Content writers need to stand on their own more often. This does not mean that proofreading or editing is bad. While a great writer may not need an editor, we do appreciate an editor when there's one on the same team!
I always ask someone to proof my work and I regularly ask for edits from those in the know. I also believe process is about helping people! But having worked in too many companies with long approval flows, I've seen how this being systemetized can drain creativity.
By long approval processes, I'm referring to more than 2 people checking articles and blogs, and more than 1 other person reviewing social content. If any of those people are outside the writing or content team, they should be "guest reviewers" for their specific expertise, not regulars on The Editing Show.
So why are multiple editing steps not desirable?
In teams with long approval processes:
The original writer sees nothing of their work in the published piece. There is no ownership generated.
Meanwhile, the editor feels like they're carrying the team. They're frustrated at having to write everything themselves.
Higher up, the executives approving blogs and social posts are dedicating their valuable time to an area outside their expertise.
"This hits right in the feels. Writers put in the effort and creativity to construct a piece. It is heartbreaking to see your work completely changed or worse butchered," says Sarah Shaukat, Sr Writer at TheMoonGroup.
"My solution is effective communication." Shaukat says she asks questions to clarify requirements and shares an outline before writing. "I also ask why they made a specific change with an intent to learn. Sometimes the changes are completely subjective and have nothing to do with the wrong tone, grammar, or writing style."
Creatives and writers who work at companies with minimal review rounds enjoy a feedback loop that's shorter. They learn faster as a result because the information is fresh when they're given feedback, and they can scale content faster too.
Does this mean that writers should be aiming to go through as few reviews as possible?
No.
A great writer will seek out feedback from subject matter experts, their potential audience, and fellow writers along the way. It's likely they'll feel motivated to do so if they enjoy the freedom to experiment. This is more effective because the writer can go to those who are likely to have the right knowledge to give them feedback, in a way they're able to absorb it.
Another reason to let writers seek feedback themselves? Not every editor has time to give detailed and constructive feedback, and writers know which editors are willing to do so better than anyone on your team:
"Usually after a piece of mine’s edited, it doesn’t feel like mine anymore, with the unique personality and tone taken out. I would prefer feedback that helps me enhance the piece in the way I see best for the audience," says Jennifer Lagemann, Founder of NextJenn Copy.
What if a writer can't produce quality content on their own?
Barring a few off-days and a handful of typos, this shouldn't happen. If a writer isn't able to simply experiment and seek feedback independently and then produce good work, the task is too advanced for them. This might mean they need more time to understand your industry or your brand's voice.
Should you find a writer struggling to produce clear and effective content that requires only a quick proofread, after 3 or 4 months evaluate how you are training them. Then, look at your own criteria.
Remember, the possibility exists that you, as an editor or manager, are giving them tasks outside their skillset (for example, are you asking a copywriter to make content?) or you let personal preferences cloud your judgment.
Neither of those? It's tough but you should reconsider your most recent hire.
Comments