Will the next booming profession be copy editor?

[HarryT]

Perhaps we could compare the rates for what might be thought of as similar jobs. Here in the UK, the going rate for private tuition by qualified teachers is about £20/hr (say $35/hr). Could we consider something like that as being similarly skilled work?

[Hatgirl]

This topic reminds me of that old joke:

A guy brings his car to a mechanic and says the engine is making a funny noise. The mechanic takes a listen, goes to his toolbox and returns with a hammer. He hits the engine with the hammer, the noise stops, and the mechanic says, “That’ll be $500. ”

The customer says, “Five hundred dollars to hit it with a hammer?”

The mechanic replies, “No it’s $10 to hit it with a hammer. It’s $490 to know where to hit it.”

[Lemurion]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Perhaps we could compare the rates for what might be thought of as similar jobs. Here in the UK, the going rate for private tuition by qualified teachers is about £20/hr (say $35/hr). Could we consider something like that as being similarly skilled work?

I think that it's similarly skilled and it's certainly in the right ballpark for a starting rate. There are plenty of freelance editors who won't work for that rate, but I wouldn't call it low enough to be insulting.

[James_Wilde]

Originally Posted by Maggie Leung

Wow, a whole 5 percent? Not sure which Third World country they could afford to live in on that, lol. I don't knock indie books for those who enjoy them, but let's not kid ourselves that we're talking about a "professional" livelihood for copy editors stemming from the hope of 5 percent of sales and such.

Throw me some slack, Maggie! Those figures were suggestions and open to negotiation. But anyway, if one reckons that the author works for, say, a year to produce his book, and the cover artist, say, two weeks, then the ratios are roughly 50:2 which is 4%!

For many indie authors, we're not talking about a "professional" livelihood either. How many indies do you suppose actually live off their books? Not even all main-line authors (i.e. ones with a publishing house behind them) do that.

[James_Wilde]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Never mind "almost no sign of editing". The overwhelming majority of independently-published books are not edited in any way whatsoever, and it shows.

So come up with a new business model, Harry. In another thread not a hundred miles from here I seem to remember prices ranging from $500-3000 for editing. At 80% of $2.99 a book, that's 200 to 1200 books sold before one gets around to paying the cover artist - another 200 books. That means you have to sell 400-1600 books before you start making money. I know we do it for love and not for money, but that's a heavy bite into the cake.

[HarryT]

Editing is one of the primary benefits you get from using a traditional publisher. People often ask "what do publishers do to earn their money?" That's a large part of the answer, right there.

[James_Wilde]

Originally Posted by Catlady

Copyediting isn't some casual little hobby--it's a real job, it has real value, and the pay is barely adequate now.

Right on, Catlady. You can say the same thing about writing. But surely there must be some trained copyeditor or proofreader who's at home with a young child, and would like to make a few extra bucks to boost the family's income and doesn't need all the overheads of a company. Maybe cash payments - or a share of the profits.

[John Carroll]

Writing a book is like kind of like cooking. You take all the ingredients - characters, setting, plot and put them together. A lot of people forget to add language, punctuation and editing which are also vital ingredients. And just because you add all of these ingredients together doesn't mean you have something edible.

When I wrote my first book, I edited it then asked friends to edit it as well. I had just declared bankruptcy and simply couldn't afford an editor, still can't. Getting a publisher would be best, but that seems impossible in this day and age.

2 months later, one of my friends gave me half of the book edited. She hadn't finished it and the other friend just never started, so I delved into it myself. This time I picked apart the language, wording and phrasing. I also did a lot of research as to the rules of the English language only to find out that it's one of the murkiest and most complicated languages out there.

Then I gave it to my wife who took pity on me even though it wasn't her genre and she was terrified of hurting my feelings. Her advice was wonderful and helped to improve the content of the story. I re-wrote chapter 1 and added a new chapter 2 as a result. During that time, I also gave it to another friend, not to edit, but just to read. At that point I wanted to know if the book was even basically readable. To my delight, she said she loved it. If she was lying I don't care. *grin*

Then I went through it again and found more things that needed to be fixed and also realized that I had certain habits that needed to be broken as a writer.

