Article
October 22, 2024
0 comment
by Stephen

When Potential Clients Ghost Me

Fall has definitely arrived here in Edmonton. Leaves are turning a beautiful golden yellow and the temperature at night is starting to dip below freezing. This year this also seems to be the season for an uptick in queries to index academic books, most of them ready for indexing in December. I’m not sure why this is the case. I find queries can ebb and flow throughout the year, though I don’t think publishing seasons are as important for academic publishing as it is for trade. In any case, I’ve been responding to a lot of emails.

I’ve also noticed a number of authors who seem to be ghosting me. I respond to their queries, sent them an estimate, and never hear from them again.

This is actually good, from my perspective. It means I don’t have to say no and that time slot is kept open for someone who does want to work with me. I am receiving more offers than I can accept, so while I do appreciate a response to inform me that the author is choosing to work with someone else, I don’t mind when potential clients filter themselves out.

I assume some authors simply forget to respond because they are busy. I’ve certainly done that. But why are potential clients choosing not to hire me? Am I doing something wrong in how I present myself, or am I actually doing something right? While I don’t know for sure, I have a few guesses based on the interactions I do have. I think there are two main reasons why I get ghosted, plus four additional reasons why I may not get the job. 

  • I’m too expensive. Especially for authors paying out of pocket. I am sympathetic to authors on a budget. I know that indexing can be expensive and that I am not the cheapest indexer around. I also don’t want to be the cheapest. I believe that the quality of my work and my years of experience is worth something. I am also mindful that I am freelancing in order to earn a sustainable income. So yes, I suspect that I am too expensive for some authors, and I’m okay with that. I see my pricing as a filter, because I know while some potential clients will find my quotes too high, others will find my quotes acceptable.
  • The client doesn’t value or understand what indexing entails. This is also related to price, though not because the client is unable to pay. I sometimes get the sense, from what the potential client writes in their query or the questions they ask, that they see indexing as data entry. They don’t consider all of the analysis, skill, and time that goes into interpreting the text, selecting terms, and structuring the index and arrays. So my quote seems outrageously high for what, to them, seems like a simple and menial task. It is frustrating when potential clients don’t value or understand what it is I do, but I also don’t want to waste my time writing a terrible index to make a low price worthwhile. If the client and I can’t agree on the value of the index, then we are better off going our separate ways.

Those are the two main reasons why I think I get ghosted. But projects can also fall through for other ordinary and legitimate reasons. Here are four common ones I see.

  • Another indexer responds first. Some authors contact multiple indexers and seem to choose the first indexer who replies. While this is incentive to reply quickly, I also find email incredibly distracting, so I’m okay losing out on the occasional project if it means I can carve out uninterrupted time to work.
  • Going with a firmer yes. Some authors don’t have firm dates yet for the index when they contact me. This makes it difficult for me to give a firm yes, especially if my schedule is filling up and I’m concerned about overbooking. Whereas another indexer may have a freer schedule or more flexibility. Which I understand and no hard feelings from me. 
  • An embedded index is needed. I don’t write embedded indexes, so once I realize what they need (which the author doesn’t always realize themselves), I need to reply and decline.
  • My schedule is full. Sometimes I simply don’t have room and I need to say no. 

It still stings when I get rejected or ghosted by a potential client. There is a hit of validation when schedules align and the client decides to accept my quote. But I also recognize that I am in a privileged position. As someone running a one-person business, there is a limit to how many indexes I can write per month. The question becomes: how can I filter the offers and queries to find the best clients and projects to work with?

Part of the answer is pricing, as I already discussed. I am looking for clients with larger budgets.  Marketing—the information I put out about myself—is also important. Can I find projects and clients which align with my own interests? Cultivating long-term relationships with certain publishers and editors is also important to me, as I enjoy their books and they have provided a lot of work over the years.

If you are an experienced indexer and feel like you are drowning in work and queries, then maybe it is time to raise your prices. Some clients may leave, and that’s okay because you can’t serve everyone. Saying no to a potential client, or having a potential client say no to you, can sometimes be the best outcome because it leaves room for a better client and project to come along. Who do you most want to work with? Focus on attracting and serving those clients. 

