First - as for experience, I have 15 years in the industry.
It would really help if you mentioned this on your website. And if you explained what you've done during those fifteen years. It helps people understand who they might be working with.
The assumptions made within this thread were based on a site that was created 5 years ago when we only offered editing and creative writing services. This was updated to add the publishing aspect two years ago. Yes, at the time it was bare bones and still a work in progress. The site was updated in late May. It will never be a site over-run with text or graphics - it's meant to be streamlined. Having spent years designing business websites, I prefer keeping things simple.
I've made my comments based on how your website was when I looked at it. You should keep it current, rather than complaining that we don't understand that it was dated when we looked at it.
As your site stands right now, today, it's not "streamlined": it's poorly designed, and full of errors. It's not a good advertisement for your company.
No author, who submits a manuscript for publishing, has ever paid for editing. That is a service we offer to clients. Thank you for explaining vanity presses to me. Though, I have to admit, I don't enjoy being treated as if I just walked through the doors. I do know too many young writers who have fallen victim to vanity presses. We have had clients who shifted to our publishing side. When that happens, they do not pay for the editing and are no longer clients.
So first you say writers who submit to your publishing company have never paid for editing; then you say you HAVE published some of your editing clients. This is confusing.
And please, don't take our comments here personally. We're discussing a business, and whether it's in our interests to submit to that business.
Book performance varies. One book sold 200+ copies during its release weekend, while another didn't do as well.
Selling just 200 copies during release weekend is not good. But thank you for telling us that. I hope you do better in future.
We market for our authors, but expect them to engage with their readers as well. That reflects in the book's performance. With that in mind, we never stop working for our authors. BLP offers some of the best royalty rates (based on research with previously published authors and other publishers) in the business and is willing to take a chance on newer writers.
I've heard lots of publishers claim to offer some of the best royalty rates there are. But royalty rates are not the only thing writers should be concerned with, nor are good royalty rates enough to make a publisher good; and this claim is often invalidated by their calculating royalties on an undefined net, rather than on cover price.
All reputable publishers are "willing to take a chance on newer writers" if their writing is good enough. Implying otherwise, as you do here, does not reflect well on your knowledge or understanding of the publishing business. In fact, it's one of those Great Big Red Flags which often denote that we're dealing with a vanity press.
Cover art appears to be a particularly important part of the comments. Papyrus was used with intention and has not negatively impacted the reception the anthology received. We do not push our vision. Authors are fully engaged in the process and have final say on their art work. Some come to us with a completed cover design, while others are created in house. We offer suggestions and give caution where warranted, and while I have not personally agreed with some of the final art work, the end result is THEIR vision and voice. As to the artwork displayed on the services page: each belongs to the respective author and were provided to us post publishing.
So you're willing to let people without experience or expertise decide on one of the most important marketing tools you have as publishers: the design of your book jackets. Again, this does not reflect well on your abilities as a publisher.
You opened your comment mentioning the years of experience all of you have in the industry. How many years do you have working as a publisher or as an editor?
I can't remember exactly. More than thirty. Perhaps more than thirty five. I've worked for all of the Big Five, on both UK and US imprints, and for many independent publishers; I've worked for book packagers; I've worked in editorial, marketing, publicity and sales; I've spent some time in music, newspaper, and computer games publishing, too. I've won prizes for my marketing and publicity work, and I now work as a director for two specialist companies. In addition I have a masters degree in writing (with distinction), I've won over thirty prizes for my writing, and I've had over forty books published, some of which have been best-sellers across the world.
It was suggested that newer publishers should have a few years under their belt before authors submit to them. That is a circular argument. A publisher can not get experience without authors to publish. If potential authors avoid newer presses based on this advice, the press will inevitably fail.
I should have started this off with: A "young company" does not necessarily mean the owners/operators are inexperienced.
The suggestion that writers should not work with newer publishers is not a "circular argument", it's good sense. Let others allow new publishers to treat their books as learning experiences: my books are only going to be placed with good, established publishers who have proved they know what they're doing.
I agree that there are some young companies out there which are worth submitting to: but when I look at a company's website and see nothing about its principals, nothing about their background or skills or experience, and that website is as dire as yours is, I don't have much faith that they're going to do a good job of publishing my books.