Publishers reaching out to new authors: Good, Bad or downright Ugly?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Hanson

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Dec 8, 2013
Messages
651
Reaction score
37
Location
is fraught with frosting
I dont know if this has been covered, and I don't a lot about this, so, well, be nice. (ish)

Harper Collins and Random House seem to be making direct connection to potential new authors through their respective imprints. (ie open submission windows and similar)

Some smaller presses are doing like-wise.

I'm wondering why?


So, these are my guesses.

a/ a brand name/marketing strategy using social media as a conduit

b/ a response to self-publishing, hoping to reduce momentum of same.

c/ and finally, and THIS IS A LONG SHOT - an attempt to dilute dependency on literary agents ( I don;t actually believe this, but thought I'd add it to the list, mostly because of the 'rule of three'.

d/ all of the above (rule of four (see 'rule of three'))
 

cornflake

practical experience, FTW
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 11, 2012
Messages
16,171
Reaction score
3,734
I dont know if this has been covered, and I don't a lot about this, so, well, be nice. (ish)

Harper Collins and Random House seem to be making direct connection to potential new authors through their respective imprints. (ie open submission windows and similar)

Some smaller presses are doing like-wise.

I'm wondering why?


So, these are my guesses.

a/ a brand name/marketing strategy using social media as a conduit

b/ a response to self-publishing, hoping to reduce momentum of same.

c/ and finally, and THIS IS A LONG SHOT - an attempt to dilute dependency on literary agents ( I don;t actually believe this, but thought I'd add it to the list, mostly because of the 'rule of three'.

d/ all of the above (rule of four (see 'rule of three'))

Why in the name of all that's holy would publishing houses want to 'dilute dependency on literary agents?'

You're saying this as if it's a new practice; it's not.
 

Hanson

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Dec 8, 2013
Messages
651
Reaction score
37
Location
is fraught with frosting
I dont know if this has been covered, and I don't a lot about this, so, well, be nice. (ish)




So, these are my guesses.


c/ and finally, and THIS IS A LONG SHOT - an attempt to dilute dependency on literary agents ( I don;t actually believe this, but thought I'd add it to the list, mostly because of the 'rule of three'.
)

Why in the name of all that's holy would publishing houses want to 'dilute dependency on literary agents?'

You're saying this as if it's a new practice; it's not.

I'm spitballin' is all.

I knew it existed a bit, but point I'm making is that it seems to be increasing.

And I'm wondering why?

Main thing is, don't panic.

I'm curious, is all.
 

cornflake

practical experience, FTW
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 11, 2012
Messages
16,171
Reaction score
3,734
I don't know that it's increasing but I don't get the logic behind the agent thing, or trying to reduce the 'momentum' of self publishing.

It's not as if they're lacking for submissions, and the vast majority of self-pubbed stuff they wouldn't touch so...
 

JulianneQJohnson

Ferret Herder
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 29, 2013
Messages
1,486
Reaction score
294
Location
Indiana
Website
julianneqjohnson.com
I think "C" is not an issue. The publishers that you are talking about who open a specific time frame for un-agented material, normally will not accept un-agented material. Agents are benefit to the big houses. They weed out the chaff.

One of these houses in question explained it like this, and I'm paraphrasing mightily, that they sometimes tend to get the same types of books from agents, and they have a brief open submission to see what's out there from new authors that agents might not be taking on. Maybe agents think that trend is over, or the book doesn't fit into any certain genre well, or it's a trend so new that the agents are wary of taking a chance on it. Who knows.
Like agents, publishers are interested in finding the next new thing, or the next new author. That's their bread and butter.
 

Hanson

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Dec 8, 2013
Messages
651
Reaction score
37
Location
is fraught with frosting
I don't know that it's increasing but I don't get the logic behind the agent thing, or trying to reduce the 'momentum' of self publishing.

It's not as if they're lacking for submissions, and the vast majority of self-pubbed stuff they wouldn't touch so...
This is what I'm hoping to uncover - is there an increase in publishers offering 'open submissions'?

I'm not in the game long enough to know for sure, at the mo, it's a perception based on recent events, hopefully more knowledgeable heads will give their view. But, if it was the case, I'm wondering why.

Re the agents thingy, it's def a long shot, but it did enter my mind, so, thought I'd tenuously offer it up.

As for the self-publishing bit, I do think there might be concerns from publishers re same - a sense that their role in the world of publication might be diminished. After all, self-pubbed books are selling, and that must be some sort of loss to trade publishers.

