An open letter to Trade Publishers
Dec. 6th, 2009 04:46 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
msagaraDear Trade Publisher or Small Press publisher:
Please do not print trade paperback large format books with flat glossy covers anymore.
As a bookseller, I watch what people pick up and put down. I listen to their comments on covers and cover art (and blurbs; those are sometimes funny, and yes, I know full well that the authors don't write them).
One thing that I've noticed happening more and more often in the store when people are browsing and chatting in front of the New Release Trade paperback shelf is that a customer will point at a specific book and say:
"Is this self-published?"
or
"Wow, there are a lot of self-published books here."
In fact, none of the books at which they're pointing are self-published.
I finally realized this weekend that the reason they're asking is because of the cover stock used on those specific trade paperbacks. If the trade paperback has a flat, glossy cover, they ignore the art, the type and the cover design. If it's flat gloss, with no foil, no embossing, no textures, they are now assuming that the book is self-published; they won't even pick it up.
I have no idea where this assumption comes from because with very few exceptions, we do not shelve or attempt to sell self-published books; we just don't have the space. But the fact is: more people are now asking if books that are entirely traditionally published are self-published because of the cover stock used.
If the cover has terrible art or terrible type, but is printed with a matte finish without any of the other frills (i.e. no embossing, no foil, no textures), they don't ask the question at all. It doesn't matter what the cover looks like in terms of composition.
At this point, due to the wonders of PoD technology, they're assuming that any cover that is glossy stock is self-published.
I'm certain that not all of our customers make this assumption; I know they don't blink twice about glossy stock on mass market paperbacks. But with the trade/large format paperbacks, there is a growing assumption, and I find it troubling.
The British trades are frequently bound with glossy stock. This week, there were two novels by relatively unknown names -- and the new PYR title by Kristine Kathryn Rusch -- which were pointed out, and which were instantly classified as "self-published" (the latter, I've had four people ask about in the last two weeks).
I know, again, that not everyone makes this assumption. But the fact that more and more people are asking me, specifically, about them implies that more people are thinking this way. And if people are thinking it and asking, I can pretty much count on the fact that people are also thinking about it and not asking.
I realize that there are many self-published writers, some of whom will no doubt read this. I understand that there is a prejudice against self-published books. The assumption that the books are somehow inferior or garbage, however right or wrong, exists in my customer base, and as a retail employee I accept the fact.
So... what I'd like, at this point, is that publishers choosing a trade/large format paperback for their releases choose a matte finish cover stock for everything, because the customers who are not even picking the glossy cover-stock books up are making the subconscious association between cover stock and publishing venue now and I'm not about to put small notes on every single book to the effect of "Yes, I know this is printed with glossy stock but No, it is not self-published."
It would help if some of the self-published authors were more open about the fact that they're self-published, but a number "create" small presses which have "published them" in order to avoid the perceived stigma, and because of those cases, it becomes harder for the consumer to differentiate between small press and self-pub. The easiest way of doing this for those consumers, at the moment, is cover-stock.
Thank you for your attention,
Bookseller in December
Please do not print trade paperback large format books with flat glossy covers anymore.
As a bookseller, I watch what people pick up and put down. I listen to their comments on covers and cover art (and blurbs; those are sometimes funny, and yes, I know full well that the authors don't write them).
One thing that I've noticed happening more and more often in the store when people are browsing and chatting in front of the New Release Trade paperback shelf is that a customer will point at a specific book and say:
"Is this self-published?"
or
"Wow, there are a lot of self-published books here."
In fact, none of the books at which they're pointing are self-published.
I finally realized this weekend that the reason they're asking is because of the cover stock used on those specific trade paperbacks. If the trade paperback has a flat, glossy cover, they ignore the art, the type and the cover design. If it's flat gloss, with no foil, no embossing, no textures, they are now assuming that the book is self-published; they won't even pick it up.
I have no idea where this assumption comes from because with very few exceptions, we do not shelve or attempt to sell self-published books; we just don't have the space. But the fact is: more people are now asking if books that are entirely traditionally published are self-published because of the cover stock used.
If the cover has terrible art or terrible type, but is printed with a matte finish without any of the other frills (i.e. no embossing, no foil, no textures), they don't ask the question at all. It doesn't matter what the cover looks like in terms of composition.
