Just thought I’d write today about revisions or edits ordered by editors. First, if an editor reads a manuscript and writes a detailed description of how he/she would like to see a revision, it means the editor is very interested. If the author can make the corrections and come close to the editor’s vision of what the novel should look like, then chances are a contract is almost assured. Yes, there are many” ifs” here, but getting this close and screwing it up is what could be called a sinful act.
I only mention this because many writers somehow believe that because an editor likes their book, this means they can take all the time in the world to get the revision back to them. However, this is not the case. Actually, you are being tested. Revision along guidelines is very much like what an editor might order after the contract is signed. With an edit, most times it’s expected back to the editor in a few days.
The reason I even mention this is that so many times I see comments from writers about how unfair publishing is to them and how they are treated so poorly. However, no one mentions what happens when writers let agents and editors and publishers down, usually from inexperience and/or greed. It doesn’t take much to screw up a production schedule. Just a few weeks can make a difference. Both Sharene and I have had clients who’ve taken just that much too long and lost the interest of an editor or had a publication date canceled or moved to later in the year or to the next year. This is disappointing and costly.
Writing for publication is a business, and if it’s YOUR business, those revisions should be the highest on your priority list, not the lowest. If you choose to try to write for publication and squeeze it in where it fits into your life, then the results will be you will get published—if you do get published—in a way that is commiserate with the effort, time, and energy you’ve put forth. Don’t write part-time and expect full-time pay and benefits. We’re not advocating giving up your day job because you shouldn’t, but writers must understand that writing professionally is another full-time effort and one that has to be taken seriously to be fruitful. Otherwise, you will waste not only your valuable time, but that of others as well.
Yes, it takes time to think out a revision; however, if you want to be a professional author, know that there are hardships involved. If you get this close to seeing a book in print, don’t spare the horsepower. Harness your creativity to the task and get it completed as rapidly as possible. The editor is expecting the revision back in weeks, not months (unless otherwise indicated), so keep the seat of your pants glued to your chair and get it done.
Monday, March 08, 2010
Monday, February 08, 2010
Good-bye YA?
So you might have heard that the Indianapolis Colts lost the Super Bowl, and, naturally, that begs us to address the question…
Should we do away with YA literature?
Okay, one has absolutely nothing to do with the other and it was a terrible segue; however, we never promised everything we do here at WMLA would make sense. We are in publishing, after all.
HA HA.
Seriously, though, there have been some changes in the industry that have made this a viable discussion topic. Have you noticed, for example, that the books propping up the industry (Twilight, Harry Potter, etc.) are YA crossovers? Not only do young readers read them, but adults do as well. Editors are now desperate to find—and we speak from experience here—books they can market initially as YA that will attract the adult audience. Given that the last five years have brought about a trend toward more mature YA with older protagonists, what does that say?
I’ve been thinking about YA lately, in a publishing kind of way AND a sociological kind of way. If you know anything about the evolution of children’s literature, you know that youngsters pre-Newberry read, or strived to read, adult stories. Literature written and marketed specifically for children was an afterthought. Don’t believe me? Check out the early versions of fairy tales. Not what I would characterize as child friendly, what with the toe amputations and all. Have you ever read the original Peter Pan? The one by James Matthew Barrie, not the Disney version. Though filled with whimsy, it’s definitely not written at a level young children, or even most teens or adults, could read without a struggle.
YA is a natural extension of the kiddy lit revolution and its newest genre. It hasn’t been around in its current form THAT long, though it’s been around. Prior to someone deciding that teens needed a body of reading material specifically designed for them, kids either read middle-grade or stepped up to reading adult books. There was no in between.
Maybe that was a good thing.
