An open letter to Trade Publishers

[msagara]

Dear 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

Comments

Coincidence!

[(Anonymous)]

Michelle, by coincidence, this happened to me (as a book customer) only a few hours ago. I was browsing a Clearance section, nearly bypassed a book that I assumed was self-published... and then the title caught my eye. I took a better look and realized it was a novel recommended to me a few months ago by my mom, and published by Poisoned Pen Press, a respected mid-size mystery publisher.

I realized it was the formatting--exactly the formatting you describe--that had made me assume the book was self-published. I also realized that I'd bypassed a number of books in the previous 10 minutes on that same unconscious assumption: the formatting instantly convinced me they were self-published, and I shoved them aside. So I went back and looked. Three of the books I'd bypassed were also Poison Pen Press releases. I don't know about the other two. I didn't recognize the publishers' names... so my suspicion lingered that these might be self-published books DISGUISED as books that someone had acquired, paid for, edited, and published.

Laura Resnick

[barbarienne.livejournal.com]

I've had this reaction myself. I play "spot the self-pubbed novel" in the huckster's room at conventions. (I'm head of production for a publishing company, so it really is a fun game for me...)

The POD tech has improved immensely. There are basically two digital techs competing in the POD world, but the in-line color laser printer now prints on 10pt cover stock and it looks nearly as good as offset printing. Even I have to look closely to tell the difference. (At least I can still do it without putting on my glasses.)

Regular publishers are confusing the issue by doing some short-run reprints digitally (POD tech, but ordering copies into the warehouse rather than literally printing on demand). A book may not be moving the 2000 copies/year that justify an offset printing, but if it's selling 1000 or even 500 (or, in the case of a small press, 20 or 30 copies), publishers have become more inclined to use POD tech and capture that long tail without cluttering up their warehouses.

(Note: Rather than clutter up your comment thread further, I've posted a little tech info about matte finishes over on my blog.)

In a glass-is-half-full kind of way, this phenomenon of readers passing over what they think is self-pubbed is not a bad thing. It means that readers actually desire gatekeepers to sort out the chaff before it gets to the bookstore.

[comrade-cat.livejournal.com]

That's fascinating. I wonder if our customers think the same thing.

Me, I tend to assume crappy computer art means the books are possibly self-published & probably crappy. I wish small presses which put out good stuff would *stop using crappy computer generated art.*

(Most of these books are glossy tpbs, of course.)

[msagara.livejournal.com]

That's fascinating. I wonder if our customers think the same thing.

I wouldn't have known if people hadn't asked, to be honest. But because they have, I now wonder how many others are or were thinking the same thing =/

[falcongirl.livejournal.com]

heh.. my general assumption on flat glossy covers is "Damnit, I missed the first edition of the paperback.." I love matte covers, though. I'm much more likely to pick a book up with a matte cover to read the back, regardless of cover picture. Possibly because I can easily read the title under harsh big name bookstore lighting.

It is an irritating assumption, and sad that it's growing, that glossy=private press. It's even more upsetting that private press=automatic literary fail. :/

[tobemeagain.livejournal.com]

I didn't have this issue when I worked working in bookstores two years ago. What was an issue (again with TP, but also with HC) was the edging of the books. For a few years they used the ragged edge look a lot, and many of my customers wanted "better quality".

We carried several very small press erotica books I considered PoD due to discounting rates (though they fit the order stats of every other book we carried, so they technically weren't). I had them shelved in their own sections due to explicit content. I honestly never had anyone ask about self published books. I'm curious what has changed so much in the last two years.

I know my personal peeve is bad cover art (CGI, blurry, none), or no blurb at all on the jacket.

[msagara.livejournal.com]

This is a relatively new thing, at least in our store; two years ago, no one asked me either. I'm honestly not sure what's changed to make the awareness or the hesitance more open.

[barbarienne.livejournal.com]

For a few years they used the ragged edge look a lot, and many of my customers wanted "better quality".

-->Never mind that it actually costs extra to get that deckled edge, particularly on a trade paperback, where it requires French flaps on the cover.

