Instead of surfacing the most popular stories on a site, like every social media algorithm does, I can imagine publications that let readers make up their own mind by rotating various pieces on the home page, for instance, regardless of the article’s popularity. I can further imagine an editorial team that focuses on the writing coming in without even getting into stats.
And while publishing stats can be looked at as transparency, it’s simply another way of attracting people through bandwagonism and fear of missing out. I think it would be extremely refreshing if we (not just lit mags, but as human beings) could move beyond the idea that you ought to be doing something or engaging with something because others are doing it. That’s what publication of stats and follower counts and ratings and subscriber numbers boils down to: an attempt to take advantage of the all too human tendency to follow the crowd.
And since we're talking about promotion, allow me to slip in a link. (submissions and contest open)
Rotating pieces on the home page would definitely be cool. I think that any imaginative design that puts the published writing in front of more readers is good. But as a reader, I also like choice, like how Substacks, including Lit Mag News, allow readers to organize the site by "Latest", "Top", or "Popular". It's actually quite old internet design, but it's effective. Unfortunately, it's rarely, if ever, employed by lit mags.
Promotion / exposure as a way of "paying" creative writers is a con job. And we all know it. A handful of lit-mags have sent me pre-designed teaser jpegs - - which I will improve in PhotoShop & then post. However, most journals don't even bother to do that. And when a lit-mag is published on Lulu or ISSUU, you won't even be able to get a dedicated link that goes straight to your piece. Noticing that few people click through, I stopped posting links. Instead I've started pairing my silhouette art with my poem (if it's under 10 lines) - - or an excerpt. [My images always mention the lit-mag + issue.] These striking visuals have been getting more engagement. I'll post a link to one of these - - just added to my Blue Sky news feed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . a picture's worth 1,000 words . . . . . . . . . . . https://bsky.app/profile/ghostlyverse.bsky.social/post/3lrxaazro7k25
I think you hit the nail on the head. Self-promotion is invaluable. I like what you're doing with your poems. We have to self-promote because we can't often count on publishers for promotion. And I get it, promotion is work and who wants to do that. I'm currently drafting a separate article about self-promotion. I hope it finds a home within the next few months.
Daniel, I just began a pilot program for helping authors get discovered. It's self-promotion meets the village! The gist of it is: a group gets together and does erasure poems from the same new book. I've been asked to write a craft piece on this - - and I will when we have gone a little further. Meanwhile, to show you how it works, I will post a link to my erasure from a debut novel by Bruce Buchanan . . . . my erasure by itself, then the erasure with my charcoal drawing . . . . . . . . . . . . https://x.com/Mae_Westside/status/1934780192309862839
I've never liked ISSUU or similar. Seems like the work is too buried under a mountain of clicks. They look nice, sure, but for my part, I don't want fancy page transitions and the rest of it. The web is not a print magazine and the attempt to emulate one just makes it harder to actually read the work.
Yes, the individual pieces can be very hard to find - - except by your most dedicated fans. EXPOSURE? I don't think so, Victor. * * * * * RE: "clicks" - - I've posted my attractive video-poems on social media with links to my YouTube channel & Y.T.'s metrics will tell me if anyone visited. That's how I discovered that "likes" on social media do not mean anyone actually clicked and visited the video-poem on YouTube. And "likes" don't even mean someone READ my writing. *************** Sample link on my channel: https://youtu.be/rFTwFpBIGnE?si=l14Yr7xWdla_S-IU
At Micomance, I'm always transparent, giving monthly updates as to traffic stats, subscriber numbers, average post reads, etc. You have to... It not only highlights the success of the lit mag, but builds trust and rapport with the readers and contributors...
I also make it a point to promote the magazine and its contributors all across social media and in newsletters. Admittedly, I have slacked a bit on it, but I am working to bring back featuring pieces and writers in various ways and places. There'd be no Micromance without the contributors submitting their hearts and souls... They deserve all the props and credit... And the readers are pretty awesome, too, and, in every "FROM the Editor" newsletter I send, I always thank both readers and submitters for their continued support of Micromance (and now KissMet Quarterly)...
As someone who submits, reads, and supports lit mags with a mix of hope, curiosity, and occasional bewilderment,.... I found your framing of transparency, promotion, and design not just pragmatic, but refreshingly empathetic. Thanks.