If there IS an increase in publisher open calls, it would be interesting to understand exactly why.
 

Hanson

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Dec 8, 2013
Messages
651
Reaction score
37
Location
is fraught with frosting
I think "C" is not an issue. The publishers that you are talking about who open a specific time frame for un-agented material, normally will not accept un-agented material. Agents are benefit to the big houses. They weed out the chaff.

One of these houses in question explained it like this, and I'm paraphrasing mightily, that they sometimes tend to get the same types of books from agents, and they have a brief open submission to see what's out there from new authors that agents might not be taking on. Maybe agents think that trend is over, or the book doesn't fit into any certain genre well, or it's a trend so new that the agents are wary of taking a chance on it. Who knows.
Like agents, publishers are interested in finding the next new thing, or the next new author. That's their bread and butter.
Yes, I read that explanation elsewhere. But really, I find it confusing. It suggests the agent system isn't working effectively enough.
 

Little Ming

Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 5, 2011
Messages
3,001
Reaction score
753
I dont know if this has been covered, and I don't a lot about this, so, well, be nice. (ish)

Harper Collins and Random House seem to be making direct connection to potential new authors through their respective imprints. (ie open submission windows and similar)

Some smaller presses are doing like-wise. I think there are *more* small publishers today. (which is not always a good thing if you look in the Bewares forum) I don't know if percentage-wise there are *more* opening to submissions, though.

I'm wondering why?

I'm not sure it's actually increasing, though "increasing" might depend on how far back you're looking. Before the internet became popular it was common for authors to submit directly to publishers and get agents after; there's even an article by Stephen King floating around the web advising authors to submit directly to the publisher they want.

In recent history I've seen open calls from time to time. I can't say I've seen them "increasing."

So, these are my guesses.

a/ a brand name/marketing strategy using social media as a conduit wouldn't it be more effective to reach out to readers, then?

b/ a response to self-publishing, hoping to reduce momentum of same. heh. I think this assumes facts not in evidence. ;)

c/ and finally, and THIS IS A LONG SHOT - an attempt to dilute dependency on literary agents ( I don;t actually believe this, but thought I'd add it to the list, mostly because of the 'rule of three'. authors can still get agents after getting an offer, and as the first Random House digital contracts showed, authors *should* get agents when dealing with the bigger publishers.

d/ all of the above (rule of four (see 'rule of three'))

This is what I'm hoping to uncover - is there an increase in publishers offering 'open submissions'? I don't think so.

I'm not in the game long enough to know for sure, at the mo, it's a perception based on recent events, hopefully more knowledgeable heads will give their view. But, if it was the case, I'm wondering why. see above for the history. As for "recent," I, personally, am not getting the impression they are increasing.

Re the agents thingy, it's def a long shot, but it did enter my mind, so, thought I'd tenuously offer it up. authors can still get agents after the offer.

As for the self-publishing bit, I do think there might be concerns from publishers re same - a sense that their role in the world of publication might be diminished. After all, self-pubbed books are selling, and that must be some sort of loss to trade publishers. only if you view this as a zero sum game. (as I think *some* people do, but I rather not get into it here)

If there IS an increase in publisher open calls, it would be interesting to understand exactly why.

Yes, I read that explanation elsewhere. But really, I find it confusing. It suggests the agent system isn't working effectively enough.

There's no perfect system, I think. Agents have their roles, as do time-limited open calls. For the bigger publishers to be opened all the time might not be practical.
 

Hanson

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Dec 8, 2013
Messages
651
Reaction score
37
Location
is fraught with frosting
So, these are my guesses.

a/ a brand name/marketing strategy using social media as a conduit wouldn't it be more effective to reach out to readers, then?

Well I'm saying they're reaching out to potential authors in general terms, ie brand recognition through blog etc proliferation (and of course, most authors are readers, and some readers will read author blogs)



b/ a response to self-publishing, hoping to reduce momentum of same. heh. I think this assumes facts not in evidence. ;)

yes, lol, it does. I'm speculating, offering possibilities, def not certainties

c/ and finally, and THIS IS A LONG SHOT - an attempt to dilute dependency on literary agents ( I don;t actually believe this, but thought I'd add it to the list, mostly because of the 'rule of three'. authors can still get agents after getting an offer, and as the first Random House digital contracts showed, authors *should* get agents when dealing with the bigger publishers.

d/ all of the above (rule of four (see 'rule of three'))

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hanson
This is what I'm hoping to uncover - is there an increase in publishers offering 'open submissions'? I don't think so.

