Working alongside a variety of independent publishers, many having limited resources, Dean Cook often experiences a relatively relaxed approach to grammatical standards only to be corrected during the production stage. Here, he looks at ways to reduce time, work better and drive standards efficiently.

Professional publishers understand the importance of communicating descriptive writing with accuracy, structure and creativity; however, the personal writing ability, sometimes found with the independent publisher, can often limit the final result.

The importance of broadcasting to the public

Radio, television, newspapers, magazines and websites, positioned in a public environment, aim for perfection, or, at the very least, meet minimum standards expected by the industries they operate. The quality of the written word is paramount as the publication’s creditability can easily be affected if its content isn’t up to scratch.

I readily admit that I am not a writer, journalist, or editor. I tend to leave content creation to the professionals. Instead, I am a production artist dealing with the intricacies of constructing publications while maintaining client timelines. 

Over recent years, our production team has increasingly spent time filtering glaring errors then relaying them back to the editor. Although we take pride in every magazine we produce, the sub-editing of copy is outside our remit, yet, we wouldn’t let anything slip aware that an error was apparent. So, how do we reduce the number of mistakes while maintaining content accuracy, speed and production efficiency?

Before sending content to production, proofread the copy, proofread it again and then have someone else proofread it

Continue to proofread and correct editorial content in Word to the best of your ability until you are completely satisfied to sign it off. Only then should finalised content be handed to production. 

To supply clean copy aids better format, construction, accuracy and speed during the production stage. As a result, it reduces visual revisions, invites fewer proofs, speeds up the approval process and can attract lower production costs.

We appreciate copy errors can still be spotted after the page is composed. In most cases, there would be very few resulting in clients ultimately approving their magazine for print within a couple of production proofs.

Supplying unfinished copy will only slow the production process as the production artist would become involved with corrections. Amendments would need to be located, interpreted, applied, and then adjusted if the change has caused a reflow with the copy. The editor would spend additional time cross-checking that all amendments were applied correctly. Ultimately, this would increase time and invite a risk of missing the print deadline. No one wants to see that happen.

For the best top-ten proofreading tips, click here. If you feel grammar isn’t your strong point, Grammarly could be a handy tool. As stand-alone software and as a plug-in working alongside programs on your system, it filters most common grammatical errors and spelling mistakes. To find out more, click here.

Ideally, it’s always worth investing in your content so it can meet broadcast standards. Hiring a professional proofreader would undoubtedly benefit your publication in the long run. Or, why not consider enlisting the services of a freelance editor who can apply content direction and write with creative flair.

For more information, then please get in touch with us.