Over the last 2 weeks I have had 3 new clients come to me to revise articles that they bought because the writer told them any revisions would cost extra. Are re-writes not part of writing to keep the client happy? If I wrote these I would feel guilty charging the client anything, let alone charging them to fix it and make it readable. They are terrible. If I was the client there is no way I would have paid for them. So right now I am sitting here with 6 of the 17 left and wondering whether to attempt to revise or just start from scratch. I am thinking starting over will take less time. LOL
I usually don't charge for minor revisions up to 30 days from the completion of the project. While I do promise unlimited revisions during this period, it's really surprising to most writers that I get very few, if any, re-write requests from my clients at all. This is not because I'm a staggeringly awesome writer; it's because I've tried offering a set number of revisions in the past (like 5 or 7) and when I do this, clients intend to make the most of my offer and have me do as many revisions as I promise. It's like getting the best deal for your money. When I offer unlimited revisions over a set time frame, buyers usually just have me do 1 or 2 revisions to rephrase any sentences that don't go with the flow and then they're happy as a clam. Once again, I've saved the day for a desperate buyer while pocketing my extortionate fees.
I can't imagine why clients pay for work that they are not satisfied with. I always offer a revision on my original work, but I think that the first revision should suffice. I definitely would never charge for the first though. I agree with you that starting from scratch would probably be alot faster
If you look at some of the other freelance website forums you see a lot of posts with titles of "Don't do work for so and so, he doesn't pay." While I agree there are going to be some people who request articles with no intention of paying for them there are going to be just as many who don't pay because the articles they receive are useless. I have read arguements on forums between writers and clients because the writer wants his money and the client wants articles he can use. Not one time did the writer admit his articles were poorly written. Some writers think that all the article needs is to pass copyscape and that's it, quality be damned. So when people pay for shoddy work I think it's more to prevent being known as a non-paying client than anything.
A set of revisions is built in. If it gets out of hand, then we have to talk. Usually I can spot the client who needs more hand holding so I'll provide a detailed creative brief beforehand. Lately, I've been working with a client who simply pays by the hour so it's not an issue. Oftentimes, I'm not just writing an article, I'm crafting an entire advertising/web campaign so I make sure we're all on the same page at the beginning. Going off course can be way too costly in both time and money, not to mention the client's reaction to this situation.
You should only include a set number of revisions per piece. While I agree you should strive for the client's satisfaction, there are some who can't seem to be satisfied no matter how many times you revise.
I usually allow around 2 - 3 minor revisions. If, however, the client completely changes the scope of what they originally hired me to do, they're billed at my editing rate if it can be done from the original work, or they're billed at the writing rates again if it has to be re-done completely from scratch. It's possible the writer had less lenient policies (not a great idea as a writer though). It's also possible that the client simply wasn't comfortable telling the writer they thought something was wrong, so they were more comfortable going elsewhere. Sometimes clients will go with the cheapest writers they can get, and then hire a more serious editor to fix things, because it's cheaper than hiring the better writer outright. And it's also possible that the client simply received what they contracted, and then realized after the fact that it wasn't really what they were hoping for (at no real fault of the writer), so they're trying again. And of course, it's possible the writer just screwed up enough that it needed so much editing the client didn't want to deal with them anymore. Point being... they could have come to you for any number of reasons, so you can't really assume much about the original writer.
I do agree with you about not assuming anything about the original writer as everyone's style of writing is different. However, I am talking about articles that are so poorly written I didn't know where to begin when I got them. Hardly any puncuation used and many incomplete sentences. Almost like the person had a thought, was writing it down, the thought went away so they just stopped writing and moved on to the next subject. This is why I am so baffled by the whole charging for revisions. In some cases I can see where it may be necessary. This is definately not one of those cases. LOL I rarely have to do revisions for clients. Most of the time it is due to us thinking different ways about the same topic. So really all that is needed is a small addition of information that he was hoping would be in the article yet didn't specify when he hired me. Those are no big deal to me and they usually take a minimal amount of time to correct.