Case study: commissioning a fictional reported feature

What to take away

• This case is fictional and describes no real magazine or contributor.
• The editor commissions a specific inquiry, not a predetermined conclusion.
• Fee, expenses, revisions, rights, and cancellation are confirmed before reporting.
• Added travel triggers a documented scope and budget change.
• Acceptance and payment do not wait for an uncertain publication date.

Fictional magazine Common Ground receives a pitch about repair cafes. The writer proposes examining what happens to donated appliances after volunteers decide an item cannot be fixed. The idea fits an issue about product life, but the first email does not yet establish access or available records.

Pitch development

The editor asks for a short follow-up covering likely locations, access status, records, central question, possible scenes, conflicts, and why the writer is suited to the work. The writer confirms preliminary contact with two independent repair groups and identifies municipal waste records that could provide context.

Poynter's discussion of freelancing as a business notes that freelance work includes sales, planning, communication, workflow, and payment collection as well as pitching. Common Ground treats the contributor as an independent business party and keeps the editorial discussion connected to clear commercial terms.

Written commission

The assignment confirmation specifies a 2,200-word reported feature, two repair-site observations, records analysis, interviews with organizers and repairers, a response from the municipal waste authority, one reporting check, one structural revision, and source queries during fact review. It sets the draft date, fee, payment within 30 days of acceptance, approved local travel, kill terms, limited publication rights, credit, and editor contact.

The brief asks what happens to unrepairable items. It does not require the writer to prove that repair cafes reduce waste.

Scope change

During reporting, one local site cancels access. A strong replacement is available in another city, but the trip adds rail fare, one overnight stay, and two reporting days. The editor does not add the travel through a comment in the draft record. Both sides approve a change note covering the new location, expense cap, added fee, and a three-day extension.

The Authors Guild's session on legal rights and making contracts work notes that a publishing contract can determine a writer's income, rights, and liabilities for decades after signing, and covers freelance and ghostwriting agreements alongside book deals. The fictional arrangement follows that logic by amending the record rather than the conversation; the Guild's program does not establish the law governing this invented case.

Draft, revision, and acceptance

The first draft supports the main finding but overstates one city's records as a national pattern. The structural edit narrows the claim and asks for national context from a suitable source. That revision fits the agreed assignment. The editor accepts the corrected draft, records the date, and sends invoice instructions.

Publication moves to the following issue because another feature becomes time-sensitive. Payment still follows acceptance as agreed. The contributor reviews the final proof for factual changes but does not receive an open-ended right to approve house style or layout.

Common questions

Is Common Ground real?

No. The magazine, writer, repair groups, locations, records, and terms are fictional.

Why was the trip added to the fee?

It materially increased time, expense, location, and reporting work beyond the original scope.

Why did payment not wait for publication?

The agreement tied payment to acceptance, and the publication delay was the magazine's scheduling decision.

Was the national context a scope change?

No in this case. It corrected an overbroad claim within the agreed reported feature.