Contributor Guidelines

Audience & Editorial Voice

Maine Dispensary Guide is read primarily by people building, investing in, or advising Maine cannabis businesses — current and prospective operators, their CPAs and attorneys, and the financial and real estate professionals who support them. About a quarter of our readers are journalists, policy researchers, and academic readers who cite our data in their own work.

Our editorial voice is first-person, direct, and specific. We name towns, statutes, and dollar figures. We write for someone who already knows what a cultivator license is and wants to know what their neighbor paid for theirs. We avoid generic business writing, motivational framing, and "what's next for the industry" speculation unless we have data backing the claim.

Contributors whose work reads like McKinsey output or cannabis-marketing copy will not be a fit. Work that reads like an experienced practitioner explaining something to a peer will.

What We Publish

Contributor pieces slot into four buckets:

• Operator case studies. A specific Maine decision, constraint, or lesson: a municipal opt-in process, a 280E audit, a real-estate deal affected by transfer rules, or a cultivation operation built for a Maine winter. Promotional content dressed as a case study is not a fit.
• Specialist explainers. Practical technical pieces by CPAs, attorneys, compliance consultants, or real-estate professionals with relevant Maine experience. The best submissions explain the question clients repeatedly ask because no clear public answer exists.
• Original research. Data-driven work based on a contributor's own, reviewable data. We can collaborate on the analysis and will ask to understand the source, methods, and limits before publication.
• Policy analysis. Independent analysis of a pending OCP rule, LD-prefixed bill, or municipal ordinance. Claims must be grounded in the primary documents—not industry rumor or a press release.

Submission Formats

Editorial Process

Before you send a draft, send a short pitch. Include a working title, the format you are proposing, the specific Maine question it answers, and a sentence on what a reader can do with it. If the topic is a fit, we will reply with the next step and any reporting or citation requirements.

1. Pitch. Email admin@mainedispensaryguide.com with a 3–5 sentence pitch, a working title, a format (case study / explainer / research / policy), and one example of relevant prior work.
2. Fit review. We review the proposal for audience fit, novelty, conflicts, and source availability. A decline may reflect timing or overlap with existing coverage rather than the quality of the idea.
3. Draft. Submit in a Google Doc, Notion page, or Markdown file. Published work carries a human byline and a short bio.
4. Editing and fact-checking. We may suggest structural edits, ask for source material, and verify legal, regulatory, financial, and operator-specific claims against primary sources.
5. Publication. Accepted work is published with a dated byline and is linked from the relevant MDG resource areas when useful to readers.

Editorial Standards

These are non-negotiable. Pieces that don't meet them will be returned for revision or declined.

• Primary sources for every claim of fact. Statute citations include the section number (e.g., 28-B M.R.S. §703(1)(F)). Market figures cite the underlying OCP report or a specific filing. Operator case studies name the operator and the town.
• No undisclosed conflicts. If you sell a product or service that the piece mentions, we run a disclosure footnote naming the relationship. We do not run sponsored content in the editorial section.
• No AI-generated prose without disclosure and human editing. AI-assisted drafting is acceptable as long as every claim is verified by the human contributor and the byline reflects human authorship. Fully AI-generated pieces are declined.
• No competitor disparagement. We will publish critical analysis of competitors' claims, products, or business practices when it is grounded in evidence. We will not publish pieces whose primary purpose is to undermine a named competitor without an evidence basis.
• Correction policy. Pieces that ship with errors get a dated correction note appended. We do not silently edit. Contributors agree to publish corrections to their own work on the same terms.
• Right of reply. If a piece names a person, business, or product in a critical context, we offer a right of reply in the same publication. The reply runs alongside the original piece or in a clearly linked follow-up.

Attribution, Bylines & Links

Accepted pieces carry a named human byline and a concise author bio. A bio may include a relevant professional site or profile when it helps readers evaluate the contributor's perspective. We do not sell editorial links, guarantee a follow link, or exchange publication for a backlink.

We do not charge a publication fee and do not accept paid editorial submissions. Commercial partnerships belong under our Advertising Policy; affiliate relationships are disclosed under our Affiliate Disclosure.

Submit a Pitch