How to give better feedback on writing

↓

Hey there, Reader!

Every writer has experienced the dreaded marked-up page, filled with edits and comments from multiple sources, sometimes giving conflicting feedback or ignoring the assignment all together. Although most professionals can roll with it (because it’s unfortunately the norm), sometimes it's almost too much to take. I remember one of the worst mark-ups on an article I wrote eight or nine years ago.

The tracked changes included feedback, including completely rewritten passages, feedback on top of that feedback about word preferences, tone, style (often changes that did not adhere to the style we were using) from 12 people – three people from my own agency (account directors – not writers or editors), three people from the client marketing team, two people from the client’s legal team and other “internal stakeholders” at the client’s company.

The first version was a well-organized, engaging story that probably needed a little revision. That final article was almost unreadable and certainly unenjoyable, and it got less traction for the client than other articles that weren't gang-edited.

Why? Shouldn’t a lot of feedback make the writing better? NO. It absolutely does not. (I'll explain more below.)

It can be tough to give good, helpful feedback on writing, but I’ve compiled some Dos and Don’ts that may guide you and prevent your copywriter from quitting in a huff:

Don’t: Use a piece of content to litigate organizational differences. Often, organizations will bring in colleagues from different departments and levels to give feedback on an article or script. Everyone then feels as though they MUST comment – they have been asked to represent their department and interests, after all! Please resist the inclination to invite everyone to the editing party. But what if you work in an organization where this is the culture? See the next bullet for my advice (and a way to change this toxic cultural practice).

Do: Write a good brief. The assigning person can give the writer a one-page brief describing the assignment. This brief may also include notes about:

-Intended audience
-Important points and facts
-Notes about intent of the content
-Advice about style, length and tone (if the writer doesn’t already know about that).
-Any legal look-outs, or other notes from colleagues across the organization

This should all be communicated succinctly. Bullet points are great.

Do: Let the writer/editor do their job. If they are doing the job you hired them to do, they will know how to adhere to your brand voice. (If they are not doing that job, that's a separate conversation with that writer.) People who are not writers and editors – meaning it is not the job they were hired to do – should not be responsible for giving edits and maintaining brand voice. I can’t tell you how hard I cringe when I hear someone who doesn’t work in content say, “I’m a bit of a stickler when it comes to writing!” or “I’ve read Strunk and White cover to cover!” or “I was the copyeditor of my college yearbook so even though I’m now a

Do: Have one consistent, designated editor. If possible, ask one person – preferably one who was trained and hired to be an editor – to edit writers’ copy. This person should know the style that your organization uses (AP or Chicago style, for example) and understand your brand voice. Sometimes brand voice breaks typical writing conventions, and some editors are bothered by this. Your consistent, trained editor should know when the writer has veered from typical writing conventions in service of brand voice (or to better reach the audience you seek to engage). This person will also recognize typical opportunities for edits – a shorter, more elegant way of saying something, for example.

Do: Editor + Subject Matter Expert + Leader. If your team has the bandwidith and wants a more formalized editing process, I suggest this: The professional writer writes, the editor (described above) provides edits and feedback, a subject matter expert weighs in to make sure any technical information or industry norms were not misinterpreted or misrepresented, and finally, when the piece is truly ready to go, a leader (a person with more authority — if possible, a CEO, CMO or other senior leader), gives it a stamp of approval. This final OK can include higher level feedback if necessary. However, it should be minimal because they're mainly making sure the writer followed the brief. Note: It's important that the final OK be from a senior leader because it prevents the non-writers (who can't help themselves) from offering unwanted feedback.

Don’t: Rely too much on AI. I actually think AI is a helpful writing and editing tool, especially as a thought starter. I also sometimes like it for taking a lot of data and editing into a first draft (but I also think that I do a better job of this). You can even train AI to write in your brand voice. However, AI tends to write in a way that I still find to be a bit robotic and general. It removes nuance and detail, and sometimes it completely makes shit up and fully ignores your notes. If you’re stuck, though, it can be helpful. (Here are other ways to get writing done when you’re stuck.)

Don’t: Live group edit. I was in a meeting earlier this week in which a room of 30 people submitted edits to a draft of a mission statement live and in person. It was cringy, as the kids say. To be fair, I think this session was supposed to be about giving feedback on ideas – not copy edits , which probably should have been saved for a professional editor — but per my comment above, some people are compelled to edit even when you aren’t at the editing stage yet. (Also, to be fair, a lot of these folks were actually professional, veteran writers and editors who teach writing.) This exercise took about an hour of time, and everyone had different thoughts about ideas and edits, and they also wondered who the audience was. We were missing a brief. We didn't understand the assignment.

And I cannot stress this enough: No matter how hard you try, this exercise winds up being really demoralizing for your writer. Even if this person has thick skin, having an entire room of people giving live critiques – some of which might not even be informed or actionable – is uncomfortable. (Saying "So sorry — I'm sure someone worked really hard on this!" while continuing to group edit in front of the writer almost makes it worse.)

Do: Consolidate feedback. What if instead of having a group of people line editing, you have one designated person who collects feedback and rewrites it in such a way that it will make sense to the writer as they revise? This is more like how a lot of instructors grade these days – it’s less about the mark-up with red pen and more about teaching the person to spot the errors and come up with their own solutions on how to fix them. Again, though, a strong brief should keep you from having to get feedback from too many people.

I'll end here. I'm sure a few of you already wishing you could edit this newsletter for brevity. 🤣

As we reach the end of the summer, I leave you with only this article and photo gallery to celebrate a season well-lived:

​Minnesota State Fair Hosts Another Llama-Alpaca Costume Contest for the Ages​

Thanks again for reading, and happy Friday!

Please pass it on. I'd really appreciate it if you would pass this newsletter along to a friend or colleague. Just forward it and tell them they can subscribe here.