Most trend pieces describe a conversation instead of a change. You see something talked about at three conferences and voila! Instant movement. A year later no one can point to anything different that was done.
The useful version of the article starts from evidence, such as shipments, hires, filings, prices, or any countable measure. Then it explains how certain that evidence is, which is usually significantly less certain than the headline suggests.
Trend claims should arrive with evidence, explain their uncertainty and describe themselves. The pieces that maintain their value over time state what they are measuring, describe the range of the data, and explain what would disprove them. Almost none do, and that is why the vast majority of these pieces are not worth rereading.
A model’s idea of what is current is frozen at a date which it does not disclose. Therefore, it reports news as ‘breaking’ or ‘emerging’ news which is in fact, settled news. This is a major issue in a piece which is supposed to have predictive ability, i.e. a trend analysis piece. The whole purpose of such an analysis is to determine future trends based on the present and the recent past, and the model doesn’t account for this. The model’s output is based on its current understanding and so is completely oblivious to the fact that most of the news is in fact settled.
The writer starts with the measurable thing: job postings, public filings, pricing, published shipments, etc. Based on what the sector actually measures, the writer starts there. If nothing is measurable, then we say the trend is a conversation as opposed to writing something that’s little more than a guess. Readers appreciate a candid conversation more than a confident (but likely wrong) guess.
As a judgment call on our parts, trend pieces carry more weight with the revision round than in other cases. We’ve included two for you to work with over the next two weeks. Send the draft to your internal stakeholder to review, and adjust confidence level, as opposed to the facts, if the language in the draft comes across as overly strong.
One rate, whatever the format: $10 per 100 words. You are paying for the writer’s time and judgement, so the price scales with the words rather than with a package tier.
| Typical trend piece | Words | Writing | Fee (1%) | You pay |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Short trend note | 800 | $80 | $0.80 | $80.80 |
| Standard trend piece | 1,400 | $140 | $1.40 | $141.40 |
| Outlook report | 2,200 | $220 | $2.20 | $222.20 |
The writer receives 100% of the writing price. Our 1% fee is added on top of it, and 0.5% is donated to tree planting. Full pricing breakdown.
We match the brief to a writer who has already worked in that subject area. If you have worked with an Articled writer before and want them again, name them and we will check their availability first.
Fill in the order form with your brief and email address. No account needed. You get a confirmation by email, then the finished piece as a document within 3 days.
That is the best version of this piece. Send the dataset if there are any associated caveats. The writer builds the argument on this dataset, and describes the methodology in detail. They even put notes for the analyst to check before the publication.
The falsification section is what protects you. A section describing the circumstances where one would be wrong to uphold what is written would be read as an honest analysis when the described circumstances arrive, rather than as a poor call for which nobody went back to revisit.
Completely. Copyright transfers to you on delivery, with no attribution requirement and no licence back to us. Nothing written for you is resold, repurposed or republished.
Reviews from completed, paid orders in this category.
We’ve been outsourcing blog posts for two years and need to rewrite every intro, but this one didn’t need anything. This one went directly to our editor. The writer noticed something the rest of us and probably the past writers missed, and that is a reference to “members” in an older post, which I attached to this brief. We swear by “members” and never say “customers.”
Most writers have their own way of talking. Each of the twelve writers here has their distinct voice. This is one of the first things I noticed about your publication. I’d guess this creates a lot of overlap among the writers and likely involves some good editing. Your style guide is fourteen pages. I’m sure they read it all.
Savings explainers like to use analogies, and this one shows us a table with two worked examples. Our compliance reviewer passed it with zero comments for the first time in the four years I have been here. This must be a first for them also. (I have never actually read a savings explainer.)
We do not ask you to take the no-AI promise on trust. Each draft is run through these platforms and the reports are attached to your delivery email.
Originality.aiAI detection + plagiarism
GPTZeroAI detection
TurnitinAI detection + similarity
CopyleaksAI detection + plagiarism
Winston AIAI detection
ZeroGPTAI detection
SaplingAI detection
Content at ScaleAI detection
Send the brief, get a human draft back within 3 days. No account, no subscription, no AI.
$10 per 100 words · all of it to the writer · 0.5% to trees