-
Guest please check The Index before starting a thread.
YouWriteOn.com / New Generation Publishing / Legend Press
- Thread starter CaoPaux
- Start date
priceless1
Banned
Looks like most of it's down in the "General" board, like: http://www.youwriteon.com/forum/The-Publishing-Project-Update-Topic-12487-1.aspx
priceless1
Banned
Ah. Thanks, Cao. Yikes. That board certainly has a PA quality to it, what with the happy-happy's remaining, and other's removed:
Like YWO would have a clue as to how the publishing industry works? This just hurts the soul. So much money filtered into YWO's pockets and so many authors destined to learn the business through a very muddy filter.
Last edited:
I was looking this morning; it seems that all the weekend posts have been wiped. Hmmm.
And another post I made this morning has been deleted. I don't think Ted likes me!
And another post I made this morning has been deleted. I don't think Ted likes me!
Random House do read and crit the Top Ten each month...I guess if they found something they really thought was marketable they might publish it. So it's not a total lie.
Ted's a good guy. I know I keep saying it, but he is. Misguided perhaps, but good. Though I don't don't approve of the post deleting he's been doing.
Having said that, I'm very glad I didn't go for the offer. I'll stick to trying to get published the usual way.
I have to say (and I don't mean to be nasty) but when I reviewed over there of in excess of 100 books only two or three where publishable - and they were for writer friends who wanted me to be brutal with them. What really irked me is that I read chapters with major flaws, and other members tell them how great they are. I don't want to be told that I'm great; I want to know why agents like Darley Anderson tell me 'it could be a bestseller' but still rejected me.
Oh, and there was the review that said it was a load of crap. Now I know that isn't true; I don't think Darley Anderson and David Higham Associates make a habit of encouraging crap writers.
I think AW's critiques are better: brutal and constructive.
Oh, and there was the review that said it was a load of crap. Now I know that isn't true; I don't think Darley Anderson and David Higham Associates make a habit of encouraging crap writers.
I think AW's critiques are better: brutal and constructive.
Oh my word, I hadn't seen that! That's one of MY posts that has been removed because I didn't know what I was talking about! How funny!
Let's have a little recap of my resume, shall we?
I've worked in publishing (books, newspapers and, oh joy, computer games) for over a quarter of a century. During that time I've edited for HarperCollins, HarperSanFrancisco, Chronicle Books, Ebury, and a few others. I've worked in rights, sales and marketing at directorial level, and have won prizes for my marketing campaigns. I've written, ghost-written, researched, or edited many books, a couple of which have been major sellers. My articles have appeared in just about every national UK newspaper from the Daily Mail to the Sunday Times, and in all sorts of glossies. I have an MA (with distinction) in writing, and have won over thirty prizes for my short fiction and poetry.
Yet apparently I don't know what I'm talking about when it comes to analysing a few issues with publishing.
Bless.
I don't usually go on about what I've done, and what I do, but sometimes it's necessary.
I've today received an email from a much-respected publishing acquaintance of mine who tells me that Tom, founder of Legend Press, is horrified that Legend is considered a vanity publisher because of its association with YWO. She vouches for him, and assures me that he's "a proper gent". I trust her on this, and so would everyone else here if they knew who she is: but I don't think it's appropriate to drop her name in here right now, because she's not really associated with this mess and it's not fair to link her to it. I have emailed Victoria with details, so she can back me up on this if required.
I'm sure I don't have to remind anyone that if Tom (Chambers? Chalmers?) appears here, we will treat him with civility and respect. That doesn't mean we have to let him get away with anything he shouldn't do: but still. Tempers are running high right now and I don't want anyone to say anything that they shouldn't.
I'm sure I don't have to remind anyone that if Tom (Chambers? Chalmers?) appears here, we will treat him with civility and respect. That doesn't mean we have to let him get away with anything he shouldn't do: but still. Tempers are running high right now and I don't want anyone to say anything that they shouldn't.
"Not a total lie" is tantamount to saying it's only a bit of a lie.
