prsctrli:
This is Lisa Adams and I am Teresa Kennedy’s business partner at Village Green Press LLC. I am absolutely horrified by what I am reading here. As an attorney it also concerns me for a number of reasons.
As an attorney myself, I'm fascinated by your horror at people asking legitimate questions about your business activities.
prsctrli:
First, Village Green Press LLC is an LLC organized and in good standing in Nebraska. You can go to the Nebraska Secretary of State’s office and check.
That's good to know but as an attorney, you're aware that it's not actually difficult to set up a legitimate company. People do it all the time and the fact that you have an incorporated entity, though a sensible and legitimate legal move, does not by itself give your business any additional credibility as either a publisher or an agent.
In any event, no one on this board suggested that Village Green Press was not duly incorporated, so your provision of this information, while interesting, is not really pertinent to the discussion at hand.
prsctrli:
Second, what is of concern is that disparaging allegations were made that both SFWA’s “Absolute Write” and Preditors & Editors have warnings about our company and then publishing this information to the public at large. This was done by Jessica on Facebook at Indie Writers Unite and now, here.
As an attorney, you should be aware of the need to get your facts straight. Absolute Write is not connected with or owned by SFWA. Nor does the SFWA have anything to do with P&A. Both of AW and P&E are privately run sites.
Had you or your business partner decided to do a little research before your post here, you'd realise that the purpose of AW and P&E is to give people a means to find out if a particular agent or publisher is worth sending a manuscript to. Although both sites identify known (and demonstrable) scam outfits, they also identify those publishers/agents that are legitimate but simply not worth submitting to (usually because they have no real track record of sales) and give submissions information on well-established and well-regarded publishers/agents to enable people to work out how to tailor their queries.
prsctrli:
For Jessica's edification, both Teresa and I use Twitter and Facebook to promote our publishing house and the books we publish. That that would cause alarm or be surprising or suspicious in any way is bizarre.
For your edification, publishers/agents who tout for authors on Twitter and Facebook are usually publishers that make the majority of their money from those authors, not from selling books.
The basic principle espoused here on AW is that money should always flow to the author, i.e. authors should ideally not pay for services up front but if they do choose to do so, then they should be given as much information as possible to determine whether they will make that money back.
In the case of a publisher, that means seeing whether the publisher is capable of making the sales necessary to make back that investment (in the case of self-publishing). In the case of other services such as editing or agenting - it means having the demonstrable skills or contacts necessary to make the same worthwhile. In both these cases, there are no details about your contacts or editors to indicate whether those services would be worth obtaining.
prsctrli:
Third, Victoria Strauss received an e-mail from me when we launched telling her exactly who we are and what we do. I did this because as an author who was taken advantage of by an unscrupulous publisher (Archebooks Publishing - I posted as prsctrli because, well, I used to be a prosecutor), she responded personally to my concerns and action was taken. I believed she would be happy to read of what had happened since then and to look at our site precisely to avoid this sort of public trashing not grounded in fact and also because I used this site a lot when I started out.
It's good that you contacted Victoria Strauss and I applaud you for taking her advice. However the fact that you have previously been taken by an unscrupulous publisher raises questions as to whether you actually know what you're doing to justify taking money or intellectual property rights from other authors.
It also makes me doubly question where your company got the "30 years in the business" that Village Green uses to offer an agent link services.
prsctrli:
Fourth, our first call for manuscripts was done by Teresa on Craig’s List before we launched. I understand that P&E gives “red flags” that might indicate that a business is a scam; and I am aware that posting on Craig’s List might indicate this. But it does not ALWAYS mean that the business is illegitimate.
No, you're right. Posting on Craig's List is not an automatic sign that a business is a scam. It does usually indicate that a business doesn't really know what it's doing though and if nothing else, it makes the business look distinctly amateurish IMO.
prsctrli:
Fifth, this company has both traditional and e-publishing capability through Lightning Source where we have a company account. That is how we physically generate books as do innumerable other publishing houses large and small.
By "traditional" I assume you mean "print publishing". I've seen "traditional publishing" used as a synonym for commercial publishing, but never print publishing before.
