F. P. Dorchak

Speculative Fiction (New Weird) Author

Marketing

Going Indie—What I’ve Learned (So Far)—Part 10

by

By HarperTeen [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons
Liars, Liars, Pants On Fire! (By HarperTeen [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons)
Over the weekend I got into a short exchange about book blurbs. It was mentioned that during the BEA, that there was a “lot” of talk among editors about how important book blurbs are, now, for debut works to be taken seriously. I watched some of the comments, and saw that not everyone (as readers) seemed enamored over them.

Book blurbs are having some famous person giving a little mini review of your book, like “This is the best piece of literary action/adventure since Shakespeare!” It’s an “If all these people like this book, you will too” marketing approach. I have nothing against that. Personally, blurbs never really played much into my buying a book. As was mentioned by one or two others, it was always about plot, story, title, cover art (yes, I have bought books for the cool looking covers, before…but that’s no longer a factor, since I became a serious writer). That kind of thing.

Then one day, as the “serious writer,” I asked an acquaintance of mine to blurb one of my books.

This person got back to me within an hour or so (to be honest don’t remember the actual response period, but I do remember thinking this person could not have read the book that quickly) with a blurb.

A blurb that was written without having read my work.

I asked if this person had read the book and was, indeed, told no, they hadn’t. I thanked the person, but told them that I would not use it, because I wanted my blurbs to come from people who actually read my work.

Over the years, I had found that this was standard industry practice!

Yes, the traditional publishing industry, that place that brought you your Hunger Games, your Harry Potters, your Dragon Tattoos, even your Chicken Soups, or any of the Oprah-endorsed books…look at all those blurbs famous people wrote. It’s a sure bet most of those were written without the blurber having actually read any of the book in question.

Now, I could be wrong.

It could be that today’s publishing industry has grown morally and ethically since the 15-30 years ago when I discovered this from other authors (yes, I asked some others, and one or two even told me they’d supplied blurbs without having read the books…that it was just “the thing to do…how it was done.”)…buuut, I doubt it. So, I did some quick research over the Internet, and this article is representative of what I found. You might find it interesting, even if it is dated 2012, especially this little line: “Shteyngart admits that he hasn’t fully read all the books he’s blurbed….”

In this (and other articles I found online) nearly all of them all said the same thing: they don’t really sell books. They help get them into bookstores, perhaps, but readers don’t really pay attention to them. Oh, sure, the blurbers might be well meaning, helping out a friend or student…or are sleeping with an editor…or even have a gun to their head, one article joked…but a 2012 Bowker Market Research study showed that only 6% of readers become aware of books through jacket covers or testimonials…blurb effectiveness was anecdotal.

Back to my weekend comment: “So, given the comments, how in touch ARE editors with their readers? Are the blurbs more for official reviews?”

Yes, was the basic response, but when I mentioned that most blurb writers do not read the books they blurb, and make stuff up, the person I interacted with no longer responded. I found that extremely unprofessional on this person’s part. Really, when presented with a “hard” question, you simply…ummm…ignore and run away?

Funny thing, is, I really wasn’t even looking for a fight…was just “organically” responding with the others, and providing my POV, in that I also don’t pay attention to blurbs. So, really, I wasn’t (nor am I currently) looking to embarrass anyone, I was just trying to have a meaningful conversation, in which (I’d hoped) I would be told that, hey, “We, here, in the Publishing Industry no longer hold to misguiding the public with the practice of MAKING UP book review blurbs so you will buy our books. That was then…this is now. But, hey, thank you for bringing up that concern so, we, here, in the Publishing Industry, can address this heinous activity and set the record straight.”

Yeah, well, guess I got my answer.

Yet, we all got all bent out of shape and pissy with the Amazon review scandal of a couple years back, with authors doing their own fake reviews. When you’re making shit up—aka, lying—does it really matter who‘s doing it, if you’re all part of the same bucket?

One may say that they’re not useless, they still get books into bookstores, but getting books into bookstores is not the same as selling them.

Oh, and there’s still the lying part….

As to my own books blurbs, every one of those are from people who read my books (and, in one case, the screenplay I adapted from The Uninvited, which I allowed, because I adapted the screenplay myself and knew it was perfectly inline with the novel). I will also not give any blurbs to books with which I have not read. Yeah, like I’ll be asked, but I’m just sayin’.

Perhaps I’ll even stop my own practice of asking for them, given their shady nature.

So, be wary of any blurb on any book, by anyone. Seems like it’s still a damned good bet that they’re all made up.