If you are a newer indexer, what I am writing today may seem irrelevant. I remember being a new indexer with an empty schedule waiting for anyone to get in touch with any project. But as your experience and reputation grows, your schedule should begin filling up too and you will hopefully reach the point where you will need to turn down work. It helps to be prepared for that day, even if you just make a note at the back of your mind that that day is coming. Again, who do you want to work with? How can you adjust your pricing? A no to one project means a yes to something else. 

Article
February 6, 2024
0 comment
by Stephen

A Member of the Team? Freelance Indexers Within Publishing

Freelancers are ubiquitous within publishing. Most publishers maintain a relatively small number of in-house staff, with much of the actual production work contracted out. What does this mean for the relationship between freelancer and publisher?

Before I dig into this topic, I want to acknowledge that I write from a place of having previously been on the inside, and from also now having been a freelancer for about eleven years. When I first began working in publishing, I worked in-house for two different publishers. I developed a strong sense of publishing as a team effort, with each person, whether in-house or freelance, contributing to the finished book. As a freelancer, I have retained this sense of being part of a team, and in my ideal working relationship with a publisher, we respect each other as team members. That said, I am also aware that many freelance indexers do not have in-house experience, and that publishers can come across as opaque and unapproachable. 

This reflection draws upon my own experience and what I would like to see. Your experiences and ideal working relationship may be different. I am curious to hear what you think, in the comments. If you are a new freelance indexer, I hope this gives you some ideas for what a positive working relationship can be like.

To start, let’s look at a couple of recent experiences I’ve had.

The Editor Who Couldn’t Care Less

Some publishers, or at least certain editors within those publishers, couldn’t seem to care less about the freelancers supporting their work. I encountered this a few months ago when I was hired by an author to index their book, which was being published by an independent academic press. (For the sake of this reflection, I’m keeping authors, editors, and publishers anonymous.)

Indexing guidelines were scant, though it seemed that both run-in and indented formats would be accepted. Working with the author, I submitted the index in run-in format. To our surprise, the editor unilaterally changed the format to indented, on the grounds that indented is easier to read. I actually agree with the editor on the format, but that’s not the point. If the editor felt so strongly about the format, they should have made that clear upfront.

We asked the editor about the change, and the editor confirmed that the press does indeed accept both run-in and indented formats, except, I guess, when the editor decides they know what is best. Reverting to run-in format was not an option. I followed up with some additional concerns, since the structure, as I originally envisioned it in run-in format, no longer worked quite as well. I also asked that in the future the editor provide clearer instructions, to avoid this extra and unnecessary work caused by this unilateral change. In reply, the editor made very clear that they had no interest in communicating with me nor in providing clearer instructions. The editor stated that they primarily work with scholarly authors who apparently get confused by too many instructions, and so the editor is used to taking whatever the author provides and formatting it as they see fit.

The irony is that I had already been hired by a different author to index a second book for the same press (which I submitted in indented format). The editor seemed unaware and uninterested in the fact that at least some of their authors were hiring professional indexers. Even if I am not in direct contact with the editor, I would suggest that we are still on the same team, and that better communication, whether directly or in the form of clearer indexing instructions, would make for a better book and a smoother production process for both of us.

The Editor Who Gets It

That same author who hired me to write the first index later passed my name on to a friend, who turned out to be the manager editor for two small university presses. That editor got in touch and, after a few emails back and forth sorting out the details for how we might work together, wrote, “Welcome to the team!”

Guess which editor I want to work with.

Being Part of a Team

Every publisher and project is going to be different. Some publishers prefer to be hands-off, making the index the author’s responsibility and not wanting to be in direct contact with the freelancer. I understand that the in-house editors are often very busy juggling multiple books. I respect the desire to be hands-off and I let the author take the lead on how communication flows between me, the author, and the press. In other cases, I am hired directly by the press, and so I am in regular contact with the in-house managing or production editor. For complicated projects, I may also be put in contact with the copyeditor, proofreader, or designer—whoever is best placed to answer my questions—which really does feel like I am part of the team. 

As a freelance member of the team, I recognize that I am being hired to perform a service. I realize that I don’t always get the final say, and if the author or publisher insist, I will revise the index as asked, even if I disagree. That said, part of being a team also means having my role and expertise respected. I appreciate at least being consulted on potential changes and to have my opinion taken seriously, even if the author or press ultimately decides otherwise. Respect also involves clear communication, whether direct, through the author, or through the indexing guidelines, so that I can properly do my job and have a way to ask questions. 