HJW, you know who I am, and you know what happened to me, so insisting that Ted is a good guy is not going down well here. When I was in correspondence with the Arts Council Officer responsible for public funds being handed out to Ted, my case was not assisted by less than the actual truth from Ted. But maybe you DO approve of him deleting my posts which challenged his method of deciding which members' work was rated higher than others. Regardless of how reviewing members rated it. Maybe you even approve of members being removed because they were crass enough to point out that fellow members were being treated unfairly.
You may remember that I alerted YWO to the fact that under-aged school kids were rampaging through reviews and knocked your own book out of the top ten. (A book I happened to care about, but that's neither here nor there). What you won't be aware of is that, when I tried to draw attention to further destructive under-aged kids, I was curtly told that my emails could not be attended to because I was not a registered member.
Whether I was or not isn't the issue here. Public money funds YWO, but Ted decrees that members of the public are not permitted to have any say in the way their money is spent. Any member of the public - like Old Hack, for example - has their posts removed from what is supposed to be an open public forum if those posts do not meet Ted's approval.
Sorry, being "misguided", as you put it, is not an acceptable qualification for someone who has been in receipt of public money to the tune of £60,000. Neither is squashing talented writers in keeping with YWO's stated mission to discover writing talent - the premise on which YWO gained access to Arts Council funding.
From YouWriteOn
Thank you for your comments on our publishing Project. To give you some information about the YouWriteOn publishing project where this may not have been reported correctly on AW:
1) Books are being priced at lower retails prices for readers and with higher royalties at writers. For example, one leading POD publisher prices a 250 page book for sale on sites like Amazon and WH Smith at over £10 ($15 approx) when the author requests a royalty of £1 per copy sold. With YouWriteOn and Legend Press Partnerships, the same 250 page book will sell through websites such as Amazon for £6.99 ($10.99) with a £1 royalty going directly to the writer. We also donate ten percent of reader sales from our publisher profits to Sightsavers. Our retail prices are below for distribution through booksellers:
48 to 100 pages £4.99 $7.99
101 to 180 pages £5.99 $8.99
181 to 300 pages £6.99 $10.99
301 to 400 pages £7.99 $11.99
401 to 450 pages £8.99 $13.99
451 to 500 pages £9.99 $14.99
501 to 600 pages £10.99 $16.99
601 to 700 pages £11.99 $18.99
701 pages+ £12.99 $19.99
2) All books passed meet Lightning Sources high standards for publishing, and we have been informed we will pass their digital standard for quality book submissions that they only give to those who meet the necessary standards for publishing.
3) Writers agreed when they submitted books that Christmas publishing was an aim and that their books would be ready before Christmas, or after Christmas. This depends on, for example, whether publishing submissions meet our specified requirements
4) Publishing to the exacting standards above requires checking through submissions before progressing onto the next submission as part of the timescale aims. For example, A high volume of book submissions received did not meet the submission requirements we specified. For example, images with spine text the wrong way round, text too close to edges, images taken from web, and, notably, a very high proportion of images with the incorrect resolution. For images, for example, checking for low resolution can require time. In some files it may be immediately apparent, in others not so apparent, for example, involving an examination of small portions of an image in which JPEG 'artifacting' may be present which mean the image is not of high enough resolution overall. We have been happy to help writers where we can.
5) Writers who contacted us early about publishing arrangements such as book signings were helped accordingly to meet their deadlines. This has included authors who have arranged book signings in stores, or for example, writers who had press lined up, such as one writer who featured in the Times Educational Supplement. We of course will assist writers where we can when they have priority deadlines.
6) Ten percent of YouWriteOn publishing profits from readers is going to SightSavers, this is from YouWriteOn directly and not from writers royalties as queried above. So far this has assisted to help a good number of people with cataract problems who couldn't see before.
7) There appears to be a comment or two above which could be considered libelous, an example would be member qwerty’s assertion that I down-grade work where I disagree with the writer. You may wish to check the standards for posts which are approved by Absolute Write either by comment or through not addressing this.