At this point, due to the wonders of PoD technology, they're assuming that any cover that is glossy stock is self-published.
I'm certain that not all of our customers make this assumption; I know they don't blink twice about glossy stock on mass market paperbacks. But with the trade/large format paperbacks, there is a growing assumption, and I find it troubling.
The British trades are frequently bound with glossy stock. This week, there were two novels by relatively unknown names -- and the new PYR title by Kristine Kathryn Rusch -- which were pointed out, and which were instantly classified as "self-published" (the latter, I've had four people ask about in the last two weeks).
I know, again, that not everyone makes this assumption. But the fact that more and more people are asking me, specifically, about them implies that more people are thinking this way. And if people are thinking it and asking, I can pretty much count on the fact that people are also thinking about it and not asking.
I realize that there are many self-published writers, some of whom will no doubt read this. I understand that there is a prejudice against self-published books. The assumption that the books are somehow inferior or garbage, however right or wrong, exists in my customer base, and as a retail employee I accept the fact.
So... what I'd like, at this point, is that publishers choosing a trade/large format paperback for their releases choose a matte finish cover stock for everything, because the customers who are not even picking the glossy cover-stock books up are making the subconscious association between cover stock and publishing venue now and I'm not about to put small notes on every single book to the effect of "Yes, I know this is printed with glossy stock but No, it is not self-published."
It would help if some of the self-published authors were more open about the fact that they're self-published, but a number "create" small presses which have "published them" in order to avoid the perceived stigma, and because of those cases, it becomes harder for the consumer to differentiate between small press and self-pub. The easiest way of doing this for those consumers, at the moment, is cover-stock.
Thank you for your attention,
Bookseller in December
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
amen!
Date: 2009-12-08 04:44 am (UTC)Glad to see someone finally telling the truth..Many POD and self pub authors try to trick us into ordering their books..sometimes even placing special orders and never picking them up. Not cool
no subject
Date: 2009-12-08 05:46 am (UTC)My first mmpb had a matte cover, the second glossy, and I pleaded with her for a matte cover on the third, simply because I think they look so much better, and she came through for me.
no subject
Date: 2009-12-08 05:52 am (UTC)I like the look of matte better, myself--but it takes fingerprints and general wear a lot more easily than the gloss; it also curls more in humidity.
But in either case, the cover stock for mass markets isn't causing the same confusion or assumptions because at this point no one is self-publishing mass markets.
no subject
Date: 2009-12-08 09:45 pm (UTC)just an opinion
Date: 2009-12-09 10:04 am (UTC)"Cast in Silence" was excellently bound. The material and the subject of the cover art was impeccable. It has survived several sub-one year children and a few pets.
It was matte...and it was sexy. Keep up the good work.
no subject
Date: 2010-01-01 09:54 pm (UTC)So if a trade paperback has a glossy cover, wouldn't a blurb from Publishers Weekly or Booklist, etc. indicate that it's not self-published? i.e. would someone who picks up a book and sees that Kim Stanley Robinson or Mike Resnick has blurbed it along with excerpts from Booklist or PW just assume it's not self-published?
no subject
Date: 2010-01-02 07:47 pm (UTC)If people go back and pick up the book, they're likely to realize that it's not self-published. One of the commenters here did that; she assumed the book was self-published, saw the author's name and did a double-take.
And not all people are making this connection, fwiw. I didn't. But because it had happened frequently within a very short period, I do think it's becoming a cause for concern, fwiw.
no subject
Date: 2010-06-23 03:32 pm (UTC)Covers send out a complex set of signals, and readers don't all process them the same way. Apparently, for some readers the matte vs. gloss thing is enough to suggest to them that a book is self-published, even though the publisher's logo is right there on the cover.
I found that interesting. What I found even more interesting was your observation that that perception was enough to make the reader avoid the book. I'd known for a long time that readers react badly to being tricked into an unpleasant reading experience, but I hadn't known the aversion reaction was that strong. What this could mean is that every self-published author is going to suffer for the sins of all self-published authors.
Did you by any chance keep track of the cover stock used on the glossy-covered books that readers erroneously tagged as being self-published? Self-publishing outfits tend to use lighter cover stock. It would be interesting to know whether the misidentified books also used lighter cover stock.