How things did go wrong!

I love healthy debates, no-one falls out with each other, and in the end, you can simply agree that you disagree with each other.

So with that thought in mind here's my analysis of how things did go "wrong" for Bartus de Ridder in his relationship with the folks at Ocean Geographic magazine.

Since publishing my previous post, I've received e-mails from Bartus and Michael and both have sent me the original and the published texts.

And before I continue, I believe it is only fair I reveal what some of you may perceive as a conflict of interest. Last month I ran a photojournalism workshop at Michael Aw (the 'boss' at Ocean Geographic) and Matthieu Meur's week long digital underwater photography workshop. But putting that aside, I will try and be as objective as possible. And bear in mind, I didn't witness the communication with Bartus and Michael, and even if I did, people see the world through different lenses where there may be no right or wrong, just 'stuff' that happened and lessons to be learnt for all involved parties.

This is what I perceive has happened with the lessons you might want to bank in the 'stuff I have learnt' account.

The original text was too long, 2303 words, eventually edited down to 959. There may not have been a clear brief from either party as to what exactly they were intending the article to be used for. In any case, to cut down the article to that extent would have taken the editor a good few hours. I'm surprised it was published, most editors do not have this time and would have submitted the article to the 'round file.'

The original text was quite wordy, if you can cut 30 words down to 10 then do so, the magazine world loves the phrase, 'less is best.'

There was some confusion over style, Bartus' original text contained quite a fair bit of information that was bordering on the scientific, perhaps an indicator of Bartus' academic background. The two do not mix, academic and entertainment are not words I associate with each other - and before anyone disagrees, this is just my opinion from my own geek background (I have an MEd).

Bartus' original text could have been split into two articles. I would have rejoiced in the fact my original piece was published, and then found some way to offer the part that was cut out as a future article.

The editor had to sub the original text to fit it in with the house style. The end result was less of an environmental crusade and it needed to be, you really have to get off your soapbox when dealing with conservation stuff. OG is one of the few magazines that allows the soapbox to come out, most are wary of environmental / conservation articles as they can switch off the reader (who is probably already a convert. Know your audience - what 'segment' they are from).

Last point - the editor is always right!

Bartus - my advice, rejoice in the fact that you have been published. You have a 'clip' to your name and the picture that was used looks OK. I have no idea what the original looked like, but the one that was used met the needs of the editor (see the above).

When you are writing - remember the house style you should be writing to. Each magazine is different and you have to tailor your copy to their needs. Don't annoy the editor with too many words. If they ask for 1500 they mean 1500, don't think they'll be really pleased if you do 500 more.

And if you are looking for $ agree this ahead of time.

Keep writing until you don't suck at it and until someone is willing to pay you.

Brendan