PDA

View Full Version : SnoppyQwop Press



Little1
02-16-2010, 08:02 PM
https://snoppyqwoppress.com/Author_FAQ_S.html

Hum... I am wondering what you all at AWWC think of this company.. I do not see any post about them here. If so feel free to point it out I did a search and came up with nothing on this site on AWWC. Is it a cleverly disguised PA type business?

CaoPaux
02-16-2010, 08:23 PM
Founded as self-publishing operation. $100 submission fee ("lowered for 2010"!), with rationalization here (https://snoppyqwoppress.com/News___Announcements.html) (Jan 5th entry).

As Uncle Jim says, something doesn't need to be a deliberate scam to be a Very Bad Idea.

Marian Perera
02-16-2010, 08:38 PM
Doesn't seem like an author mill, but not something I'd ever recommend.


Call themselves a "traditional publisher".
Several typos on their website.
Claim in one sentence that they don't make money by charging fees to writers. Claim in the next sentence that the submission fee is similar to that charged by agents (!) to screen serious writers out of the herd.
Four authors are listed, one of whom is the founder of the operation.

Momento Mori
02-16-2010, 10:41 PM
The internet managed to eat the section by section analysis I did of some of the bullshit on that site. The highlights are as follows:

- There's no information on distribution to bookstores;

- There are repeated references to "author commitment", which suggests that authors may have to do a lot of the marketing and promotion;

- Their slush review procedure is convoluted and so far as I can see, adds little actual value;

- $100 submission fees that can apparently be repeatedly charged throughout the process (and there's nothing to suggest that the fees later on in the process won't be higher). This suggests that the company does not have adequate capitalisation in place to fund its commitments. Also, their attempts to justify the fee are pathetic, self-serving, weasel-worded statements that make very little sense;

- Intending to produce 35 - 50 books in the first year - this is a very high number of books for a start-up publisher, particularly if it doesn't have the resources in place to promote and distribute them;

- Repeats a lot of the normal crap about publishing being broken, which is apparently based on the fact that the founder couldn't find an agent and/or publishing deal with a commercial publisher;

- Repeatedly touts its marketing and promotion department as making a difference, without giving details of what this whizzy marketing and promotion will consist of;

- No details on what rights are being taken (the company seems to be taking e-books and printed rights) or what territories;

- No details on the amount of advances being paid or how this relates to the submission fee being charged;

- Claims that traditional publishers are using self-publishing, which obviously worked out just swimmingly for Harlequin;

- Repeated claims that it's using a different business model that doesn't actually seem to be too different to what real publishers want to do;

- A weird statement about how they use a third party publisher, apparently based on the misconception that commercial publishers print their books in-house (thereby indicating lack of industry experience).

MM

Little1
02-16-2010, 10:42 PM
Cao and Queen. Thanks for your imput. Both of your posts was kinda what I was thinking. The $$ for reading and the "oh we are going to revolutionize the pub indestry!" kinda made me question there actions. Yea... something dose not add up...

EDIT:

WOW Momento.. thanks for that VARY detailed post. Yea that is kinda what I got from looking over it.... its seems fishy...

stormie
02-16-2010, 10:53 PM
I really dislike these words (reminds me of a certain other self-proclaimed "tradtional" publisher): "...but have been struggling to get the recognition you deserve, you may have found a home here...."

And there are too many typos throughout the website.

And of course, the $100 fee. Not good.

.

MarthaT
02-16-2010, 10:59 PM
Don't feel good about this one

ChristineR
02-16-2010, 11:42 PM
There are too many publishing companys (sic)using an older, broken business model who are closing their doors.


The submission fees we require are an integral part of a business model which allows us to be as involved as we are with new and aspiring authors; and it's the only fee or expense you will ever incur as an author or illustrator working with SnoppyQwop Press. In reality, and from a strictly economic point of view, our submission fees should be significantly higher than the fee we are currently charging. However SnoppyQwop Press has obtained a very generous pledge by a donor to subsidize submission fees for aspiring authors and illustrators; and we are pleased to be able to permanently lower our submission fee for the entire 2010 fiscal year.

In other words, their business model is collecting submission fees, not selling books? It's like saying that a grocery store can justify charging their lettuce suppliers because their expert buyers spend countless hours choosing the right produce from the great piles of inferior vegetation for sale.

They also sell (https://snoppyqwoppress.com/Author_Help.html)banner ads and editing services. Wanna bet what percentage of successful submissions turn out to need some extra services?

Plus, they don't know how to use semi-colons.

Chris P
02-16-2010, 11:47 PM
Good research MM and others! I'm not ready to submit an MS yet, but it's always good to see what I will need to look for.

M.R.J. Le Blanc
02-16-2010, 11:54 PM
The $$ for reading and the "oh we are going to revolutionize the pub indestry!" kinda made me question there actions.

It should. Ever since I first joined and started looking into publishers there have been scammers and especially the inexperienced touting this line, and it was old when I heard it. No one's succeeded yet.

CaoPaux
01-23-2012, 02:25 AM
Gone with nothing further published, despite a "rapidly growing backlog of publishing projects" touted in a call for editors et al. (http://www.authorsden.com/visit/viewnews.asp?AuthorID=125068&id=32455) back in May '10.

priceless1
01-23-2012, 02:29 AM
Maybe people couldn't get past the silly name.