8) We haven’t removed any posts for a long time, however we had received a number of member complaints about Old Hacks posts about their tone and content. Also, some information given in these posts was we consider inaccurate, for example, it was stated we aren’t registered with Gardners, we are. Where someone visits posting in this way which leads to complaints, and directing writers to another writer site (here) we also consider removing the writers posts. This is influenced by member complaints, as mentioned in this instance about the poster. So removal of posts can be for a variety of reasons. For example, complaints, or where information imparted is, in our opinion, inaccurate, particularly on a consistent basis, or for other reasons, we reserve the right to remove posts
9) We equally have a high number of writers who are really pleased with their books, and covers templates or otherwise. The service started publishing books this month in conjunction with Legend Press. We look forward to adding further templates which writers approve of. It is fair comment above that one persons art is another person’s painting they’d prefer to stick in a garage when it comes to templates.
We understand where it may be interesting to discuss a project, and where opinions have been expressed that is great, we have broad shoulders and there are a lot of great writers here. Also anything general about what will or won’t work is everyones opinion, everyone is entitled to their opinion, good, bad or otherwise. Where any inaccurate reporting or speculation is going on such as the one above specifying stating that in the course of my duties I downgrade writers we would suggest that this verges on allowing libelous comment about an organisation, and that as Absolute Write is responsible for board content is looks at the information it allows members to post in order to meet the required professionalism standards that writers deserve when receiving information. We look forward to a direct report from you on this. Other comment, all and sundry is fine, we welcome and expect that from another writers’ site. Please note however, to give some return feedback, we have also had reports from our writers or observers, many of which we share, that they have felt some YWO members have been shouted down for expressing an opinion here, and I am sure you will address this with writers who feel this has happened.
Of course it takes time to develop a service further to meet what writers are interested in, for example lower priced books and better royalties. We are committed to this. Comments are fine, but I would remind people that is was stated from the start of this thread that YouWriteOn would not work, before we’d got off the ground with our feedback process. We did work, and work successfully, involving leading publishers along the way. Equally this is a new service, it will similarly succeed, writers are doing so already, and similarly take the time necessary to develop to do this. However, comment is comment, and everyone is entitled to their opinion.
We will be adding details to the YouWriteOn homepage over the coming weeks of successful writers, including their book signings and media coverage for your interest.
We think there are great writers on both YWO and Absolute Write, but on both they deserve accurate information. The above outlines some information about the publishing project for you.
Kind Regards & Merry Christmas
Ted
Thank you for your comments on our publishing Project. To give you some information about the YouWriteOn publishing project where this may not have been reported correctly on AW:
1) Books are being priced at lower retails prices for readers and with higher royalties at writers. For example, one leading POD publisher prices a 250 page book for sale on sites like Amazon and WH Smith at over £10 ($15 approx) when the author requests a royalty of £1 per copy sold. With YouWriteOn and Legend Press Partnerships, the same 250 page book will sell through websites such as Amazon for £6.99 ($10.99) with a £1 royalty going directly to the writer. We also donate ten percent of reader sales from our publisher profits to Sightsavers. Our retail prices are below for distribution through booksellers:
48 to 100 pages £4.99 $7.99
101 to 180 pages £5.99 $8.99
181 to 300 pages £6.99 $10.99
301 to 400 pages £7.99 $11.99
401 to 450 pages £8.99 $13.99
451 to 500 pages £9.99 $14.99
501 to 600 pages £10.99 $16.99
601 to 700 pages £11.99 $18.99
701 pages+ £12.99 $19.99
2) All books passed meet Lightning Sources high standards for publishing, and we have been informed we will pass their digital standard for quality book submissions that they only give to those who meet the necessary standards for publishing.
