[jasonzc]

http://litreactor.com/columns/author-beware-new-lit-mags

 

[George Berger]

"Barbie Queef Quarterly" was really the highlight of my morning.

 

[Lummox JR]

I'm amazed authors fall for this at all. The facts that anybody can setup a lit mag and that the majority of them are obscure are hardly revelations.

 

[BrianKittrell]

Quick, to your typewriters! Another new rag needs free content!

 

[vrabinec]

I've got a couple friends whose short stories Icrit. They go this route. Whenever I ask them why to don't just self-pub the things, they tell me they don't want to be bothered with all the work. I think they're afraid of the unknown.

 

[Guest]

But...but...you should all be wanting to support your fellow indies! And think of the exposure! And I can't afford to pay everyone because I am trying to support my fellow writers because their is NOWHERE ELSE ON THE PLANET that they can publish to get exposure for their work! This is a labor of love, godsdamnit. Are you in this just for the money!?

Did that come out right? I always get dizzy when I try to channel the mooch-mentality.

Dan: Port Cities Review pays its writers. It is not solely payment in exposure. I believe they pay round $50 for an article or story.

If you decide to publish with a brand new outfit, do so with the understanding that you're being utilized to expand their audience-not the other way around

THIS THIS THIS.

 

[George Berger]

Other than the Barbie queef thing, my major takeaway from this presentation was that the successful entrepreneurial literary magazine publisher would apparently be better off spending his hard-earned beer money on Fiverr gigs to buy Facebook friends and likes than on, oh, compensating contributors, because social media metrics are important.

 

[Guest]

Dan, I'm not understanding your argument.

Of greater interest to me is how many people actually read the magazine? For example, let's say Magazine A has 10,000 readers but doesn't pay and Magazine B has 1,000 readers and pays $50 for a story. If 0.2% of readers (20) from Magazine A turn around and buy one of your $3.99 books (70% commission = $2.79), you are already further ahead than if 0.2% of readers (2) from Magazine B buy your book.

This assumes that ALL magazines are interchangeable commodities and all audiences behave in the same way. Magazine A may have build their circulation on being free or low price (which is what most of these non-paying markets do). Sure, you have 10,000 subscribers, but none of them actually spend MONEY. Free magazines also tend to have large circulations because they essentially bait the writers to do all of the marketing for them. Because "If we all promote together, we get more exposure!!!!" So not only are you WRITING for free, but you are also PROMOTING the magazine for free to increase your exposure! Magazine B, meanwhile, has a small circulation because it is only available in print and costs $8.99 an issue, but it has 1000 people willing to spend $8.99 an issue.

Frankly, I'll take 1000 people willing to spend $8.99 a month on a print magazine over 10,000 freebie readers ANY DAY OF THE WEEK.

 

[Guest]

The article just strikes me as more of a holier-than-thou critique of magazines that don't do things their preferred way as opposed to any having any genuine concern for authors.[/quote]

If by "holier-than-thou" you mean "I think publishers should pay writers" then call me holier-than-thou, too. Really. There just is no legitimate reason to mooch free work off of writers when you intend to publish for profit. Money flows to the writer. Not the other way around. If you intend to make money off the publication, you have an obligation to pay people. Period. End of discussion. This really isn't something that we should even have to argue over. How can you ask people to work for free so you can profit? That's just unethical.

That's why I used an example in terms of readers, rather than circulation.

A pretty deflection, but since the only proveable measure a magazine can provide is circulation, the differentiation is pointless. I can tell you I have 10,000 readers or 100,000 readers, but unless I can provide evidence of those readers it is an arbitrary number pulled out of the air. The only number a magazine can produce that matters is circulation. How many people made a decision to subscribe/spend money? If we are going to pretend that "exposure" is a form of payment, then we need to discuss it in quantifiable terms. Arguing readers over circulation is gaming the system. But then again most of the free magazines are quite happy with that.

Kind of like when writers run free promos on KDP Select?

1. I'm no fan of Select, so not sure what your point is. Most indies use Select wrong, but that is a discussion for another thread.
2. If you don't know the difference between using a freebie in a controlled method to direct people to your own work as opposed to directing people to someone else's work, I can't help you.