I'm not in the game long enough to know for sure, at the mo, it's a perception based on recent events, hopefully more knowledgeable heads will give their view. But, if it was the case, I'm wondering why. see above for the history. As for "recent," I, personally, am not getting the impression they are increasing.

Yes, I'm def not sure myself. But others might know.



Re the agents thingy, it's def a long shot, but it did enter my mind, so, thought I'd tenuously offer it up. authors can still get agents after the offer.

Yes, of course. I'm throwing the by-passing agents thingy out there, because of explanations I've come across for open subs (like Julianne mentioned)


As for the self-publishing bit, I do think there might be concerns from publishers re same - a sense that their role in the world of publication might be diminished. After all, self-pubbed books are selling, and that must be some sort of loss to trade publishers. only if you view this as a zero sum game. (as I think *some* people do, but I rather not get into it here)

Well, em, isn't it? In that revenue is removed from trade publishers? (I agree book sales increase overall, and that is probably good across the board, if that's what you mean?)



'There's no perfect system, I think. Agents have their roles, as do time-limited open calls. For the bigger publishers to be opened all the time might not be practical'

it's true that there is no perfect system, but i don't think that explanation adds up, not for me.












 

Mr Flibble

They've been very bad, Mr Flibble
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 6, 2008
Messages
18,889
Reaction score
5,029
Location
We couldn't possibly do that. Who'd clear up the m
Website
francisknightbooks.co.uk
They are opening stuff up to people who are not agented

Maybe as a reaction to self pubbing, may be not. Maybe just taking advantage of the E-age and people being able to send so easily or...Maybe just ytying something new.

I think that's all I can infer tbh, Anything else would be pure conjecture.
 

Hanson

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Dec 8, 2013
Messages
651
Reaction score
37
Location
is fraught with frosting
They are opening stuff up to people who are not agented

Maybe as a reaction to self pubbing, may be not. Maybe just taking advantage of the E-age and people being able to send so easily or...Maybe just ytying something new.

I think that's all I can infer tbh, Anything else would be pure conjecture.
Absolutely.

I doubt if we'll get a definitive answer.

But I definitely am curious.

IF an increase in open sub policy exists, it might herald a new business model for publishers.

that fascinates a big part of my curious (business orientated) psyche.
 

triceretops

Banned
Flounced
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
14,060
Reaction score
2,755
Location
In a van down by the river
Website
guerrillawarfareforwriters.blogspot.com
(I had nine paragraphs for this post until a tornado gust of wind knocked our power out! I mock the Gods!)

Well, Hanson, it isn't really ground breaking news that these imprints and open sub windows (calls) have suddenly sprang up out of nowhere. They began to show up in what, about the past three-four-five years or so? We've had a few threads on this very topic and we also have many of those imprints listed on watchdog and report status in our Bewares forum. I don't even remember which publisher started this new trend/paradigm, but it didn't take long for the other major houses to follow in lockstep with their own versions.

If a publishing juggernaut marketing manager told me that it wasn't a financial decision to start up these little sister imprints with lenient submission protocols (sans agents) I would have told them to slither back into their little offices (lairs) and practice lying better. But, hey, publishing is a business with precariously low profit margins and laborious spreadsheets that outline how they're going to keep the lights on, pay the rent, staff, writers and everybody else in sundry.

Since the ease and accessibility of self-publishing has come into play, the major houses, slowly at first, had to devise a way of capturing a piece of that market. I've heard via the Kindle Boards that self-publishing really started to get its wings around 2009, (the original indie crew call themselves the O-Niners) and that's when some major notoriety became evident with some of the breakout indie books and a new author cheering section reared its head (WatPad and Booksie, to name a few).

Self-publishing through Amazon or any other similar platform = a substantial amount of sales that do not belong to any of the trade publishers. Not only that, the likes of Harper C. Penguin-Random, S & S, Little Brown and others could ill afford their cash cow celeb writers going off into independent land in search of better royalties and complete product control. The major publishers are not panicking or beset with fear--they're really in need of adapting to the changing publishing environment and they know this all too well.

So what had to be done? Make publishing with a large trade publisher more attractive, easy, safe, dignified and accessible. I also had a gut feeling that the so-called large, mean, greedy, imperialistic Big Five/Six wanted to change their image and soften their stance. Hey, we're for the little guy writer, dontcha know. Please don't call us Gatekeepers, we hate that. Sure, in the beginning these little sister imprints, most of them e-book platforms, had some predatory contracts--rights grabs, no advance, reduced royalties and other snafus. The writing community at large cried foul and many writer's orgs went on the defensive--The Bewares board of the SFWA right out in front. Things have nearly straightened out in that sense.

