The author and the client are on the same side in the same boat
Posted: Wed Feb 19, 2025 5:33 am
The client is not a dragon who wants to burn the copywriter's self-esteem by spewing flames of edits. It's just work, not a personal grudge.
A copywriter is not a knight who needs to slay a dragon and get to the chest of gold. There is no point in being offended, suffering, hysterical, demanding to accept a text that does not fulfill its task, simply because “time has been wasted” and “everything is according to the specifications and according to plan, it is your own fault where your eyes were before.”
We all work together for the good of the common cause.
When I was just a copywriter, I thought: “I’m not rewriting because I’m under editorial pressure and told to do so. I’m rewriting so that the text becomes better, stronger, and more effective. It’s not for me, the editor, or even the client. We have a reader and a purpose for the text, for which we all came together.”
There can be many reasons for edits, everyone can be to malta telegram data blame or just one person. In my work, it's not important to find the culprit, it's important to understand why it didn't work. And rewrite.
We don't compete in "who is who". We have different tasks in our work, but one goal is to get a result. If there is a text, but there is no result, then it needs to be rewritten. There is no need to raise your hands and poke the customer in the agreed plan or TOR.
The info field reads how copywriters are hostile to edits. They explain this by saying that customers repeatedly get on their heads, and share how they set 100,500 conditions for edits. Every time it surprises me like the first time.
At the beginning of the article, I wrote in "99 cases out of 100", leaving only one for circumstances when the customer is truly inadequate and it turns out to be too late.
In my experience, in most cases, even meaningless edits like "we need to be more presentable" or "replace these words with these" have something constructive behind them.
A copywriter is not a knight who needs to slay a dragon and get to the chest of gold. There is no point in being offended, suffering, hysterical, demanding to accept a text that does not fulfill its task, simply because “time has been wasted” and “everything is according to the specifications and according to plan, it is your own fault where your eyes were before.”
We all work together for the good of the common cause.
When I was just a copywriter, I thought: “I’m not rewriting because I’m under editorial pressure and told to do so. I’m rewriting so that the text becomes better, stronger, and more effective. It’s not for me, the editor, or even the client. We have a reader and a purpose for the text, for which we all came together.”
There can be many reasons for edits, everyone can be to malta telegram data blame or just one person. In my work, it's not important to find the culprit, it's important to understand why it didn't work. And rewrite.
We don't compete in "who is who". We have different tasks in our work, but one goal is to get a result. If there is a text, but there is no result, then it needs to be rewritten. There is no need to raise your hands and poke the customer in the agreed plan or TOR.
The info field reads how copywriters are hostile to edits. They explain this by saying that customers repeatedly get on their heads, and share how they set 100,500 conditions for edits. Every time it surprises me like the first time.
At the beginning of the article, I wrote in "99 cases out of 100", leaving only one for circumstances when the customer is truly inadequate and it turns out to be too late.
In my experience, in most cases, even meaningless edits like "we need to be more presentable" or "replace these words with these" have something constructive behind them.