The Proofreader's Parlour
A blog for editors, proofreaders and writers
There have been some interesting discussions about pricing models in the online editorial community recently.
Before I explain how the progressive-pricing array works, a very quick word on price presentation versus determination.
Price presentation versus determination
Price presentation and determination are two different things.
Economies of scale
When a proofreader is working on larger projects, there are economies of scale. I’m currently working with an independent fiction author on nine books (which I’m proofreading over a five-month period).
Most of the projects are between 70,000 and 80,000 words in length; a couple are around the 50,000-word mark; and one is a short story with just over 10,000 words. All of the books feature the same central protagonist and a small cast of supporting characters.
The serial nature of the content, the reappearance of key characters, and the concentration of action in predominantly one fictitious location all serve to save me time as I move through each book. This means:
That’s because, even with all the benefits of working on a series, each book still needs a certain amount of ‘stuff’ done to it in its own right:
Consequently, I want to price the 30K-word novella differently from the 100K-word tome. It’s for this reason that while I like to build my quotations on a per-word basis, I don’t want something as straightforward as a £6, £8 or £10 per 1,000 words model. Instead, I want something that respects the economies of scale that come with larger projects. This is where the array comes into its own.
How does a progressive-pricing array formula work?
An array formula can look at a number (a word count, in our case) and then, based on a set of ranges that we’ve provided, price those ranges accordingly. Here’s a very basic example. You might set up your array such that the following are true:
(1) If you were asked to provide a quotation for proofreading a 2,000-word article, the price would be £50 (£25 per 1000 words).
(2) If you were asked to quote for a 10,000-word short story, the price would be £175. This is based on:
(3) If you were asked to quote for a 70,000-word book, the price would be £575. This is based on:
A progressive-pricing array formula in action
I’ll admit that it did take some fiddling to get the actual formula working for me. I used this as my template: ‘Progressive Pricing Formulas For Excel’ (www.cpearson.com). The example given is similar to the setup I wanted for my own quotation tool, and it provides a formula that I was able to tweak for my own data. See also my downloadable sample below.
Here's a screen shot of what a progressive-pricing array formula might look like in Excel.
And here's an Excel template you can download and adapt to suit your own preferences. Note that you'll need to look carefully at, and amend, the array-formula box to ensure that the cell descriptions are correct for your data (that's the fiddly bit!).
One size doesn’t fit all
The usual caveat applies – my way certainly isn’t the best way or the only way! It’s just one approach of several. I wanted to share my experience with you so that if you fancy testing a progressive-pricing array, you have a framework to get you started.
In practice, you might want to build more ranges into your array formula to provide increased flexibility. The numbers I’ve used above are just for illustrative purposes.
I find the array formula useful for ballpark quotations because I want to provide a quick quote based on a word count. Obviously, any professional proofreading project needs to be evaluated on more than just a word count before terms are agreed and confirmed.
Those editorial professionals working with complex projects that require varying levels of intervention might find a progressive-pricing array formula far too limiting. It functions well for me as a proofreader because of the nature of my work. I do, however, have different arrays set up for different client types (e.g. students for whom English is a second language; independent authors whose first language is English) and for different levels of proofreading service. The prices I assign to the various ranges are different in order to reflect the variances in how I work with the text and the speed at which I am able to proofread.
How do you build a price for editorial work?
How do you build your quotations? Per hour, per word, per day, per project? Have you tested different approaches for building your fees? And do you find that different models work better for different types of editorial work?
I think that, at the very least, we should test our pricing models. I’ve written about this in more detail on the An American Editor blog: ‘The Proofreader’s Corner: Testing Editorial Pricing Models’.
I’m always interested in learning how others go about pricing editorial work so please do leave a comment if you have something to share.
Louise Harnby is a professional proofreader and copyeditor. She curates The Proofreader's Parlour and is the author of several books on business planning and marketing for editors and proofreaders.
Visit her business website at Louise Harnby | Proofreader, say hello on Twitter at @LouiseHarnby, or connect via Facebook and LinkedIn.
Search the blog
I'm an Advanced Professional Member of the UK's national editorial society.
All text on this blog, The Proofreader's Parlour, and on the other pages of this website (unless indicated otherwise) is in copyright © 2011–17 Louise Harnby. Please do not copy or reproduce any of the content, in whole or part, in any form, unless you ask first.
Author Member of The Alliance of Independent Authors (ALLi). I abide by its Code of Standards in regard to my status as an independent writer.
Advanced Professional Member of the Society for Editors and Proofreaders (SfEP). I'm a signatory to its code of practice as a professional editor.
Featured in The Book Designer's Carnival of the Indies: Joel Friedlander's collection of 'outstanding articles recently posted to blogs'.
Winner of the Judith Butcher Award 2017 in respect of 'highly visible contributions to the SfEP and its membership'.