I don't think the major houses believe that agents are passe or a dying breed or they're trying to bury them. Agents are the BEST go-between sources for major editors and writers. An inconsiderate writer can really phuck up an editor's day with phone calls and non-stop emails. A writer couldn't negotiate his own contract if his/her life dependend on it, sans a little legal advice and help. Is it part of their strategy to cleave off a couple hundred or thousand agent subs to stick it to the writers for contract deals that MIGHT be nonnegotiable or certainly less beneficial to writers?--we're talking about business here again and it could be part of it, but I don't think it would make a major dent in profits.

I think the majors want to fish the ocean for some potential, already talented authors who might be thinking about self-publishing or have landed there due to frustration and staked out a nice claim for themselves. So if you think this might be a media ploy you could be right. Partially. I don't think chicanery is involved.

So truth be told, I think the majors had some legitimate reasons for offering these new, innovative (or nonstandard) imprints and opportunities. Just another form of branching out to deal with the competition; there is competition for readers and book dollars. Make no mistake about that.

But I must say, it's a little queer that these imprints starting really showing up when major self-publishing stars began popping out of the woodwork. And Gawd help me, I think I might have forgiven Twilight, but I'll never concede that 50 Shades deserved print in the first place. It makes me ill when publishers become ambulance chasers, picking up prepacked stars and giving them new brand and legitimacy.

Tri
 
Last edited:

Hanson

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Dec 8, 2013
Messages
651
Reaction score
37
Location
is fraught with frosting
Very nice post Tricertops.

Just to reiterate my comment about dilution of agent's influence is indeed a bit of a fantasy, but was spurred on by comments Julianne paraphrased and I've read myself. I found that strange, those type of comments, that agents are the real gate-keepers, not lovable us, type of thing.

although I suppose all is fair in love and public relations...
 

Little Ming

Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 5, 2011
Messages
3,001
Reaction score
753
Very nice post Tricertops.

Just to reiterate my comment about dilution of agent's influence is indeed a bit of a fantasy, but was spurred on by comments Julianne paraphrased and I've read myself. I found that strange, those type of comments, that agents are the real gate-keepers, not lovable us, type of thing.

although I suppose all is fair in love and public relations...

Dear gawd, no.

Sorry for the minor derailment, and not directed at you specifically... but publishing is a business and I try to stay as objective as possible. Trade, self, vanity, agent, literary attorney, etc. Whatever the authors decide, it's a business. "Lovable" is nice, but shouldn't be a deciding factor. ;)

(That's not to say I think agents and publishers are Evil Overloads, but business is business. :))
 

Putputt

permanently suctioned to Buz's leg
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 10, 2012
Messages
5,448
Reaction score
2,980
Very nice post Tricertops.

Just to reiterate my comment about dilution of agent's influence is indeed a bit of a fantasy,

So you mean you fantasize about agents becoming unnecessary in the publisher's eyes? Interesting...

but was spurred on by comments Julianne paraphrased and I've read myself.

What Julianne said to me sounds nothing like what you said. As for the comments you have come across, who is making them, and can you provide sources? That would be quite helpful. If the publishers themselves are saying that agents are getting in the way, that's a pretty big clue. If the ones who are saying that are authors who are dejected by the querying process, that's a different matter.

I found that strange, those type of comments, that agents are the real gate-keepers, not lovable us, type of thing.

Again, who are the people making these comments? And if you think agents are the main "gate-keepers", may I direct you to the Next Circle of Hell thread in the Rejections forum... you will see just how much tougher publishers are as "gate-keepers"
 

Hanson

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Dec 8, 2013
Messages
651
Reaction score
37
Location
is fraught with frosting
Dear gawd, no.

Sorry for the minor derailment, and not directed at you specifically... but publishing is a business and I try to stay as objective as possible. Trade, self, vanity, agent, literary attorney, etc. Whatever the authors decide, it's a business. "Lovable" is nice, but shouldn't be a deciding factor. ;)

(That's not to say I think agents and publishers are Evil Overloads, but business is business. :))
Yes, that did sound a bit 'Evil Overlordy', lol

but what I'm saying really is that in the battle for hearts n minds not all is lovable. Publishers know they need agents, without doubt, as they are efficient and cost effective.