 

Related articles

 

Ooooh, No You Didn’t Just Go There—A Reply To Comment

by

I had a question to my post on a PPW post, but my response is too large for the Reply section, and I’m not going to whittle it away, so I’m posting it here. I apologize in advance if doing it this way offends anyone, it’s not a blog ploy, I just need to say what I need to say, and the Reply section won’t accept anything over 4,096 characters.

Here is my reply to Chris Mandeville, of Delve Writing:

It’s a mindset, Chris. A Damaging Culture.

My beef IS partially with Jennifer, if you wanna get right down to it. Or perhaps, with what she SAID.

Here is her paragraph:

“And here’s the deal: whether you are an introvert or an extrovert, if you want to sell your book, everyone expects you to do the marketing. Yep you. Even if you get the Big NY Deal, you are still expected to do the marketing because, frankly, there is no reason to gamble on a new or mid-list writer, which means little-to-no marketing money. And who wins? The guy with the biggest motivation and perseverance. They guy who reads the field and decides how to make the plan.”

Nowhere in this para is “This is what the publishers believe” or “According to publishers and their Bean Counters….” No, it is stated as her own opinion. Coming from HER beliefs. You really want to roll up some shirt sleeves? It was stated as an object of fact and slipped under the radar because the rest of the post was not about that statement, but it had already been said, and was now unconsciously RE-INSERTED into everyone’s consciousness—except mine. I utterly and immediately rejected it. So, no, I do not agree with her statement, phrasing, or otherwise. I caught the intentional or unintentional subliminal message spread to the masses.

When someone in a “position of authority” (i.e., a blog writer, author talking about same) puts forth words about a subject, others read it and agree with it or not. But the person has put forth an IDEA, a CONCEPT, and whether or not agreed to by others, or right or wrong, the concept is further ingrained into the psychic gestalt of the weltanschauung under discussion. She perpetuated a line of thought without so much as a second thought. Spouted a line said by so many others, that I heartily disagree with, and she said it in a public forum. And, I’m sorry I have to say, was this line not questioned by reviewing eyes? If it was seen and not addressed, this is what I’m saying…it’s ingrained in everyone to be a truism, when it simply is not.

I have “nothing personal” against Jennifer in and of herself, nor in her marketing aspect of her post (yes, it was a good one otherwise), but I do take it personal when a “fellow author” continues to so tritely and dismissively put forth concepts that are frankly injurious to all writers except the Knighted Few. Believing in this line of thought comes along with root assumptions that are too numerous to get into here. But to say something like “…there is no reason to gamble on a new or mid-list writer…” without exception(s)/qualification(s), and to a wide audience as PPW/the Internet, which includes many who may be new to this wacky business, utterly stuns me! Yes, I’ll go so far as to say INFURIATES me. Does it not bother anyone else? Do all of you out there really believe this? Jennifer, do YOU really believe this? Additionally, “…And who wins? The guy with the biggest motivation and perseverance. They guy who reads the field and decides how to make the plan.” How can you say something like that (given the inference to the previous sentiment), that is utterly dismissive to the Unknighted Few? There are many out there–geesh, look at our own Beth Groundwater. She IS the Poster Girl for “motivation and perseverance”; she is THE ONE I always think about when it comes to such things, to pushing-pushing-pushing. To me, she IS the standard for what all authors should ASPIRE to, for crying out loud. Unfortunately, many of us have day jobs and simply cannot do what she has done. And (furthermore) to dump on those authors (like me) who cannot do what she’s has done by tritely saying we don’t want it enough/dedicated enough/<inserted comment>, is (IMHO) a punishable offense and deserving of jail time and real hard labor. That’s where the Big Guns should come into play, helping out the UnKnighted Few with THEIR resources (who they HIRE for this stuff, who have DEGREES/experience in doing this stuff), and not further lumping responsibility totally on our already packed and stretched thin shoulders.

To take your concern, Chris, “about the money.” It’s far more than just about whether or not huge corporations have or nave not money. It’s the damaging CULTURE, the incorrect MINDSET. Money is only a tool, an EXTENSION of one’s beliefs. They’re reluctant to spent the money because they don’t want to spend time and effort in selling something NEW. As much as execs talk the talk, they do not walk the walk. One issue rolls directly into another. I know some are stingy with money, but in the mindset of “spend money to make money” why the reluctance (let’s just use the word that really matters, here, they are UNWILLING) of funneling not just money, but RESOURCES to unknown authors? Isn’t it obvious they are the ones who truly need the resources? It’s about the perceived return. “They” don’t feel they will get “the return.” But new authors won’t get the return BECAUSE no resources are thrown their way! Vicious Cycle! If that’s the case, then don’t take on the author! It’s not a simply pat answer, they have or don’t have money. Of course they HAVE money, they’re monstrous corporations. But of course there’s “little-to-no marketing money” because bean counters and execs ARE throwing all their money on “sure bets.”