[threeringedmoon.livejournal.com]

As a book buyer, I will only buy Small Press / Self-Published if I already know and like the author. (I have a couple of favorite authors who had to go that route when their books weren't being bought by the bigger imprints.) I won't even touch a book if it looks like a Small Press imprint in a dealer's room, but didn't realize what I was using for cues.

And I would have sworn that I didn't care about cover art.

[steve-buchheit.livejournal.com]

This is one of those things when people talk about how low-tech books are I try to dissuade them and point to the opposite. Printed books are very high tech, the interface is highly intuitive (once you learn some basics) which makes them seem low tech. But the viewer is constantly making value judgements on the piece which affects their overall experience of the books (quality of cover/paper/printing/typeface/reading tech/layout/etc). And this is one of those things you lose with eBooks, that wealth of sensory input a printed books brings. Until these small things can be translated into the eBook realm, printed books are highly superior pieces of kit (one of the major ones is knowing where, relatively, in the story the reader is, with a printed book this is easyly estimated by how many pages/heavy the book is in your left hand as compared to your right hand).

[mentatjack.livejournal.com]

This is very frustrating as a lover of books. I actually rarely give the cover a glance in a bookstore, as I've already seen it online for months. It's weird to feel this disconnect. I actually feel more drawn to the smaller presses, and so I've had a similar reaction. But those glossy covers are PULLING my eye toward the shelf as I've come to associate those with the high quality of Pyr publications. The heft of a book after I pick it up will trigger that "Is this self published" reaction more than the glossy cover.

I'm far from the average book consumer though. hmm.

[lianthe.livejournal.com]

I am one of those customers who prefers the large format trades to the extent that even if I own the mass market edition, if it is a book I like to re-read, if trade edition then comes out later I will purchase it AGAIN.

Personally, I have not encountered many self-published books, so I wouldn't make an assumption based on cover stock alone. (After all, aren't the trades of your Cast books prior to Silence printed on glossy stock? The ones on my shelf seem to be) Though admittedly, one of the big draws for me about many trade editions aside from the larger size (and the often superior cover art)is the matte cover, as I like the way it feels in my hands better, and so I am less likely to choose to pay extra for the trade if it essentially has the same cover stock as the mass market.

glossies

[alleypat.livejournal.com]

I do that too. Because there is a history of really bad self-published work with glossy covers, readers have it in the back of their minds that glossy means bad writing or bad story. I work with a micro-press and I'm trying to get her away from the glossies, because of that mindset.

[(Anonymous)]

What bothers me about this is that you're asking professional publishers to limit their options.

Doesn't this mean that the terrorists, err, self-publishers have won?

The "tells" I generally see to distinguish self-published from professional books aren't the glossiness of the cover stock. Poor cover art, and clunky typography and layout are a much greater factor. They're not always "bad", but they're almost always "off".

Those tells aren't always restricted to self-publishers. Some of Baen's books make me cringe, and before them, Meisha Merlin's covers.

If you have a self-publisher with a good eye, you can come up with a cover that looks as good as a professional cover. Will Shetterly just put out MIDNIGHT GIRL on Lulu.com, and I think the cover could stand up against most professional YA covers.

-- Bruce Arthurs

[hikalyn.livejournal.com]

That is... a really bizarre trend. Makes no sense whatsoever to me. I wonder where it came from?

[tobemeagain.livejournal.com]

Thank you, I couldn't remember what that was called last night. And yes, it is more expensive, but explaining could not convince most customers of that - it's all about perception.

[radiosilents.livejournal.com]

Hm. I haven't read any of the responses to this post, but I must say, I am looking right at a copy of Rusch's Diving into the Wreck and feel that whoever thought that it looked like it was self-published must be on crack. Seriously.

Full disclosure is that I work for the parent company of Pyr, Prometheus Books, but even if I didn't I'd wonder what the heck those people were talking about. All the Pyr books look fantastic, if you ask me. *shrugs*

That said, it is too bad that self-publishing has such a stigma attached to it. I would think with the right people behind it, even a self-published book could be made to look very professional. (I know most aren't, but still...)

