JRTurner:
Or are they more like an author mill--once they get you to sign the contract, you're on your own?
An author mill is a publisher whose model is based on signing up many authors and selling quantities of the books back to the same. Inasfar as the term is used on Writer Beware, author mills rely on their authors as their major source of income (either by selling books directly to the author for the author to then on-sell, or by selling to markets that have been identified and developed by the author themselves, e.g. booksignings organised by the author).
A publisher that expects authors to get heavily involved in marketing is not necessarily an author mill - much depends on whether and if the publisher is developing and making its own sales independent of the author's efforts.
There has been nothing on this thread to suggest that Double Dragon relies on selling ebooks back to its reader or relies on the author to sell their own books.
If you have information to the contrary, then once you're out of time out I'm sure we'd all appreciate reading it.
JRTurner:
Well, not book signings or radio interviews--but do they advertise on the internet? Do they buy spots for Kindle or Nook advertising at Amazon or Barnes&Noble? Do they support blog tours or other online events to get the word out about the books they're publishing? Do they give their authors anymore time of day than simply listing the book in their huge database?
If they don't, then doesn't that make them an author mill?
No it does not necessarily make them an author mill.
The information provided on Thread suggests that they are generating at least some sales for their authors beyond an individual author's own efforts because royalty figures as reported by one poster are in the low 3 figures. It seems that they have generated sales by focusing on building their platform in the specific SF&F epublishing market so that they have a trusted reputation. They seem to have targeted different sales venues beyond their own site and from the reports here they have worked at important things like manuscript selection, editing and cover art to produce a reliable product that people can rely on.
Those things are not commensurate with an author mill but again, if you have information to the contrary that you would like to share then I would be happy to see it.
JRTurner:
DDP is considered a "trusted" publisher because they buy a lot of ebook rights from a lot of authors they never promote individually and because they've been around a "long time."
How long is a long time? Like ten years or so?
Just trying to figure out the difference between an epublisher I should trust and one I shouldn't.
Where did you get the word "trusted" from? Has anyone on this thread or this forum suggested that Double Dragon is "trusted"? Reading through this thread, it seems that people have pointed at potential issues with the publisher over the last few years - the biggest seems to be delay in response time, which is regrettable but in no way indicative of an author mill (which seems to be the main point you're interested in).
Where has it been suggested that Double Dragon does not promote authors individually? Do you have a separate source for this?
Longevity is a sign that a company may be more reliable but it is in no way the only thing you should look for in a publisher. Publish America, for example, has been around for years and I don't think that anyone on AW would recommend them as a "trusted publisher" (to use your words).
As a general rule of thumb, people here on AW suggest waiting to see if a publisher is still in business 2 years after establishment on the grounds that most publishing ventures crash and burn within that initial set up period.
If the company has been going for 2 years, then posters here generally suggest that you ask for details on average sales per title, the type of promotion that the publisher actively engages in, what they do about print runs (e.g. if you're dealing with a POD press, whether they will do a short off-set run for signings and if so, whether there are terms on returnability, how much notice is required etc), where their books are available to buy, whether there are plans to look into stocking books in store etc etc.
It's also a good idea to look at who is behind the company and whether they have any experience of commercial publishing. Many start-ups reported here are done by people who have been unfortunately scammed by entities like PA and are consequently clueless about what publishers should and should not do. You also find that there are start-ups that began life as self-publishing ventures and then moved out to take on general submissions - in that case I'd want to see whether the company still intends to publish the owner's fiction (because you don't want a situation where marketing budgets go to them rather than to you).
Of course, the professionalism of the staff is also something to be looked into. If the editors, to take an example, are people who have been self-published or published through that publisher then I would be wary of their qualifications - especially if they never seem to have had an editing gig before (whether on a freelance or employed basis). Similarly, take a look at the cover art - if it looks like it's all stock clip art with many titles having similar covers, that suggests a lack of budget. If the artists cited on the site can't cite a professional background in doing cover art (whether freelance or on an employed basis) it suggests a company that's not too concerned about standards.
JRTurner:
I don't believe that DDP is meeting the standard of author support expected by legitimate publishing houses
What makes you believe that? Do you have information on the company and its business practices that has not previously been discussed? If so, please feel free to share.
JRTurner:
I worry that there is a bit of nepotism going on here.
Why? The number of people who have posted on this thread and are published by them is very small. People have raised concerns. The biggest 'name' poster here is Dave and he's posted his experiences without urging other people to go with them.
JRTurner:
If any other publishing house was stated as having only their own brand in mind and didn't support the individual author--they would be considered an "author farm" (not mill, I guess, because of the nature of ebooks.)
I think that you are firstly misinterpreting what an author mill/farm is (despite having it very clearly set out for you) and secondly making what seems to be an utterly baseless accusation against a rival publisher.
What information/evidence do you have that Double Dragon does not support authors?
JRTurner:
So I'm curious why I'm being urged to trust this publisher when, as it appears, that once the contract is signed and the book is released, that's all they'll have to do with me.
Where on this thread or on AW has it said that Double Dragon is a trusted publisher and authors should sign up with them?
