Our scene opens on harried marketing employees being hounded by their sales team for a final written product.
Player 1: Wait! We can’t send it to the sales team yet—it hasn’t been edited.
Player 2: Oh, not to worry—one of the associates gave it a quick proof.
Player 1: No, but I mean it hasn’t been edited.
Player 2: Well, we don’t have time—and even if we had time to edit, we wouldn’t have time to implement the changes in the document. Besides, it’s already been approved. Just let this one go.
And … scene.
If this is familiar to you—and prompts any sensations of frustration—you’re certainly not alone. On the other hand, if you’re confused as to how anyone could be frustrated by anything about it, you’re also not alone. What the scene illustrates is the common and natural tension between speed to market and quality—a balance which can be hard to strike but which is worth thoughtfully pursuing.[1]
Team Speed-to-Market is easy to identify with: We all know that time kills deals, and if a piece of written collateral—an e-mail, a case study, a thought leadership piece—can secure a deal, then surely getting it out the door is everyone’s top priority. Team Quality, on the other hand, is often misunderstood—and unpacking why will require a few definitions related to editing.
There are various types of editing, and the terms’ interchangeable use can cause understandable confusion. Proofreading is editing primarily for typographical errors (typos)—theoretically, it’s the final step before publication because it involves a review of the final proof. A proofreader is rarely reading for bigger grammatical issues and is rather focused on things like misspellings, formatting issues, etc.
Rather than focusing on the text as laid out on the page, copy-editing’s aim is identifying and fixing issues with the actual content—e.g., grammatical issues, punctuation errors, style guide alignment, etc.
Content editing, in contrast, is intended to ensure the content itself is sound—that the argument is logically laid out and well-supported. That sentences flow and follow one another, that they vary in style and substance; that the paragraphs all have points supporting the main argument, etc. In other words, content editing aims to tighten the prose itself—to make sure the argument is well-wrought, well-written, and clear to the intended audience.
Naturally, these processes can overlap—e.g., content editing often comprises some amount of copy-editing, too. It would be odd for an editor to fix the logical or organizational issues but leave the grammatical ones. Or the misspelled words. Just because they overlap, though, doesn’t mean each pass isn’t worth conducting relatively independently—which doesn’t necessarily mean different people have to perform each role (though more eyeballs can help ensure all the issues are identified before publication). But it does mean taking the time to read through a piece several times, shifting focuses with each read. Though this approach will slow publication (an understandable issue when time is of the essence), it is likelier to result in a higher-quality final product that requires fewer (if any) post-publication revisions.
So how should businesses aim to resolve the tension between Team Speed-to-Market and Team Quality? There are absolutely instances in which Team Speed-to-Market should win. Naturally, editing matters—but sometimes, it’s not the top consideration. It all depends on what kind of editing would be skipped in the name of publishing quicker. It also depends on the content’s current state. Is it someone’s terrible first draft? If yes, Team Quality might have the better case. On the other hand, if it’s been across a few desks and needs to get out the door already, maybe it’s in good enough shape to forego the final proof.
Which leads to the age-old conundrum: what to do about the typo identified at the 11th hour. Here, I recommend deferring to Team Speed. Yes, quality matters, but businesses exist to serve their clients—and sometimes, providing the best service possible requires moving quickly. Most readers will forgive the odd typo—and sometimes, the effort required to fix a typo exceeds the effort required to beg any reader’s excuse who catches it.
Unfortunately, there are few hard and fast rules for determining when quality prevails versus when speed does—but if there is one clear guiding principle to offer, it’s this: Rushing content that just doesn’t work is rarely worth the speed and, in the long run, may do more harm than good to your brand. And whoever wins, recognizing that both teams have fair points and legitimate motives can help alleviate some of the tension that naturally arises when the stakes are high.
[1] Before proceeding, it’s worth clarifying first that I’m not criticizing any of the players—including those who never appear on stage, like the sales folks. Also, any resemblance to real-life characters is entirely unintentional.
Comments