FOR EDITORS, PROOFREADERS AND WRITERS

Exercising the right to accept or decline work is, in my opinion, one of the best things about owning one’s own business. And yet some editorial professionals feel guilty about saying no. What's to be done?

In Part 1, I looked at the reasons for accepting or declining work, how some editorial freelancers talk about feeling guilty, and how those statements stack up against the reality of what’s going on.

Here in Part II, I consider some simple ways of saying no that make it clear that the project is being declined, why this is so, and what the client can do to find an alternative supplier.

​I also explore the dangers of using an over-pricing strategy to deter an unwanted client, and consider how the guilt-ridden editorial pro might place her feelings within an adapted 10/10/10 framework in order to move forward with a decision that’s in her business's best interests.
​

​​​There’s nothing wrong with clearly and briefly stating your position to a client. Recall Sills, cited in Part I: Saying no isn't about negativity; it's about positivity (Sills, 2013). What's relevant is not the negative impact on the unwanted client, but rather the positive decision we take as business owners.

The danger, especially with the desperate or emotionally charged client, is to get drawn into lengthy discussions, none of which are billable, about why you don’t want the work. Remember, you own your business, so it’s your choice. 

As several experienced colleagues have pointed out since I posted this article, honesty is often the best policy when giving your reasons for saying no, especially in the case of a client with whom you've had previous difficulties, because it enables them to learn from the experience, too. 

However, I do appreciate that for those who are prone to feelings of guilt, being honest about past problems can be so awkward as to cause even more stress.

​If it's the case that you would find being honest stressful, or you're worried about hurting your client’s feelings, you could choose an alternative stock answer to decline a project in a way that makes it clear that you’ve made your decision and the discussion is closed.

Examples of stock answers for saying no might include:

• “Thanks so much for getting in touch. I’m really sorry but I can’t take on this work because I’m fully booked. I recommend the following keyword-searchable directory of editorial services <insert your link>. This will enable you to find someone who has the required availability.” (As one colleague pointed out, though, this could still backfire if your customer says that they are prepared to wait. This option is probably unwise for the customer who is already known to you.)
• “Many thanks for the opportunity to quote. Unfortunately I won’t be able to proofread this project for you. I’ve assessed the sample provided and feel it requires a deeper level of editorial intervention than I’m able to provide; I believe it would be in your best interests to seek the assistance of someone with extensive experience of <insert skill set>. You might find it useful to refer to these guidelines <insert your link> for clarification on the differences between proofreading and other types of editing. I trust this helps and wish you success in your search.”
• “I’m sorry but existing professional commitments mean that it’s impossible for me to take on this project within your desired time frame. I appreciate that you’re desperate for help but rushed work is poor work, and I never agree to carry out poor work for a client. I recommend the following keyword-searchable directory of editorial services <insert your link>. This will enable you to find someone who has the required availability.”
• “My apologies. I no longer work on [Master’s dissertations/PhD theses/journal papers/other market sector]. I recommend the following keyword-searchable directory of editorial services <insert your link>.”
• “Thanks for getting in touch – it’s nice to hear from you again! I understand the difficulties you’ve had with past proofreaders working on your self-published novels, and appreciate your letting me know how much you value my work. However, my business model has changed in recent months and I’ve made the decision to work only for mainstream publishing houses. It’s therefore with regret that I have to decline your request. For the record, I’m delighted to have had the opportunity to work on X and Y with you, and wish you continued success with your publishing journey. I’d recommend the following keyword-searchable directory of editorial services <insert your link>. This will enable you to find an alternative supplier who specializes in working with independent novelists.”
• “Many thanks for your reply. I’m sorry that my quotation for proofreading services doesn’t fall within your budget. My quotation outlined in detail why I costed the project as I did. In response to your request for a discount, any downward movement in the price would only result in a downward movement in quality, and I’m sure neither of us want to proceed on those grounds. I therefore wish you well in your search for an alternative supplier.”

​

​If you are contacted by a client with whom you don’t want to work because of reasons other than price, deterring them with an approach that you believe will price you out of their market can backfire horribly. This is because you don’t actually know what they are prepared to pay until they have accepted or declined your quotation.

