Hello friends! I hope you’re all enjoying ~spooky season~ as much as I am. My house is fully decked out in Halloween decor, and I’ve eaten, I dunno, four pounds of candy corn at this point? Who can say, everyone knows Halloween candy calories don’t count anyway.

Today we have another edition of FWT’s Q&A series, in which I pick out a reader-submitted question or two and offer my take. If you’ve got a question about freelancing or the wider world of journalism, email me at [email protected] or fill out this form with your question.

But first, if you like what you’re reading and want to support FWT, please consider upgrading to a paid subscription. This newsletter exists only by the grace of its subscribers, so your help truly keeps this whole community alive. A paid sub gets you an extra paid-only newsletter every week, access to all past and future paid-only posts, 50% off all Zoom workshops and everything in the workshop library, 33% off all one-on-one coaching sessions, invites to subscriber-only events and interviews, and more.

And! I’ve extended the ~Fall Special~ for new annual subscribers, which gets you all the perks of an All Access subscription plus a free one-on-one pitch review (a $75 value!) Click below to subscribe, and thanks for reading!

Now, on to today’s question:

Anonymous asks,

I got a cordial rejection from a publication, and it got me thinking — what’s in a no? What does a non-response mean and what does a thoughtful response mean, and can you pitch another editor at the same publication? (Probs no). How long before you can pitch the same editor another idea? And do you respond to the rejection or spare their inbox?

Here’s the rejection in question:

Hi [freelancer],
Thanks so much for this pitch. Unfortunately, it's not a good fit for us at this time, but we appreciate the opportunity to take a look.

Thanks again and all best,
[Editor]

Ah, rejection, our unwanted-yet-constant companion in the freelance life. None of us is ever immune, and it’s one of the most difficult aspects of this path we have to adjust to. It can feel demoralizing, personal, uplifting, cruel, inspiring, confusing, or a million other things ... often all at the same time. It never goes away, it comes for us all, and the best thing to do about it is just learn to deal. Sigh.

But! But. Rejection isn’t always the end of the story. As I often write in this newsletter, a “no” to a pitch isn’t a “no” to an idea, and that’s a super important distinction to remember. Just because it’s not a fit for this particular editor/publication/timeline/budget/pub sked/etc. doesn’t mean it’s not a fit for someplace else. So that’s step one: Rejection is inevitable, so take the L and move on to the next publication. (And you do already have that list of publications ranked by preference I’m always talking about, right?)

From there, though, decoding a rejection is more art than science. Dead silence after a few follow-ups can mean something entirely different than a “cordial” rejection response. And sometimes it doesn’t! Let’s look at a few types of responses, starting with the one in today’s question.

First, it’s always a positive when an editor takes the time to respond. Even though the rejection hurts, it’s a good sign they actually said something! If commissioning editors responded to every single pitch they got, their entire day would literally just be that. (More on the silent rejection in a minute.) So if an editor is taking the time to respond, you’re in solid territory.

This can mean a lot of things, so try to read between the lines and trust your gut. Sometimes it’s an implicit invitation to keep pitching (and, if you’re lucky, an explicit invitation); maybe a sort of “Hey, I see you, not right now but keep at it” type of thing; and other times, if you’re super lucky, you’ll get a reason why they’re declining. (The why behind a rejection is a whole other topic we’ve covered a lot around here.)

But, broadly, you should take a response as a net positive. Unless they gave you a reason for their rejection that is itself a message not to pitch for a while (e.g., “Thanks for the pitch but I’m not taking pitches right now” or something along those lines), it’s fair to assume you’re getting the go-ahead to send another great idea in a couple of weeks if you’d like. (Obviously, you don’t want to overwhelm them with pitches or mistake their response for a “Send me all of your other pitches tomorrow!” email, but we all already know that.) Just be cool, keep it chill, and get back in touch when the time is right.

Next, let’s dig a little deeper and look at a few common rejection responses we all get and what they really mean. (These all focus on cold-pitching a new editor; rejections from an editor you work with are an entirely different topic we’ll cover later.)

Going back to our question, that response — “Thanks so much for this pitch. Unfortunately, it's not a good fit for us at this time, but we appreciate the opportunity to take a look.” — definitely feels like a boilerplate email sent out to pitches they don’t want for whatever reason. It’s broad and vague enough that it covers basically every reason; it’s not a personal note; nor is it an invitation to keep sending. But! It is something. This kind of response generally means the editor looked at your pitch, decided it wasn’t right, but thought it was worth a response. It’s basically a yellow light: Send a stronger idea a little later on.

The stepsibling of the copy/paste reply, this is slightly more difficult to untangle, but more or less means the same thing. These usually look like a variation of: “Thanks for sending, but we’ll pass.” What does that even mean! It’s still a response, so overall still a positive, but, counterintuitively, feels somehow more impersonal and less informative than the copy/paste response? Idk, weird vibes with these. A slightly less enthusiastic yellow light here, but a yellow light nonetheless.

In this category is anything where the editor looked at your pitch, gave it some serious thought, then sent you something beyond a standard reply that is meant solely for you, not for Generic Freelancer. Maybe they reference something in your pitch, explain why right now isn’t the right time for this story, or even compliment your idea and say they hope you can find it a home elsewhere. This is the best kind of rejection! It’s the second-best possible outcome from sending a pitch! Unless there’s a specific reason not to (e.g., they loved your idea but they’re not taking pitches for a while), you should consider this response a green light to send your next great idea.

This is, obviously, the most difficult rejection to decode, because you have nothing to go on. There are innumerable reasons this happens, but some of the common ones are:

I can tell you firsthand, as well as from hearing from dozens and dozens of other commissioning editors, that all of these happen all the time. It sucks, it’s unfair, it’s unreasonable, but we all live in the real world here and sometimes the real world is bad. This isn’t a red light at all, but it’s not really a green or yellow light either. In these cases, just send another pitch when you’re ready. The worst thing that can happen is more silence, but hey, we’re already there anyway, so shoot your shot.

Finally, to close the loop on today’s question: How long before you can pitch the same editor another idea? And do you respond to the rejection or spare their inbox?

Generally, a couple of weeks is a good rule of thumb unless the editor specifically invited you to pitch again; then you can send whenever you’re ready. As for whether to respond at all: A simple “Thanks for your time” type of email is perfectly fine. It’s not mandatory, but it’ll take 15 seconds and it keep things polite. But not responding is also fine, too, if you just don’t feel like it; odds are the editor won’t remember either way when you pitch them again. Just follow your gut.

Good luck out there, and have a great week!