Also, a Lightning Source account is a basic step but unless you're doing print runs and have deals in place with bricks and mortar stores and large electronic markets like Amazon, I don't see how you're going to have the distribution in place to sell in bulk.
prsctrli:
Sixth, as is the case with most publishers, Teresa is an “in-house” editor; and Andrew Earley is our in-house cover artist. If an author’s work is as ready as it would have to be for a “big house” to go to press or e-reader, then we would offer a traditional contract. If not we send the author a rejection letter.
Even in the case of a "big house" like Penguin, manuscripts go through an editing process. They don't just get sent raw for printing. When a "big house" buys a manuscript, it knows that a degree of work will be required. The offer of an advance however is not based on how polished the manuscript is but on how many copies the publisher thinks it can sell.
prsctrli:
Seventh, in the rejection letter we do specify that we offer certain editorial and self publishing options if the author so desires.
You understand how this looks though, don't you? Because it leaves your company open to suggestion that it uses bait and switch, i.e. invites people to submit for an advance paying contract, then says it's not good enough but instead the author can pay for another service? In addition to being a potential conflict of interest (a concept which, as an attorney, you should be familiar with), it also leaves your company open to the suggestion that it's looking to make money from authors rather than with authors.
prsctrli:
Eighth, offering an option to polish a manuscript or help an author publish their own book is not "forcing” someone to use our editorial services. That idea is not only incorrect, it is patently absurd.
It's not patently absurd precisely because of the fact that your company has created a conflict of interest. It is perfectly open for an author to interpret your company's rejection letter as a suggestion that your company will publish them if they go through the editing or paid publishing offer.
prsctrli:
Ninth, Teresa has the professional editorial experience with big houses both as an editor and author, to substantiate her ability to not only spot work that is commercially-viable; but also to edit work. Our cover artist, Andrew Earley, continues to do covers for the big houses in New York including DAW and others.
Cool - it's good to know this experience exists because it goes to credibility. I also note your (eventual) revelation of Teresa's contacts and editorial experience:
prsctrli:
Eleventh, Teresa Kennedy has authored or co-authored at least 30 books published through houses such as NAL, Simon & Schuster, St. Martin's Press, Rio Nuevo Press, Ballantine, Avon, and others; and through packagers such as Joostelffers Books, Bruck Books, Evans and many others. She worked as an Editor at Grosset & Dunlap, Putnam, Viking Press, Rio Nuevo, Ballantine, and others; as a Senior Editor at Grosset & Dunlap, Human Sciences Press; and acquisitions editor at such houses as Rio Nuevo Press, Human Sciences Press, and Berkely Press, and Dutton, among others.
This is all information that you should be putting on your website because as a start-up, you want to show that you've got the credentials to do what you're promising.
prsctrli:
Tenth, we are a start-up. To have to now field negative and incorrect commentary about us is offensive and denigrates the idea that small indie houses are worth a damn. We started VGP LLC with the goal of finding writers whose voices might never be welcomed by big houses to publish traditionally.
Yes, you are a start up. As a start-up, you should therefore be aware that you need to prove your credibility in the field that you're entering and you should be prepared to take questions about your activities. If you can't do that, then I'd respectfully suggest that you're in the wrong business.
I understand that you might not like to be criticised and FWIW I believe you have good intentions, but you should also be aware that coming in heavy and shouting the odds to legitimate questions makes you look bad. It makes your company look like one that can't handle criticism. I'm not sure that's the impression you want to give.
prsctrli:
She is more than willing to post her resume because this mess Jessica started has done damage that was thoughtless and unnecessary.
Do you mean the mess that Jessica created by bringing your company to this board's attention and asking legitimate questions as to whether your company is worth going with and pointing out the lack of supporting information on your company's website? Or are you talking about the mess that you created with your snotty attitude, insinuated threats and blatant failure to use normal industry terms?
prsctrli:
I would appreciate a more positive approach to new publishers and not allowing members to jump on the “they must be a scam” bandwagon without adequate information or investigation of credentials.
No one said you were a scam. I'm not convinced that you're a good idea for authors, but I don't think you're a scam. Ironically, it's because we were investigating your credentials and trying to find more information that the post got made and people commented on it.
