<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Why Do Good Writers Produce Bad Copy? Bad Language Wonders&#8230;</title>
	<atom:link href="http://writerunderground.com/2007/01/04/why-do-good-writers-produce-bad-copy-bad-language-wonders/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://writerunderground.com/2007/01/04/why-do-good-writers-produce-bad-copy-bad-language-wonders/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=why-do-good-writers-produce-bad-copy-bad-language-wonders</link>
	<description>writing about writers and other letter-related debris</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Feb 2012 13:15:47 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tom Chandler</title>
		<link>http://writerunderground.com/2007/01/04/why-do-good-writers-produce-bad-copy-bad-language-wonders/comment-page-1/#comment-237</link>
		<dc:creator>Tom Chandler</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 15 Jan 2007 15:55:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://copywriterunderground.com/2007/01/04/why-do-good-writers-produce-bad-copy-bad-language-wonders/#comment-237</guid>
		<description>Matthew - the &quot;one major, two minor&quot; is a guideline. Client happiness is of course the key, but it&#039;s rare for me to swing and miss completely more than once on a project.

An open-ended process simply isn&#039;t fair to you; some clients can&#039;t decide on a project&#039;s goals, tone and format prior to seeing your first draft. Fair enough, but you can end up investing 2x-4x more time in those projects as similar projects from more focused clients.

Obviously, that time isn&#039;t free, and letting clients know they&#039;re &quot;on the meter&quot; right when the project begins to drift is the best way to get compensated and alert the client to problems with the project.

Client satisfaction is important, but remember - this is a business, and the only two things you&#039;re really selling are your expertise and time.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Matthew &#8211; the &#8220;one major, two minor&#8221; is a guideline. Client happiness is of course the key, but it&#8217;s rare for me to swing and miss completely more than once on a project.</p>
<p>An open-ended process simply isn&#8217;t fair to you; some clients can&#8217;t decide on a project&#8217;s goals, tone and format prior to seeing your first draft. Fair enough, but you can end up investing 2x-4x more time in those projects as similar projects from more focused clients.</p>
<p>Obviously, that time isn&#8217;t free, and letting clients know they&#8217;re &#8220;on the meter&#8221; right when the project begins to drift is the best way to get compensated and alert the client to problems with the project.</p>
<p>Client satisfaction is important, but remember &#8211; this is a business, and the only two things you&#8217;re really selling are your expertise and time.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Matthew Stibbe (Bad Language)</title>
		<link>http://writerunderground.com/2007/01/04/why-do-good-writers-produce-bad-copy-bad-language-wonders/comment-page-1/#comment-236</link>
		<dc:creator>Matthew Stibbe (Bad Language)</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 15 Jan 2007 07:27:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://copywriterunderground.com/2007/01/04/why-do-good-writers-produce-bad-copy-bad-language-wonders/#comment-236</guid>
		<description>This is a really useful addition to my original comments and contains some points I wish I had thought of.

I did have one question - you say you allow for one major round of revisions and two minor ones.  Have you ever had any trouble sticking to that?  I&#039;ve often toyed with including something like this in my terms and conditions but I have rarely been asked to do multiple rounds of major rewrites and it always seemed to me that it would be better to give an unconditional guarantee of rewrites until the client was satisfied.  I just wondered what your thinking was on this point.  You&#039;ve been at this game a lot longer than me so I&#039;d welcome your opinion.

Cheers,

Matthew</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This is a really useful addition to my original comments and contains some points I wish I had thought of.</p>
<p>I did have one question &#8211; you say you allow for one major round of revisions and two minor ones.  Have you ever had any trouble sticking to that?  I&#8217;ve often toyed with including something like this in my terms and conditions but I have rarely been asked to do multiple rounds of major rewrites and it always seemed to me that it would be better to give an unconditional guarantee of rewrites until the client was satisfied.  I just wondered what your thinking was on this point.  You&#8217;ve been at this game a lot longer than me so I&#8217;d welcome your opinion.</p>
<p>Cheers,</p>
<p>Matthew</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

