Bren MacDibble alerted me on Facebook to some grumblings about HarperCollins’ Authonomy site.
Authonomy participant, Alexander McNabb, fought his way to a top 5 ranking on the site, spurred on by the promise that each month HarperCollins would read the Top 5 ranked manuscripts. What he got was not what he expected.
But the HC review of my book (next to the gold star on the book page) was slapdash and odd. And many other writers who’d got to the top of the ‘greasy pole’, as some called it, got the same feeling. Now, over 25 chart-topping reviews, five months, into the exercise, HC has not asked for ONE full read from a writer whose book reached the top, let alone taken anything further to any degree.
Yesterday, HC sent me a note offering me the chance to put my books up as POD (Print on Demand or Publish on Demand) books on authonomy. Soon, according to the email, all books on authonomy will be available as POD books but for now only ‘a few early adopters’ have been offered the opportunity – and a ‘gift’ of the first 10 books free.
For those who’ve not discovered it yet, Authonomy is HarperCollins UK’s social networking experiment for authors. Authors can upload all or part of their manuscripts to an online community. The best ranked submissions, based on the community’s votes, are read by HarperCollins editors. Members also have chance to converse and swap critical feedback.
I’m not a member of Authonomy and am certainly not in a position to judge whether Alexander’s account is accurate. But regardless of whether HC editors are reading full manuscripts or not, the move toward POD sales of members’ books is disquieting.
My best friend‘s favourite adage is “It’s all about managing expectations.” HarperCollins have clearly encouraged certain expectations among aspiring authors flocking to the site. Authonomy’s tag line is “Beat the Slush” which holds out to authors the promise of catching the attention of publishers who are seeking fresh new talent. In the original media release that accompanied the announcement of Authonomy, HarperCollins stated:
For aspiring authors the site is both a new route to publication with a leading publishing house and a genuine base from which to build a long-term following online.
Authonomy also reinforced this expectation on the site itself, both in the FAQs and in its own “HarperCollins response” thread on the forum:
We thought this would be obvious, but perhaps we need to spell this one out: Our editors _do_ browse the site looking for manuscripts that meet their requirements and if we like something we follow up directly. (To pre-empt the sceptical who seem to doubt everything we say – yes, we’re in dialogue with a number of authors from authonomy).
HarperCollins have at no point promised any author any outcome at all, other than to read the most popular content posted to the site. But all of these messages create a very strong expectation: that Authonomy was set up as a pathway to publication for aspiring authors.
If it’s true HarperCollins will now be offering members the opportunity to sell their work to the community via print on demand (presumably for a fee, or by ceding some rights and sales revenue), members would be justified in feeling their expectations have been betrayed. Many Authonomy members have posted their own reactions on the site’s forums. Here are a few:
“Authonomy has moved from potentially innovative to concretely exploitative.” Richard P-S
“Slow-moving slush pile is one thing… but captive market and preying on our desires to be published is another thing. It’s just cruel. Lulu already exists… and at least you know what you’re doing when you sign in there.” macdibble
“If I wanted to POD, I’d have gone (as I think Diane said) to Lulu by now. I don’t. I thought that, no, was led to believe that authonomy was a genuine effort to create a peer-reviewed, community based filter for publishable writing. And by publishable, I don’t mean POD.” alexander
I will emphasise not all responses from Authonomy users on the forums are negative ones. For balance, I recommend you read through the threads yourself to assess what the reaction has been, but to me it appears the majority of users (at least those bothering to voice their thoughts on the forum) are feeling misled.
At the heart of this anger and disquiet in the Authonomy membership is HarperCollins’ failure to understand online communities. Authonomy has all the trendy social networking bells and whistles. It’s got well-trafficked discussion boards and user-generated content. But social networking platforms at their most vibrant cede control to the community, they don’t (in fact can’t) hoard it for the platform developer. (Which is why Facebook is having trouble monetising itself) Authonomy users came to the site because of an expectation they were sold by HarperCollins. Having built up a successful community, those users don’t now wish to be told by HarperCollins to do or be something else especially when it’s transparently about making money for HarperCollins. Or, as put by an Authonomy member:
‘Hidden agenda’? How about a rollout plan that hasn’t been shared – an intent to create a site in phases without sharing with, or consulting, the people that populate that site? How about misrepresenting the site to those people as you do your rollout? What does that make you? alexander
I wonder what HarperCollins’ answer will be?