I like some YA lit. I really do. Never liked it as an adolescent, but that’s rather a moot point considering my current age (which is not in the teen range). However, one has to admit that the best YA also happens to appeal to adults. And one also has to admit the YA titles most attractive to YA readers are those that tackle mature issues and include older characters (even as old as the first year of college). Let’s face it: Most kids can’t wait to be adults, and lots of commercial fiction is written at an 8th grade reading level anyway. Teens are fascinated by the idea of having complete autonomy over their lives and making their own decisions—weren’t you? Isn’t this nature’s way of luring the innocents toward the inevitable? If kids really knew how difficult being an adult is, wouldn’t they all pull a Peter Pan?
So what does that say about the genre?
This is not new. Not really. There have always been publishers who insist on pure YA because they market only to teens, and those who are more open about wanting a YA that can appeal to a wider audience (and hope for a Twilight). However, has the time come to admit that maybe the reading population needs more of one and less of the other?
In addition, it’s been said that the last few generations, those would have grown up with YA lit designed just for them, are endowed with more of a sense of entitlement than their predecessors. Less "get up and go" and more "whine until we get what we want." Did we in publishing do that? By designating a genre for teens, did we send the wrong message?
Adolescence is temporary. If a person lives an average life span, he/she will spend way more time as an adult than as a young adult. By cherishing the wonder years just a little too much, by celebrating our growing pains like they were the only pains we’d ever have, have we created a segment of society born of angst and lacking in any comprehension of a world beyond themselves, or beyond their “young” selves that have slyly slipped into their pasts while they were updating their MySpace pages?
Why is it that e-book publishers rarely seek out YA? The newest technology available, which one would assume would explode onto the teen scene (yes, teens do read THAT much), and no e-publisher will touch it. Doesn’t that seem odd to you? Perhaps the reason no one wants YA e-books is because YA readers are reading adult level novels.
What do you think? You can leave a comment or participate in the poll we’re trying to set up (if it doesn't appear, then you know we couldn't remember how to do it...lol). Yes, it’s that important to us. This is our business and it’s changing, and we’ve found it’s the changes no one talks about that really are the most important and the ones that affect literature the most.
Should we do away with YA literature?
Okay, one has absolutely nothing to do with the other and it was a terrible segue; however, we never promised everything we do here at WMLA would make sense. We are in publishing, after all.
HA HA.
Seriously, though, there have been some changes in the industry that have made this a viable discussion topic. Have you noticed, for example, that the books propping up the industry (Twilight, Harry Potter, etc.) are YA crossovers? Not only do young readers read them, but adults do as well. Editors are now desperate to find—and we speak from experience here—books they can market initially as YA that will attract the adult audience. Given that the last five years have brought about a trend toward more mature YA with older protagonists, what does that say?
I’ve been thinking about YA lately, in a publishing kind of way AND a sociological kind of way. If you know anything about the evolution of children’s literature, you know that youngsters pre-Newberry read, or strived to read, adult stories. Literature written and marketed specifically for children was an afterthought. Don’t believe me? Check out the early versions of fairy tales. Not what I would characterize as child friendly, what with the toe amputations and all. Have you ever read the original Peter Pan? The one by James Matthew Barrie, not the Disney version. Though filled with whimsy, it’s definitely not written at a level young children, or even most teens or adults, could read without a struggle.
YA is a natural extension of the kiddy lit revolution and its newest genre. It hasn’t been around in its current form THAT long, though it’s been around. Prior to someone deciding that teens needed a body of reading material specifically designed for them, kids either read middle-grade or stepped up to reading adult books. There was no in between.
Maybe that was a good thing.
I like some YA lit. I really do. Never liked it as an adolescent, but that’s rather a moot point considering my current age (which is not in the teen range). However, one has to admit that the best YA also happens to appeal to adults. And one also has to admit the YA titles most attractive to YA readers are those that tackle mature issues and include older characters (even as old as the first year of college). Let’s face it: Most kids can’t wait to be adults, and lots of commercial fiction is written at an 8th grade reading level anyway. Teens are fascinated by the idea of having complete autonomy over their lives and making their own decisions—weren’t you? Isn’t this nature’s way of luring the innocents toward the inevitable? If kids really knew how difficult being an adult is, wouldn’t they all pull a Peter Pan?