Chris (and Jennifer), can you not see what such a seemingly small, dismissive statement, really impacts? Most may not think that one liner through, or give it another thought, may take it at face value, and it will continue to perpetuate the injurious culture that is already out here…but that IS changing. I do not mean to be insulting to Jennifer nor her beliefs, but sometimes there just isn’t a nice, fluffy way to address an issue. If we all SAY we want change, then we have to ACTIVELY (key word, here) combat for that change. We have to change the way we look and ACCEPT a status quo that is clearly not working [for authors]. You want change, change your mindset, the words you choose, the words you write, the “knowing acceptance” you nod your heads to. Give yourselves some credit! Do not blindly accept something just because I—or anyone else—says something in a public forum. You see something you don’t agree with, to the best of your POWER take issue with it (hopefully, respectfully, as I hope I am also doing). I don’t know if Jennifer actively believes what she said, or simply said it because it’s WHAT SHE’S BEEN TOLD.

But that’s my point.

Related articles

Ooooh, No You Didn't Just Go There….

by

English: Depiction of frustration
No…No, No, No, No…. (Photo credit: Frustration, Wikipedia)

Okay, I have to admit, I kinda got pissed when I read a blog post about marketing your work, and, yes, I did kinda take it personal, because it continues to perpetuate a train of thought, a mindset that so many seem so eager to promulgate and promote, and which can be (well, I feel it actually already is…) very damaging to writers. I have nothing personal against the author of the post, but I simply cannot allow certain things to be said and let the masses rally around behind without another point of view given. I love writing and the publishing world—to an extent. I, do, however, heartily disagree and take issue with certain points of view and feel I have to counter certain issues that always arise, however, and this is one of them.

And, I must say, I am saddened by those who continue to buy into them…though understand how this can happen.

So, here is the comment I posted:

Jennifer, sorry, but I really must take issue with the following: “…there is no reason to gamble on a new or mid-list writer, which means little-to-no marketing money.”

If there’s one thing I’ve found in my 52 years of life, and almost as many years writing and observing this and other industries is that anyone can sell anything if they put enough resources into the effort. If “resources” means money, so be it, if “resources” mean thought, so be it. I know all about how mid-list writers fulfill an important part in the overall book world, but–it seems to me–the bottom line should be if publishers don’t want to put any resources behind something they take on, then they shouldn’t have taken on the work to begin with. It does so much–sometimes irreparable–damage to a writer and their career, if they don’t sell through on their first book. Gee, it used to be their first two or three books. Now it’s down to one. Why is that, I rhetorically inquire?

There’s “little-to-no marketing money” because bean counters and execs are throwing all their money on “sure bets” (and I used “bets” intentionally, over “things”). Come on, does a King, Rowling, or Patterson really  need all the resources they actually get, once it’s announced a new work [from them] is available? Can some of those resources be better spent on others who don’t yet have the market recognition, but are every bit as good? I’m sorry but saying something like that (again, IMHO) is picking low-hanging fruit. The problem involved in today’s book industry (as is elsewhere evident) is in the mindset of those running “the shows.” It’s not that there’s no money. If there really was “no money” then no one would be getting any of the millions being dumped into promotion of the Big Dogs. If it’s “so easy” and “low cost” for the Nobody Writer to do social media, etc., then why don’t the Big Five partake in it? Hire unpaid interns (if this is still the practice; low-paid, otherwise) to create these campaigns for the works these companies take on? Or, hey, here’s a thought, maybe take on less authors?…only those authors whose work publishers really do believe in, and are willing to actually devote some resources (including real thought) to in the first place, instead of throwing their works again public walls like so much partially cooked spaghetti?

ANYTHING can be sold.

Anything.

And, no, we all know but perhaps don’t readily admit to ourselves, no, the product doesn’t even have to be good! Do we really need $4 coffee? Bigger screen TVs? Do we really N.E.E.D. these things?

People buy what’s put in front of them. If they have choices eliminated from them, intentionally not put in front of them, how can they even consider them?

