Martin Brown Publishers, LLC

Mr. Brown, I didn't call you defective. I, and many other posters here, have said your newest *website* is defective, based on our objective opinions as we navigated through it.

But since you felt you were bullied, I apologize for coming across that way, and I'll step out of this discussion. (Citing Filigree's Rule.)

I didn't call you incompetent. I called your website incompetent, for the precise reasons I outlined earlier.

You seem to believe that your site's design is "dangerous," and that is somehow a good thing. If I am a prospective buyer of your books, your site makes it as difficult as possible to find and purchase them. How is that a good thing?

I would also point out that you *asked* for feedback on your website. If you only wanted people to tell you how wonderful and great it is, you should have specified that.

Apparently those who have commented on our Web site are not aware of the latest research which indicates that people are more apt to click on a picture than they are to read miles and miles of verbiage. As an example, I give you apps (most modern handhelds such as Iphones, Kindles, Nooks) and tiles (Windows 8). Facebook is very popular because of pictures; Twitter now allows pictured tweets, and then, of course, we have Pentrest and others.

And Jourowriter, Mister I have miles and miles of ideas... Why don't you do something with those ideas instead of being a site critic. Oh I forgot. If you put yourself out there then you're opening yourself up to criticism. If you want to criticize, why don't you take a look at A. G.'s site. Speaking of miles and miles of verbiage. Does anyone read that stuff, A. G. ? What do your stats look like?

Rob Brown said:

Speaking of miles and miles of verbiage. Does anyone read that stuff, A. C. ? What do your stats look like?

Click to expand...

Are you referring to me?

Actually, I assumed you were trying to draw a parallel between your small, and mostly unknown press, and Grove Press, on the assumption that it was small/unheard of/no longer existed. A quick Google search made it clear that is not the case.

As I see it, it's one thing for a publisher to take a risk on an author whose work lies somewhere outside the norm. It is a different thing entirely for an author to take a risk with a publisher that lacks a solid track record of producing quality work with consistent sales. __________________

Click to expand...

Sorry, I meant A. G. I'm wondering how you can say all that you've stated above unless you have proof? Also, I'm wondering, since I've been on your site, are those books your company published or do they belong to someone else and you're just advertising them there? I just took a quick look, but I plan to do a longer visit later.

Rob Brown said:

We have a new/refurbished Web site--http://www.mbpubs.com. Feedback please. Be gentle!!

Click to expand...

You ask for feedback, then get snarky when people give you that feedback.

Rob Brown said:

These last couple of weeks have been very stressful. Please forgive my temper and my outbursts. The end of the year is stressful for most companies, as just about anyone who runs one can attest. If you would forgive me my outbursts and allow me, I would like to begin anew. Would that be possible?

Click to expand...

So you're either always stressed or always contentious and unable to accept honest, critical feedback - which, by the way, is vital in the publishing industry. We aren't going to pamper anyone's ego. You asked for feedback, so you can take it or leave it, without jumping down everyone's throats.

When I look at your site, I find it way too visually cluttered. The ads at the top of the store page make me think I've clicked on a malware/adware site. The remaining pages go to Blogspot, which doesn't come across as professional at all. The entry page doesn't match the Blogspot pages. There's no definitive "look" that lets me know I'm still looking at the same company.

That's my feedback, for whatever it's worth.

So, A.G. You also run a publishing house--Rampant Loon Press I believe. So tell us why your sales are so bad, would you? You have little room to criticize seeing you're apologizing all over the internet that your site doesn't even work.

I'll make a deal with you. Lay off of our house and I won't report any more about how well your books are doing. Deal?

Rob Brown said:

Apparently those who have commented on our Web site are not aware of the latest research which indicates that people are more apt to click on a picture than they are to read miles and miles of verbiage. As an example, I give you apps (most modern handhelds such as Iphones, Kindles, Nooks) and tiles (Windows 8). Facebook is very popular because of pictures; Twitter now allows pictured tweets, and then, of course, we have Pentrest and others.

Click to expand...

I would say that the differences between those sites/apps and your site are clarity, intuitiveness, and cohesiveness. When I click on a picture on, say, Pinterest, I know exactly what's going to happen, with every picture. I'm going to be brought to a page specifically for that picture with a caption and comments, and I can click on the picture on that page and it will bring me to the web page that picture came from. I can count on that, and I caught onto it immediately the first time I used Pinterest. When I click on a picture on Facebook, it's going to pop up a modal window with the photo on the left side and the comments on the right, every single time (unless I right-click and open in a new tab; then it's a different layout, but it's always that same different layout). When I click a link on Facebook, I know it's a link (not a photo posing as a link), I know what it's a link to, and it takes me right to the linked content. Every time.

When I go to your site, it's a wall of images, and I have no idea why that photo of what looks like people having a peach paint fight takes me to your About page, or why the drawing of a book with its pages turning into birds takes me to your blogspot home page, or why the woman in the red dress takes me to an Amazon book page when the photo doesn't look like a book cover. The typewriter takes me to a contact page, the woman with the bicycle takes me to another book. And the only way I know any of this is by hovering over the image and looking at the URL that pops up in my status bar. (I'm confused as well by the news links at the top of the page that seem to have nothing to do with Martin Brown or your authors. They're in a pretty prominent place for irrelevant content.)

