As magazine editors are having to do more with less, I foresee a serious problem as we try to keep our magazines moving in the general direction of the light at the end of the tunnel. This is uncharted territory.
About two years ago, the publisher of one magazine dealt with its fiscal crisis by
eliminating its art and manuscript budget. Promised that editorial positions would
remain intact, the editor reluctantly agreed. Not six months later, staff cuts happened
anyway.
That editor was the first of many facing the same ugly picture. Art and manuscript budget cuts are averaging 50 to 60 percent, and staff cuts are probably running about 25 to 33 percent—for titles
still in business.
Complain and the reply from the front office is some variation of: “Your job should be easier, you have less pages to fill.” Nobody who writes for a living would say that.
It’s harder to write tight than wobble around a subject, and I have this noble idea that readers still expect the same breadth and quality of coverage as before. Picking stories, juggling columnists, avoiding landmines of insolvent manufacturers, and trying to fit the entire range of coverage in half as many pages while having less staff to cover events is a flipping nightmare.
To make matters worse, many editors are now serving two titles. Or one title and the Web site, blog or newsletter. For no more salary.
We have stepped up and shouldered the load of working feverishly to keep magazines afloat, revamping edit calendars every month, shuffling columns, sourcing free photos, cajoling staffs, and trying to share work among as many freelancers as possible. For you on the freelance side, please know that it’s painful to turn down a good pitch from a solid freelancer and embarrassing to reduce fees.
In addition to writers and designers, edit departments have lost photo researchers, assistants, marketing people, even receptionists. The editorial staff remaining probably finds itself doing every publication task, from sending out media kits to responding to the hundreds of e-mails to former staffers.
Then, we write articles, test boats, and edit. Work weeks are now routinely 55 hours and more. I’m worried about burnout—mine and yours. For many of us at the executive level, the stress of making ends meet is nearly constant.
Knowing how many accounts are past due, how many manufacturers are laying off workers, how many magazines are folding, and how much printing and postage costs are increasing certainly detracts from the creative process. I’m worried that weariness may creep into our prose and our stories will stop reflecting the joy of boating that brought us to our profession and our passion.
I urge you to keep your eyes on the passion.
We team players have created more-with-less editorial magic by hook and by crook, by calling in favors, and by sacrificing vacations and family time. When the revenue picture eventually starts to recover, a lot of debt is going to have to be repaid, and staff positions and freelance budgets are not going to appear overnight.
We are going to have to negotiate back to sanity and probably have to negotiate hard. (Make sure you file every positive letter to the editor you receive.) But just as media is changing, so are media jobs. We have to explore new methods. Job sharing? Inventing new revenue streams to justify a staff position? Benefit cuts rather than job cuts? Outsourcing? Alternating responsibilities to allow vacation time? Repurposing content? Reducing the number of print pages and increasing the
amount of Web content? Everything is on the table.
Whatever it is, it’s going to be about working smarter rather than harder. Most of us can’t dance any faster than we already are. If you come across articles about avoiding burnout, improving negotiation skills, or finding new ways of working, I encourage you post them on the BWI
LinkedIn group.
As magazine editors are having to do more with less, I foresee a serious problem as we try to keep our magazines moving in the general direction of the light at the end of the tunnel. This is uncharted territory.
About two years ago, the publisher of one magazine dealt with its fiscal crisis by eliminating its art and manuscript budget. Promised that editorial positions would remain intact, the editor reluctantly agreed. Not six months later, staff cuts happened anyway.
That editor was the first of many facing the same ugly picture. Art and manuscript budget cuts are averaging 50 to 60 percent, and staff cuts are probably running about 25 to 33 percent—for titles still in business. Read more »