AW shows plenty of support for new publishers, but it doesn't exist as a cheerleader. If you hang out on the boards, you'll see there are plenty of small publishers here where the owners have come and responded to queries in an open and upfront way, without having hissy fits at people asking the questions. As a corporate communication strategy, it's more effective than the one you've chosen to adopt.
prsctrli:
Teresa is now horribly upset and understandably so - and for Jessica's information, Teresa was not making a "sales pitch" at you when she tried to respond to your assertion we are a scam publisher. She was trying to tell you her qualifications since you seem to question her being a veteran in the industry.
It's a shame that Teresa is upset. It's also a shame that Village Green didn't put those credentials up on its website because that would remove one obvious question, wouldn't it?
prsctrli:
We are a hybrid publisher that offers BOTH traditional and self publishing.
Okay, so how many "traditional", i.e. advance paying contracts do you offer? What's the proportion of advance paying contracts to self-publishing contracts? (I don't need precise figures, I'd be happy with percentages of the whole).
You should be aware that many "hybrid" publishers end up making their money from selling publishing services to authors - services that the authors rarely make back the cost for with sales of their book. That's why they're generally regarded with skepticism on these boards.
prsctrli:
Placement with a literary agent is for those who want to be traditionally published - whether at a large or small house - and want to have a professional assist them. It has nothing to do with submissions for traditional publication at VGP LLC. Some places call them agent matchmaking services (SEE The Editorial Department's website) and you cannot do this without seeing the material you are trying to pitch. So no, it's not backwards.
Okay, so how many manuscripts have you placed with agents?
The problem I have with this "service" is that I don't see where the value is for an author. Authors are perfectly capable of doing their own research on agents and doing a submission for them. I don't see what paying your company does to get them closer to the goal.
prsctrli:
Perhaps your suspicion would be alleviated if we did only self publishing which entails...editing for a fee; cover art for a fee; publicity packages for a fee; manuscript evaluation for a fee; and the like...or a package for both such as Createspace.
The point is we want to offer both and we do. It is nothing more than that. It does not matter to us whether an author wants to shoot for a traditional contract with us or use our services piecemeal for submission to someone else.
Actually the point is whether either of your services represents good value for an author. It would be good to know what kind of sales your books achieve and whether authors who pay for services make that back in royalties.
prsctrli:
But if people want to presume and assume the worst, you are more than welcome to.
You really need to go and take a course in effective corporate communications because lady, you are doing your company no favours at all.
prsctrli:
But if you do so and then tell people publicly, "Oh this a fraudulent company" only because we offer both services; but we do exactly what we promise and have the credentials in the industry to back up the work, well, that can be actionable legally.
I agree that if we told people yours was a fraudulent company then you'd be able to take legal recourse. The tiny problem with that is that no one has actually done so here. However, the more you shout and wave your tiny legal fists of fury at us, the more I think your company doesn't represent a good bet for authors and the more I would counsel a person to send their hard written manuscript to companies that operate on a more professional, less emotional basis.
prsctrli:
Right now, most of the submissions we get are for self publishing and that is fine.
I can well see why that is fine. People paying you to produce their books and then taking the risk of sales is always going to be better than you paying out for manuscripts and then you taking the risk of sales.
prsctrli:
But look at it from our side: we have started a business that we believe in. We did so in good faith and with the experience in the industry to do so. And we have several manuscripts in editing now that are slamming good that we will be publishing. Yet rather than a positive series of inquiries, or being approached in a positive way, we are immediately slammed as a fraud.
No one has said you're a fraud. You're the only one using that word on this board.
In fact, we are making inquiries. You're responding to them (and doing so in an unprofessional way).
The fact that you're a start-up (regardless of whether you're acting in good faith) doesn't entitle you to special treatment or kid gloves.
prsctrli:
I don't think that is useful. Now if people were to write to us or post here and say, "Hey, why do you do this?" or "What's with the self-publishing vs. traditional thing and why do you have both?" instead of immediately assuming it's for a fraudulent purpose, then you open a dialog which we are more than willing to have.
This is a public board. It's for sharing questions, information and opinions. Yes, people can ask you questions direct, or you can answer questions here in the open and for the public record.
No one has a duty or obligation to contact you direct. This is a board for writers to share information and ask questions. Those nasty little accusations of fraud that you keep talking about don't exist here and it would serve you better not to accuse of saying such things.
MM
