writing portfolio question

Seems like a lot of work, not to mention that for features, it's hard to get an interview with someone when you don't actually have a publication lined up for it.

Nah, that'd be way skimpy. And what you think is your best might not be what the editor thinks is your best.

Go for option (c).

I can't remember the last cover letter I read (or even got, really!) I do skim over resume's, though. But the clips are what's really important (though right, I rarely if ever read them all from beginning to end).

In my case: "generally," no. ....but "frequently"? yes.

Alternately, send ideas of what you want to write about. And explain WHY. And be convincing. Do not expect editors to read your mind. And if they've never worked with you before, do not lazily expect them to come up with ideas FOR you (though some may, guess.) I kinda hate it when new writers say something vague like "if you're looking for somebody to write about something, let me know." If I was looking for somebody to write about something (i.e., if I didn't have hundreds of ideas from writers I was already weighing), why wouldn't I opt for a writer who I know could pull it off over one who is unproven? Why make more work for myself? Sorry, I don't get that...

And be patient. It may not all come together overnight.

My advice (which has worked for me at most of the places I now write for) would be to go with choice (b), then call about a week or two later. If you can get the editor on the phone, ask politely if they got your letter/clips. If they say yes, then start pitching like mad via e-mail.

With me, following up by email is way better than by phone, since when you call, I guarantee I will be busy and therefore quite possibly crabby. Both ways, I'm gonna have to check the file cabinet where I filed your clips and I probably won't remember your name until I do so. But honestly, just like with bands sending CDs, I'm not sure I totally understand what the "following up" part is for; it seems kinda gratuitous. If you sent it, then yes, they did get it, 99 percent of the time (unless it just didn't get there yet.) So why not save time and just follow up the packet with email pitches a couple weeks later? Why force the editor to tell you what he thought of your clips; even if they sucked, it's not like he's going to insult you over the phone! As for the website, do it if you want, but (just speaking for myself here) I NEVER look at clips on line, unless your pitch is EXTREMELY urgent (like, for a very timely feature say) and you live across the ocean somewhere. Otherwise, visiting your website makes me think I'm doing your work for you. The printers here often don't work; why should I print out your clips if you won't yourself?

it's hard to get e-mails, though, sometimes. Here at TIME, we're not even allowed to disclose e-mails anymore.

I'm not sure I totally understand what the "following up" part is for; it seems kinda gratuitous.

To get you off your ass to look stuff people have taken pains to send you.

But yeah, I guess if you can't find an email address (here, they're easy) you have to resort to the phone. But still, I swear, "did you get my clips?" (just like "did you get my CD?") just plain strikes me as a stupid question. Which is why sending pitches makes more sense.

No one does anymore, but they used to. I mean, I respect that everyone's busy, but that just seems so damn rude. I realilze this is a naive sentiment, so save your ire.

And I have no idea why anybody would think "not hearing back from an editor" would mean "the editor hates what I sent", either. Ditto not getting assigned a cover story (or even a sidebar) right away. Don't writers understand that there are thousands of other writers out there? To me that just seems obvious, and it seemed obvious when I was freelancing, too. If you sent stuff, assume the editor got it and saw it. And then set out convincing him or her that he or she has no choice but to give you an assignment. Convince the editor that you are as good or better than the writers the editor is currently using; that you have something that needs to be covered and you can cover it better than anybody else he's got. (Don't do that by saying "I have been a fan of this band for a long time" or "I live in Chicago and so does the band"; do it by talking about your ideas about the subject.) If you don't do that, you are wasting both your time and the editors.

I'm sure you remember how frustrating it was, though, Chuck. Getting an editor to give the time of day can be a irritatingly inexact science.

x-post

and most of the time, if i dont get back to you its because ive been submerged in other stuff.

the best way to get a response from anyone is to get their attention. i've recieved emails from people asking to submit (and hell i take a damned lot of what gets submitted) writen in the most passive, formulaic prose! sometimes ill then read the clips and wonder if they came from the same person.

on online clips. i prefer them, but were a small opperation without a central office and i dont want anymore paper than i already get. reading paper is nicer, but i tend to get a decent idea of how someone writes with a few online clips and then ask them to do a spec piece. if that goes well, im happy to have them on board.

and as alex has said....DONT BE MEEK!... or cute...

