Only just saw this, but the real issue is the ouroboros problem that we mention in the NFT article this week. Poetry was the spearhead, as it's been this way for many decades, but when the only consumers are producers, the only economy possible is one that eats itself, which is just a Ponzi scheme, moving any wealth from the bottom of a pyramid to the top. In a world of universal literacy and too much competition from other forms of entertainment, reading and writing literature has become a hobby, and all we can really do is play musical chairs. I've been looking for a solution to this problem for a very long time, and I'm not sure that there is one.
Anyway, I'd be wary of the data in the links here. Similarweb.com lists Duotrope's income as 1-2 million, but it lists Rattle's income as 5-7 million, and that's utterly absurd and off by 20x (you can guess the direction).
I'm guessing Similarweb is making a mistake here, pulling from Rattle Foundation's 990 Tax paperwork which lists 7 million in assets (not a stalker, I've just written about Rattle in the past). I am sure there is a whole lot more to the story when a foundation is involved, and assets are not revenue (mention it because that number did come from somewhere), just less likely Duotrope's would have reason to be offset as much with multiple other places also claiming it has around 2M in revenue or <5M in other places. I chose the 1-2 estimate because it seemed the most reasonable figure among the options. But I do see your point, to be very accurate I'd need access to their financials which I'm unlikely to get. Regardless of what it is, I felt comfortable that it was enough to prove my point while trying to use the most reasonable number. I've read several interviews where you've discussed the state of indie lit. It's always insightful. I'd love to talk about it with you / publish something in our startup diary (where we write about things like this), if you'd be interested. My email is ben@chillsubs.com
Yeah, that's what it must be for us. But Duotrope would have to have 30,000 paid subscribers at $50 to generate 1.5M—that seems really high to me, isn't it?
Ah yeah, so I was really confused by this before as well. I get down rabbit holes with this kind of stuff and reviewed all of their terms of service. They are great about data privacy, so that wasn't it. But I think their university program is larger than you'd expect. A while back they started really focusing on selling large memberships to universities and beefing up their database of academic journals. And I've tested their "get a quote" function on their website and it isn't cheap. So if they had a few hundred universities plus a substantial user base, that number gets much less absurd. They also have duosuma (though only about 150-200) magazines use it. So, all of these combined, plus low overhead and 10+ years of gathering users. I do think 1-2M is a fair estimate.
Ah and just in terms of users. We have 13,500 users on Chill Subs. We are free, but duotrope is paid for everything. Yet they get at least 5 times our traffic. So, I'm not sure if 30,000 is so outrageous a number either.
Outstanding piece that captures the problems most indie writers face. But possibly does not go far enough into the fact that so few people read anything at all these days. Thank you.
Thank you! I do want to write more about that. I have been doing some research. Two big problems I think a lot of people face on all sides is money and readership. We (at Chill Subs) discuss how to try to tackle these on a weekly basis. And I will be writing more on it in our Substack.
Any article that makes me consider or reconsider my point of view on a topic is well written. Like your own. I don't think it's a crime to make money, but I do think there are journals and services, like those you mention, who take advantage of writers eager to be legitimately published (as opposed to Instagram etc...). But it behooves me to ask what Chill Subs earns annually.
Hi Bill. Thank you. We actually have a stats page on our website where we list all of our financials. And in our monthly calendar we break it all down. We will always do this because we think it’s important.
I'd go further and say that there are journals/outlets set up specifically for that purpose. Indeed, there must be a story somewhere about the mafia looking to get into the litmag business :-) :-)
what do you think of one of the basic aspects of Substack as a mooyney maker for all concerne- charging money per month, from $4 for the "service" of allowing subscribers to fully participte. You can read someone's "stack" for free but when it comes to larger conversations or connecting with others, no one can freely do it without enrolling as a PAID/PAYING SUBSCRIBER. Gee, I thought the main thing we were all here for was to read and appreciate each other's writing and give constructive and helpful support, and make connections, but suddenly Im torpedoes by this paid sub aspect. Im vastly enjoying many of the
"stacks". Im surprised to find. two of my favorite writers, Etgar Keret ("The Busdriver Who Believed in God", " Girl In The Refrigerator", and Sherman Alexie ( The Lone Ranger and Tonto Fistfight In Heaven", "Indian Killers" , "The First Indian On The Moon" and "The Toughest Indian Alive..
