Here’s what I wrote a few years ago:
Just in case I might get too complacent, a malignant Fate decreed that an article I’ve spent hours on has been rejected — by the person who commissioned it.
First of all, the editor said that the first third of the article didn’t meet the agreed brief. I thought it did, because it provided some background. However, the customer is always right.
I rewrote the first third, and then tightened up the rest of it. Not that there was anything wrong with it — in fact, the editor said the last two thirds of the article were good and useful. However, I just shaved a few redundant words off here and there, wrote about a little more research that had been reported on since I submitted the first draft, and reorganised it slightly.
Needless to say (to anyone who has worked with me or commissioned me), I checked, double-checked and triple-checked the criteria to make sure I fully met the brief.
I submitted it again four weeks ago, and, having not heard back I emailed the editor to ask whether the article was OK. I was told in effect that there’s no longer any call for that subject matter.
There’s no kill fee either.
What can we learn from this?
The most obvious lesson is that had I met the brief “properly” in the first place, which was two months ago, the article would probably have been accepted and I’d be a few hundred dollars better off. By “properly” I mean in accordance with the unspoken thoughts of the editor who, it turned out, wanted some aspects of the topic but not others, and no background information. Therefore the next lesson to be learnt is…
If you’re not psychic and so are not able to read other people’s minds, it’s probably better to draft an outline first and ask the editor of it looks ok. I didn’t do that because this editor has always accepted my articles, perhaps with a minor tweak here and there. So, maybe I was becoming a bit complacent.
A very important point is that, if possible, have an agreement in place before starting the work. Part of this agreement should (in my opinion) state that if you meet the required brief and the editor changes his mind, you should be paid anyway. Or at least be paid what is known as a “kill fee”. That is a (usually substantial) percentage of the original agreed fee. In some cases I’ve been paid the entire fee. After all, it’s not my fault if editors change their minds.
Finally, if you are a new writer and your work is rejected, just bear in mind that at some point it’s going to happen to all of us.
Here’s an update:
The first thing I should have said was that the reason there was no longer any call for that article, according to the editor, was that he spent so long getting back to me. I asked him several times what he thought of the first draftt, to no avail.
The subject of the article was about teaching online during Covid, so timing was important. However, most of the points I made in the arfticle are still relevant even now, because once online classes were established, they stayed put. Not all of them obviously, but a great many. So how to teach an online class is still a skill, or rather a set of skills, that teachers should have.
As for the kill fee, if an editor commissions you, you meet the brief to the best of your ability, and the editor then decides not to accept it, you ought to still receive what is called a “kill fee”. I am a member of the Society of Authors so I explained the situatioon to them, and they drafted a response for me to use.
It worked: I was paid the kill fee.
Unfortunately, the editor decided that, despite several years of submitting copy on time, and which needed virtually no editing, he no longer required my services. So, a bit of Pyrrhic victory you might say.
But then, who wants to write for an editor who changes their mind so dramatically, and for whom one’s previoous record is of no cosequence?
See more of my writing on my Eclecticism website and newsletter.