I sort of agree. This is why the only place I send spec stuff is the Voice, because Chuck's semi-militant opposition to running reviews based on street dates allows a much wider window. When I send him something, it's because it's been stuck in my head for a month or so with no sign of getting less interesting anytime soon.

Ha-ha.

Everything goes 'round in a cycle and what is old becomes new again in about a year, sometimes less. And it becomes eminently reusable, or re-pitchable, as the case may be.

The negative and other side of the coin is that when you tie yourself into sharp release dates for common stuff (or even semi-common and semi-semi-semi common uncommon) and pegs for "when the band hits town," the same thought occurs to everyone and your competing with a surfeit of pitches, all addressing the same thing.

That's the nature of news and features journalism. So nothing you send that's passed up, allegedly because of time expiry, should be discarded. Believe me, you'll get to use it again.

And there are "evergreens" in the daily and altie journalism business, too.

haha...and most days you have to wonder what you might gain as well.

It really depends, doesn't it? Say, for example, that you write a music cover story on spec for the Voice, and it gets turned down. The number of outlets for long, thoughtful, more in depth music pieces is so small that at best you'll land another assignment on the same topic and get to re-write your unused piece. But, to my mind, the longer you work on something, the less value (in the $$$ sense) it possesses, since on a time/money basis your rate essentially goes down the more time you put into something.

Not that spending time on a piece is a bad idea, mind. Just practically speaking it's not always worth it.

Anyway, that's why I said nothing to lose. One presumes after a first spec piece is accepted, an editor might be more inclined to properly assign in the future, if you prove your merits/reliability. Remember, they don't want to waste hours rewriting your piece, either!

If it's me, it's reliable bank. It works if you can write extremely
tight reviews. As the review size at all publications has shrunk to
one-two paragraphs or less, the actual amount of pertinent unique statement has dropped more. If you can write one or two paragraphs about a band in thirty-forty minutes and it expires, as soon as the next release comes along, with a couple minutes of revision, it's immediately reusable. It's cost effective. It wouldn't be for truly miniscule rates which are inexorably more ubiquitous or for people who have to put a lot of struggle into placing even the slightest piece.

Anyway, worked for years at a newspaper. Still works.

These people probably shouldn't be freelancing, anyway, though...Domino's needs drivers.

Because it's a waste of time if the work's already done.

There's a constant wrangle on ILM about the importance of "longer pieces" of music writing that mystifies me most of the time.

When I started in journalism such things were disparagingly called thumbsuckers at daily newspapers. This horrified and enraged many reporters, writers and editors who couldn't do anything about the perception and implementation, anyway. The only place where I see it practiced regularly and with some belligerence is the in the Sunday sections of the Times of NY and LA.

And, most of the time, it's the work of staffers, not free-lancers
who would be better advised, if they want to do that, to work at getting a staff position that guarantees writing.

I worked the desire for the long form in music writing out of my system a long time ago. I don't read them that much and when I do, they remind me that I'd rather read long form analysis of some other subject. When I do a long piece, it's almost never in music, any more. I wrote a lot of them almost twenty years ago -- they were easier to place and I was less crabby and marginally more hip -- and then went on into investigative journalism, where you could write long and it wasn't subject to trends and whims.

;)

Why would anybody ever write a COVER STORY on spec?? That'd be nuts. (Though Jaime Lowe did send me a long interview with ODB on spec a few months ago, and I ran that, I guess. But almost all of the spec pieces I've actually run have been, like, 200 word sidebars.)

sometimes i wonder how anybody actually makes a living doing this sort of thing.
m.