I have long thought it less than balanced that many lit mags want unpublished work yet never share numbers about their readership, so yes, submitting to most is like a shot in the dark. I once asked the editor of Impspired, Steve Cawte [who, as many here know, tragically passed away when his transplanted heart failed] how the online readership compared with his very impressive print issues. Being a very truthful man, he told me the lit mag got about 5,000 viewers a month but when a new issue came out, that would double to 10k--but the print issue sold [alas] only about 100 copies, and that probably to its published writers.
Now these seem like realistic numbers, and I imagine better than many lit mags have done-- but then, we'll never know, will we? I wouldn't mind so much if editors would just value QUALITY over virginity....
I think simple "how many clicks" data are highly misleading because of the presence of bots and spammers. Think of how much of one's own email is spam, and how meaningful a statistic of "how many emails I received per day/month/year", would be? What really counts is how many connections are held long enough to have actually read something. I'm not a web coder, so I can't comment on how this can be done or how accurate it is. But Medium does it, so apparently it's possible.
Gary, my YouTube video-poetry channel has metrics and offers an analysis that includes (a.) how many minutes the person watched one poem-video; (b.) what country the viewer came from; (c.) moments that were re-played; and more. There are metrics for Book Funnels, mailing list promotions, etc. Thanks to these tools, I know the "open rate" of my promotions, I know that 168 people bought a certain poetry book of mine before its release date, and much more. Investing in metrics is worth it, in my opinion.
You are forgetting another stat that all litmags should share, what % of the things they publish come from submissions vs solicitations of authors. Why submit to a magazine that SAYS they take whatever comes in the door, but in reality 90% of what they publish are from name authors they have reached out to and requested a piece from?
ChillSubs now requests litmags provide this info on their profile, but most refuse to do so.
Instead of surfacing the most popular stories on a site, like every social media algorithm does, I can imagine publications that let readers make up their own mind by rotating various pieces on the home page, for instance, regardless of the article’s popularity. I can further imagine an editorial team that focuses on the writing coming in without even getting into stats.
And while publishing stats can be looked at as transparency, it’s simply another way of attracting people through bandwagonism and fear of missing out. I think it would be extremely refreshing if we (not just lit mags, but as human beings) could move beyond the idea that you ought to be doing something or engaging with something because others are doing it. That’s what publication of stats and follower counts and ratings and subscriber numbers boils down to: an attempt to take advantage of the all too human tendency to follow the crowd.
And since we're talking about promotion, allow me to slip in a link. (submissions and contest open)
https://dogthroat.com
Rotating pieces on the home page would definitely be cool. I think that any imaginative design that puts the published writing in front of more readers is good. But as a reader, I also like choice, like how Substacks, including Lit Mag News, allow readers to organize the site by "Latest", "Top", or "Popular". It's actually quite old internet design, but it's effective. Unfortunately, it's rarely, if ever, employed by lit mags.
Yes, rotating pieces are nice. We do it, and I'm working on making it easier to do so.
Enjoyed your story "The End of Instruction" - nicely done, Daniel.
Thank you!
Thanks for sharing ways to make the lit-mag landscape better, Victor. Such a productive conversation here today, friends!!!!!
Promotion / exposure as a way of "paying" creative writers is a con job. And we all know it. A handful of lit-mags have sent me pre-designed teaser jpegs - - which I will improve in PhotoShop & then post. However, most journals don't even bother to do that. And when a lit-mag is published on Lulu or ISSUU, you won't even be able to get a dedicated link that goes straight to your piece. Noticing that few people click through, I stopped posting links. Instead I've started pairing my silhouette art with my poem (if it's under 10 lines) - - or an excerpt. [My images always mention the lit-mag + issue.] These striking visuals have been getting more engagement. I'll post a link to one of these - - just added to my Blue Sky news feed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . a picture's worth 1,000 words . . . . . . . . . . . https://bsky.app/profile/ghostlyverse.bsky.social/post/3lrxaazro7k25
I think you hit the nail on the head. Self-promotion is invaluable. I like what you're doing with your poems. We have to self-promote because we can't often count on publishers for promotion. And I get it, promotion is work and who wants to do that. I'm currently drafting a separate article about self-promotion. I hope it finds a home within the next few months.
