It recently came to my attention that Cynthia Reeser has reconsidered some of her ideas regarding the print edition of her journal Prick of the Spindle. From her blog post:
It may be worth a mention that when I set the submission fees for the print edition, I consulted with a marketing expert with more years of experience in his field than I've been alive. My initial thought was $5 across the board, and he balked at this. He urged us to go for $20, but I knew that was too high.
He offered his reasoning for this, which essentially entailed weeding out not-very-dedicated submitters, where the idea was to encourage a higher quality of submissions, and to let people know the print edition should be taken seriously. His line of reasoning is that people realize they get what they pay for, and having a fee on the higher end would provide the image of a higher quality publication.
That last part there about the line of reasoning being "that people realize they get what they pay for, and having a fee on the higher end would provide the image of a higher quality publication" is just, quite frankly, bullshit. But hey, what do I know? I'm no marketing expert.
Thinking about this, I considered the existing identity of the online journal, with an ackowledgement that any print edition would be associated with the online journal right out of the gate. We've always been free, and the only time a fee has been charged was for a competition for which, yes, there was a prize and print publication, with complimentary copies being awarded in tiers, from the Grand Prize winner through honorable mentions. But competitions are different from a standard print issue and therefore are based on a different model.
This is true. Just look at PANK and Annalemma and Monkeybicycle and Hobart. Those are journals that are both online and print. And they all charge reading fees for the print edition.
Wait -- what was that?
Are you sure?
Oh, I see ...
Updates that will be posted to the print submission guidelines are:
* That a complimentary issue is provided for all submitters * Adjustment to the fees * Removal of fees for reviews * That published authors will receive compensation, TBD
This looks much better, yes.
I do take issue with Robert Swartwood saying that the business model is a bad decision. I am far from Narrative's greatest fan, but they are essentially doing the same thing. This doesn't make it right, but it doesn't make it wrong, either. Has it worked for them? Obviously, yes. That is neither to say that it would work for me, nor that our fee structure is based off of theirs. The reason I divulged how I came up with the fee structure in the first place was to show that it was not based off anything anyone else was doing, but by consulting with someone who knows what he's talking about, and by taking into consideration the current incarnations of the journal.
This doesn't make it right, but it doesn't make it wrong, either. What the H-E-double-hockey-sticks does that mean?
Has the reading fee structure worked for Narrative? Well considering that recently they've been begging for donations, how well can they possibly be doing?
The reason I divulged how I came up with the fee structure in the first place was to show that it was not based off anything anyone else was doing, but by consulting with someone who knows what he's talking about, and by taking into consideration the current incarnations of the journal.
I just had to repeat this line. It's so great. I mean, a marketing expert! Out of the back of what van does this guy work?
The bottom line is this: if you don't like the fees, don't submit to the journal. Soon they will look a lot friendlier, and then some other schmuck will likely come along and whine that we don't pay enough to our contributors... and the cycle goes on.
Great advice: if you don't like the fees, don't submit to the journal. It's the only thing in the entire post that makes sense.
Well then, it looks like this schmuck's job here is done. You're welcome.