3) Writers agreed when they submitted books that Christmas publishing was an aim and that their books would be ready before Christmas, or after Christmas. This depends on, for example, whether publishing submissions meet our specified requirements
4) Publishing to the exacting standards above requires checking through submissions before progressing onto the next submission as part of the timescale aims. For example, A high volume of book submissions received did not meet the submission requirements we specified. For example, images with spine text the wrong way round, text too close to edges, images taken from web, and, notably, a very high proportion of images with the incorrect resolution. For images, for example, checking for low resolution can require time. In some files it may be immediately apparent, in others not so apparent, for example, involving an examination of small portions of an image in which JPEG 'artifacting' may be present which mean the image is not of high enough resolution overall. We have been happy to help writers where we can.
5) Writers who contacted us early about publishing arrangements such as book signings were helped accordingly to meet their deadlines. This has included authors who have arranged book signings in stores, or for example, writers who had press lined up, such as one writer who featured in the Times Educational Supplement. We of course will assist writers where we can when they have priority deadlines.
6) Ten percent of YouWriteOn publishing profits from readers is going to SightSavers, this is from YouWriteOn directly and not from writers royalties as queried above. So far this has assisted to help a good number of people with cataract problems who couldn't see before.
7) There appears to be a comment or two above which could be considered libelous, an example would be member qwerty’s assertion that I down-grade work where I disagree with the writer. You may wish to check the standards for posts which are approved by Absolute Write either by comment or through not addressing this.
8) We haven’t removed any posts for a long time, however we had received a number of member complaints about Old Hacks posts about their tone and content. Also, some information given in these posts was we consider inaccurate, for example, it was stated we aren’t registered with Gardners, we are. Where someone visits posting in this way which leads to complaints, and directing writers to another writer site (here) we also consider removing the writers posts. This is influenced by member complaints, as mentioned in this instance about the poster. So removal of posts can be for a variety of reasons. For example, complaints, or where information imparted is, in our opinion, inaccurate, particularly on a consistent basis, or for other reasons, we reserve the right to remove posts
9) We equally have a high number of writers who are really pleased with their books, and covers templates or otherwise. The service started publishing books this month in conjunction with Legend Press. We look forward to adding further templates which writers approve of. It is fair comment above that one persons art is another person’s painting they’d prefer to stick in a garage when it comes to templates.
We understand where it may be interesting to discuss a project, and where opinions have been expressed that is great, we have broad shoulders and there are a lot of great writers here. Also anything general about what will or won’t work is everyones opinion, everyone is entitled to their opinion, good, bad or otherwise. Where any inaccurate reporting or speculation is going on such as the one above specifying stating that in the course of my duties I downgrade writers we would suggest that this verges on allowing libelous comment about an organisation, and that as Absolute Write is responsible for board content is looks at the information it allows members to post in order to meet the required professionalism standards that writers deserve when receiving information. We look forward to a direct report from you on this. Other comment, all and sundry is fine, we welcome and expect that from another writers’ site. Please note however, to give some return feedback, we have also had reports from our writers or observers, many of which we share, that they have felt some YWO members have been shouted down for expressing an opinion here, and I am sure you will address this with writers who feel this has happened.
Of course it takes time to develop a service further to meet what writers are interested in, for example lower priced books and better royalties. We are committed to this. Comments are fine, but I would remind people that is was stated from the start of this thread that YouWriteOn would not work, before we’d got off the ground with our feedback process. We did work, and work successfully, involving leading publishers along the way. Equally this is a new service, it will similarly succeed, writers are doing so already, and similarly take the time necessary to develop to do this. However, comment is comment, and everyone is entitled to their opinion.
We will be adding details to the YouWriteOn homepage over the coming weeks of successful writers, including their book signings and media coverage for your interest.
We think there are great writers on both YWO and Absolute Write, but on both they deserve accurate information. The above outlines some information about the publishing project for you.
Kind Regards & Merry Christmas
Ted
Yes, but those prices and royalties don't mean a great deal given that it's the author who has to do all the marketing, all the selling and work to try and get them in bookstores, do they?
Which POD publisher is that?
That's very generous of you. Of course, given that it's the authors who are out there selling their books and generating those publisher profits for you, wouldn't it have been better to instead increase even further the potential profit that authors could make by decreasing your share by 10%?