Ben - just to say (if you are going to write about that) it might be worth looking at the extent to which what is published in lit mags reflects, amplifies or challenges the tastes/opinions of the mainstream. I think there are ways of doing that.
Thank you for the mention! I actually had already started to put together the notes below, before I reached it. This is really compelling article and I have a couple of thoughts in no particular order:
1. There is actually one High School lit journal that I know of, and they do seem to have decent funding and seem really cool: https://levitatemagazine.org/
2. Both Reedsy and Submittable, are run on the start-up funding model, and both very much have silicon valley roots. I'm not saying they aren't run by writers, but their focus/mode is very different than a lot of writer run companies because of where their funding is coming from (or came from initially - I did a deep research dive on this about 5 years back, but I can't remember what I came up with at the time and it's probably irreverent now.
3. I think it's important to note that a lot of the lit journals run by Discover Art LLC do seem exploitative not just in terms of contests, but in terms of where they are getting their labor. I'm not sure about all of the magazines which seem to function differently, for example I know Uncharted has a long history of not paying their writers (thanks to The Grinder which you also mentioned) , but at least two of the major journals they run do not pay any of the masthead staff including the head editor. And at least one of these magazines where you can pay a huge fee for personal feedback, that personal feedback is actually not given by anyone linked to the magazine, but by outside writers/editors, who are paid, and coordinated/hired, not by the editor of the journal but by someone higher up in the company.
Thank you! I did not know about 2 and 3. That is unfortunate (to say the least). 2 is exactly why we've never taken any investors. We never want anyone to tell us how to run things or be forced into poor practices for the sake of pleasing investors.
wonderfully written post. as a high school student who's submitted to a lot of free lit mags and managed to earn $50 through that, this article both fascinates and scares me. i want to pursue journalism & creative writing in college and actively contribute to changing the current status quo.
Absolutely go for it. I really wanted this piece to shine a bit of light but also be encouraging. I think some people have given up in some areas but a lot, the majority, are eager to help and want things to progress.
About journalism. There will always be a need for investigative journalism, but 1700 experienced journalists recently lost their jobs at BuzzFeed. So perhaps not a growing field. Not to mention AI.
definitely agree with that which is why i have a backup and journalism will most probably not be my only field. however i truly believe that if we change the system, journalists and writers can be more secure about their financial status!
This is why I draw a hard line: never pay to submit, never submit to any publication that doesn't pay.
I highly recommend this rule to all writers, as it not only simplifies the process but also does wonders for your self-respect, as paying to submit work others should be compensating you for often makes the author feel like a chump.
Author's Publish is a great resource for this. We also have a free filter and in our newsletter I've started indicating which places charge or not. I think this might've been your recommendation?
I also skip the pay-to-play venues. (More out of necessity, as for many of us in the non-developed countries, our incomes do not allow such -- and using pay pal to pay the fees is not a possibility, as the platform works most successfully in the "richer" countries ... another topic).
So -- if a journal cannot afford to (or will not) pay me for including my works, then I look for:
* ones that will list some of my other publications in the bio. (And, yes, it would be fab if they could link those titles to the order info)
* ones that allow me to add my social media contacts
* and -- most importantly -- allow the public free access to the journal (not only mine, but to all other creators' works)
Years ago I heard the piece of advice, “Money flows to the writer.” I stopped submitting pieces to places that charged reading or submission fees shortly after and have encouraged other authors I know to do the same. I support magazines I sub to by buying copies when I can afford to do so, or supporting crowdfunding campaigns.
Indeed, and publishers who charge ought to be constantly named and shamed. But most writers are so lacking in self confidence and conviction in their work they loudly stick up for their exploiters
I wrote you are so right and got"cancelled". So all you share art and free speech people who's doing the cancelling of anyone who has the slightest criticism?
"Editors, consider linking to contributors’ books on your magazine site." This is an important suggestion that doesn't cost anyone anything. I never understand why magazines, particularly online ones, cannot find it in their hearts to create a contributors page with all links to their authors' income-generating works or give us a little more space in our bios so we can add the links ourselves. Transparency is key: Where does all the money go? That is the most crucial question that you ask in this piece. Thank you for doing all the math!
