Comparing Experiences: Developmental Edit vs Beta Read

This post has been on my to-do list for a while. Back in January, I contacted a professional freelance editor about getting a developmental edit. I worked with Jeni Chappelle, who has a great website and newsletter and she has participated in RevPit, a pitch contest to get a free developmental edit. I ended up purchasing what she called a Manuscript Critique, which has the same type of feedback as her developmental edit, but includes a couple fewer things (no list of resources, fewer calls, etc.). I wanted to discover what type of feedback a paid edit would get me vs a free beta read from my writing groups and some reader friends. Is a developmental edit/manuscript critique different or better than a beta read? 

Developmental Edit 
Pros:

1. Because the editor has industry knowledge, they are probably right when they identify something as a problem.
2. They are likely to meet the agreed upon deadline.
3. They can spot things like common clichés you didn't realize were clichés, ways to stand out in the market, and might even identify comp titles for you.
4. Their feedback is organized (usually in an edit letter, depending on the person.)
5. They conduct themselves professionally (i.e. if they don't like something in the book, they find a way to phrase it constructively, not just bashing your work.)
6. They identify large-scale problems, such as character arcs, plot holes, world building, etc. 

Beta Read
Pros:

1. Beta reading is free.
2. Betas often give me more in-line feedback, identifying smaller scale problems like awkward phrasing, misused words, etc.
3. More than one beta reader will give a variety of feedback, catching problems that only one person may not notice. (Example: if your beta readers are different ages, races, sexualities, tax brackets, etc. they will each bring their own life experiences with them and tell you things you may not have known in regards to plot holes, word choice, characterization, etc.)
4. They are people you (usually) know and trust already.
5. At least one beta reader giving feedback is expected by the industry before you query.

Developmental Edit
Cons:

1. Editors can be pricey. Anyone charging too little might not have enough experience, but someone charging too much could blow your budget. Finding a sweet spot can be a challenge.
2. It takes time to find the right editor for you. Who has experience in your genre? Who has a good track record of their edited books later getting picked up (or selling well indie)? Who will vibe with the philosophies in your book? Finding the right person is critical, and can be a large time investment.
3. This type of editor doesn't do line editing or copy editing at the same time--even when they see those types of errors--so you will still need to do those yourself, find another editor, or pay for a different type of edit from the same editor (if they offer it.)
4. You are getting only one person's feedback.
5. You may be able to learn the information you'd receive in this type of feedback over time from craft books, classes, conferences, etc. It won't be specific to your book and it will take a lot of time, but it might end up being cheaper.

Beta Read
Cons:

1. The betas may not have much industry knowledge or experience editing, so not all of their feedback is necessarily correct or could be outdated. (Example: in recent years, the industry has moved away from italicizing non-English words in English books, but your beta may not know that.)
2. Beta readers have less frequently given me feedback on character arc, plot arc, theme, and other big-picture topics.
3. Beta readers are less beholden to deadlines because this is not their job. Feedback may trickle in and may never arrive from some beta readers.
4. The feedback may or may not be organized or delivered in a professional/polite way. If using betas you don't know already, this can be a major issue.
5. Your betas might be less familiar with your specific genre, therefore might give feedback that won't work in your genre. (Example: if someone doesn't read romance, they may not understand that your romance requires a HEA/HFN ending to be considered genre romance.)

I want to emphasize one of my points here: having others beta read your book is expected by agents before your query. (It's so expected that you don't need to mention it in your query.) However, no agent will reject your work solely because you didn't have a developmental edit. That type of edit might help you solve problems that then take your manuscript from a rejection to an acceptance, but:

No professional editing is required in order to sign with an agent.

My experience with Jeni Chappelle was awesome. She gave me incredible feedback, and our call together made me so inspired to work on my novel again. She was genuinely enthused about my project and was such a nice and caring person. If you're considering a developmental edit/manuscript critique and she seems like a fit for your story and budget, I recommend her.

My beta reader pros and cons are based on several years' worth of beta feedback on my current project and three previous novels. I've worked with betas in my writing groups and friends who were more readers than writers. Your beta experience will vary. Choose wisely and know when you've gotten enough beta readers to give you feedback (you can have too many.)


​
Overall, getting a developmental edit is significantly different from receiving beta reads. In my experience, the developmental edit was better specifically for big-picture feedback, but that's what it's designed for. I would never skip beta reading, with or without a developmental edit, because the beta feedback's granularity and variety is also incredibly useful.

A gif from The Road to El Dorado where the character say "Both. Both is good."

What have your editing experiences been like? Have you worked with editors you recommend? Let's discuss in the comments!