The making of a magazine
(tenth in a series)
Every now and then, I receive an e-mail or letter from a potential contributor who wants his or her article to appear in WildBird, earns a spot in a future issue and then sabotages the relationship. The sour situation could have been avoided simply via certain actions.
Previous contributions do not entitle you to future assignments. You're setting yourself up for disappointment if you think that a long-term albeit occasional relationship with a magazine grants you the right to perform below par or whine without consequences.
Even if you've contributed occasionally to a publication during a 10-year span, you need to show the current editor that your work deserves pages in the publication. Your might find that your topics, writing style or professionalism do not sync with the present-day decisionmakers.
Before one contributor's species profile was due, he asked if the magazine's format for species profiles had changed. I didn't like the sounds of that. Why? He'd just indicated that he doesn't subscribe to the magazine or, at the least, hadn't read the last two issues. Tell me: Why would I want to work with that writer again?
Want to see the previous oops?
Every now and then, I receive an e-mail or letter from a potential contributor who wants his or her article to appear in WildBird, earns a spot in a future issue and then sabotages the relationship. The sour situation could have been avoided simply via certain actions.
Previous contributions do not entitle you to future assignments. You're setting yourself up for disappointment if you think that a long-term albeit occasional relationship with a magazine grants you the right to perform below par or whine without consequences.
Even if you've contributed occasionally to a publication during a 10-year span, you need to show the current editor that your work deserves pages in the publication. Your might find that your topics, writing style or professionalism do not sync with the present-day decisionmakers.
Before one contributor's species profile was due, he asked if the magazine's format for species profiles had changed. I didn't like the sounds of that. Why? He'd just indicated that he doesn't subscribe to the magazine or, at the least, hadn't read the last two issues. Tell me: Why would I want to work with that writer again?
Want to see the previous oops?
posted by Amy at 9:35 AM
4 Comments:
Maybe the writer is really cute??
Unfortunately, a good-lookin' face doesn't make up for a lack of preparation or familiarity with the magazine ;)
I'll take all of these "Never Again" peoples' spots! :)
My security word is "pgafhag". That's funny for some reason.
Heh. Yeah, it is funny (c:
Post a Comment
<< Home