# Say No to "No Sim. Subs"



## Kyle R

The modern fiction market is a grueling arena, where ambitious writers battle each other, unseen, wading through heaps of rejection slips in search of that coveted acceptance letter, and the paycheck that comes with it. 

As if things aren't hard enough, even in today's fiction market, a lot of publications still believe they have a right to tell authors, "No Simultaneous Submissions." As in, "You can submit to us, but once you do, you are not allowed to submit your piece to any other publication for consideration." 

For a long time, I followed these demands to the letter, believing that I, as the writer, had to bend to the will of the great publication editors. They were, after all, the professionals here.

But after months of submissions and correspondence with first readers and editors, my perspective began to change. I realized: we, the writers, are as much professionals as the staff on any publication. Without writers, publications don't have a product. Without publications, writers don't have an audience.

Together, publications and authors function as potential business partners, each with their own leverage and creative rights.

Now, when it comes to a potential publication making demands on a writer, before even entering a contractual agreement, this is how I see it: unless the publication is paying you for exclusive access to your work, they do not have any right to tell you what to do with your own product.

They don't get to own your work just because you've submitted it for their consideration. You're entitled to continue to shop it around to whatever buyers are interested in the meantime. 

We writers have bills to pay, too.

Imagine you're selling a car. 







You put out the ad, "Car for sale!", and a prospective buyer calls. "I'm interested in purchasing your car," the buyer says.

"Great!" you say, "when would you like to come see it?"

"Well, there are other cars I'm looking at, too," the buyer says, "so I can't set up an exact date yet. But I'll consider it within the next month. Three months at the latest."

"Okay..." you say, "but I may end up selling it to someone else, by then."

"Oh, no, you can't do that," the buyer replies. "I'm considering it, along with a bunch of other cars. That means your car, and all the other cars I'm considering buying, can no longer be advertised for sale."

"What?" you say. "That's absurd."

"No," the buyer says, "if you want me to consider buying your car, then only *I* am allowed to buy it. Nobody else can even *look* at it! You must wait while I make my decision, however long that takes. Then, if I decide I don't want to buy your car, _I'll_ allow _you_ to put it back up for sale for others to consider."

I don't know about you, but by this point, I'd have hung up the phone.

I can understand the argument from editors against simultaneous submissions. It can definitely be frustrating to go through an extensive review process, agree on a piece that the staff loves and wants to buy, only to find the author withdrawing because the work has sold elsewhere.

Any amount of time lost is aggravating, especially in the business world, where time is money.

However, it works both ways. A writer's time is money, too. 







As frustrating as it may be for editors to lose a piece to another market, publications need to recognize that a lot of writers rely on their work to help pay the bills.

To publications that dislike losing writers to other markets—learn to accelerate your process. Writing is a business, and competition is part of the market. 

If we, the writers, have to compete with other writers to secure the best publication, it's only fair that the publishers should have to compete with other publishers to secure the best writers.

If the publication is too slow to consider a piece, they should accept the risk of losing the sale to another publisher who's more eager to buy. They should not demand exclusive access to a writer's work.

But, that's just the way I see it. My perspective may be controversial, and many writers will definitely disagree with it, but in the meantime I'll continue to ignore any "No Simultaneous Submission" demands and submit my work to whatever markets I wish. I'm not going sit around waiting to hear back from a single market just because they told me to, not when my work is ripe for a bidding war. 

Life is short, time is money, and we should have the freedom to search for buyers of our work without being told otherwise.







:encouragement:


----------



## Deleted member 49710

I agree with you in principle, really. But I think what you're missing here is that it's really a buyer's market for magazines on the high end, which tend to be the ones with a no sim-subs policy. Take, for example, the _New Yorker._ No sim-subs, 90 day response time, and you have about a chicken's chance in a McNugget factory. It's like playing the lottery, basically--fun to hope but don't bank on it. You can choose to take your product elsewhere and sell it to someone else, absolutely--but does the _New Yorker_ care? Nah, they don't have to; your story might be great, but they've got work from Haruki Murakami and Jennifer Egan sitting on their desks so they're gonna be fine either way. It's up to you whether you want to play their lottery or not.