Daniel, I just began a pilot program for helping authors get discovered. It's self-promotion meets the village! The gist of it is: a group gets together and does erasure poems from the same new book. I've been asked to write a craft piece on this - - and I will when we have gone a little further. Meanwhile, to show you how it works, I will post a link to my erasure from a debut novel by Bruce Buchanan . . . . my erasure by itself, then the erasure with my charcoal drawing . . . . . . . . . . . . https://x.com/Mae_Westside/status/1934780192309862839
I've never liked ISSUU or similar. Seems like the work is too buried under a mountain of clicks. They look nice, sure, but for my part, I don't want fancy page transitions and the rest of it. The web is not a print magazine and the attempt to emulate one just makes it harder to actually read the work.
Yes, the individual pieces can be very hard to find - - except by your most dedicated fans. EXPOSURE? I don't think so, Victor. * * * * * RE: "clicks" - - I've posted my attractive video-poems on social media with links to my YouTube channel & Y.T.'s metrics will tell me if anyone visited. That's how I discovered that "likes" on social media do not mean anyone actually clicked and visited the video-poem on YouTube. And "likes" don't even mean someone READ my writing. *************** Sample link on my channel: https://youtu.be/rFTwFpBIGnE?si=l14Yr7xWdla_S-IU
At Micomance, I'm always transparent, giving monthly updates as to traffic stats, subscriber numbers, average post reads, etc. You have to... It not only highlights the success of the lit mag, but builds trust and rapport with the readers and contributors...
I also make it a point to promote the magazine and its contributors all across social media and in newsletters. Admittedly, I have slacked a bit on it, but I am working to bring back featuring pieces and writers in various ways and places. There'd be no Micromance without the contributors submitting their hearts and souls... They deserve all the props and credit... And the readers are pretty awesome, too, and, in every "FROM the Editor" newsletter I send, I always thank both readers and submitters for their continued support of Micromance (and now KissMet Quarterly)...
As someone who submits, reads, and supports lit mags with a mix of hope, curiosity, and occasional bewilderment,.... I found your framing of transparency, promotion, and design not just pragmatic, but refreshingly empathetic. Thanks.
Thank you for the kind words.
We do a yearly post on this very subject for this very reason!
https://www.afterdinnerconversation.com/news/2024-end-of-year-summary-from-the-after-dinner-conversation-editor-kolby-granville
That's really cool. Thanks for sharing.
I have long thought it less than balanced that many lit mags want unpublished work yet never share numbers about their readership, so yes, submitting to most is like a shot in the dark. I once asked the editor of Impspired, Steve Cawte [who, as many here know, tragically passed away when his transplanted heart failed] how the online readership compared with his very impressive print issues. Being a very truthful man, he told me the lit mag got about 5,000 viewers a month but when a new issue came out, that would double to 10k--but the print issue sold [alas] only about 100 copies, and that probably to its published writers.
Now these seem like realistic numbers, and I imagine better than many lit mags have done-- but then, we'll never know, will we? I wouldn't mind so much if editors would just value QUALITY over virginity....
R.I.P. Steve Cawte
I think simple "how many clicks" data are highly misleading because of the presence of bots and spammers. Think of how much of one's own email is spam, and how meaningful a statistic of "how many emails I received per day/month/year", would be? What really counts is how many connections are held long enough to have actually read something. I'm not a web coder, so I can't comment on how this can be done or how accurate it is. But Medium does it, so apparently it's possible.
Gary, my YouTube video-poetry channel has metrics and offers an analysis that includes (a.) how many minutes the person watched one poem-video; (b.) what country the viewer came from; (c.) moments that were re-played; and more. There are metrics for Book Funnels, mailing list promotions, etc. Thanks to these tools, I know the "open rate" of my promotions, I know that 168 people bought a certain poetry book of mine before its release date, and much more. Investing in metrics is worth it, in my opinion.
You are forgetting another stat that all litmags should share, what % of the things they publish come from submissions vs solicitations of authors. Why submit to a magazine that SAYS they take whatever comes in the door, but in reality 90% of what they publish are from name authors they have reached out to and requested a piece from?
ChillSubs now requests litmags provide this info on their profile, but most refuse to do so.
Well, of course "most refuse to do so." It would reveal what's going on backstage. LOL