Let’s imagine the following fictional example:

• I’m contacted by an academic author who wants me to proofread several journal papers. I worked with this academic seven months ago.
• The experience was awful. The client did not adhere to the timing parameters of our agreement throughout the process; displayed threatening and bullying behaviour by email on four occasions; telephoned me outside business hours eight times – despite clear statements in my signed-off terms and conditions and verbal statements during these telephone calls that this was unacceptable; and paid her final invoice a month late.
• Under no circumstances do I wish to work with this client again. In her most recent email she’s begged me to take on the proofreading, emphasizing how much value I brought to the table when we last worked together and stating that she doesn’t trust any other proofreader to do the job. High praise indeed, but it’s water off a duck’s back. I don’t want the work.

​I decide to price myself out of her market. I’d previously charged her £20 per hour for proofreading (which I accepted based on the bulk volume of the work).

She’d negotiated me down from £23 per hour so I think I have a good sense of her top line. In order to deter her, I tell her that since we last worked together my rates have increased and I now charge £40 an hour – double the rate she paid seven months ago.

To my horror, she accepts my quotation, telling me that I’m worth every penny. Now I’m stuck. It was never about the money for me; it was about the stress.

The problem is that I didn't close the discussion – and having left the door open, she’s stepped through it.

Now I have another decision to make: either I take on stressful work that I don’t want, or I have to go back and change my story, offering her a different reason: for example, that having checked my schedule, I can’t do the work after all but that I can point her in the direction of a good directory from where she can secure an alternative proofreader.

This response implies that I didn't check my schedule properly in the first place, which is neither professional nor believable. I should have used the scheduling reason in the first place.

​Instead, I’ve wasted my time and my client’s time. I may not want to work with her but that doesn’t mean I shouldn’t respect that her time is precious too. I've also unnecessarily extended the correspondence.
​

​​If you’re the kind of person who struggles to say no to clients, try looking at it through a different lens. Business writer Suzy Welch’s 10/10/10 model (cited in Heath and Heath, 2013) asks us to consider how a difficult decision will make us feel in 10 minutes, 10 months and 10 years. In the case of editorial work, I think the time frames could do with being tweaked a little but the principle stands.

Imagine you were to say no to one of the clients discussed in Part I (the strapped-for-cash client, the time-poor, emotional client, the manipulative client, or the inexperienced client).

• How would it make you feel in 10 minutes?
• How would it make you feel in 10 hours?
• How would it make you feel in 10 weeks?

​If you’ve a tendency to feel guilty about declining work, you’ll probably still feel guilty 10 minutes later. In 10 hours you’ll probably feel relief that you stuck to your guns and kept your business schedule open for the kind of work that you need/want to take. And what about in 10 weeks? It’s likely that you’ll have completely forgotten the correspondence altogether.
​

​​If you're encumbered with feelings of guilt when declining work, here’s a summary of tips to help you say no with confidence:

1. First of all, remind yourself that you own your own business so you get to decide. Your needs and wants come first. If the job doesn’t work for you, for whatever reason, it’s your right to say no. Indeed, you are obliged to respect your own professional needs because otherwise you are no longer operating as if you own your business, but instead as if the customer owns it.
2. When responding, thank the client and state clearly that you can’t take the job.
3. Explain why you can’t take the job. If you’re sure you don’t want the work, take care to close the door.
4. Direct the client to a resource where alternative suppliers can be found.
5. If the client tries to force the door open again by emotionally manipulating you, and you have already made your position clear, either ignore the correspondence or, if you must, reply, clearly repeating points 2, 3 and 4. Standing firm at this point is essential.
6. If guilt is still holding you back from making a decision that you think is in your business's best interests, use an adapted version of Welch’s framework and ask yourself, “How will saying no make me feel in 10 minutes, 10 hours and 10 weeks?” If declining the project feels difficult now but you think that in 10 hours and 10 weeks it won’t be an issue, acknowledge your guilt, then gently move the emotion to one side and say no anyway.

Let’s end with another quotation from Sills (2013): “Wielded wisely, No is an instrument of integrity and a shield against exploitation. It often takes courage to say. It is hard to receive. But setting limits sets us free.”

We are the owners of editorial businesses. We set our own limits. We accept or decline work on terms that suit us, and are free to do so without drama, fear or guilt. This is nothing but normal business practice.

Further reading
Broomfield, Liz (2013). When should I say no? (Libro Editing)
Heath, Chip, and Heath, Dan (2013). The 10/10/10 Rule for Tough Decisions (FastCompany.com)
Sills, Judith (2013). The Power of No (Psychology Today)

Exercising the right to accept or decline work is, in my opinion, one of the best things about owning one’s own business. And yet some editorial professionals feel guilty about saying no. What's to be done?

Some of us have experienced a situation where we have to withdraw from an ongoing project because of what one of my colleagues calls “scope creep”.

