Sometimes, smartass is NOT a good thing.
That's a lesson I really need to learn one of these days. I live in hope.
I believe our current list of reviewers is around forty sites.
Forty seems far too few to me, Celina, but my background is mostly in print publishing, so perhaps I'm out of line here. I'm used to upwards of 150 ARCs being sent out, plus enough to cover the list the author provides which will usually be in the low tens, but with some authors can run to hundreds.
Not offended at all and I agree. I've been tough on new publishers throughout my career at AW and absolutely expect the same scrutiny here. For the most part, I think Musa can stand up to it.
I'm glad to hear that. Brace yourself!
Look--here's the thing: regardless of who works there or who's being published there, Musa IS a fledgling press.
This one point is enough to make me hesitate to recommend Musa to anyone, I'm afraid. As I hope you'll realise, this isn't personal: but we don't know how well you're going to do just yet, nor do we know how well you're going to react to any problems you might encounter (and you're bound to encounter a few).
The Musa business model is based off two major points. First off, we wanted to bring the author further into the publishing process than other publishers. That's why we allow our authors to track their sales live, to know their royalties before they get the check, to keep them reassured and connected to the process at every stage of the game.
Judging from what you say there you're giving your authors more information about their sales, but not giving them more power in the publishing process. Which is good, because authors don't always make the best choices when it comes to cover design and so on (and speaking of cover design: I find the titles on many of your covers impossible to read, even when they're not at thumbnail size--you might want to take a look).
Putting how you treat your authors so high on your list of priorities is not good from a business point of view. Yes, it's nice of you: but authors don't fund your business, readers do. It's readers you should be focusing on. I've seen so many publishers fail because they placed more emphasis on looking after their authors than on attracting readers. Please don't fall into the same trap.
But the other point is pretty simple: we're putting our money where our mouths are. We've taken on the challenge of building a publisher that no other publisher in the world believes can work.
And here I get really, really worried. Bravado is all very well, but it doesn't pay the rent.
If "no other publisher in the world believes [Musa] can work" then you're pretty much bound to fail. Most publishers I know are astute business people. If this wasn't just a throwaway comment you should have thought about more carefully, and is really how you're operating, then I have to advise everyone who has submitted to you to withdraw their submissions immediately; and if it was a throwaway comment you're now regretting, it doesn't speak well about your professionalism.
We may fail. In fact, the odds are against us overall, I think. But, the fact of the matter is that we don't really care about the odds.
I hope you've made this clear to the authors you've signed up. It's not a good base for you to be operating from; and if it really is where you're at, then in your position I'd start reverting rights to all the authors I'd signed. Sorry, Celina, but if you're so certain that the odds are against you but you just don't care then you should not be contracting writers to publish with you unless you're absolutely clear about this with them before they sign. And even then I'd question whether it's reasonable for you to do so: we both know how desperate writers can be when there's the chance of publication before them.
Right now, we have over 400 books contracted
FOUR HUNDRED?
FOUR HUNDRED?
I'm sorry, I'm gobsmacked. Unless you have a ridiculously long publishing schedule and/or almost as many editors working for you as you have books signed up, you're in trouble. Sorry: sorry. You know I consider you both a friend and jolly good sort but I don't see how you can cope with that many books when you're so new, and so small. And if you're not small, and have all sorts of staff engaged to cope with this huge schedule, then that implies a whole new raft of other problems because I don't see how a publisher which is as new as Musa can succeed if it's expanded as quickly as it seems Musa has. Cashflow scuppers publishers which expand too quickly, every time.
How many editors do you have working for you? How quickly do you intend to get these 400 books edited, designed, marketed and published? How much attention do your writers and their books get prior to publication? I've seen you talk about editing with great passion: you must be intending to edit your books properly and market them effectively; but if you have 400 books signed up already I simply don't see how you can do this.
And what we really have at Musa right now that I've not experienced at another press (at least to this degree) is this overwhelming conviction among our authors and staff that Musa is exactly what we meant back in the day when we started off sentences with, "If I were a publisher, I would *blah blah blah.*"
Good intentions and a big dose of the warm fuzzies are not enough to guarantee success.
I'm going to take a deep breath here.
Based on the single post from mscelina which I'm responding to here, I cannot recommend that any writer submits to Musa Publishing at this time. I strongly advise anyone who is considering sending their work in to wait at least a year, to give Musa time to prove that it can sell books in good quantities.
I give my sincere apologies to all involved, and hope that I'm wrong to be so worried and so cautious. Only time will tell.