Pros
- Everyone's very polite, friendly, and forthcoming with help and advice in a line of work that rarely promotes feedback as it should.
- Can often be relied upon to supply plenty of work days in advance.
- Efforts to meet to new requirements or changes to original briefs seem to be genuinely appreciated.
- Very good communication with remote collaborators.
- Those who assign work stick to topics that you're good at and check in if they think it's a bit beyond your stated set of interests.
- Flexibility is embraced and allows for you to prioritise work elsewhere if and when it's necessary to do so.
Cons
- Path to better rates exists but is opaque.
- Requests for feedback on methods of improvement seem to have gone unheard.
- Dry spells for work being assigned aren't too uncommon and, from this side, seem to come out of nowhere without much by way of warning or attempts to cover the dips.
- Changes to requirements can appear as sudden without notification, such as through a blast email or newsletter, and come across as editorial inconsistencies, which can make it difficult to know the approach when different editors want different things from the work without forewarning.