Here, the originally agreed terms of the work have been breached by the client, rendering continuation of the project non-viable unless new terms can be negotiated that are acceptable to both parties.

​This demonstrates why it’s important to clarify the parameters of any editorial project before an agreement is made to carry out the work. 

How to pull out of existing project work is beyond the scope of this article. Here I’m focusing on saying no to the offer of editorial work prior to commencement of the project, and how guilt should not be part of the editorial business-owner’s decision to so.

In Part I, I look at the reasons for accepting or declining work, how some editorial freelancers talk about feeling guilty, and how those statements stack up against the reality of what’s going on.

In Part II, I’ll consider some simple ways of saying no that make it clear that the project is being declined, why this decision is being made, and what the client can do to find an alternative supplier.

I’ll also explore the dangers of using an over-pricing strategy to deter an unwanted client, and consider how the guilt-ridden editorial pro might place her feelings within an adapted 10/10/10 framework in order to move forward with a decision that’s in her business's best interests.
​

​I might decline a proofreading project for one, or several, of the following reasons:

• The customer wishes to pay a fee that is lower than I am prepared to accept. The fee she is prepared to pay doesn’t meet my required (what I need to earn) and desired (what I want to earn) hourly rate.
• The time frame for the project is tight, given my existing work schedule and my non-work commitments.
• I feel uncomfortable with the subject matter.
• My initial assessment of the work indicates that the project isn’t ready for proofreading; it needs a level of editing that I don’t feel qualified to provide.
• I’ve worked with the customer on a previous occasion and, based on that experience, do not wish to continue the business relationship. Problems might have included late payment, changing the terms of the project mid-way, overstepping professional–personal boundaries, untimely/erratic communication, etc.

I might accept a proofreading project for one, or several, of the following reasons:

• The customer offers an acceptable fee. Or, even if the fee is below my desired and required hourly rate, I enjoy working for that customer and can afford to accept the fee offered because the achieved hourly rate for my business as a whole is high enough to accommodate my choice.
• The time frame is tight, but I’m excited about the project and find ways to move things around in my schedule such that I can fit it in.
• I have extensive experience of working on the subject matter. Or the genre/client type may be one that I wish to gain experience of working with because I wish to expand my market. The proposed project is an opportunity to explore a new client base and build a portfolio in the sector. 
• The work has been professionally copy-edited and is ready for proofreading. The client understands the different levels of editorial intervention, and our expectations of what I will be doing with the text are mutually acceptable.
• I’ve worked with the client on previous occasions and found the business relationship to be rewarding. We both agree on the parameters within which the work will take place. The customer pays on time, behaves professionally, communicates clearly, and adheres to the original terms of the contract.

​See also Liz Broomfield’s (2013) discussion of what kinds of work you might say no to at various stages of your business’s development.

​Whether I accept or decline, the choice is mine. I’m not bound to carry out proofreading work that, for whatever reason, I don’t wish to. There’s no boss telling me that our company is contractually bound to do A or B, or that I must work for X, even though I find dealing with X stressful, intimidating, infuriating, or upsetting.

I choose the hours I need/wish to work. I choose the type of editorial work I carry out (in my case, proofreading). I choose the material I feel comfortable with. I decide whether a fee is acceptable based on my needs and wants.

Ultimately, I can decline a project for no other reason than I simply don’t fancy doing it. End of story.
​

​Despite having control over the choices they can make, it’s not uncommon to hear editorial freelancers say they feel guilty about not accepting a job:

1. The strapped-for-cash client: “I really don’t want to lower my fee, but I know the author is really strapped for cash and I feel guilty about not offering a discount. What would you do?”
   
   
2. The time-poor and emotional client: “Her supervisor says she needs to resubmit an edited version by next week. She’s in a bit of a state and has begged me to help her. There’s no way I can do what needs to be done in that time frame but she just called again and was in floods of tears. I feel so guilty. What should I do?”
   
   
3. The manipulative client: “I’ve worked with X before and it was a bit of a nightmare, but she says she trusts me and doesn’t want to work with anyone else. She had bad experiences with proofreaders before she met me and is adamant that it’s me or nobody. I feel guilty turning her down. Help!”
   ​
   
4. The inexperienced client: “The work is a mess – it needs rewriting, not proofreading. He’s new to this and I feel guilty about telling him I don’t want the job but I don’t have the time to explain to him what the problems are because I wouldn’t be able to bill him for this. Any advice, please?”