Get emails in your inbox
17 comments
Comments feed for this article
16 January, 2009 at 5:52 pm
Paul Squires
Their answer will be interesting. My friend Narnie joined up very early on but got out very quickly too. I haven’t heard any good reports about it only disappointment. These kind of experiments by publishers will keep happening while they desperately try to figure out what to do about the internet.
16 January, 2009 at 11:07 pm
Diane Oliver
Excellent post.
The community issue is at the heart of my disquiet about this issue.
~Diane.
16 January, 2009 at 11:08 pm
Diane Oliver
read: “whole thing” for second “issue.
Sigh.
17 January, 2009 at 2:00 am
JeremiahTolbert.com » Blog Archive » links for 2009-01-16
[...] Is Authonomy authentic? « Electric Alphabet big surprise, HarperCollins SN "Authonomy" turns out to be a pile of shit. (tags: writing publishing socialnetworking) [...]
17 January, 2009 at 3:29 am
Lee
I joined Authonomy for one purpose only: to have another publicity outlet for my online fiction. From the outset I had no interest in their so-called business model – and made it clear that I wasn’t after any sort of conventional publishing. With 50-100 downloads of my YA fantasy MORTAL GHOST per day, why should I be?
The idea of a writers’ community is anathema to me. I do my own writing, my own editing, and my own publishing. And reading is not a communal experience, but an intensely personal one!
I feel rather sorry for those writers who were hoping desperately to ‘make it’ in this way. Better they concentrate on what writing is all about, not publishing.
17 January, 2009 at 6:07 am
pete
I am an autho member, currently ranked #2 – and Alex is a mate (autho-related) whose opinion I respect, but I come down on the exact opposite side on this.
I find nothing in the way Authonomy has presented itself that is dishonest. If anyone read “Beat the Slush” and concluded that this was the quick way to get noticed, shame on them. If that’s false advertising, then so is “NEW! IMPROVED!!”
It is true that HC editors comb the site – one of my fellow authors was contacted directly and asked to submit a complete manuscript (her book was ranked in the high teens, I think). If she was the only one of the 3000 over the course of a few months, I’d guess (wildly at that) the site is running at approximately the same rate as the paper world.
Dianne’s post (linking Alex’s blog) is now running to 60 pages, with maybe 40 of Authonomy’s hundreds of regular members weighing in. There’s certainly no groundswell of outrage – although people with strong feelings are always heard, it’s probably running 50-50. Healthy democracy, it seems.
The rest of us, if we read it at all, shrug and go on doing what we’ve been doing – which in my case is just what I went there for: having fun, reading and critting, improving my book, and hanging out with some first-class people from all over the world.
17 January, 2009 at 6:10 am
Diary of a Small Fish
Shame on me for not self-promoting.
17 January, 2009 at 6:35 am
Lee
Pete, the only real satisfaction for me is in writing well, then writing better. Though I do check my blog stats, and obviously undertake a certain amount of self-promotion – though less and less – I spend most of my time writing and reading, reading and writing. Neither popularity nor ranking nor publishing contracts nor earnings have much to do with the way I measure success. I don’t disdain those who have other criteria; it’s just not my way.
17 January, 2009 at 8:26 am
Narnie
I was invited to the site when it was still in development and the expectation was high at that time. Unfortunately, once opened to all, it quickly became another experiment in social networking rather than the quality of the writing. I quite simply do not have the time for that kind of grasping at heartstrings. The one thing that irks – really irks – is that these websites seem geared for writers to judge writers. What writers need is readers. Isn’t it just that obvious? Not only that but the requirement to publish *at least* the first 10,000 words of your manuscript was completely undermining your ability to extract your work untainted by ‘previously published’ restraints for bigger and better opportunities. Luckily, the disappointment in the whole Authonomy fiasco was enough to send me rampantly hunting for more valid opportunities and my book was under contract for publishing within a month and was released a few weeks ago.
