Join My New LinkedIn Group: Editorial Solutions Performance Insider!!
by Howard Rauch, President, Editorial Solutions, Inc.
If you're a B2B publisher or editor seeking answers to current editorial performance challenges, my
new LinkedIn discussion group -- Editorial Solutions Performance Insider -- is the place to be.
There are many very good B2B-oriented sites available; however, none of them totally focus on
performance issues.
As the group founder, I intend to lend my own experience as a consultant and former long-time
editorial VP to each discussion. For years I was the lead presenter at industry workshops
addressing performance measurement issues. In my initial session -- much to the dismay of my
audience -- I broached the possibility that editorial productivity could be measured quantitatively.
The reaction was outrage. How could someone dare to suggest that quality could be expressed
as a time component. Well . . . I dared!
My first brush with establishing quantitative performance standards occurred when I joined the
company where I would remain for 21 years. My first job involved a launch budgeted for an
editorial staff of two plus freelance help. To do the job right, extensive travel was required. The
new mag was budgeted for 50 tabloid pages -- 1500 editorial inches. For those of you who have
only worked on standard-size magazines, that allotment translates into 50 editorial pages.
So I began what would become a standard practice for a launch of figuring out how much content
a staff of two could produce. We needed to have a certain number of features and news requiring
considerable enterprise. To offset that load, I needed to devote at least 25 percent of each issue
to easy-to-write articles -- like product items, new literature and personnel appointments.
To make a long story short, I broke down workload job descriptions for myself and my associate
editor into six day-load categories: (1) original writing; (2) editing the work of others; (3)
production time; (4) travel; (5) article recruitment; (6) administrative/detail work. This information
was translated into staff job descriptions itemizing specific quantitative performance expectations.
The system continued to work for me as I moved up the ladder from group editor to VP/editorial
director. And by the way, quality was not infringed upon in any way. The key reason the system
worked was that our screening system and extensive in-house training allowed us to attract star
performers capable of turning out great quality in quantity!
Fast forward to the present where, due to our leap into digital media, work overload seems to be
the order of the day. Editors once responsible for just generating print content now must contend
with demands of spin-offs, additional Web channels, webinars, content coding, digital issues and a
precipitous jump from monthly to weekly to daily e-newsletter frequency.
Maintaining a high level of quality under these circumstances is no cinch. And what many of us
have yet to come to grips with is that, particularly at the digital level, there is an audience
expectation of high-enterprise content. In an attempt to meet tough deadline schedules, we
seem to be moving away from enterprise in favor of conveniently-generated material.
So . . . in this environment, can we always deliver best-of-show content? How do we stand up to
attack by alert competitors who are generating superior content with the aid of a dedicated digital
staff? Can we manage to produce the required authoritative content on limited travel budget?
Are quantitative job descriptions becoming more common . . . or, in this respect, are we still living
in the management dark ages?
The above commentary describes the focus I am hoping to address constantly via Editorial
Solutions Performance Insider at LinkedIn. Please join the conversation! We need you!!
############
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Editorial Solutions, Inc.