​In all of the above, the story is of the problems being faced by the client if the editorial pro turns down the work. However, we as business owners need to flip things around and look at the situation from our own point of view.
​

Now let's look at the above 4 scenarios from the perspective of the editorial business owner:

1. The strapped-for-cash client: The issue here is not that the author is strapped for cash. Rather, it’s your own cash flow and overall economic needs that need to be assessed.
   
   We’ve all been strapped for cash. Having limited financial resources means we have to forego luxuries and save up for necessities. I’m too strapped for cash to buy a Ferrari so I’ve foregone this luxury and settled for a Ford Focus.
   
   I need a new printer but the one that would best suit my needs is priced higher than my budget. I’m not asking the sales assistant in Staples to reduce the price because I’m strapped for cash. Instead I’m saving up because it’s an important requirement for my business.
   
   If your client can’t afford what you need to earn and want to earn, they need to forego your services or save up. If you want to negotiate, do so, but guilt isn't a good enough reason go down this path. Rather, it’s about making a professional decision concerning what you are prepared to accept, based on your financial requirements, for the services you offer. 
   
   
2. The time-poor and emotional client: If you can’t do the job in the required time frame because the client didn’t give you enough notice, feeling guilty won’t expand the number of hours available in a work week! You know what time you have available.
   
   Either the job is doable or it’s not. Accept or decline accordingly. Most of us find ourselves in situations with friends and family where emotional manipulation comes into play – that’s the stuff of personal relationships. Save your emotions for those you love.
   
   ​With the client, the relationship is professional, not personal. If a client tries to manipulate you emotionally, then they, not you, should be feeling guilty. If you don’t want to find a way to accommodate the client because it would have a negative impact on your work/home life, thank them for contacting you, state clearly and briefly that you are not physically able to take on the work under the time parameters offered, and close the correspondence.
   
   
3. The manipulative client: The client’s previous bad experiences are not relevant. It’s your previous experience that is relevant. One of the benefits of owning your own business is precisely the fact that, unlike when you’re an employee, there is no compulsion to work with people who make you feel as if you are being manipulated, with people whose problems become your problems.
   
   ​Guilt isn't a good enough reason to take the work. If you don’t want to work with someone, decline the project.
   
   
4. The inexperienced client: If the work doesn’t fall within the parameters of your service provision, it’s not your fault that the client doesn’t understand this. Feeling guilty won't improve their awareness. Instead, decline the work and guide the customer towards one of the many free resources available online that provide clear advice. Most national editorial societies have such guidelines.

​

​Psychologist Judith Sills (2013) argues that “No – a metal grate that slams shut the window between one's self and the influence of others – is rarely celebrated. It's a hidden power because it is both easily misunderstood and difficult to engage” and “it is easily confused with negativity”.

So, when we decline work, we need think of the decision not in terms of negative impact on our clients, but rather in terms of the positive impact on our editorial businesses. 

In Part 2, we’ll look at ways to communicate an uncomplicated “no” message, and consider an adapted version of Suzy Welch’s 10/10/10 framework that should help the guilt-ridden editorial pro to say no with greater confidence.

Do we still need to learn how to use traditional proof-correction symbols given that most proofreading work is done onscreen these days?

My answer is an emphatic “Yes, you should learn them!”

As I'll show below, knowing how to use them will increase your efficiency, productivity, clarity, marketability, and professionalism.

Traditional proofreading: Checking typeset proofs
Many proofreaders work directly in Word, making actual changes to the text.

In my experience, it's primarily self-publishing authors, academics, students and businesses that commission such direct intervention; almost all of my publishers want me to use the proof-correction symbols.

That’s because I’m not editing the text; rather, I’m annotating pages that have been professionally designed – the pages appear as I would expect to see them if I walked into a bookshop and pulled the published book from a shelf.

In this situation, I'm not just looking for spelling and grammar mistakes. I also need to annotate for problems with layout, for example:
​

• misaligned text
• incorrect indentation
• inconsistent line or paragraph spacing
• the wrong font
• heading design problems
• widows, orphans, and short lines
• chapter-drop inconsistencies
• incorrect positioning of different elements on a page, from boxes to images to tables
• bad word breaks
• recto word breaks

So, if you plan to work on page proofs that have been professionally typeset prior to publication, and you hope to acquire this work from mainstream publishing houses, you will need to know how to annotate the pages correctly with these symbols, even if you are proofreading onscreen.

What do the marks look like?
It depends where you live. If you need guidance about proof-correction marks in your particular region, contact your national editorial society. In some countries, the UK’s BSI marks are accepted for proofreading and copy-editing practice.