That's nice. What does it mean? Are we talking about formatting standards here (i.e. the text submitted must be in a particular format in order for them to be published), or are we talking qualitative standards (i.e. books must meet a certain editorial threshold)?
You are the one who put a call out for 5000 manuscripts. Did you not think that it might be difficult to get all 5,000 books published in time for Christmas? Did you not realise that for authors who will be expected to do the legwork in selling these books, there is little point in them receiving the product after Christmas has finished? Why did you not have in place the staff ready to cope with 5000 manuscripts? If not, why not just put out the call for a lower threshold - wouldn't that have been a better service for those authors taking you up on the offer?
See my above comment. I fail to see why this could not have been foreseen and catered for in advance of it becoming a problem.
If you were concerned about inaccurate information, surely the way to deal with it would have been to correct that by making your own posts on the forum?
The fact that you have removed posts that informed people about the disadvantages of using your offer and the struggles they would face in marketing their books could be used to suggest that you're not interested in opinions other than your own being shared.
For a site that accepts public money from the Arts Council, this is not an acceptable state of affairs.
Really? And presumably you have verified this by going back a few pages to see the nature of the discussion with those YWO members who have posted here?
Because if you actually took the time to do so (rather than make accusations of libel against one poster) you would see that what actually happened was that some YWO members ended up being told about the very real down side of self-publishing their work and the potential consequences for them. Some YWO members took that on board and participated in the discussion, others threw their toys out of the pram and flounced out.
However, unlike your forums, Ted, they were all allowed to express their opinion (no matter how demonstrably incorrect that opinion may be) without having their posts arbitrarily deleted. They might not like the responses they got, but if you're going to express an opinion, then you need to be prepared for people giving you their opinion back - backed up with facts where necessary.
You forgot to mention that writers are also interested in seeing their books sold from the shelves of bookstores without having to organise that themselves.
Actually, I think that mathematically you're offering the same success rate as anyone would have if they submitted to an agent/publisher slush pile. In terms of the chance that you offer authors to get feedback on their work, in practical terms you can get the same type of feedback on the SYW Forums here and I'm sure at some point the stats will be run as to how many people have gone on to get agents/publishers as a result of that.
The concern isn't whether you will succeed - there are a lot of POD publishers out there that offer the same service as you and which are making money from it.
The comments here stem from a concern that you are selling to an audience attracted to your site by the fact that you have Arts Council funding for your forums, thereby giving your self-publishing arm an extra layer of gloss. Added to that is the fact that many of the people who took you up on your offer did so without, apparently, a firm understanding of the potential implications both in terms of the amount of effort required on their part, the amount of support that would be provided by YWO or the potential damage they are doing to having a commercial publisher pick up their manuscript.
If YWO had put up a simple FAQ of what would be required from people taking up that offer, I'd have had less of a problem with it. Instead, you appeared to be selling it on the back of a couple of authors who went down the self-publish route and were picked up by commercial publishers, thereby making it appear as though this was a very real possibility for everyone.
MM
"Shouted down" is a rather value-laden term. It implies that people have not been allowed to have their say, which is untrue (and bordering, perhaps, on libel).
Here on AW, we rarely delete posts. On this thread, for instance, the only posts that have been deleted were by yourself (and one double-post glitch by HJW). We believe in open and honest discussion. We've even left those where you and your authors have been personally insulting to members here.
I'm sure you'll agree that leaving people's statements (whether positive or negative) is preferable to deleting them. Are you claiming that reports of comments negative to YMO being deleted on the YMO forums are categorically untrue?
Now that's a lie; I have had two posts deleted over the last 48 hours. You also deleted a WHOLE thread set up by members listing the names of those who have yet to be published.
Today on YWO
"I got my books and I know it was one of the 5000, but I'm not altogether happy with the way it looks. Mostly because some of the chapters, despite adding page breaks at the time, start on the same page as others finish. There's also the odd blank pages in between chapters. I hope that we can edit these as mentioned in our submissions info as I can't see my book being very sellable at the moment."