But if they say, "Wow, what a great story--sorry Haruki, sorry Jen, we're gonna run Kyle's story instead" and your story's not actually available? They will care.

Personally, I wouldn't send work to a market with a long response time (say, over six months) and no sim-subs unless I felt _really_ good about my chances of getting in. But I wouldn't just ignore their policy and sub to them and others, either.


----------



## J.T. Chris

Most markets understand this and state in their guidelines they accept sim subs as long as you notify them if it's been accepted elsewhere.  It seems to be getting pretty common with a lot of them.


----------



## shadowwalker

Very few pubs have this no-simsub any more, but I'd still consider them. While they start out at the bottom of my to-send list, payment, prestige, and response time all play a part in the final decision.


----------



## WechtleinUns

Hmm... interesting thought process, Kyle. Although, it seems like there is so much writing out there these days. Anyone wanting to get recognized has to go above and way beyond the normal skill set threshold. Still, I might follow your advice.


----------



## T.S.Bowman

I don't care if my work is above average or not. I won't be told by someone that I can't have someone else taking a look at my work unless they are gonna put in writing that they are definitely going to be buying it. 

No business has the right to demand exclusivity  when there is nothing in return for it.  Now, if they had a written contract that demanded it, it might be different. But I'm not very likely to sign a contract such as that anyway.


----------



## Caragula

I wonder if it's possible to state, with your submission, that there's a period you'd give them to consider it, after which you'll be submitting elsewhere.  Sort of a halfway house?  Presumably these clauses are because they get so many applications and they want some time to read them all?


----------



## shadowwalker

Caragula said:


> I wonder if it's possible to state, with your submission, that there's a period you'd give them to consider it, after which you'll be submitting elsewhere.  Sort of a halfway house?  Presumably these clauses are because they get so many applications and they want some time to read them all?



I don't think I'd give them a 'due date', but no harm in giving yourself one. If you decide to submit despite the no-simsub, set a date and if you haven't heard back, go ahead and start submitting to others. But I'd let them know you're withdrawing it, just so you don't burn any bridges.

As to why some have these, I think it's mainly because they don't want to spend time reading something, discussing it with others, and then putting out an offer only to find it's already been accepted elsewhere. Magazines like the New Yorker probably get thousands of submissions, so I can see not wanting to keep track of which ms was accepted elsewhere and which is still 'available' - easier and less costly just to require that all stay 'available'. Book publishers - same reason if they're accepting unsolicited ms. But if they require an agent, then I really can't see any reason for it, because then it's up to the agent to keep track of it - and the agent's reputation on the line.


----------



## krishan

Some magazines only wish to consider things which have been sent exclusively to them. If you do not wish to send your work exclusively to one particular market, why not send it to other markets instead?

_Strange Horizons_ has a short article on their website about why they ask not to be sent simultaneous submissions. It concludes with this:



> If you object to a magazine's guidelines, you should refrain from  submitting to it. There are venues that consider simultaneous subs; if  you feel strongly that you should be allowed to submit simultaneously,  then you should restrict your submissions to those venues.



They don't demand that you do anything with your work. But they do ask that you only offer _them_ work under certain conditions. I think their conditions are reasonable ones, and if I did not, I would simply not send them my writing.


----------



## Kyle R

Dear _Editor who does not accept simultaneous submissions_,

If you, the publisher, demand exclusive access to my work, then I, the writer, demand exclusive access to your staff.

I consider this statement both fair and impartial. You, of course, have complete freedom to decline such a request.

However, if you, the publisher, will not grant me exclusive access to your staff (if your staff will continue to consider multiple pieces alongside my own), then I, the writer, will not grant you exclusive access to my work (I will continue to consider multiple publications alongside your own).

