when they get enough time or not to cooperate at all.

So, what would you do in Matilda’s place?

Anticipating the tension, Matilda wisely announced that she was going to offer three levels of service:

1. Full service: Writer interviews engineer, collects data, and writes/illustrates entire paper.
2. Revision Service: Engineer prepares draft of white paper, turns over to writer. Writer updates design and copy, adds or cleans up illustrations.
3. Third Party Review: Engineer prepares white paper in entirety, then submits for specific suggestions from experienced writer.

(We’ve worked at level 1.5 also, in which the engineer prepares an outline with the salient points to be covered in the paper, then the writer fleshes out the outline with interviews, illustrations and other materials.)

That was Matilda’s concession to the engineers. Her concession to the writer is that she planned for this to be an ongoing relationship, in which she offered a relatively steady stream of work at these different levels.

Did this work? We don’t know yet, because it was too nuanced to fly immediately, and it wasn’t the one-way-or-the-other solution that makes decisions easy for upper management. Still, I like it as a compromise, whether you’re a marketing manager trying to harvest content or a writer pitching your skills.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.