Today on YWO
"I got my books and I know it was one of the 5000, but I'm not altogether happy with the way it looks. Mostly because some of the chapters, despite adding page breaks at the time, start on the same page as others finish. There's also the odd blank pages in between chapters. I hope that we can edit these as mentioned in our submissions info as I can't see my book being very sellable at the moment."
you mean sellable to anyone other than your family and friends, right?
the dashed hopes of many writers is going to be their Christmas present this year from this shifty POD outfit when they find out that not only can their book NOT be found in stores but only their friends and family will be interested in shelling out the money for it.
I'm surprised the British press hasn't jumped on this yet. You'd think they'd want to hear about public money going where it's obviously not being used well...
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2007
- Messages
- 709
- Reaction score
- 432
Sheryl!!
"sellable sellable" I know you are a better writer than that
But still, there must be writer here who could hack together a letter to the press using a standard UK keyboard
I'll not address most of Ted's post as others have already done so perfectly well. I will, however, address this part as it's pointed directly at me.
Ted, last weekend you deleted a whole slew of posts: whole threads disappeared in one go. I watched them disappear, as did many other people. The threads which were deleted were those in which your own members voiced their fears about your publishing scheme, and criticised your behaviour and attitude to them: surely it would have served you better to respond to their worries? Even if that involved admitting you'd screwed up, or telling them why you'd fallen so badly behind schedule? It would at least have left them feeling a little reassured: instead, many of them are now even more worried. I know: several of them have since emailed me, asking for advice. Some have cancelled their contracts with you, too.
I'm not sure which post of mine you deleted as I've not been able to get onto your website today. You say it was to do with Gardners.
Ages ago, I blogged about how self-published authors could go about getting their books into Waterstones: this was some time before it became an issue over at YWO. Consequently, when I read someone on your board asking how they could get their books into Waterstones, I pointed out that it was up to the publisher to register with Gardners: authors can't do that job, because the publisher has to set his or her terms with Gardners, which involves setting discount and returnability details--something the individual authors have no control over.
You responded by saying that you had no intention of dealing with Gardners, or any other wholesaler or distributor.
Several of your members read my comments on your messageboard and on my blog, and the information that I provided was referred to elsewhere on your board--although your comment didn't seem to be noticed (I'd go and find it and quote it here, but as I said, I can't seem to get on your board right now. I have been having trouble with my computer, so that could be the reason...).
One of your members was then excited to find that when he typed his ISBN into the search box on the Gardners website, his book information appeared. It seemed to me that he assumed that this meant that he was going to get a full sales and distribution deal, and his books would now appear in Waterstones without him doing a thing. So I pointed out that while all books with ISBNs would obviously appear on the Gardners website--because the site links directly to Nielsen BookData, where all ISBNs are tracked--that was not the same thing at all as having full distribution, and that you had stated elsewhere that you weren't going to register your terms with Gardners.
I'd be grateful if you could explain to me how that's "inaccurate".
If you have now registered with Gardners and set terms, I'm glad. It'll help all your writers get their books into bookshops, which is (as I'm sure you know) where the majority of books are sold from. It'll give them a good chance of selling a few copies each. I'd be interested to know what your terms are: are the books returnable? What discount have you offered? And are your books now stocked by Gardners, or are the titles just listed? There's a significant difference.
The big question, though, is what sort of sales and distribution system do you have in place for these books, to ensure that your writers--you know, the ones you're meant to be providing with an exciting new opportunity--can see their books on bookshop shelves like any commercially published writer? Because I don't think you've got anything sorted out at all. I do hope, for your writers' sakes, that I'm wrong here. Prove me wrong. Please.