About linking books etc.: it’s not gangbusters, but if you’re linking to a place with an affiliate network (notably Amazon, of course) that’s actually potential revenue for you and the author, and not extracted from anyone.
Thank you for this--I had joked before here about if I wanted to be a con artist, I'd start some fake lit mags, charge reading and contest fees. Now I see I could do it all legally and still make a log of $$$s.
Thank you for this article. However, I just read an article in today's Washington Post about "analog trends" popular with, well, people younger than me. Print books and the publication of new magazines were specifically mentioned. Given this, might there be an opportunity here for lit mags?
This is awesome. That gave me a lot of ideas. I think there is absolutely a place for lit mags in this. My brother is a big TTRPG gamer and he collects so many amazing indie books and zines and whatnot from it. Hmm, there is definitely something here. I have several lit mags back in the states and I love it. Also chapbook collections. The Cupboard Pamphlet makes such gorgeous little books. If you ever get any ideas for how we could promote this concept more, please shoot me an email. ben@chillsubs.com. We'll be thinking about it too.
Oof. I do hope that does not become the norm or that something is designed to fight against it. I can't imagine why anyone would want to claim something AI generated as their own. It removes all the joy, I think.
You are doing such a service to writers--a service long overdue--by raising these questions. I don't mind a $3 fee for submissions. However, as of late, as fees for contests have risen to $20 and beyond, I've wondered whether the money is worth investing when winning is such a long shot. What your work is doing is putting power back in the hands of us writers. With a little organization, we can boycott journals that charge prices we deem exorbitant. Too many editors and people in general think writing is a hobby for which we don't mind not getting paid. That's crap. Writing, like plumbing, is a skill that takes years of training. Pay a plumber? Pay the writer.
Useful summary, Benjamin, but , as J W Wood suggested, you gloss over the industry's dirty little secret, namely that the number of readers is declining and the number that are willing to pay to read is declining even faster. This is why the analogy of athletes, actors etc doesn't wash. Those professions are based on paying backsides on seats, either in the stadium/theatre or on the couch being served ads paid for by companies seeking those markets. I don't believe citing industries where people are willing to pay to be entertained has any bearing on the writing 'industry', where mostly they are not. That's why, for most writers, it is not an industry in the true sense of the word. We've got supply up the wazoo with very little demand. Solve that problem and we've got it made. ;-) Anyone up for Flash Fiction Cage Fighting? On a more serious note, how about corporate/foundation sponsorship of payment for poetry/flash on cereal packets/milk cartons that are going to be printed anyway and will reach millions over the breakfast table?
All true. What happens to a lot of writers is a regular job to raise a family or make both ends kiss, and writing - still a passion and/or an obsessive requirement - happens in the side hours. So we give in. "Oh, okay, 5 bucks, no big deal." We move on and say no more, trapping ourselves in the pay to play mindfuck only to find out not only does nobody read but the government wants people stupid anyway.
Thank you for mentioning Writer Beware, and best to you each morning!
That is so true. That's how I think when I pay a fee. Oh, this little amount. No big deal. But when I think back to just how many times I've thought that...oof. I really wish the US government cared more about funding the arts. I have a piece coming out soon in our startup diary. I investigated a lot of long-running magazines and one of the more surprising things I found was how much more canadian and australian governments support lit mags than the US.
Thank you for this--and bring on the affordable submissions manager! The little indie mag I edit for would love to get rid of the $3 reading fee, but Submittable's costs make that impossible.
We are on it. And we will be experimenting with a lot of other things as well to try to help. So many plans. But getting all of the infrastructure built is our first step
Only just saw this, but the real issue is the ouroboros problem that we mention in the NFT article this week. Poetry was the spearhead, as it's been this way for many decades, but when the only consumers are producers, the only economy possible is one that eats itself, which is just a Ponzi scheme, moving any wealth from the bottom of a pyramid to the top. In a world of universal literacy and too much competition from other forms of entertainment, reading and writing literature has become a hobby, and all we can really do is play musical chairs. I've been looking for a solution to this problem for a very long time, and I'm not sure that there is one.
Anyway, I'd be wary of the data in the links here. Similarweb.com lists Duotrope's income as 1-2 million, but it lists Rattle's income as 5-7 million, and that's utterly absurd and off by 20x (you can guess the direction).
