Make It Happen
My Tipsheets are chock full of ideas. They are all aimed at translating knowledge into a quick, action-oriented 60-second nugget.

First Name:
Last Name:
Tipsheet Archive
Randall's Resources
Whenever I speak or write, I often prepare extra "bonus" materials.
Enter the Resource Code to access this special content:
Resource Code:
Try this example Resource Code: eventplanning


While the internet has changed the world of publishing fundamentally, the world of writing has been fundamentally shifted as well.

Consider who is actually doing the writing:

Professional writers are educated in the craft of investigation and written expression, and spend an entire career learning how to convey complex concepts to their audiences. Over time, some will develop subject matter expertise, enabling them to write about ever-more-complex topics.  Writers get paid by publications who need “quality” editorial content, written without an underlying self-serving bias.

Subject matter experts usually start with a comprehensive education within their area of expertise, and then earn even more knowledge through decades of experience in their industry. Over time, some will also develop an expertise as a communicator. A few even become writers (or speakers).

Subject matter experts get paid by clients who have a problem that needs to be solved; their role is often a consultant, coach, or speaker.  To attract these clients, subject matter experts use a modern content marketing strategy: develop and diffuse content (blog posts, articles, white papers, etc) as widely as possible.

This sets up an interesting marketplace conflict between the two groups. Publishers now have a choice between writing experts (who cost money), and experts who write (who are free).

In the days of old, publishers understood that a free press was a lynchpin of the democratic system. Reporting independently and objectively was part of their public duty: paying writers was the way to ensure that reporting was not compromised. This is still true for some publications, such as the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, the Economist, and some others.

A newspaper executive a few years ago explained “the sole purpose of editorial content is to serve as a skeleton for our advertising: If we sell more advertising, then we need to provide more editorial; if we don’t we’ll lose readership – and therefore lose advertisers.” He was saying what we already know: the economics of the business drives decisions.

Therefore it is not unsurprising that an astoundingly high number of print publications (and online news sites) do not pay their writers. The honeypot of free editorial content is just too alluring: with ad revenues declining, costs must be managed. After all, why pay for editorial content when you can get it for free? This model absolutely works: consider The Huffington Post, which is built almost exclusively with free content. Trade magazines have also been doing it for years.

This change has been a bonanza for subject matter experts (and also corporations who generate “branded content”). but for professional writers, it is another nail in the coffin: they now must successfully compete against free, or go hungry. Or choose an entrepreneurial route by attracting advertisers to their own blog.

Bonanza or not, Subject Matter Experts who write are facing other challenges, chief amongst them is the ownership of the copyright, and control over “their” work.

If they are writing for free, who owns the copyright? Does the publication have the right to edit the piece (or change the headline) without pre-approval? Or removal the writer’s name? Or create derivative works without attribution? Can the writer demand that the piece be taken down from the online site at a future date? Or that the article be updated? Or that a competitor’s advertisement not be shown on the same page?

The answers to some of these questions can be found within the “contract” that the publisher and the writer sign. These contracts range from simple verbal handshakes, to short agreements that give the publisher the right to use the article, to lengthier ones that border on the unreasonable.

Over the last decade, there has been a trend towards the unreasonable. A case in point: an authoritative trade publication sought me out to write a feature article for an upcoming issue. When asked if it were paid or free, they replied that it was unpaid. I responded that I would be happy to write the article, on the conditions that my byline was used, that a two-sentence “about the author” was included with a link to my website, and that copyright was left with me. After agreeing to this via email, they asked me to sign their “standard release”. This was a mind-boggling multi-page document that transferred complete ownership of the piece to the publisher, forbade me from writing similar pieces, and forbade disclosure of the contract terms. Needless to say, I refused to sign the contract without amendments, and they said that they have no flexibility to make any changes. I didn’t write the article.

While this example may be the exception, it illustrates a fundamental challenge for a publishing industry that has become addicted to free: one-sided contracts will kill the golden goose of free content from experts.

This week’s action plan for subject matter experts: Do you write for free as part of a content marketing strategy? If so, decide on how much you are willing to give up – and then stick to your guns.

This week’s action plan for professional writers: The world has changed: instead of competing with free, how might you take advantage of this new paradigm? Hint: developing a reputation – and a bit of celebrity – this improves your value significantly.

This week’s action plan for publishers: Consider setting a higher bar for prospective experts-who-write: their wide network (real and online) brings far more value than just a filled slot in an editorial calendar. Then use a contract that protects your rights, but also respects theirs.

Note: The Make It Happen Tipsheet is also available by email. Go to to register.

Randall Craig

@RandallCraig (follow me)
:  Professional credentials site
.com: Web strategy, technology, and development
:  Interviews with the nation’s thought-leaders



Consider the newest words entering our vocabulary: Kindle, eReader, Nook, iBooks, and Kobo.  Let me add one more:  iCensorship.

If the stats are to be believed, our eBook purchases on these devices are fast eclipsing traditional print books. This isn’t surprising, as eBooks are not bulky, don’t kill our forests, and they’re cheaper.

Despite these advantages, they are not perfect.  Putting aside the challenges of sharing books or battery problems, there is the problem of the walled garden. Once you have committed (say) to purchasing an ebook through Amazon, you can only read your book on a Kindle. While you can get a Kindle “App” for your iPad, this would be a different App from Apple’s built-in iBooks. Having a plethora of different readers and remembering which book is in which App is nonsensical: consumer behavior will be to choose one and stick to it.

This “App” problem is just one skirmish in a long-brewing war between the ebook distributors.  Consumers may not realize it, but ebook distributors have another weapon – a dirty little secret actually – to use in their fight:  censorship. Yes, censorship.

My latest book (Online PR and Social Media for Experts, 5th edition), was just submitted for electronic distribution, but was rejected because within the manuscript there were several links to the Amazon web site.  Not links to the Amazon store, but to two Amazon services that are important for the target audience – AuthorCentral and Askville.  I was told that if the book was to be sold on a Nook, Kobo, Apple iPad, Sony eReader or others, this content would have to go.  Guess what went.

In the olden days of traditional bookstores, this could never happen.  While you may be saddened  to see the death of so many independent bookstores (and some large ones), you should be more disturbed by the inappropriate use of the monopoly power by these new centurions.  Is what they are doing unlawful?  Not being a lawyer, I couldn’t say.  You may not care about my specific book, but what about others?  Imagine where this slippery slope might take us:  Will Amazon only agree to carry a product if the publisher adds only-for-Amazon extras?  Will Apple or Kobo only carry the product if an author changes the political angle of their manuscript?

I do support the right of ebook distributors to choose what they wish to carry.  But their behavior imposes yet another burden on a beleaguered publishing industry.  And it is an attack on the editorial freedom of writers.  Why should it fall to publishers, authors (and ultimately consumers) to be the pawns in their high-stakes world of ebook poker?  Let the competition be on an even playing field, without iCensorship.

This week’s action item:  Where are you buying your ebooks?  Before you decide to plunk down your cash, remember that you are not just deciding on a book, but an entire ebook ecosystem. 

Postscript for ebook distributors:  I am happy to update this article to note your policy of never rejecting a book because it contains a reference or link to a so-called competitor within the content of the manuscript.

Note: The Make It Happen Tipsheet is also available by email. Go to to register.

Randall Craig

@RandallCraig (follow me)
:  Professional credentials site
.com: Web strategy, technology, and development
:  Interviews with the nation’s thought-leaders