So what does that say about the genre?
This is not new. Not really. There have always been publishers who insist on pure YA because they market only to teens, and those who are more open about wanting a YA that can appeal to a wider audience (and hope for a Twilight). However, has the time come to admit that maybe the reading population needs more of one and less of the other?
In addition, it’s been said that the last few generations, those would have grown up with YA lit designed just for them, are endowed with more of a sense of entitlement than their predecessors. Less "get up and go" and more "whine until we get what we want." Did we in publishing do that? By designating a genre for teens, did we send the wrong message?
Adolescence is temporary. If a person lives an average life span, he/she will spend way more time as an adult than as a young adult. By cherishing the wonder years just a little too much, by celebrating our growing pains like they were the only pains we’d ever have, have we created a segment of society born of angst and lacking in any comprehension of a world beyond themselves, or beyond their “young” selves that have slyly slipped into their pasts while they were updating their MySpace pages?
Why is it that e-book publishers rarely seek out YA? The newest technology available, which one would assume would explode onto the teen scene (yes, teens do read THAT much), and no e-publisher will touch it. Doesn’t that seem odd to you? Perhaps the reason no one wants YA e-books is because YA readers are reading adult level novels.
What do you think? You can leave a comment or participate in the poll we’re trying to set up (if it doesn't appear, then you know we couldn't remember how to do it...lol). Yes, it’s that important to us. This is our business and it’s changing, and we’ve found it’s the changes no one talks about that really are the most important and the ones that affect literature the most.
Thursday, February 04, 2010
Dilemma
"I hope you will forgive a possibly naive comment, but isn't readers' solidarity reflected in their purchasing power as consumers? That is, if readers won't/don't buy hardcover or trade paperback books for $27.00 or even $14.95, then the publishers' argument is moot, really, whether or not Amazon is arbitrarily setting the price at $9.99 for e-books (and Macmillan is demanding more). Of course, reader purchasing power is not organized advocacy, and it's heavily influenced by marketing, but I would argue it's still a way that readers make their preferences known. Isn't it?
I can see that if Macmillan is greedy, one of the outcomes will be that some good (maybe great) books won't get to the hands of readers. But then, at the point where readers aren't buying at x price, won't the publishers have to rethink their strategy to stay in business?
In other words, it seems to me that the publishers and distributors (and even the authors) will forget the reader at their own peril..."
The above came in this morning from K Ann Karlsson as a comment, but because it strikes at the heart of what's killing a wonderful industry, we thought we would respond as a post rather than a comment that might get lost.
First of all, this is not a naïve comment as consumers are normally the driving power behind the success or failure of a product and even an industry. However, the consumer only has this luxury when there’s competition, and with books, there is very little. Yes, many readers have stopped reading novels out of frustration; however, this doesn’t bother the book industry in the least as they continue to turn out the same types of substandard books that turned these readers off in the first place. This is the reason the industry is facing dire straits as we speak.
A recent example of consumers controlling the market might be Toyota recalling thousands of the vehicles for defects that their customers complained about. Publishers have no idea what readers want because they depend on bookstores for this information and big box bookstores can’t tell their readers what constitutes a good read if it’s not in the front of the store or doesn’t have a widely known name on it. Publishers have no idea who buys their books, or why. With an average of 80,000 books on their shelves, many of which no one who works in the bookstore has read, this is an impossible situation.
How many ads for books do you see on television? When was the last time you heard about a publisher taking a survey on who reads their books? How much direct marketing do publishers actually do--and the word, “direct” is very important in this question. If you’re curious about the answers to these questions, here are some statements that might help to answer them:
Publishing depends on a few celebrity authors to make money for them. You’ll see their titles up front in most bookstores.
Publishers have no idea what readers want to read. They depend on big box marketing people when deciding which books to publish.