I'm guessing Similarweb is making a mistake here, pulling from Rattle Foundation's 990 Tax paperwork which lists 7 million in assets (not a stalker, I've just written about Rattle in the past). I am sure there is a whole lot more to the story when a foundation is involved, and assets are not revenue (mention it because that number did come from somewhere), just less likely Duotrope's would have reason to be offset as much with multiple other places also claiming it has around 2M in revenue or <5M in other places. I chose the 1-2 estimate because it seemed the most reasonable figure among the options. But I do see your point, to be very accurate I'd need access to their financials which I'm unlikely to get. Regardless of what it is, I felt comfortable that it was enough to prove my point while trying to use the most reasonable number. I've read several interviews where you've discussed the state of indie lit. It's always insightful. I'd love to talk about it with you / publish something in our startup diary (where we write about things like this), if you'd be interested. My email is ben@chillsubs.com
Yeah, that's what it must be for us. But Duotrope would have to have 30,000 paid subscribers at $50 to generate 1.5M—that seems really high to me, isn't it?
Anyway, happy to talk about anything any time.
Ah yeah, so I was really confused by this before as well. I get down rabbit holes with this kind of stuff and reviewed all of their terms of service. They are great about data privacy, so that wasn't it. But I think their university program is larger than you'd expect. A while back they started really focusing on selling large memberships to universities and beefing up their database of academic journals. And I've tested their "get a quote" function on their website and it isn't cheap. So if they had a few hundred universities plus a substantial user base, that number gets much less absurd. They also have duosuma (though only about 150-200) magazines use it. So, all of these combined, plus low overhead and 10+ years of gathering users. I do think 1-2M is a fair estimate.
Ah and just in terms of users. We have 13,500 users on Chill Subs. We are free, but duotrope is paid for everything. Yet they get at least 5 times our traffic. So, I'm not sure if 30,000 is so outrageous a number either.
Outstanding piece that captures the problems most indie writers face. But possibly does not go far enough into the fact that so few people read anything at all these days. Thank you.
Thank you! I do want to write more about that. I have been doing some research. Two big problems I think a lot of people face on all sides is money and readership. We (at Chill Subs) discuss how to try to tackle these on a weekly basis. And I will be writing more on it in our Substack.
Any article that makes me consider or reconsider my point of view on a topic is well written. Like your own. I don't think it's a crime to make money, but I do think there are journals and services, like those you mention, who take advantage of writers eager to be legitimately published (as opposed to Instagram etc...). But it behooves me to ask what Chill Subs earns annually.
Thank you
Hi Bill. Thank you. We actually have a stats page on our website where we list all of our financials. And in our monthly calendar we break it all down. We will always do this because we think it’s important.
So i read your Chill stats and implore anyone reading this to buy this guy a cuppa
Thank you. So you actually walk the talk. Good on you.
Great stuff BBenjamin.
I'd go further and say that there are journals/outlets set up specifically for that purpose. Indeed, there must be a story somewhere about the mafia looking to get into the litmag business :-) :-)
what do you think of one of the basic aspects of Substack as a mooyney maker for all concerne- charging money per month, from $4 for the "service" of allowing subscribers to fully participte. You can read someone's "stack" for free but when it comes to larger conversations or connecting with others, no one can freely do it without enrolling as a PAID/PAYING SUBSCRIBER. Gee, I thought the main thing we were all here for was to read and appreciate each other's writing and give constructive and helpful support, and make connections, but suddenly Im torpedoes by this paid sub aspect. Im vastly enjoying many of the
"stacks". Im surprised to find. two of my favorite writers, Etgar Keret ("The Busdriver Who Believed in God", " Girl In The Refrigerator", and Sherman Alexie ( The Lone Ranger and Tonto Fistfight In Heaven", "Indian Killers" , "The First Indian On The Moon" and "The Toughest Indian Alive..
Ben - just to say (if you are going to write about that) it might be worth looking at the extent to which what is published in lit mags reflects, amplifies or challenges the tastes/opinions of the mainstream. I think there are ways of doing that.
Agreed. You hit on a very good point, discouraging as it is. The only time my friends read a poem is when I link them to a publication.
That feels like a whole part II, for sure.