In the UK, there is a single set of industry-recognized symbols. These have been prepared by the British Standards Institution (BSI) and are entitled “Marks for copy preparation and proof correction”. Over time they’ve been updated. The current marks are identified as follows: BS 5261C:2005.

If you’re working for Canadian or US clients, read Adrienne Montgomerie’s article, “The Secret Code of Proofreaders” (Copyediting.com, 2014). As she points out, the Canadian Translation Bureau’s Canadian Style guide marks are quite different from the marks preferred by the Chicago Manual of Style.

Why are proof-correction marks useful? 
When we proofread typeset page proofs, there’s little room to indicate what we want to change. Recall that each page we’re working on appears almost as it would if the printed book had been published. 

Using industry-standard proof-correction marks is an efficient way to annotate the page with the desired corrections. The symbols are a short-cut code of instructions that tell the designer exactly what to do. Once you’ve learned all the symbols by heart, they’re much quicker to use than long-hand text and take up minimal space.

Open the nearest book you have to hand and look at how much white space there isn’t between the text and the margin – it’s not uncommon for me to work on page proofs with a 2cm margin either side of the text.

Notice, too, how small the space is above and below a single line of text.

The book has been designed and there's little room to annotate. 

Now imagine that in a given line there is a missing comma, a spelling mistake, and a word that needs decapitalizing.

The example below illustrates how these problems would be marked up using the BSI proof-correction symbols.

The long-hand alternative might be something on the lines of <Change “fax” to “fox”> in the left-hand margin, and <Insert comma after “grass” and decapitalize “Legs”> in the right-hand margin.

Given that we only have 2cm margins to play with, that each line is spaced closely to its neighbours above and below, and that in a real set of proofs there may be several corrections in multiple lines, any instructions to the typesetter are likely to become cluttered and confusing.

​Proof-correction symbols solve the problem.

The use of proof-correction symbols therefore offers increased efficiency, productivity, and clarity. And if you’re a proofreader-to-be who wants to ensure you’re marketable to as wide a range of clients as possible, acquiring the ability to use this mark-up process is a no-brainer.

Attending to professional standards
In addition to enabling you to work efficiently, productively, and clearly, and maximizing your marketability, there is also the issue of professionalism. Membership of a professional editorial society often requires knowledge of the relevant nationally approved mark-up symbols as a standard of good practice.
​

• The Australian standards for editing practice, 2nd ed. (2013), states, "Editors should be up to date and proficient in the following: [...] A6.6 Standard mark-up symbols and conventions for copyediting and proofreading."
• Chartered Institute of Editing and Proofreading (CIEP) Code of practice notes at section 5.6, Proofreading printed materials: Basic skills, "A proofreader should be competent in the following skills: [...] 5.6.4 Proof-correction symbols: Use current British Standard proof-correction symbols or terms, and colour coding for corrections (if required by the client) to permit accurate apportioning of costs."
• The Editors' Association of Canada's Professional Editorial Standards: "E. Standards for Proofreading" says: "A professional proofreader requires a mastery of Part A: The Fundamentals of Editing and meets the following standards. [...] E16 When working on paper proofs, mark clearly and use standard proofreading marks unless another system has been agreed upon."

Where to find the UK marks 
The BSI provides a laminated 8-page summary sheet of all the marks you need to know for proofreading. Also included are short notes that enable the proofreader or copy-editor to identify the correct mark for both marginal and in-text mark-up, colour of ink to be used, and positioning of the symbols.

The CIEP has an arrangement with the BSI whereby members can purchase the sheet for a reduced price.

How to learn to use the marks
Any comprehensive proofreading course worth its salt should test your ability to use the marks according to industry standards. It's not just about using the right mark so that the instruction is unambiguous, but also about knowing when to use the mark and when to leave well enough alone.

In the UK, the CIEP and The Publishing Training Centre are examples of organizations offering industry-recognized courses that attend to these issues. If you live outside the UK, ask your national editorial society for guidance.

Further reading
If you’re considering embarking on a professional proofreading career, you might find the following related articles of use:
​

• Proofreading checklist
• Not all proofreading is the same: Part I – Working with page proofs 
• Not all proofreading is the same: Part II – Working directly in Word
• Does training matter? What publishers say about proofreading & editing courses 
• Thoughts on proofreading and the art of leaving well enough alone
• The proofreader’s corner: Page proofs and the domino effect
• Proofreading: Using training to learn the appropriate mind-set 
• Editorial business building books
• Roundup: PDF proofreading stamps (quick-access links)