But, and I'll guess I'll have to find that quote, in the statement

'we're having an open sub because agents, well I mean, they're wonderful, wonderful Beings, but em, well they might just have, well, overlooked em...'

Please note the above sentence is exaggerated for (possibly weak) effect!

For me, this could suggest a new business strategy by publishers. Of course, it might not be. Hence this 'whaddyouthink?' thread thingy.
 

Hanson

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Dec 8, 2013
Messages
651
Reaction score
37
Location
is fraught with frosting
http://www.thebookseller.com/news/cape-holds-month-open-submissions.html

Editorial director Alex Bowler said: “It’s a gentle experiment to see what it throws up. It is not with enormous expectation, it’s a question of patience. If we sense it’s heading in the right direction we may do it again. It may be three or four years before two or three interesting thing are surfaced. It is a gentle way of surfacing new writers."
He added: “The stuff we get in from agents is wonderful, our list is wonderful, this is a way of expanding our universe.”






link is http://www.thebookseller.com/news/bo...bmissions.html



Quote:
HarperCollins imprint The Borough Press is opening submissions for unagented manuscripts for two weeks in April.
From 7th to 21st April, the imprint will be open to accept three chapters, a synopsis and an author biography from previously unpublished writers.



Katie Espiner, publishing director said: "The Borough Press has got off to a dream start with The Shock of the Fall winning the Costa Book of the Year Award. Even more pleasing, the novel was Nathan Filer's debut. Borough has a rich mix of established writers and upcoming talent and we are very keen to continue finding and nurturing new writers.
"That's the thinking behind the open submission – we know that publishers can often seem like a dauntingly closed fortress to new writers and we hope that by opening our submission doors, people will be encouraged to submit directly to us, in the knowledge that their work will be read by the editors here. We’re all excited to start reading and are confident we will find some gems."


Now there are different ways to interpret these statements.


Certainly the language is bright and loving.



But...I also see something else, and am postulating on same. Hence this thread.
 

Putputt

permanently suctioned to Buz's leg
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 10, 2012
Messages
5,448
Reaction score
2,980
"That's the thinking behind the open submission – we know that publishers can often seem like a dauntingly closed fortress to new writers and we hope that by opening our submission doors, people will be encouraged to submit directly to us, in the knowledge that their work will be read by the editors here. We’re all excited to start reading and are confident we will find some gems."


Now there are different ways to interpret these statements.


Certainly the language is bright and loving.



But...I also see something else, and am postulating on same. Hence this thread.

That's very different from:

c/ and finally, and THIS IS A LONG SHOT - an attempt to dilute dependency on literary agents ( I don;t actually believe this, but thought I'd add it to the list, mostly because of the 'rule of three'.

A few years ago, I interned at one of the Big 5 publishers in London. The publisher was one of the few that accepted unagented submissions. My job was to go through the slushpile, but once in a while, the editor I interned for would tell me to stop reading a slushpile MS and read a different MS because it came from an agent. Without fail, agented MSs were always put at the top of the priority list.

So even though they had an open submissions policy, agents were still highly regarded and the MSs they submitted were given more importance. The editor required me only to read the first 50 pages of unsolicited slushpile MSs before giving up if they were bad, but when it came to agented MSs, I was required to read the whole thing whether or not I liked it.

So...nah, I don't think option c is what is going on at all. They just want to "expand their universe", which means it gives them a chance to read MSs that might be:

A. Not even subbed to agents

B. Subbed to agents and rejected because of any one out of a million reasons (that agent is too busy/ list too full/ already has something similar on her list/ just didn't fall in love with it and so on).

It just means they're acknowledging that the industry is vast and also very subjective.
 

Hanson

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Dec 8, 2013
Messages
651
Reaction score
37
Location
is fraught with frosting
So you mean you fantasize about agents becoming unnecessary in the publisher's eyes? Interesting...



What Julianne said to me sounds nothing like what you said. As for the comments you have come across, who is making them, and can you provide sources? That would be quite helpful. If the publishers themselves are saying that agents are getting in the way, that's a pretty big clue. If the ones who are saying that are authors who are dejected by the querying process, that's a different matter.

Now, I just want to say, this is a genuine thread, on a subject that I'm genuinely interested in.

That is, is there an increase in publishers reaching out to new writers directly, and if so, what does it mean.