Whether I'm a writer looking for a publisher or a reader looking for a book, what I'm not looking for is a guessing game.

You don't have to make your site like every other publisher's site. You do need to make it clear and navigable, though, if you want people to actually use it.

Rob Brown said:

So, A.G. You also run a publishing house--Rampant Loon Press I believe. So tell us why your sales are so bad, would you? You have little room to criticize seeing you're apologizing all over the internet that your site doesn't even work.

I'll make a deal with you. Lay off of our house and I won't report any more about how well your books are doing. Deal?

Click to expand...

This thread is about Martin Brown Publishers, not Rampant Loon or any other publishing house. Stop trying to lead the conversation astray.

And note that while your attempts to threaten people into silence are not going to work here, they do show your true nature. If I wasn't already convinced that your publisher is not one to work with, I would be now.

Rob Brown said:

So, A.G. You also run a publishing house--Rampant Loon Press I believe. So tell us why your sales are so bad, would you? You have little room to criticize seeing you're apologizing all over the internet that your site doesn't even work.

I'll make a deal with you. Lay off of our house and I won't report any more about how well your books are doing. Deal?

Click to expand...

I do not run a publishing house of any sort. I am an author who is published by several different publishers with links to said published work displayed below.

Rob Brown said:

Apparently those who have commented on our Web site are not aware of the latest research which indicates that people are more apt to click on a picture than they are to read miles and miles of verbiage. As an example, I give you apps (most modern handhelds such as Iphones, Kindles, Nooks) and tiles (Windows 8). Facebook is very popular because of pictures; Twitter now allows pictured tweets, and then, of course, we have Pentrest and others.

And Jourowriter, Mister I have miles and miles of ideas... Why don't you do something with those ideas instead of being a site critic. Oh I forgot. If you put yourself out there then you're opening yourself up to criticism. If you want to criticize, why don't you take a look at A. G.'s site. Speaking of miles and miles of verbiage. Does anyone read that stuff, A. G. ? What do your stats look like?

Click to expand...

You'll note when visiting the websites of many successful publishers both large and small, there are plenty of pictures and not simply "miles and miles of verbiage." The images, however, are arranged, typically in a much more coherent way--new releases, best sellers, with recent reviews, etc.--than just a mural of book covers with no discernible pattern.

You can be sure that any "latest research" has been received and processed by big publishers and the multi-national conglomerates with dedicated e-commerce teams that own them. You'll note that their experts on staff have apparently come to different conclusions for how a functioning website for a publishing company should appear and behave.

I'm also unclear as to what device utilization (iPhones, Kindles, Nooks) etc. has to do on a one-to-one basis with your website as it compares to others. Do people prefer websites to be broken up with images and not just straight text? Sure. I don't doubt that. And I also don't think that's anything particularly new or groundbreaking, it has pretty much always been that way. Trying to draw loose arguments about the popularity of Twitter, Facebook and Pinterest as a justification for the non-standard layout of your website doesn't really work.

If the redesign of your website has given you increased traffic and increased sales, then you're way ahead of the curve and we will all, I'm sure, be made to look like fools when we follow in your footsteps in the coming months and years.

However, one indicator of success (albeit an inexact one) -- Amazon rankings -- would suggest that the titles at the top of your page (presumably your lead titles, though I'm not sure that's your intention) have not enjoyed subsequent sales bumps from your redesign efforts.

As others have already pointed out--YOU came here and ASKED for feedback about your website. It was given to you. Complaining later about getting what you asked for seems counterproductive and in bad faith. If what you wanted was for people to only respond with praise, you should rephrase your request.

That has got to be one of the busiest websites I've ever seen. I found it visually overwhelming and confusing, because if a blurb/excerpt was sandwiched between two covers, I didn't know which of the covers it belonged to. Plus, as Chumplet said, the Courier font doesn't help.

Rob Brown said:

So, A.G. You also run a publishing house--Rampant Loon Press I believe. So tell us why your sales are so bad, would you?

Click to expand...

If you were actively trying to discourage people from considering your press for any purposes, mission accomplished.

Robert Brown,

Have you done actual end-user usability testing on that website? It's important for most websites, but especially important for a business site that's trying something different.

If you have not, there are firms that can help you set up proper usability tests with the kinds of people you see as your most likely customers.

Opinions and theory are just that. You need usability testing to know whether a website will work for your customers or not.

(side note: If you ask a community for feedback on something, you can disagree, but it's poor form to get up in arms about opinions that you solicited.)

And Jourowriter, Mister I have miles and miles of ideas... Why don't you do something with those ideas instead of being a site critic. Oh I forgot. If you put yourself out there then you're opening yourself up to criticism

Click to expand...

Since you have no idea who I am or what I do, I'm not sure what you're getting at here.

Look, you asked for feedback. I gave you my honest opinion, in as straightforward language as I could. Your site looks extremely unprofessional and actively prevents customers from buying your books. You may love it, but people here have offered good reasons why they don't. You are certainly free to discard those opinions, but then why did you solicit them?

