You are viewing oldcharliebrown

oldcharliebrown - 2008 Analysis: Top Fantasy/SF Markets, and New Authors [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]
oldcharliebrown

[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ archive | journal archive ]

2008 Analysis: Top Fantasy/SF Markets, and New Authors [Mar. 19th, 2009|01:09 pm]
Previous Entry Share Next Entry
F&SF: 5%
Analog: 5%
Asimov's: 20%
Baen's Universe: 21%
Intergalactic Medicine Show: 32%
Interzone: 40%
Realms of Fantasy: 51%
Clarkesworld: 61%
Strange Horizons: 68%
Weird Tales: 72%
Chizine: 78%
Cosmos: 80%
Fantasy Magazine: 88%

I offer no great conclusions with these results . . . apart that FM might have too many "new" authors. In any case, business models are different between magazines, and "new" authors might not be a part of that model. For those that care, the initial basis for "new" was applying Campbell eligibility structure, as a starting point, and anyone exceeding that was no longer considered "new." This seemed the easiest, simpliest way to break this down. If anyone has any questions please let me know.
LinkReply

Comments:
[User Picture]From: shsilver
2009-03-19 05:29 pm (UTC)

(Link)

FM=?
[User Picture]From: pabba
2009-03-19 05:31 pm (UTC)

(Link)

Fantasy Magazine.
From: raebryant
2009-03-19 05:29 pm (UTC)

(Link)

Something tells me that the 2009 stats will be different.
[User Picture]From: catrambo
2009-03-19 05:34 pm (UTC)

(Link)

I suspect the Fantasy Magazine numbers will shift a bit more in the coming year -- I've taken advantage of the rate increase to press some of my favorite "name" writers for stories, and look forward to prodding some of my other favorites at upcoming cons and events.

Some of YOU PEOPLE have promised me stories and then not delivered. I'm looking at you, Paul Park. :p
[User Picture]From: mroctober
2009-03-19 06:03 pm (UTC)

(Link)

I outta send Sean somethin'...
[User Picture]From: oldcharliebrown
2009-03-19 06:10 pm (UTC)

(Link)

I can be very persuasive . . .
[User Picture]From: ken_schneyer
2009-03-19 06:12 pm (UTC)

(Link)

Interesting stats -- how did you get them?

Also an interesting choice of "top ten." Myself, I'm not sure I'd've included IGMS (yet), and I probably would have added Subterranean and/or Postscripts.
[User Picture]From: oldcharliebrown
2009-03-19 07:03 pm (UTC)

(Link)

I included most markets that were generally SFWA-qualified, but open. Neither Subterranean nor Postscripts are open markets. As such they could not be considered.
[User Picture]From: ken_schneyer
2009-03-19 07:17 pm (UTC)

(Link)

Here's a chance to educate me, if you have the time. What do you mean by an "open" market? Pretty much anyone can write to Postscripts with a query. (Of course, Postscripts isn't on the SFWA list anymore, so it could be disqualified that way -- but I still want to know what "open" means.)

And Interzone isn't on the SFWA list, is it?
(Deleted comment)
[User Picture]From: ken_schneyer
2009-03-19 07:43 pm (UTC)

(Link)

I agree entirely about the quality of Interzone -- a smashing publication. But you stated a precise definition above, and I was testing how robust it was.

So, methodologically, you went to each issue of a given mag for 2008, wrote down the names of the writers, and checked it against the qualifying list on Writertopia? There are a lot of new writers who don't wind up on the Writeropia list because no one adds them. (They qualify for the list technically, but Bill tends to be more passive than active in this regard.)
[User Picture]From: oldcharliebrown
2009-03-19 08:33 pm (UTC)

(Link)

I did, but if they weren't listed there I also went to their websites, whenever possible. If they had professional sales before the Campbell Award existed, then they weren't new. I did as much background research to confirm that authors were indeed "new."
[User Picture]From: oldcharliebrown
2009-03-19 08:38 pm (UTC)

(Link)

To me an "open market" is open submissions, without any need for a query, so I saw no reason to include Postscripts. (Ignoring for the fact that most people treat it as an anthology, a fact that they acknowledged recently, by labelling, finally, as an anthology series). I did include Interzone because it is considered a top market, by Locus; and I included Weird Tales for the same reason. If there are markets I missed out, this is the opportunity for other people to indicate, publicly, what their breakdowns are. I'm just one guy, after all :-)
[User Picture]From: tchernabyelo
2009-03-19 06:20 pm (UTC)

(Link)

What does "new" author mean in this context? First sale to that market? First pro sale? First paying sale?
[User Picture]From: james_nicoll
2009-03-19 07:01 pm (UTC)

(Link)

May I quote this (with the definition of new writer specified) over on rasfw?
[User Picture]From: oldcharliebrown
2009-03-19 07:01 pm (UTC)

(Link)

Sure!
[User Picture]From: james_nicoll
2009-03-19 07:03 pm (UTC)

(Link)

I wonder what those figures look like over time....
[User Picture]From: oldcharliebrown
2009-03-19 07:06 pm (UTC)

(Link)

I do have a life . . . and a wife . . . and would like to keep both, please :p
[User Picture]From: wendigomountain
2009-03-19 07:04 pm (UTC)

(Link)

You know, I wonder if I like Fantasy Magazine for exactly this reason. New writers. New voices. A totally fresh perspective on SF that gets neglected when other magazines (and they know who they are) just keep pushing the same ten author's trunk stories issue by issue.

If it wasn't for Fantasy Magazine, I might not have ever learned about a number of folks who are now considered to be up and coming writers in the field.

Please, just keep buying the really good stuff, regardless of them being a name or not.
[User Picture]From: selfavowedgeek
2009-03-19 08:22 pm (UTC)

(Link)

Quality, variety, and openness to new writers all drew me in both as a reader and a writer.

Just sayin'.
[User Picture]From: melissajm
2009-03-19 09:20 pm (UTC)

(Link)

I've discovered some really good writers through them.
[User Picture]From: jsridler
2009-03-19 10:21 pm (UTC)

(Link)

Where did the data come from? Just curious, from a research POV.

JSR
[User Picture]From: oldcharliebrown
2009-03-20 01:40 pm (UTC)

(Link)

From table of contents derived from databases, or The Fix Online, and then the authors were quickly compared against the Campbell eligibility years, and then researched, with google.
[User Picture]From: jsridler
2009-03-20 01:42 pm (UTC)

(Link)

Neat. Thanks for sharing.

JSR
[User Picture]From: bluetyson
2009-03-20 03:32 am (UTC)

(Link)

Interesting, thanks.
[User Picture]From: shweta_narayan
2009-03-20 09:59 am (UTC)

(Link)

My favourite four of those magazines:
Strange Horizons, Fantasy, Realms of Fantasy, Clarkesworld. I suspect I'd love Weird Tales and Chizine if I could handle the level of dark; as is, I have some trouble with them (though not more trouble than they are worth).

So that's... the top six "new-author" magazines, by your research.
I think that's interesting.