Sincerely,

_Writer who is trying to make a living_


----------



## T.S.Bowman

From the link 


> Note that we can't consider multiple submissions or simultaneous  submissions. So please don't send us another story until we accept or  reject this one, and don't submit this story anywhere else until we  accept or reject it. If this story is currently under consideration  elsewhere, let us know immediately.



I don't believe that I would be under any obligation to tell them ahead of time if my work is being considered by companies other than just them. I would be more than happy to let them know if it gets_ accepted_ elsewhere. But until/unless it is, explain to me exactly how they would know unless you told them.

I can understand the not wanting to burn bridges with any publisher. But why do they think they retain the right to limit my ability to sell my work? They are a free enterprise business are they not? What gives them the authority to keep ME from being one?

The whole idea of "It's ours until we say it isn't" is ridiculous at it's very core.

Another bit


> It likely sits in our First Reader queue for a week or two. Then one  of our First Readers reads it, and they pass it along to us editors. It  sits in our queue for another week or two until one of us reads it and  passes it along to the other two editors. We read it, we consider it, we  re-read it, we talk about it in our weekly phone meetings, we weigh it  against other stories. We finally decide whether we want to buy it.  After we make that decision, it often takes us up to a couple more weeks  to send the acceptance or rejection, for a variety of reasons.
> It's now probably about six weeks after you submitted. Let's say we  liked your story enough to buy it. We send you an acceptance letter—
> And you tell us, "Oh, sorry, I actually sold that story somewhere else yesterday."
> We've just wasted a lot of time and energy trying to decide on a story that it turns out isn't available for us to buy.



Then perhaps the onus should be on them to speed up their process a bit. I'm sure a writer would be a whole lot more willing to let them have his work in limbo if it didn't take over a month to have an editor even SEE it in the first place.

During that same six week period, a writer could have 20 other publishers looking at that same piece. That's 20 more opportunities to sell that piece. By their logic, and if all the places you submit to have the same kind of policy, that one piece of work should be held in limbo by publishers for over two years. 

That, again, is utterly ridiculous.


----------



## shadowwalker

T.S.Bowman said:


> I can understand the not wanting to burn bridges with any publisher. But why do they think they retain the right to limit my ability to sell my work? They are a free enterprise business are they not? What gives them the authority to keep ME from being one?



They aren't keeping you from being a free enterprise. If you don't want to submit under their rules, don't. 

I don't like the no sim-sub business, but they are in the minority and there are plenty of other places to go if you don't want to go by their rules. I don't think there's any reason for any of us to get angry or resentful about it. It's like getting angry because one restaurant out of 100 has only tables and you want a booth. You just go to one of the other 99 restaurants that has booths. Right?


----------



## Kyle R

shadowwalker said:


> I don't like the no sim-sub business, but they are in the minority and there are plenty of other places to go if you don't want to go by their rules. I don't think there's any reason for any of us to get angry or resentful about it. It's like getting angry because one restaurant out of 100 has only tables and you want a booth. You just go to one of the other 99 restaurants that has booths. Right?



It depends on the genre.

At least for SFF (Science Fiction and Fantasy), the percentage of SFWA-qualifying short fiction markets that openly accept sim. subs hovers at a meager *10.4%* (only 3 out of 29).

The remaining *89.6%* of the pro-rated SFF market _does not accept_ sim. subs. :grief:


----------



## shadowwalker

KyleColorado said:


> It depends on the genre.
> 
> At least for SFF (Science Fiction and Fantasy), the percentage of SFWA-qualifying short fiction markets that openly accept sim. subs hovers at a meager *10.4%* (only 3 out of 29).
> 
> The remaining *89.6%* of the pro-rated SFF market _does not accept_ sim. subs. :grief:



When you say "openly", do you mean they specifically state they accept them? Because most places will not state that - they will instead state if they do not accept them. Out of the first 11 on the list, 2 were closed, 4 said no, 3 said yes, and 2 said nothing (implying they do).