I admit I come across a bit tongue-in-cheek, and I also might have (read, did) veered towards the smart-ass-ishness re my sentence I found that strange, those type of comments, that agents are the real gate-keepers, not lovable us, type of thing.

(which was born out of a reaction to a sense of being soft soaped by the quoted statements - so, my bad)

but, this is an attempt to understand possible publishing trends and the implications of same, not a rant against em...'what ever your having yourself.'

I offered a/, b/ and a (clearly indicated) wild card c/ to get the ball rolling. So, with that outta the way....
 

Hanson

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Dec 8, 2013
Messages
651
Reaction score
37
Location
is fraught with frosting
That's very different from:



A few years ago, I interned at one of the Big 5 publishers in London. The publisher was one of the few that accepted unagented submissions. My job was to go through the slushpile, but once in a while, the editor I interned for would tell me to stop reading a slushpile MS and read a different MS because it came from an agent. Without fail, agented MSs were always put at the top of the priority list.

So even though they had an open submissions policy, agents were still highly regarded and the MSs they submitted were given more importance. The editor required me only to read the first 50 pages of unsolicited slushpile MSs before giving up if they were bad, but when it came to agented MSs, I was required to read the whole thing whether or not I liked it.

So...nah, I don't think option c is what is going on at all. They just want to "expand their universe", which means it gives them a chance to read MSs that might be:

A. Not even subbed to agents

B. Subbed to agents and rejected because of any one out of a million reasons (that agent is too busy/ list too full/ already has something similar on her list/ just didn't fall in love with it and so on).

It just means they're acknowledging that the industry is vast and also very subjective.
Posted previous post, before I seen this.

They (A and B) are possible explanations. for sure.
 

Torgo

Formerly Phantom of Krankor.
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 7, 2005
Messages
7,632
Reaction score
1,204
Location
London, UK
Website
torgoblog.blogspot.com
Big publishers are trying to be a bit more open in lots of ways, I think. It's partly a marketing exercise - it's quite easy to get people to publicise your brand on social media if you're offering an opportunity like this. It's also designed to see if there are untapped resources out there - people that aren't showing up through the normal channels and who might be worth the effort.

When there's a new imprint being set up - especially new digital-focused ones - it also makes sense for an editor to start off on open submission. Helps publicise you, makes you look friendly, and gets you subs at a time when agents might not be passing things on to you because they don't really know you or your list.
 

Hanson

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Dec 8, 2013
Messages
651
Reaction score
37
Location
is fraught with frosting
I found that strange, those type of comments, that agents are the real gate-keepers, not lovable us, type of thing. (me)



Again, who are the people making these comments? And if you think agents are the main "gate-keepers", may I direct you to the Next Circle of Hell thread in the Rejections forum... you will see just how much tougher publishers are as "gate-keepers" (putputt)

I think you might have misunderstood my sentence. I'm saying that the quotes I've come across suggest that publishers are hinting that agents are the real gate-keepers, not us (the publishers). Subjective and speculative on my part, of course. :)
 

Hanson

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Dec 8, 2013
Messages
651
Reaction score
37
Location
is fraught with frosting
Big publishers are trying to be a bit more open in lots of ways, I think. It's partly a marketing exercise - it's quite easy to get people to publicise your brand on social media if you're offering an opportunity like this. It's also designed to see if there are untapped resources out there - people that aren't showing up through the normal channels and who might be worth the effort.

When there's a new imprint being set up - especially new digital-focused ones - it also makes sense for an editor to start off on open submission. Helps publicise you, makes you look friendly, and gets you subs at a time when agents might not be passing things on to you because they don't really know you or your list.

Excellent observation (bold bit)

I do think the e-publishing development may be a real driver in this (possibly) new strategy.
 

Putputt

permanently suctioned to Buz's leg
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 10, 2012
Messages
5,448
Reaction score
2,980
I think you might have misunderstood my sentence. I'm saying that the quotes I've come across suggest that publishers are hinting that agents are the real gate-keepers, not us (the publishers). Subjective and speculative on my part, of course. :)

Which was why I asked you who are making those comments. :D From the quotes you shared, I did not interpret them to mean that the agents are the real gate-keepers at all.
 

Hanson

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Dec 8, 2013
Messages
651
Reaction score
37
Location
is fraught with frosting
Which was why I asked you who are making those comments. :D From the quotes you shared, I did not interpret them to mean that the agents are the real gate-keepers at all.
:)

Yes, it's certainly open (no pun intended) to interpretation.

Language huh?

Just when you think it's safe to go out into the word-storm...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.