They are looking for two 'dazzling' manuscripts, one kids, one adult - to be judged by agent panel. Prize is an editorial report plus might all lead to agent representation - there is an entry fee, though, of £10.

http://www.cornerstones.co.uk/#/wowfactor-competition-2013/


<Added>

It will be looked at by agents, anyway - of course there's no promise of representation.

Hmm. Not sure I'm quite up to speed with my dazzling at the moment. Would a gentle frisson do?

Hmm. Can't quite see the difference between "competition" and "business as usual" in this context? Looks a lot like a call for submissions with nothing in particular being offered.

Baffled and Ever-so-slightly Cynical of Harold's Cross

I think the winners get a free editorial report worth £400. I guess that's no skin off their nose if lots of people are sending in £10 each. Quite a good way to make money!

Oh, right, I hadn't read as far as the entry fee...


G

Having read the site a bit more, I can really see no difference between the competition and their daily business except for the fee that asks potential customers to pay them to do what they would typically do for free outside of the competition. After forty entries, they have offset any cost of the single freebie they are offering.

It's not actually corrupt, or illegal, not even underhand, but it is a bit like a burger chain charging people a fee to attend interviews for a job as a burger flipper. The difference being that a burger chain would rapidly discover it had no applicants where, I suspect, the same will not be true here.

I wish this was an exception, but there has been a rash of similarly disingenuous calls for submissions over the last wee while.

Deeply Saddened of Harold's Cross

I could be even more horribly cynical and suggest that the runners-up might be sufficiently encouraged by their runner-up status to be open to persuasion to purchase a full editorial report anyway...

I know they have an excellent reputation as an editorial agency, but my goodness, they're not inexpensive, and I can't help feeling this is a way of drumming up business via the back door.

A free critique is valuable, of course, but it's certainly not a short-cut to an agent.

it is a bit like a burger chain charging people a fee to attend interviews for a job as a burger flipper

I agree. I hate this sort of thing.

There is no charge for the submission process to you or the agent; we however, receive a one-off 10% commission of the worldwide deal (based on a no win/no fee basis) if you get a publishing deal as a result of us passing you through.

And this seems just a tad expensive, to me, on top of what you would already be paying to your agent.

I'm with Gaius. Helen's done something like this before although if I recall she didn't actually charge £10 entry before. And don't forget this:

There is no charge for the submission process to you or the agent; we however, receive a one-off 10% commission of the worldwide deal (based on a no win/no fee basis) if you get a publishing deal as a result of us passing you through.

You have to look on a different page at Cornerstones to see that.

So, yes, no cost to Cornerstones and the chance to rake in 10% of the author's advance. Note there is no promise of agent representation - 'potentially'; well, yes, quite.

It shouldn't need spelling out but if you have a publishable ms, then an agent will be keen to represent it; indeed, a publisher probably will too. Helen is not adding any value at all here. Instead, you will be paying 15% to the agent plus another 10% of your advance to Helen: 25% in total.

This kind of thing give editorial reports a bad name. Agencies should be selling their skills in helping you shape a ms, not become another link in the chain of taking cash off the writer's publishing contract.

Also, think about what a 'panel of agents' means. What it really means is your ms is only going to be shown to a small number of agents, the ones Helen knows. But why be restricted like this: why not simply send your ms to agents you want to work with? Helen's intervention is going to make no difference at all (which is why she's not promising anything).

<Added>Sorry, Gaius, I just noticed you spotted the 10% clause, too.

[Edited by david bruce at 19:05:00 on 28 January 2013
Reason: Legal

Helen's intervention is going to make no difference at all (which is why she's not promising anything).

But people who are desperate to find an agent might think it will.

Exactly. It's worth noting that Helen has never tried this with publishers, i.e. because she can't. It would be absurd to imply that her competition can will get you a publishing deal. But she can imply that an agent could take you on - because that's always been a stage away from a deal anyway.

[Edited by david bruce at 09:52:00 on 29 January 2013
Reason: legal]

Interesting. I had my MS looked at by Cornerstones and paid the hefty amount. The critique was ok I suppose. It did point out faults but not stylistically or grammar wise because they are my strong points. They have told me what to 'fix' and some points are valid. In the price was a one hour face-to-face meeting with the editor which I haven't taken up yet. Of course, they said that they'd look at the manuscript if I implement the changes but at a price which I think is [expensive]. It doesn't make that clear on their web page.

As for paying a reading fee for the competition is [not good] because if you win, you don't get a cash prize but a service. To be fair, they should've offered that for free not at 10 pounds per head.



[Edited by david bruce at 10:16:00 on 29 January 2013
Reason: legal]

they said that they'd look at the manuscript if I implement the changes but at a price

As in a second critique, you mean? Or did they imply they'd pass it on to an agent if you paid up?

[Edited by Anna Reynolds at 10:52:00 on 29 January 2013
Reason: legal]

I aim to steer well clear.