Then I printed it out and read it yet again for consistency and smoothness. I found a few small things that needed to be ironed out, but it was good overall. I wasn't ashamed to release it.

Even after spending hundreds of hours editing the book, I still wish I had a professional editor to go over it. I have found that there are editing courses available that teach the profession of editing. At some point I hope to take one of the classes to improve my abilities and understanding of the job.

Indie writers seem kind of like anarchists if that makes any sense. We're just throwing work of various qualities out into the universe with no sense of organization. The good thing is that it's breaking traditional, stodgy ideas that choke creativity. The bad news is that you have to dig through the sludge to get to the gems.

I think there will be a compromise in the next few decades. The industry will meet somewhere inbetween the current indie writers and traditional publishers.

[James_Wilde]

I think what a lot of people in here, particularly the editors, are forgetting is that, at the same time as they want a fixed fee up front for their work, which is okay if you're approaching a big publishing company whose first run is, say 20000 copies, they're talking about the same deal from someone who doesn't know if he's going to sell any books at all, and will be selling them for $2.99 in ebook form, and for whom sales of 20000 are the crock of gold at the end of the rainbow.

I agree $50 is a good wage for an editor. I'd be happy to be so badly paid myself as the man who has written the product that the editor is going to work on. I reckon it takes me, say, 3 hrs a day 5 days a week for a year to prepare a book which the editor is going to tart up in ten hours At $50 an hour that would give me $37500.

If an editor can guarantee me that income from my book, I'll be happy to guarantee him $500 to edit it. Of course I need an editor, not just a copy editor, not just a proof reader, but possibly also a developmental editor, although I thought his job was what writing is about. But the economics of the situation are against it with the fixed fee business model.

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by SlowRain

Don't misunderstand me. I would like to see better copyediting out there, and I do respect the process. I just don't want to see ridiculous fees. We already have enough things in this world ridiculously priced. I envison it being a great opportunity for retired high school English teachers. I just don't want an industry that's based out of high-priced Manhattan offices, with plush office furniture etc. If the author isn't living in that situation, the copyeditor shouldn't either. If the author is an average person writing out of a simple home, I don't see why the copyeditor should be above that. The job each does involves a similar process with similar equipment. Adequate remuneration for both is fine.

Where do you think copyeditors work? What kinds of glamorous perks do you think copyeditors have? I'm just flabbergasted.

By mentioning retired schoolteachers, you apparently believe that copyediting is just a matter of knowing how to spell and where to add the punctuation. A copyeditor is more than a glorified spellcheck program.

You can't have the "better copyediting" you would like to see if the process is marginalized and underpaid.

Do you think people come out of college and think, Gee, I want to make loads of money and live the glamorous life--I'll become a copyeditor!

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by SlowRain

I would say $50 an hour for someone working out of their home would be excessive in this situation, especially considering there's no capital outlay involved (I don't mind paying people a fair wage to earn a living, but I don't agree with paying ridiculous amounts simply because they and their industry think they're worth it). However, I'd also assume it would take longer than 10 hours, but I guess that depends on the length of the book and how much correcting has to be done. If it's a particularly messy manuscript (about 400-500 pages MMPB), then $500 would certainly not be unreasonable. I'd expect a lower bill if it was a shorter book or if it wasn't too messy.

Why should it make a difference where the person performs the work? And in any case, do you think someone working out of home has no overhead or expenses?

You think a 500-page book should take 10 hours to copyedit? Fifty pages an hour? You MUST be joking.

[SlowRain]

Catlady, the thread title mentioned 'the next booming profession'. I answered from the point of view of what a booming profession means to me. Plus, someone threw around the sum of $50/hr. That's where my concern stems from.

Originally Posted by Catlady

Do you think people come out of college and think, Gee, I want to make loads of money and live the glamorous life--I'll become a copyeditor!

