I would send them a turd and a lighter. They can do the rest of the work themselves.
I am not happy. I already pay $12/mo for IMDBpro -- which imo, is actually worth it, because if I get work through there, I get can get paid like 10 grand, as opposed to $5.00 for a short story publication. The good news is I only send out cover letters to publishers about once every six months or so, so I wouldn't mind paying for a one-off month. (I suppose that screws with the submission tracker though -- how does that work when the submission runs out? It just locks you out of your account?)
do what i did -- go in and make a favorites list of the sites that would accept your work. do it fast, you have what, a month? then you have those sites (and their affiliates) and no need for duotrope. i think i'm on the E's of their alpha list. time to get busy.
Lucy-MerrimanFeatured By OwnerDec 1, 2012Student General Artist
Oh for the love of balls.
Guess I'm going back to Writer's Market. Which, by the way, is free at the library, even if it is, you know, a book. And I guess New Pages isn't that bad.
But Duotrope is so nice, and I was only just figuring out how to use their search tools in a non-stupid way. And the email updates! Oh well .
Look, why don't they just do the dA model? Put really annoying ads on the site, and then people will subscribe to make them stop? I mean, that's why I subscribe here. Or the tumblr model, where the main services are free, and then "bonus" services are pay-as-you-go?
I guess I'd send them a mirror so they could look at their life, look at their choices. And then, you know, some Great Lakes Christmas Ale, because I don't want them to feel too bad, and 'tis the season after all.
The problem with annoying advertisements is that nearly everyone knows how to use an adblocker these days. That was my first thought, too, but it's not something that would be effective in practice. Sadly.
Yeah, special bonus content is where I think it has to go. I can't even remember why I subscribe to dA now, except that I never pay for my own memberships and it feels really weird without it.
This is true. But Facebook has an insanely large membership compared to Duotrope, many of whom won't be as tech-savvy and capable of adblocking as your average social media infused writer. Don't get me wrong, I still think it'd be way better than this. But I can definitely predict their arguments against it.
I *have* given to duotrope. Usually I give a few times a year, when I actually have a bit of money. Which is almost never. I can barely afford my subscription to Publisher's Marketplace, and if I have to choose between the two, I'm choosing PM, even though it's more expensive. It has information I can't get anywhere else.
Duotrope, unfortunately, does not have information I can't get anywhere else, other than the stats, and like Zebra said, if they go subscription only, those are going to be ridiculously skewed.
I think they SHOULD charge something if it's what they need to keep the site going. But I think it should be more like, if you pay, you get extras. If you don't, you get fewer cool features. Mags/People who pay could, say, do a detailed search, list themes and deadlines, check out editor interviews etc. Mags/People who don't pay can look at bare bones stats, report their subs, etc.
Two things I would give duotrope: a social media expert, because they're going to need it to deal with the influx of "@Duotrope NOOOOOOES" and a kitten because I love them even though they're being silly right now.
It's 20 dollars a month and it provides insight into books that are being sold, by whom (agented or by the author), to whom (pubishers), when, rights and subrights, etc. I wouldn't recommend it unless you're already in the process of looking for an agent/publisher, because otherwise the information isn't terribly useful.
Here's where I stand. I've contributed to Duotrope in the past--not much, but I have. And I always felt that it was a service that I'd be glad to pay for, since I use it every single day and can't imagine working without it. So from that point of view, I don't really mind it going paid.
$50 is a dangerous amount to set it at, given that basically nothing is going to remain free. I'd pay $20 or even $25 happily; I will pay $50 unhappily. But what really scares me is the potential for that to scare off the vast majority of the user base, thereby fucking up the stats which make the service worth using.
It also seems strange to move straight to a model like this without considering other avenues (of course, perhaps they have and just didn't tell us about it.) There's a petition going around asking Duotrope to charge markets rather than users; I don't think this is an ideal solution either, but I do think charging both markets and users less and making the same amount of money is a much better start. Or leave basics such as the submission tracker and charge for premium services, as other people have suggested. Editor interviews are definitely something that could go paid.
Anyway, for now this is all conjecture. I'll cough up my $50 on the 1st, but if the quality of the stats start dropping I will be the first to leave inna drove. And then I'll stop submitting to magazines, because fuck knows how to find them anywhere else.
Two things I would give Duotrope: a marketing executive, to sort this mess out, and a raincoat, to protect them from all the shit that's about to come their way.
Initially I found myself wishing that I'd taken the opportunity to send my work to more places before now, but seeing that they won't even let non-subscribers use their submissions tracker, I'm almost glad I didn't. I'll be sure to jot down a note of when I sent what before this comes into effect, though.
I guess I would send Duotrope a crisp sheet of printer paper and half a lemon. They'd know what to do.