At any rate, railing against their policies really won't change anything. You can ignore the rules and hope they don't find out; you can play by their rules (which they have a right to); or you can go to other outlets. (Personally, I wouldn't consider non-membership in some organization to mean the publication isn't worthy. There are a lot of good agents who don't belong to AAR, but that doesn't mean they aren't very good.)


----------



## J.T. Chris

I'm not sure why it's that way with the sci-fi markets. I regularly submit to literary venues and have only come across maybe one or two who don't accept simultaneous submissions.


----------



## Terry D

If you want to ignore their guidelines, go ahead and do so. Send your story out to four or five or ten other places. There is no legal requirement for you to abide. You will not be sued. Of course, if burn one of them by selling elsewhere you've also burned a bridge to a potential market. If you think that markets are plentiful enough to throw them away, go ahead.

This isn't like selling cars--you are establishing relationships with editors you may want to submit to again in the future.


----------



## Kyle R

Terry D said:
			
		

> If you want to ignore their guidelines, go ahead and do so. Send your story out to four or five or ten other places. There is no legal requirement for you to abide. You will not be sued. Of course, if burn one of them by selling elsewhere you've also burned a bridge to a potential market. If you think that markets are plentiful enough to throw them away, go ahead.



Well said, Terry.

That's true, the downside of rolling the sim. sub. dice that there _is_ a risk of jading an editor if you withdraw a piece they're interesting in buying because you've found a buyer elsewhere. 

However, if that ever happens, it also means you will have an *acceptance*, and will have begun to build a relationship with another editor—the one who offered you a contract. The added bonus to this is that through this editor there's a possiblity you can now bypass the slush pile by submitting over-the-transom (or through correspondence) with your future works.

In the end, it really comes down to what the writer's priorities are.

Are you willing to wait for one publication to respond before re-submitting, if necessary, to another market, and again, for however long this takes to get an acceptance? Do you have the time? Are you a prolific enough writer that you can churn out multiple pieces for multiple markets? If so, the "no sim. sub." policy is probably no hinderance to you, and you can comfortably abide by such guidelines.

However, if you're a slow writer, or have only a few pieces (or a single piece) that you're looking to sell, expediting the rejection/acceptance process might be a priority for you. If so, you may be best served by ignoring any "no sim. sub." guidelines and sim. subbing anyway, as it is your right to do so.

One of two things will happen if you sim. sub. to no-sim-sub markets:

*1) You'll get rejected from all those markets anyway*, except you'll receive these notices in a fraction of the time. (If each market takes 2 months to reply, and you get rejected 6 times, that will take you *1 year* to receive 6 rejections if submitting one at a time. However, if you sim. sub. to all of them, it will only take you *2 months* to receive all the same responses.)

or

*2) You'll receive an acceptance letter*, in which case you should courteously withdraw your submission from the consideration of other markets. 

I've formally requested a retraction of my work from no-sim-sub markets several times now, and have yet to receive a complaint—nor have I been blacklisted. The responses have been brief and compliant, and, at the worst end of it, one polite request to wait a week before submitting again.

However, if an editor _does_ decide to add your name to their blacklist for selling your piece to another market, that's their decision to make. Yes, this could happen. It's a risk you have to be willing to take.

Fortunately, if such a thing ever does happen, you can take solace in the paycheck and contract you'll have received from the accepting market, as well as the new professional contact you'll have attained in the process—all in a fraction of the time. :encouragement:


----------



## dale

i always submit to the pro-pay zines i want to be in with the quick response times 1st. the ones that respond within a week. 
i go ahead and follow the "no sim subs" rule on these. after that? i completely ignore the "no sim subs" rule on the rest of them.
sorry. i don't have months and months to wait around like that before submitting elsewhere. i've never been stuck in a bind
where 2 different zines wanted a story at the same time anyway, so it hasn't mattered.


----------



## J.T. Chris

Honestly, I had a story accepted by three markets at the same time once. They weren't very prominent nor did they pay me anyway and one of them is defunct now. The markets are evidently so obscure that neither of them have heard of one another; I haven't been blacklisted from anything yet. 