I don't see anywhere where I said or even implied that. I merely stated what I didn't want the industry to become. I'm sure even a lowly high school English teacher would have picked up on that one.

[Lemurion]

Originally Posted by James_Wilde

I think what a lot of people in here, particularly the editors, are forgetting is that, at the same time as they want a fixed fee up front for their work, which is okay if you're approaching a big publishing company whose first run is, say 20000 copies, they're talking about the same deal from someone who doesn't know if he's going to sell any books at all, and will be selling them for $2.99 in ebook form, and for whom sales of 20000 are the crock of gold at the end of the rainbow.

I agree $50 is a good wage for an editor. I'd be happy to be so badly paid myself as the man who has written the product that the editor is going to work on. I reckon it takes me, say, 3 hrs a day 5 days a week for a year to prepare a book which the editor is going to tart up in ten hours At $50 an hour that would give me $37500.

If an editor can guarantee me that income from my book, I'll be happy to guarantee him $500 to edit it. Of course I need an editor, not just a copy editor, not just a proof reader, but possibly also a developmental editor, although I thought his job was what writing is about. But the economics of the situation are against it with the fixed fee business model.

If you want developmental editing as well as copyediting, it's going to take more than ten hours. I'd actually argue that a good copyediting job on anything other than an exceptionally clean manuscript is going to take more than ten hours - but it's a nice round number to work with so we may as well leave it.

I understand that it may seem unfair that an editor would want to be paid when the book may not make enough to cover all costs, but that's part of doing business. Costs need to be paid, and there's no reason to expect a third party to share your risk.

Another thing to remember is that for the average indie writer, writing isn't their day job. They rely on something else to pay the bills. The editor is doing their day job, and this is how they pay their bills. They simply can't afford to work for free and still keep a roof over their heads.

[SlowRain]

Originally Posted by Catlady

Why should it make a difference where the person performs the work? And in any case, do you think someone working out of home has no overhead or expenses?

I'd imagine it'd be less than the mechanic who works out of his own garage, and less than someone working out of an office. Don't forget, people claim all kinds of expenses to reduce tax, but they're mostly expenses they'd incur anyway.

Originally Posted by Catlady

You think a 500-page book should take 10 hours to copyedit? Fifty pages an hour? You MUST be joking.

Once again, a lowly high school teacher would have noticed that's not what I said.

[rhadin]

Originally Posted by Lemurion

So what would you consider a fair hourly rate for a copyeditor? I don't like per-book rates because they really don't reflect the amount of work involved. Hourly's the way to go, that way those who produce better manuscripts get the benefits, and the editor doesn't have to worry about explaining variable rates to clients.

Also, what about developmental editing?

For what it's worth, I prefer a project or per-page rate for copyediting (developmental editing is a different matter and an hourly rate is more appropriate). In fact, I haven't accepted copyediting work on an hourly basis in 22 years.

Which is better is somewhat of a Catch-22. The advantage to the client of a project or per-page rate is that the client knows upfront what it will cost. The advantage to the editor is that the more efficiently the editor works the higher the editor's effective hourly rate.

The disadvantage to the client is that some editors will take shortcuts in order to increase the effective hourly rate. Another disadvantage to the client can be that the client overpays, although I have never found this to be the case with my work. The disadvantage to the editor is that the fee is set regardless of the problems encountered. Sometimes, and this has happened to me several times in my career, the editor takes a bath on a project -- I had one where I ended up earning the equivalent of about $2.50 an hour.

But hourly fees also are Catch-22 fees. The advantage to the client is that the client pays what the client considers an acceptable rate. The disadvantage is that there is no way to know in advance how many hours will be involved. Granted a limit can be set, but that limit may mean the project is not fully edited. The advantage to the editor is that the editor knows what the hourly return will be and can accept or reject the job based on whether the compensation is sufficient. The disadvantage is that the most the editor can earn is that hourly rate, which is likely to be closer to minimum wage than to a skill wage. The other disadvantage is that clients often have budget limits that they do not disclose in advance, which leads to disharmonious relations between client and editor when that limit is exceeded.