Thank you for the mention! I actually had already started to put together the notes below, before I reached it. This is really compelling article and I have a couple of thoughts in no particular order:
1. There is actually one High School lit journal that I know of, and they do seem to have decent funding and seem really cool: https://levitatemagazine.org/
2. Both Reedsy and Submittable, are run on the start-up funding model, and both very much have silicon valley roots. I'm not saying they aren't run by writers, but their focus/mode is very different than a lot of writer run companies because of where their funding is coming from (or came from initially - I did a deep research dive on this about 5 years back, but I can't remember what I came up with at the time and it's probably irreverent now.
3. I think it's important to note that a lot of the lit journals run by Discover Art LLC do seem exploitative not just in terms of contests, but in terms of where they are getting their labor. I'm not sure about all of the magazines which seem to function differently, for example I know Uncharted has a long history of not paying their writers (thanks to The Grinder which you also mentioned) , but at least two of the major journals they run do not pay any of the masthead staff including the head editor. And at least one of these magazines where you can pay a huge fee for personal feedback, that personal feedback is actually not given by anyone linked to the magazine, but by outside writers/editors, who are paid, and coordinated/hired, not by the editor of the journal but by someone higher up in the company.
Thank you! I did not know about 2 and 3. That is unfortunate (to say the least). 2 is exactly why we've never taken any investors. We never want anyone to tell us how to run things or be forced into poor practices for the sake of pleasing investors.
wonderfully written post. as a high school student who's submitted to a lot of free lit mags and managed to earn $50 through that, this article both fascinates and scares me. i want to pursue journalism & creative writing in college and actively contribute to changing the current status quo.
Absolutely go for it. I really wanted this piece to shine a bit of light but also be encouraging. I think some people have given up in some areas but a lot, the majority, are eager to help and want things to progress.
Go for it! Only the young can save our sorry world--y ve con Dios siempre, porque con Dios no hay miedo...
About journalism. There will always be a need for investigative journalism, but 1700 experienced journalists recently lost their jobs at BuzzFeed. So perhaps not a growing field. Not to mention AI.
definitely agree with that which is why i have a backup and journalism will most probably not be my only field. however i truly believe that if we change the system, journalists and writers can be more secure about their financial status!
You're $49.50 ahead of me. Keep plugging.
This is why I draw a hard line: never pay to submit, never submit to any publication that doesn't pay.
I highly recommend this rule to all writers, as it not only simplifies the process but also does wonders for your self-respect, as paying to submit work others should be compensating you for often makes the author feel like a chump.
Author's Publish is a great resource for this. We also have a free filter and in our newsletter I've started indicating which places charge or not. I think this might've been your recommendation?
I also skip the pay-to-play venues. (More out of necessity, as for many of us in the non-developed countries, our incomes do not allow such -- and using pay pal to pay the fees is not a possibility, as the platform works most successfully in the "richer" countries ... another topic).
So -- if a journal cannot afford to (or will not) pay me for including my works, then I look for:
* ones that will list some of my other publications in the bio. (And, yes, it would be fab if they could link those titles to the order info)
* ones that allow me to add my social media contacts
* and -- most importantly -- allow the public free access to the journal (not only mine, but to all other creators' works)
yes,yes, and yes.
Years ago I heard the piece of advice, “Money flows to the writer.” I stopped submitting pieces to places that charged reading or submission fees shortly after and have encouraged other authors I know to do the same. I support magazines I sub to by buying copies when I can afford to do so, or supporting crowdfunding campaigns.
Is your newsletter A..Payler's newsletter free?
Indeed, and publishers who charge ought to be constantly named and shamed. But most writers are so lacking in self confidence and conviction in their work they loudly stick up for their exploiters
I wrote you are so right and got"cancelled". So all you share art and free speech people who's doing the cancelling of anyone who has the slightest criticism?
"Editors, consider linking to contributors’ books on your magazine site." This is an important suggestion that doesn't cost anyone anything. I never understand why magazines, particularly online ones, cannot find it in their hearts to create a contributors page with all links to their authors' income-generating works or give us a little more space in our bios so we can add the links ourselves. Transparency is key: Where does all the money go? That is the most crucial question that you ask in this piece. Thank you for doing all the math!
About linking books etc.: it’s not gangbusters, but if you’re linking to a place with an affiliate network (notably Amazon, of course) that’s actually potential revenue for you and the author, and not extracted from anyone.
Hi Dorothy! You are so right!