The only downside is I probably could have made some money off of that story too, but I blew First Rights by submitting to non-paying mags, so that was the last time I ever submitted work for free. Taught me a good lesson.

Now, I doubt you will get away with something like that if you have the same story published by _The New Yorker _and _The Atlantic_. But some guy running an ezine out of his basement? Go ahead and sim sub.


----------



## Kyle R

J.T. Chris said:
			
		

> that was the last time I ever submitted work for free. Taught me a good lesson.


I agree—aim for paying markets. If you can do something you enjoy well enough to make money at it, why not get paid to do it? 

Or, as Heath Ledger's _The Joker_​ said in _The Dark Knight_: "If you're good at something, never do it for free." :encouragement:



			
				dale said:
			
		

> i don't have months and months to wait around like that before submitting elsewhere.


I feel the same way.

_Buzzy Mag_ took 63 days to send me... a form rejection.

_Asimov's_ took 78 days to get back to me... with a form rejection.

Thankfully, _Buzzy Mag_ is one of the few pro SFF markets that accepts sim subs. _Asimov's_, however, does not. (I sim subbed anyway. )

I mention the form rejections because some authors believe that, by abiding by any no-sim-sub policies, they can get feedback and learn from editor comments with their rejections. "Yeah, I may have to wait a while by submitting to one pro market at a time, but at least if I get rejected, I'll learn how to improve my story!"

Sorry, chances are—you won't. Not in my experience, at least. You'll just wait several months for an automated rejection.

The benefits of abiding by no-sim-sub policies extend only to the editors. It makes their jobs easier, assuring them that they don't have to worry about your story being sold elsewhere.


At this point, I agree with what Jessica, a literary agent over at BookEnds, LLC, said:

... asking for exclusives or saying you don’t accept simultaneous submissions is nothing but a scare tactic on the agent’s part. She wants to make sure she doesn’t have competition, which to me says she doesn’t think highly enough of herself to think she can compete. Obviously these two issues are hot buttons for me. I think authors should have the chance to choose an agent if possible, and not accepting simultaneous submissions or asking for exclusives takes the power out of an author’s hand, power you should have since it’s your career.

... Give yourself the opportunity to choose an agent rather than simply waiting for someone to choose you.

Jessica was talking about _agents_ with no-sim-sub policies (an equally ludicrous idea, in my opinion). Replace the word "_agent_" with "_editor_" in her statement, and she (IMO) pretty much nails the problem with short fiction markets that don't accept sim subs. :encouragement:


----------



## FleshEater

KyleColorado said:


> It depends on the genre.
> 
> At least for SFF (Science Fiction and Fantasy), the percentage of SFWA-qualifying short fiction markets that openly accept sim. subs hovers at a meager *10.4%* (only 3 out of 29).
> 
> The remaining *89.6%* of the pro-rated SFF market _does not accept_ sim. subs. :grief:



Like Tor.com, who pays well, but has a response time of 6 months plus? Yeah...ridiculous. But, if you want the bill, you'll wait. Ha-ha!


----------



## dale

FleshEater said:


> Like Tor.com, who pays well, but has a response time of 6 months plus? Yeah...ridiculous. But, if you want the bill, you'll wait. Ha-ha!



tor took like 14 months to finally reject a story i sent them. i had completely forgot i had even sent it to them. luckily they rejected it (i guess),
because i already had it contracted elsewhere by then. but yeah...25 cents a word and just having a TOR publishing credit on the resume? that
would have been cool.


----------



## FleshEater

dale said:


> tor took like 14 months to finally reject a story i sent them. i had completely forgot i had even sent it to them. luckily they rejected it (i guess),
> because i already had it contracted elsewhere by then. but yeah...25 cents a word and just having a TOR publishing credit on the resume? that
> would have been cool.



Yeah, I just submitted them a story, too. I have absolutely no hopes of hearing back from them.


----------



## Belinda

Oh TS Bowman, how right you are - no authority without responsibility. Otherwise you are no more than a writing slave.


----------