Your "evidence" seems to only comprise this:
JRTurner: (UNDERLINE MINE)
If you read these messages, you'll see where I'm coming from:
#4 has seven books published with them Yes, Dave is published with them. He also says that they're slow because they're busy and swamped. He does not say to trust them. Nor does he say that they represent "the cream of the crop".
#7 has a book published with them Yes, Matthew has one book published with and said he had "no major complaints" and they were "fair to deal with". He does not say to trust them. Nor does he say that they represent "the cream of the crop".
#11 has "a number' of ebooks with them This is Dave again. See above for #4. Note though that here he points out that the author is expected to get involved in rewrites or approve edits. He also says that "much of the time the artwork is good" but goes on to point out some minor issues. He criticises their publishing schedule.
#14 has a friend published with them Triceretops only says that Dave (see #4 and #7) published with Double Dragon. Tricertops notes that they might be slow in responding but doesn't see any problem with them as an epublisher. S/he also suggests that authors check to see what existing Double Dragon writers have to say about their publishers on blogs or websites. Again, not a recommendation to trust them. Nor does s/he say that they represent "the cream of the crop".
#17 has a partner published with them Unimportant reiterates the fact that they are slow and recommends having a publication date set in the contract. Again, not a recommendation to trust them. Nor does s/he say that they represent "the cream of the crop".
#22 knows the editor there DeleyanLee mentioned knowing an editor but made absolutely no other statement about the company, their trustworthiness or that they were in any way "the cream of the crop". She mentioned her connection with the publisher purely because Google had tagged the website as an attack site.
#30 Knows the editor's personal life That's Dave again and far from representing that he knew the editor and their personal life, he said that it was his "understanding" that there'd been a death in the editor's family. Again - no statement as to trustworthiness or the company's suitability.
#32 has a friend published with them Thothguard does not mention any friend as having published with Double Dragon in this particular post. All s/he says is that they submitted and the editor suggested s/he get back in touch when Double Dragon reopens for submissions in 2011. There is no specific recommendation for the company and indeed, Thothguard seems wary about epublishing in general in that post.
#38 is published with them Saanan reports on royalty figures and says s/he's pleased with them so far and was happy with responses but not happy with the cover art. Again, no specific recommendation about the company or any urging that people sign with them.
JRTurner:
Read back through the comments on this list. Nearly everyone is either published with them, or knows someone who is.
I quote this only because on the basis of your own post, it seems you can only find 10 posts that you believe support Double Dragon (of which 3 are from the same poster, i.e. Dave, one makes no comment about Double Dragon at all and the rest all post things that may not be suitable. Not one post that you cite as supporting evidence for your position actually supports your position.
JRTurner:
They've all commented about how wonderful DDP is and what a great place it is to be published through.
See above.
JRTurner:
I can hardly believe that considering the contentious nature of almost all the threads in Bewares and Background checks that there isn't little more than a complaint about "slow response" times when an editor had a death in the family.
One of the main themes in the comments about Double Dragon prior to your posts was about the slow response time, with Unimportant suggesting that a set publication date be inserted into the contract.
Slow response times suck, but they're not something that most people on Bewares and Background Check get het up about. On the other hand, slow royalty payment are something that tend to draw criticism. I haven't seen any complaints about slow royalty payments on thread but again, if you have information to the contrary then please let us know.
JRTurner:
It's very hard for me to believe that the otherwise discerning members of Absolute Write have found the "brand" of publisher they think is the cream of the crop--unless it's out of loyalty to their long-time friendships, or their own publishing history.
It's very hard for me to see how you could possible believe that anyone on Absolute Write has identified Double Dragon as "the cream of the crop". It seems to me that this is a pure straw man argument to prove some other point.
For the record, I have no history with this publisher and I am on the record as not being a fan of royalty paying epublishers full stop. Any criticism I would make about Double Dragon's site would be no different to the criticisms/warning I would make about any epublisher.
JRTurner:
Since when did "cost effective" for the publisher determine what an author should expect?
If the publishing house can't afford to promote the number of authors they are contracting, does that really speak well about their business practices?
Since the publisher wants to remain in business because business is all about the bottom line - you're either making money, or you're not. Where a publisher crosses the line (at least as far as I'm concerned) is when they decide to meet that bottom line by selling to authors rather than to the general public.
I also note that once again, you are suggesting that Double Dragon cannot promote all of their authors. Where is your evidence for that?
What I will say that Double Dragon has done properly is that they are focusing on a specific market and on building their reputation in that market. That reduces advertising/promotional costs and means that efforts can be targeted.
JRTurner:
Since most of what's left outside of those comments are about epublishing in general or this exchange we're having right now, I hope you can see where the idea of nepotism informing the rather glowing reputation DDP has here is not far-fetched.
I think we've established that not only is your claim of "nepotism" far-fetched, it also suggests a lack of fundamental reading comprehension on your part.
JRTurner:
I think some authors are getting the short end of the stick here. If they really want to be published by a "trusted" brand--why shouldn't they go with a house that doesn't make a practice of offering contracts on books they never intend to promote?
I've lost count of the number of times you've made this allegation without ever providing proof for your claim. It's almost like you don't have any.
MM
)