Being a freelancer also means recognizing when I am not part of the team. This took me a while to learn, as I was initially used to being part of the in-house team. But as a freelancer, I work with multiple authors and publishers. What is best for my business is not necessarily in line with what the publisher wants. While working together with authors and publishers on specific books, I also need to have boundaries with clients, to be able to say no when a project or publisher is not a good fit or if my schedule is already full.

For me, at least, it doesn’t take much to feel included. I don’t need a small gift or card at Christmas (though it is a lovely surprise when it occasionally happens), nor do I need to be included in company-wide meetings (though again, a nice gesture, especially if the meeting pertains to freelancers and my time is compensated, as did once happen). What matters is feeling appreciated. A word of thanks for the index. A willingness to answer questions. A desire to work together again in the future. Basically, an openness to a positive professional relationship that makes it easy to get the work done. 

What are your thoughts on the freelancer-publisher relationship? Do you feel part of a team? Or do you feel shut out or disrespected? What do you look for in a positive working relationship? Please feel free to reply in the comments and let me know.

Article
May 24, 2023
0 comment
by Stephen

Index Profile: Tracing Complicated Relationships in Main Headings, in The Other Great Game

What can main headings be composed of?

Main headings, which kick off an entry or array, usually describe a single person or thing. It could be a name, or a government agency, or a physical object, or a concept. It is concrete and identifiable. Which is what we want in a main heading. Readers need to be able to clearly identify what it is they are searching for.

But sometimes the thing that we are trying to describe is complicated, and it is okay for the main heading to expand and help carry the weight of the text.

I ended up taking this approach for the index for The Other Great Game: The Opening of Korea and the Modern East Asia, by Sheila Miyoshi Jager (The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2023). This is a delightful history, squarely within one of my favorite areas to index—East Asian studies—while also quite challenging in its scope and length, at about 570 indexable pages.

This book is about the colonial jockeying for power and control over Korea, with Korea ultimately becoming a protectorate of Japan. One of the challenging aspects was all of the intertwined relationships. Korea is a key player, of course. Japan is also involved, and wanting to be taken seriously as a great power. Russia also has its interests and influence. China is a waning influence, though still trying to exert itself. Though less involved, the other Western powers—US, Britain, Germany, France—all played a role as well.  Much of the book covers the diplomatic back-and-forth as all these powers try to figure out what to do with Korea (instead of respecting Korea’s independence). From an indexing standpoint, what is the best way to index all of these relationships?

Most of these relationships, say between Korea and Japan, or Japan and Russia, are too large to be contained within a subheading or two. These are relationships that span decades, and include wars, lengthy negotiations, and shifts in the balance of power. With so much material to cover, double-posting these relationships under each respective country would have led to enormous, unwieldy arrays.

The solution I landed on was to make the relationship itself the main heading. So, “Korean-Chinese relations,” “Korean-Japanese relations,” “Japanese-Russian relations,” etc… I still had arrays for each country, for subheadings specific to that country, but the bulk of the entries fell under these various arrays for these relationships. This meant that under Korea or Japan, for example, there are several arrays, which break down the discussions into manageable, yet still clearly defined, portions.

This also raised the question of which country to prioritize in the main heading. Should it be “Japanese-Russian relations” or “Russian-Japanese relations”? Because Korea and Japan were the two biggest actors, I decided to let them take the lead, so to speak,, with the Western countries generally being listed second.

These main headings also required a lot of cross-references from the other countries. As I mentioned, double-posting wasn’t a viable option due to the sheer number of entries. Better to pick a single array to place entries under, and then use cross-references to point readers in the right direction. For example, “Russian-Korean relations. See Korean-Russian relations.”

If you are interested in seeing all this in action, you can view the index here, on Amazon, using the Look Inside feature.

The number one goal for main headings is that they be clear. A confused reader is less likely to find what they are looking for. But while keeping clarity in mind, you can also play with main headings to better match the discussions in the book. Some subjects and relationships are more complicated, and a longer, multi-part main heading may be the clearest and best option.