So, with all due respect to you, Jennifer, and all the others out there who feel the same as you, and will heartily disagree with me and my kind, and try to rip me a new one with “stats, and facts, and whatever” (stats and facts and whatever can all be manipulated; I used to work with them, and know firsthand how they can, indeed, be manipulated), there are reasons, very good ones, to gamble on new writers, because there is good, undiscovered writing out there…writing that is not formulaic and is every bit as powerful as the “sure bets.” Writing that is profound and thoughtful and funny as hell. This industry loves—thrives—on blaming the writer (their work isn’t “ready,” the writer isn’t “big enough,” the writer doesn’t have a “platform,” etc.), but sometimes it’s not the writer…it’s the Gatekeepers. Yes, all kinds of “holes” can be poked in my position, it’s all been said before, but it’s not about whether or not holes can be poked into my argument. There is another way of doing business…it’s just intentionally being overlooked.

Ooooh, No You Didn’t Just Go There….

by

English: Depiction of frustration
No…No, No, No, No…. (Photo credit: Frustration, Wikipedia)

Okay, I have to admit, I kinda got pissed when I read a blog post about marketing your work, and, yes, I did kinda take it personal, because it continues to perpetuate a train of thought, a mindset that so many seem so eager to promulgate and promote, and which can be (well, I feel it actually already is…) very damaging to writers. I have nothing personal against the author of the post, but I simply cannot allow certain things to be said and let the masses rally around behind without another point of view given. I love writing and the publishing world—to an extent. I, do, however, heartily disagree and take issue with certain points of view and feel I have to counter certain issues that always arise, however, and this is one of them.

And, I must say, I am saddened by those who continue to buy into them…though understand how this can happen.

So, here is the comment I posted:

Jennifer, sorry, but I really must take issue with the following: “…there is no reason to gamble on a new or mid-list writer, which means little-to-no marketing money.”

If there’s one thing I’ve found in my 52 years of life, and almost as many years writing and observing this and other industries is that anyone can sell anything if they put enough resources into the effort. If “resources” means money, so be it, if “resources” mean thought, so be it. I know all about how mid-list writers fulfill an important part in the overall book world, but–it seems to me–the bottom line should be if publishers don’t want to put any resources behind something they take on, then they shouldn’t have taken on the work to begin with. It does so much–sometimes irreparable–damage to a writer and their career, if they don’t sell through on their first book. Gee, it used to be their first two or three books. Now it’s down to one. Why is that, I rhetorically inquire?

There’s “little-to-no marketing money” because bean counters and execs are throwing all their money on “sure bets” (and I used “bets” intentionally, over “things”). Come on, does a King, Rowling, or Patterson really  need all the resources they actually get, once it’s announced a new work [from them] is available? Can some of those resources be better spent on others who don’t yet have the market recognition, but are every bit as good? I’m sorry but saying something like that (again, IMHO) is picking low-hanging fruit. The problem involved in today’s book industry (as is elsewhere evident) is in the mindset of those running “the shows.” It’s not that there’s no money. If there really was “no money” then no one would be getting any of the millions being dumped into promotion of the Big Dogs. If it’s “so easy” and “low cost” for the Nobody Writer to do social media, etc., then why don’t the Big Five partake in it? Hire unpaid interns (if this is still the practice; low-paid, otherwise) to create these campaigns for the works these companies take on? Or, hey, here’s a thought, maybe take on less authors?…only those authors whose work publishers really do believe in, and are willing to actually devote some resources (including real thought) to in the first place, instead of throwing their works again public walls like so much partially cooked spaghetti?

ANYTHING can be sold.

Anything.

And, no, we all know but perhaps don’t readily admit to ourselves, no, the product doesn’t even have to be good! Do we really need $4 coffee? Bigger screen TVs? Do we really N.E.E.D. these things?

People buy what’s put in front of them. If they have choices eliminated from them, intentionally not put in front of them, how can they even consider them?

So, with all due respect to you, Jennifer, and all the others out there who feel the same as you, and will heartily disagree with me and my kind, and try to rip me a new one with “stats, and facts, and whatever” (stats and facts and whatever can all be manipulated; I used to work with them, and know firsthand how they can, indeed, be manipulated), there are reasons, very good ones, to gamble on new writers, because there is good, undiscovered writing out there…writing that is not formulaic and is every bit as powerful as the “sure bets.” Writing that is profound and thoughtful and funny as hell. This industry loves—thrives—on blaming the writer (their work isn’t “ready,” the writer isn’t “big enough,” the writer doesn’t have a “platform,” etc.), but sometimes it’s not the writer…it’s the Gatekeepers. Yes, all kinds of “holes” can be poked in my position, it’s all been said before, but it’s not about whether or not holes can be poked into my argument. There is another way of doing business…it’s just intentionally being overlooked.