I need to start by clarifying what this post relates to. Back in March of 2016 I did a statistical analysis of the p2p16/March contest.
The analysis tells us some interesting things about the upcoming p2p16/October contest.
(If you are reading this and it’s before October 22nd, then don’t worry, you haven’t missed p2p16)
Here is the link to my March analysis: #p2p16 – By the Numbers. (btw: this was by far my most popular post of 2016) If you’re preparing for p2p16, the analysis can be very enlightening.
To give you a high level overview of the results, I can tell you two things:
1. What were the editors looking for in an entry when they made a request for more pages?
The short answer: An engaging Story and Voice.
2. What caused the editors to pass on an entry?
The short answer: A Story or Voice that didn’t connect.
I don’t think that’s too surprising. However what did surprise me is that nearly 25% of the time, when an editor tweeted they were passing – it was because the genre wasn’t what the editor asked for. **
This means writers were submitting their entries to editors that had specifically said they don’t work with that genre. All of the editors have a profile on the #p2p16 site where they clearly spell out what they’re looking for. I mean there’s even a MSWL Cheat Sheet if you aren’t sure.
We (writers) need to be reading the bio and the MSWL cheat sheet before we submit an entry to an editor. This contest is a great opportunity. Don’t miss out on it, because of something simple like this.
Hope you find the analysis useful. #p2p16 – By the Numbers
All the best,
**note: this doesn’t mean 25% of all entries were sent to editors that didn’t want that genre. It just means 25% of the time when an editor tweeted “I’ll pass” the reason they gave was because they specifically stated in their bio, they didn’t work with that genre. .