[anisosynchronic.livejournal.com]

Glossy covers are shiny attention-grabbing things, that cause people browsing books to more consciously notice the book they are on--which in turn has the person browsing books reacting with more thought and explicit assessment, than if not reacting with the more conscious attention.

The soft-focus done-on-computer figures, combined with glossy stock, come across as "don't care to spend time and attention and money on fine detail and presentation."

[msagara.livejournal.com]

What bothers me about this is that you're asking professional publishers to limit their options

Professional publishers will not, of course, limit their options. But yes, it occurs to me, I am asking them to do exactly that. A cover is meant to be something that draws the eye; imnsho it's the most important advertising most books will get.

But if some element of your package is causing a subset of people to avoid even picking the book up, then that's something that should be factored in to the choices made when considering a book's overall production.

I don't think of this as a case of terrorists/self-publishers winning, per se, since it seems to me that people are now more aware and more adverse to things that remind them of self-published books.

Oh! Better way of putting it: you don't put crappy type-faces in different sizes all over a cover because it looks unprofessional. The design esthetic is part of the way in which people instinctively 'judge' an overall book. if, as I suspect from what I've been asked by people who definitely buy a lot of SF/F, people are now equating a certain cover stock with 'unprofessional', then it should be a factor in the choice the publisher makes.

[msagara.livejournal.com]

Well... I'm not about to tell solid, regular customers that they are on crack. And crack or no, four people have asked about that book in the last 2 weeks.

I'm not, in fact, going to tell them anything beyond: No, it's definitely not self-published.

But I am -- as I did -- going to ask why they thought it was, why they asked; I want a reason for their reaction because I want to understand it. To me the cover is clearly professionally designed. The art is professional; the type and its layout is professional.

But having said that? I can't get past the fact that four of our customers, at least 3 of whom regularly buy hardcovers or trade paperbacks, asked. The fact that it's clearly not a self-published novel to you, Pyr, or me doesn't change that fact.

And the fact that those people are asking at all is significant; the fact that it was more than one person is significant. The fact that people who will never ask might make the same assumption for the same reasons is life in retail.

[msagara.livejournal.com]

Can I ask a question? I don't actually care whether or not you're the average book consumer. But what I think you're saying is that you distrust the larger publishers, so you're drawn to the gloss stock because it's emblematic of small or indie publishers?

An open letter to Trade Publishers

[(Anonymous)]

Two thoughts:

One big sign at the front of the store saying "We Do Not Sell Self Published Books" (or similar wording if this isn't OK for some reason) would seem to help dispell the erroneous assumption.

Self publishers will no doubt use the info from your blog posting, now, to be sure to vary the matt, texture, etc. of their covers. C'est la guerre.

[estara.livejournal.com]

The question occurs to me: why are self-publishers terrorists?

I think this is throwing the baby out with the bath-water (if that expression even exists in English ^^).

There are bad self-published books and there are good self-published books, even by writers that I hadn't heard of before. I tend to browse review sites or read excerpts before I invest in them - therefore I've only been badly burned once - and for my personal satisfaction have discovered some writers I enjoy who haven't gotten a publishing deal.

My current favourite of that ilk is Stay by Moriah Jovan - Stay (http://theproviso.com/stay/) . On the strength of that book I've ordered the predecessor The Proviso as well. However she's not sf&f, she's romance - I'd say. Woman's fiction with a happy end? Here's her explanation on why she went with self-publishing:
Moriah Jovan: My Path To Self-Publishing (http://kbgbabbles.blogspot.com/2009/12/moriah-jovan-my-path-to-self-publishing.html)

Thank you

[(Anonymous)]

This feedback and discussion appreciated - Lou Anders

[zingerella.livejournal.com]

Publishers "limit their options" in response to the market all the time! As you so correctly point out, we don't use crappy typefaces or typesetting all over a cover. In fact, we tend to shy away from unfashionable typefaces, colours, and overall looks, because we know they'll date the book in some readers' minds (unless our readers have firmly established that they will buy only books with unfashionable colours and typefaces, I guess). We try not to use really dated imagery. So why wouldn't we bend to the market in terms of cover stock?