|
How to control costs when everyone's
an editor
(or wants to be)
Man's greatest sin is not greed, or
lust, or envy. It is the need he has to change another's copy.
Maybe that should read "Mankind's
greatest sin". And in the second sentence perhaps it should
be "a person" rather than "he"?
Should we use the term "copy"?
Not everyone knows that it means text.
Perhaps the sentence structure should
be looked at?
Anyway, you get the picture.
Or at least, if you have ever written
anything which has to go the rounds of several executives or departments,
you'll know that when people are faced with a final proof they will
want to make changes — to show they're better writers than
you, to exert their authority, or just to show they've read it.
Changes cost money
Input from the rest of your team and even
other departments can be useful. But all those marks on a proof
can also mean a big hole in your budget, especially if others have
already made changes in earlier versions.
Some people may make changes, and then
others may want to revert to an earlier version or even make further
alterations.
Quite apart from the merry-go-round you
find yourself on, the dollars that you are responsible for are heading
through the roof.
How to keep it under control
How can you keep the costs and process
under control, while still encouraging feedback and providing for
essential approvals?
A client of mine was in exactly this situation.
She was responsible for a monthly series of organisation-wide documents
to which a number of departments contributed material. I had been
asked to help with editing and production management.
Each month she gave various departmental
managers final proofs for sign-off prior to printing.
Invariably, the proofs came back with
changes, despite each department previously supplying finalised
material.
It was as if they had not read earlier
drafts. In fact, that's often exactly what does happen. When
people see a proof of a fully designed piece about to go to print,
they suddenly realise that what they're looking at is how it
will appear, and they become concerned about details which they
should have checked much earlier.
My client's departmental budget was being
regularly blown with the cost of changes to proof, and it wasn't
her fault!
So how was the situation resolved?
Set some rules and get agreement
I suggested the steps involved in the
process be defined in writing, complete with responsibilities assigned
and deadlines to be met.
My client then asked her senior management
to approve the process document.
She told me later that mention of "cost
control" and "process efficencies" was sufficient
get her boss's attention. The document went to all departments with
her first request for contributions. She also copied any senior
managers who might be asked later to comment or approve material.
The process document was short, but clear.
It provided for approval of drafts but made it clear that the cost
of later changes would be attributed to the department seeking them.
This was to prove the key to getting the budget back under control.
Each contributor was asked to review their
material if it had been edited.
In this organisation, departments were
able comment on others' contributions and even insist on changes
if necessary. Therefore the process provided for full drafts to
go to all concerned.
With the drafts was an approval form for
signature. It repeated the message that any later changes would
be charged to that department.
When the final proof was circulated Ñ
not for approval, but as a courtesy Ñ a blank purchase order
was attached for any changes that might be required.
Result: In the first month proof changes
dropped from more than 20 to just two (with completed purchase orders).
The following month no changes were made.
Another client who follows a similar process
doesn't even distribute a final proof. He takes responsibility
for checking the press-ready version against signed-off drafts and
the rest of the organisation looks forward to reading the printed
copies.
|
