With freelancers bemoaning the present state of journalism, I can only offer the salvation that I have found: corporate publishing. If you were like me during most of my 35-year career, your nose is now wrinkled in distaste. While I wholeheartedly suggest you unwrinkle it to smell the profits, I also suggest you be aware of the pitfalls as well.
Corporate publishing goes by many names – content marketing, custom publishing – but it’s not all products and selling. I’ve written many sponsored articles that never mentioned a company’s product. Corporations consider this material – which frequently goes on their web sites – as an educational tool that sets them up as a source of authoritative information (then, they hit prospects with sales and marketing material).
To get a sense of how corporate publishing differs from traditional journalism, let’s look at the pros and cons.
Pros
Money. This is the important one. Granted, I write about technology, which takes some expertise, but I’ve also written about business issues for Fidelity Investments and American Express. My average annual salary over the last ten years is more than double my last editorial job.
Flexibility. The rules about not writing corporate material while working for traditional journalism venues have eased. As one editor told me, “No one can make a living at traditional freelancing anymore. Just tell me when there’s a conflict.”
Sources. In corporate publishing, the client almost always provides the sources. They’re not always brilliant, but you never have to spend time looking for them.
Process. There is usually a strict process with corporate publishing: a kickoff call to discuss the project, followed by an outline, followed by an interview with a designated subject matter expert, followed by the draft, followed by revisions. Follow the formula, and you’re golden.
Cons
Deadlines. I get four weeks to write a feature for Computerworld. My corporate deadlines are usually a week, with revisions expected in a few days.
Lack of Serendipity. Like most journalists, I love the search for good sources, and the frisson from a really insightful interview. Interviews in corporate publishing are usually very straightforward, and rarely surprising.
Review Cycles. If you think having your editor and a second editor review your copy is a pain, try having it done by a committee, many of whom can’t express themselves but still have an opinion. Even worse, unlike your editor, publishing is not their priority. I have had drafts disappear into black holes never to be seen again. I still got paid.
Some facets of corporate publishing may be pro or con. The biggest one: if you live to see your name in print, walk away; your name frequently will not appear. But if, like me, you’re more satisfied seeing your name on checks than in print, I suggest you investigate the lucrative world of corporate publishing.