I would never discourage people joining such sites but I would certainly urge people to be wary of high expectations.
17 January, 2009 at 8:19 pm
Lee
Narnie, very sensible advice, even I myself have no intention of running about querying agents or publishers. Anyone who wants to make use of my work should be querying me!
18 January, 2009 at 12:39 am
Diary of a Small Fish
Lee, all fine points, and good on ya – but the question raised is whether Authonomy has misrepresented itself to aspiring writers.
Maybe it’s just the lawyer in me, but I simply do not feel that my expectations were manipulated in any fashion – and it seems to me that anyone who feels manipulated has only himself to look at.
We’ve discussed (argued, really) internally about how rankings are figured, how people vote for other people’s stuff, etc etc – all perfectly valid issues that could be addressed if the purpose of the experiment is really to identify top-quality work (e.g., BLIND, sliding scale voting like YWO). HC may or may not ever take the arguments into account, it’s their prerogative.
As for the idea that “it’s all about the writing,” that’s fantastic, if you’re engaged in a meaningful hobby. It’s not all about being “published.”
18 January, 2009 at 12:49 am
Lee
Sorry, Pete, but what I do is not a hobby. I’m dead serious about my work, which is writing. I work at it full-time, more than full-time in fact (which is one reason I don’t have time for its forums). And I am published – just not in the way you choose to define it.
I’ve never claimed HC is misleading people. Those who go to what amounts to a social networking site for advice about writing have only themselves to look to. My point is that they’d spend their time much more fruitfully in writing and reading.
18 January, 2009 at 9:58 am
macdibble
Yes, Paul, it really does feel like “experiments by publishers… while they desperately try to figure out what to do about the internet”.
It feels like HC thought a potential gravy boat was passing them by so they leapt hastily onto it without giving much thought to were they were going originally or even where they’re going now.
22 January, 2009 at 4:18 am
Authonomy Contracts Three Books From Members « Eoin Purcell’s Blog
[...] me down I have to say I saw this coming. After some recent bad press on POD issues, Authonomy issued an e-mail informing the community that they have [...]
11 February, 2009 at 10:58 pm
Philippa Rees
I have been an Authonomy member for six months. Initially I did believe that genuine peer review would raise the profile of two books uploaded. Now it is clear that only non-writers, or writers on sabbatical have the time to do enough pushing, networking, book exchange reading to ascend to the editors desk.
Having accepted that I am not one of them I still maintain that selected and selective reading friends are worth finding, if only to maintain some self belief to keep on going. It is no way a means of finding a publisher or agent, but providing expectations are moderate, there are still good things to find, and some disappointing ones…like reading the work of others cover to cover only to find the recipient of comprehensive critiques don’t even dip into your work at all. But that’s life
21 February, 2009 at 5:05 am
Authonomy: Good Or Bad « Eoin Purcell’s Blog
[...] some discussion, some of it on these pages (seems an odd yet apt expression) by guest-bloggers and much, much,more of it out in the wider blogosphere, about Authonomy. Given that much of the comment has [...]
15 March, 2009 at 4:02 am
Lexi Revellian
Philippa, your comment, ‘Now it is clear that only non-writers, or writers on sabbatical have the time to do enough pushing, networking, book exchange reading to ascend to the editors desk’ is untrue.
My third novel, Catch a Falling Star, is currently in the top five on Authonomy. I started writing it in June 2008, a month after I joined the site to load my first two books. I am now writing the final chapter.
In this period I have also been earning my living.
I am active on the site, but seldom comment on more than one book a day. I don’t do swap reads, nor do I plug my book much. You could say I’ve benefitted from being on Authonomy a long time, and I’m sure that’s true. But newer members have shown it’s not just that. Laura Jarratt’s book, Freefalling, loaded at the end of January, is a good example of an excellent book rising fast through sheer merit. It’s currently at fourteen on the Editor’s Desk chart.