Sobering article. I feel kinda used right now
Thank you for this--I had joked before here about if I wanted to be a con artist, I'd start some fake lit mags, charge reading and contest fees. Now I see I could do it all legally and still make a log of $$$s.
dont forget editing fees and personal online consultations. I have a visual couch for poet therapy.
Thank you for this article. However, I just read an article in today's Washington Post about "analog trends" popular with, well, people younger than me. Print books and the publication of new magazines were specifically mentioned. Given this, might there be an opportunity here for lit mags?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/2023/06/15/analog-trends-vinyl-magazines-cameras/
This is awesome. That gave me a lot of ideas. I think there is absolutely a place for lit mags in this. My brother is a big TTRPG gamer and he collects so many amazing indie books and zines and whatnot from it. Hmm, there is definitely something here. I have several lit mags back in the states and I love it. Also chapbook collections. The Cupboard Pamphlet makes such gorgeous little books. If you ever get any ideas for how we could promote this concept more, please shoot me an email. ben@chillsubs.com. We'll be thinking about it too.
Thanks Ben. I just shot you an email.
BRILLIANT! Great points, excellent call-outs, especially appreciate the point about all anyone wants to do is fight about it.
Yes to rhe above. I admit that I have fought about this stuff on the side of little lits with scant resources. I'm rethinking...
Thank you for this--your work is vital to the writing community.
"Writers are willing to pay for any hair-line crack at success."
Even to the extent that some wanna-be writers will use AI!
What is it that makes one want to be what they are no willing to train themselves to be?
Oof. I do hope that does not become the norm or that something is designed to fight against it. I can't imagine why anyone would want to claim something AI generated as their own. It removes all the joy, I think.
Americans adore gimmicks,quick shortcuts.
Becky and Ben:
You are doing such a service to writers--a service long overdue--by raising these questions. I don't mind a $3 fee for submissions. However, as of late, as fees for contests have risen to $20 and beyond, I've wondered whether the money is worth investing when winning is such a long shot. What your work is doing is putting power back in the hands of us writers. With a little organization, we can boycott journals that charge prices we deem exorbitant. Too many editors and people in general think writing is a hobby for which we don't mind not getting paid. That's crap. Writing, like plumbing, is a skill that takes years of training. Pay a plumber? Pay the writer.
Thanks, James! "What your work is doing is putting power back in the hands of us writers." Made my day to hear this. Exactly what I hope to achieve.
what Becky said. Thank you!
Useful summary, Benjamin, but , as J W Wood suggested, you gloss over the industry's dirty little secret, namely that the number of readers is declining and the number that are willing to pay to read is declining even faster. This is why the analogy of athletes, actors etc doesn't wash. Those professions are based on paying backsides on seats, either in the stadium/theatre or on the couch being served ads paid for by companies seeking those markets. I don't believe citing industries where people are willing to pay to be entertained has any bearing on the writing 'industry', where mostly they are not. That's why, for most writers, it is not an industry in the true sense of the word. We've got supply up the wazoo with very little demand. Solve that problem and we've got it made. ;-) Anyone up for Flash Fiction Cage Fighting? On a more serious note, how about corporate/foundation sponsorship of payment for poetry/flash on cereal packets/milk cartons that are going to be printed anyway and will reach millions over the breakfast table?
All true. What happens to a lot of writers is a regular job to raise a family or make both ends kiss, and writing - still a passion and/or an obsessive requirement - happens in the side hours. So we give in. "Oh, okay, 5 bucks, no big deal." We move on and say no more, trapping ourselves in the pay to play mindfuck only to find out not only does nobody read but the government wants people stupid anyway.
Thank you for mentioning Writer Beware, and best to you each morning!
That is so true. That's how I think when I pay a fee. Oh, this little amount. No big deal. But when I think back to just how many times I've thought that...oof. I really wish the US government cared more about funding the arts. I have a piece coming out soon in our startup diary. I investigated a lot of long-running magazines and one of the more surprising things I found was how much more canadian and australian governments support lit mags than the US.
Thank you for this--and bring on the affordable submissions manager! The little indie mag I edit for would love to get rid of the $3 reading fee, but Submittable's costs make that impossible.
We are on it. And we will be experimenting with a lot of other things as well to try to help. So many plans. But getting all of the infrastructure built is our first step