Stew21, thanks for sharing your experience. This is really what I was trying to ask for in my first post and apparently I really dropped the ball on that.
Hope your book does great!
Hope your book does great!
Pretty atrocious: The overall look, colors, and what I could find inside it. Sorry not to be more specific, I'm no expert, but I know what looks good to me; just to me. Which is no indication about how good their publishing company is.It would be far more helpful if you'd specify what your concerns are: saying that the website is "pretty atrocious" isn't at all helpful, nor is it informative.
I have a few reservations about WAMM, but Stew21 is a shrewd and clever woman. I doubt she'd sign up with a press which wasn't professional in its intentions and business practises, and her endorsement of this press goes a long way for me.
Be specific; that's really not at all helpful. It could be a reaction to a font choice or color scheme or . . . .
Why? What's the problem with it?
ETA: However, I wouldn't call it "atrocious," just "amateur". Failing to look professionally designed isn't the same as being outright ugly.
Re your title: Oh, THAT Ernest! Well, that's gotta be pretty exciting! Do you have links to the reviews they provided?For starters, press releases, review copies, contest entries. For example, they entered my book for an IPPY and the The Hemingway/PEN. They also do various online marketing (of which I don't know all the details, so can't give you specifics), and there is very book-specific marketing, as well. For example, my book has an association to Ernest Hemingway, so review copies went to the Hemingway Foundation, the Hemingway Society, Hemingway/Pfieffer Museum, and to Mariel Hemingway. Other books are treated the same way for their particular niche.
A Few Words from our Crusty Leader
“It will never work!” “You are just a bunch of writers who started this publishing house to get your own junk published!” These, dear friends, are just a few of the statements made to my partners in crime regarding WAMM.
Here we are a year old; sales going well. We have authors who believe in the house, that yes indeed, were having trouble getting really fine work out to the reading public; they tell us that life is good for them, that they have not been lied to, that nobody has asked them for anything other than working to help us publicize their books, that they have great books, great covers, and great friends here. I suppose the question is ‘are we authors who could not get our work published for whatever reason and are we just playing?’ Here is the answer----HELL NO!
The reason for the WAMM publishing house is indeed to offer our fellow writers an opportunity. Those that know me know when I say something, there is no bullshit. Nothing has changed.
As ever there are no fees, as our writers know. The money flows to them. There is not a soul involved in the creation of this endeavor who has made a single penny from the house -- yet. That will change. You can bet on it.
The problem with the covers is largely with the typography, not just the type treatment but with the kerning and letter spacing.
Not sure what is included in your etc, but cover design, editing, and layout are different disciplines. I wouldn't make that assumption until I had read a book or two edited by them. Particularly given what writers here have reported.Sorry to say, but I'm very put off by the look of most of those [covers]. I don't just think 'self-pubbed', I think 'self-pubbed by someone who doesn't worry too much about quality'. It makes me assume that editing etc. will be along those lines too.
I wouldn't make that assumption until I had read a book or two edited by them. Particularly given what writers here have reported.
That is how I feel as well. I looked at Stew and Shakey's books on the website. They all looked interesting to me. So I decided to give one a try...both to try the book and the publisher.
Not sure what is included in your etc, but cover design, editing, and layout are different disciplines. I wouldn't make that assumption until I had read a book or two edited by them. Particularly given what writers here have reported.
I agree. The 'two cowboys' cover also caught my eye as being out of scale. It looked as if the horses could as easily step off that cliff as step off a sidewalk curb.To me the cover pictures look badly PhotoShopped. The two cowboys look out of scale with the cliff they're standing on, and appear to be cut and paste. So does the teddy bear on another cover. It's hard to tell for sure due to the small size.
ETA: I saved the cowboy picture and looked at it enlarged in PhotoShop to confirm that the cowboys were cut and paste. Yep. It looks very, very amateur IMO.
It was first changed by CaoPaux to add the descriptive metadata identifying them as a publisher, then it was changed by MacAllister to explain the otherwise confusing use of initials.
Both are standard practices for Bewares, Recommendations, and Background check, and have been for years.
There was nothing "nit-picky" about it it, but should it continue to disturb you, feel free to complain to MacAllister.