LindaJeanne,

Thank you for your very positive feedback. No, we have not done any usability testing on our Web site. Our goal was just that--to be different. Over the years, as an author, agent and publisher, I've visited hundreds of Web site and, viewing them and trying to navigate most seemed frustrating and impossible to find anything other than basic sales information. Trying to find author guidelines for instance, as a newbie author, I found especially difficult as they always seemed to be hidden somewhere other than where they should be--right up front. I'm sure the rational for this was to discourage queries from anyone except those in the know. This always struck me as arrogant and unconnected with writers who might also be readers.

What we are trying on our Web site is, first of all, is to present something that appeals to the artist in many of us. Yes, as most of the comments here will attest, being different is dangerous. People don't like or appreciate anyone who tries something new or different. Those who do are considered outsiders; not part of the tribe and are considered trouble-makers--or just weird.
Thank you again for your comments.

Rob Brown said:

LindaJeanne,

Thank you for your very positive feedback. No, we have not done any usability testing on our Web site. Our goal was just that--to be different. Over the years, as an author, agent and publisher, I've visited hundreds of Web site and, viewing them and trying to navigate most seemed frustrating and impossible to find anything other than basic sales information. Trying to find author guidelines for instance, as a newbie author, I found especially difficult as they always seemed to be hidden somewhere other than where they should be--right up front. I'm sure the rational for this was to discourage queries from anyone except those in the know. This always struck me as arrogant and unconnected with writers who might also be readers.

What we are trying on our Web site is, first of all, is to present something that appeals to the artist in many of us. Yes, as most of the comments here will attest, being different is dangerous. People don't like or appreciate anyone who tries something new or different. Those who do are considered outsiders; not part of the tribe and are considered trouble-makers--or just weird.
Thank you again for your comments.

Click to expand...

The Pity Party is unbecoming and unprofessional. Nobody is saying "Being different is bad." Quit pretending to be a victim of people who don't understand your genius.

Being different is fine. Your website, in no way, to anybody, is "dangerous" or "edgy." It's just providing a poor consumer experience. If you want to cloak yourself in some inexplicable "artistic vision" as your reasoning, go ahead.

Can you provide an example of websites from publishers that make the relevant information hard to find? Look at all of the websites from major publishers and the respected indies -- provide ONE example of a website that isn't giving you the information you want and how you solved that need.

ETA -

Why should submission guidelines be "right up front?" Publishers are in the business of selling the books they're publishing. Why would you take away prime real estate on your website with submission guidelines when you can use that space to promote the tangible products you have available right now? Publishers are in the business of selling books, not reading queries.

This always struck me as arrogant and unconnected with writers who might also be readers.

Click to expand...

This might be part of your problem. The more things a business tries to focus on, the more scattered the message gets. Pretending that a publisher choosing to feature books on their website is some slap in the face to aspiring authors is punching at windmills.

Rob Brown said:

Yes, as most of the comments here will attest, being different is dangerous.

Click to expand...

I'm just curious - how do you imagine a muddled mosaic of a website is dangerous to us?

I'll confess I'm also getting tired of the "different is dangerous" argle-bargle. Different is only dangerous if your stated goal is to sell books, but instead you drive potential customers away by confusing the hell out of them. From a business standpoint that's only dangerous, it's fatal.

Rob Brown said:

LindaJeanne,

Thank you for your very positive feedback. No, we have not done any usability testing on our Web site. Our goal was just that--to be different.

<snipped for space>

What we are trying on our Web site is, first of all, is to present something that appeals to the artist in many of us. Yes, as most of the comments here will attest, being different is dangerous. People don't like or appreciate anyone who tries something new or different. Those who do are considered outsiders; not part of the tribe and are considered trouble-makers--or just weird.
Thank you again for your comments.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately, just being different is not a viable business plan. (I can wear my shoes on my hands but it won't improve my abilities to run a marathon simply because it's "different".)

And, having gone and looked at your website (again), I don't think what you have there appeals to the artist in any of us. It doesn't look artistic. And it doesn't appeal. It's confusing. (And repetitive. Once I get further down the page, the same book covers start showing up again.)

I understand your concept. (In fact, one of the publishers that has taken on my work uses a similar concept for their main page.) But the execution is, unfortunately, poor. I do that sometimes when I'm writing a story - it's called a first draft. And when I gather opinions on what I've written (negative or positive), I try and fix the problems that are brought to my attention. I could argue that "It's that way because I meant it to be," but that's not likely to get my work to a publishable state.

Being different is great. But not if it is actively preventing you from doing what you set out to do.

Round Two said:

Why should submission guidelines be "right up front?"

Click to expand...

Agreed. The first place I look for guidelines on a publisher's site is the footer. If it's not there, I check the drop-downs in the far right of the top menu. I'd say that covers a good 95% of the publisher websites I've visited. Are they not "dangerous" enough because they put their submissions link where I expect it? I dunno...but it sure is nice to find the info where I expect it to be.

If submissions guidelines are not visible, it's often because the company is not open to general queries.