Ted, last weekend you deleted a whole slew of posts: whole threads disappeared in one go. I watched them disappear, as did many other people. The threads which were deleted were those in which your own members voiced their fears about your publishing scheme, and criticised your behaviour and attitude to them: surely it would have served you better to respond to their worries? Even if that involved admitting you'd screwed up, or telling them why you'd fallen so badly behind schedule? It would at least have left them feeling a little reassured: instead, many of them are now even more worried. I know: several of them have since emailed me, asking for advice. Some have cancelled their contracts with you, too.
I'm not sure which post of mine you deleted as I've not been able to get onto your website today. You say it was to do with Gardners.
Ages ago, I blogged about how self-published authors could go about getting their books into Waterstones: this was some time before it became an issue over at YWO. Consequently, when I read someone on your board asking how they could get their books into Waterstones, I pointed out that it was up to the publisher to register with Gardners: authors can't do that job, because the publisher has to set his or her terms with Gardners, which involves setting discount and returnability details--something the individual authors have no control over.
You responded by saying that you had no intention of dealing with Gardners, or any other wholesaler or distributor.
Several of your members read my comments on your messageboard and on my blog, and the information that I provided was referred to elsewhere on your board--although your comment didn't seem to be noticed (I'd go and find it and quote it here, but as I said, I can't seem to get on your board right now. I have been having trouble with my computer, so that could be the reason...).
One of your members was then excited to find that when he typed his ISBN into the search box on the Gardners website, his book information appeared. It seemed to me that he assumed that this meant that he was going to get a full sales and distribution deal, and his books would now appear in Waterstones without him doing a thing. So I pointed out that while all books with ISBNs would obviously appear on the Gardners website--because the site links directly to Nielsen BookData, where all ISBNs are tracked--that was not the same thing at all as having full distribution, and that you had stated elsewhere that you weren't going to register your terms with Gardners.
I'd be grateful if you could explain to me how that's "inaccurate".
If you have now registered with Gardners and set terms, I'm glad. It'll help all your writers get their books into bookshops, which is (as I'm sure you know) where the majority of books are sold from. It'll give them a good chance of selling a few copies each. I'd be interested to know what your terms are: are the books returnable? What discount have you offered? And are your books now stocked by Gardners, or are the titles just listed? There's a significant difference.
The big question, though, is what sort of sales and distribution system do you have in place for these books, to ensure that your writers--you know, the ones you're meant to be providing with an exciting new opportunity--can see their books on bookshop shelves like any commercially published writer? Because I don't think you've got anything sorted out at all. I do hope, for your writers' sakes, that I'm wrong here. Prove me wrong. Please.
http://www.wordreference.com/definition/sellable
I plead too much Christmas cheer... heck, it's almost noon!
And this just in... a friend of mine has just received an email from YWO updating her about the publishing scheme, which she has forwarded on to me.
I'll not put the whole thing up because most of it has been seen before: but here's a highlight.
Sadly I've not been able to fully reproduce the formatting here: there were three fonts used in that selection, and different sizes too: it has the distinct look of having been cobbled together from various posts and emails.
But it's interesting, no?
I'm particularly interested in the point they make about adding VAT to the cost. That implies that YWO forecasts that its income from the scheme will be above the threshold for VAT payments--I'm not sure offhand where that is, as our businesses are well over it. But I'll find out, if no one beats me to it. It's a decent amount of money, anyway.
I'll not put the whole thing up because most of it has been seen before: but here's a highlight.
Sadly I've not been able to fully reproduce the formatting here: there were three fonts used in that selection, and different sizes too: it has the distinct look of having been cobbled together from various posts and emails.
But it's interesting, no?
I'm particularly interested in the point they make about adding VAT to the cost. That implies that YWO forecasts that its income from the scheme will be above the threshold for VAT payments--I'm not sure offhand where that is, as our businesses are well over it. But I'll find out, if no one beats me to it. It's a decent amount of money, anyway.
Small businesses with annual sales below £67,000 don't have to register for and charge VAT if they choose not to - but they can register/charge if they want to.
Old Hack, is this the thread you're refering to? http://www.youwriteon.com/forum/Sel...licity-and-Everything-Else-Topic-11503-1.aspx