Big box bookstores depend on what’s selling and what’s not to feed marketing information back to publishers. Again, remember whose books are up front in bookstores. Name recognition is key here.
You’ll find out how knowledgeable workers are in big box bookstores when you ask them to suggest a good read.
Most super-bestseller of past years have come as a complete shock to those who published them. If you ask them, they will tell you that they have no idea why certain books sell well and others don’t.
Editors buy books on personal preference and not from any data on what readers want to read.
Bottom line here is our industry is dying and you have touched on one of the reasons why. Nuff said.
Robert and Sharene
I can see that if Macmillan is greedy, one of the outcomes will be that some good (maybe great) books won't get to the hands of readers. But then, at the point where readers aren't buying at x price, won't the publishers have to rethink their strategy to stay in business?
In other words, it seems to me that the publishers and distributors (and even the authors) will forget the reader at their own peril..."
The above came in this morning from K Ann Karlsson as a comment, but because it strikes at the heart of what's killing a wonderful industry, we thought we would respond as a post rather than a comment that might get lost.
First of all, this is not a naïve comment as consumers are normally the driving power behind the success or failure of a product and even an industry. However, the consumer only has this luxury when there’s competition, and with books, there is very little. Yes, many readers have stopped reading novels out of frustration; however, this doesn’t bother the book industry in the least as they continue to turn out the same types of substandard books that turned these readers off in the first place. This is the reason the industry is facing dire straits as we speak.
A recent example of consumers controlling the market might be Toyota recalling thousands of the vehicles for defects that their customers complained about. Publishers have no idea what readers want because they depend on bookstores for this information and big box bookstores can’t tell their readers what constitutes a good read if it’s not in the front of the store or doesn’t have a widely known name on it. Publishers have no idea who buys their books, or why. With an average of 80,000 books on their shelves, many of which no one who works in the bookstore has read, this is an impossible situation.
How many ads for books do you see on television? When was the last time you heard about a publisher taking a survey on who reads their books? How much direct marketing do publishers actually do--and the word, “direct” is very important in this question. If you’re curious about the answers to these questions, here are some statements that might help to answer them:
Publishing depends on a few celebrity authors to make money for them. You’ll see their titles up front in most bookstores.
Publishers have no idea what readers want to read. They depend on big box marketing people when deciding which books to publish.
Big box bookstores depend on what’s selling and what’s not to feed marketing information back to publishers. Again, remember whose books are up front in bookstores. Name recognition is key here.
You’ll find out how knowledgeable workers are in big box bookstores when you ask them to suggest a good read.
Most super-bestseller of past years have come as a complete shock to those who published them. If you ask them, they will tell you that they have no idea why certain books sell well and others don’t.
Editors buy books on personal preference and not from any data on what readers want to read.
Bottom line here is our industry is dying and you have touched on one of the reasons why. Nuff said.
Robert and Sharene
Tuesday, February 02, 2010
Bully versus Bully
Are you a member of the Readers Rights Organization? Probably not. It doesn’t exist…yet. Keep that in mind, because I think the time has come for readers to re-think and realize their place in the publishing food chain.
This brings me to today’s rant, er, I mean, post. After reading the Authors Guild’s stand on the Amazon/McMillan war, I would like someone to explain to me AG’s stand on how higher priced books will HELP readers. Yes, I agree that Amazon’s action was a little harsh; however, it is THEIR business and THEIR business model that’s being threatened, isn’t it?
This whole debacle looks like two turf-hungry bullies fighting over their right to control a market that was thought, for years, to be so insignificant it didn’t warrant anything but an upturned nose. Now, all of a sudden, it seems McMillan smells money, like a shark smells blood, and the results are the same. Good for shark; bad for prey.
You, dear readers, are the prey.
The Authors Guild posted an update on its site stating that “Last Thursday, Macmillan CEO John Sargent informed Amazon that beginning in March, it would offer Amazon access to a full range of e-book titles only if Amazon were willing to sell books on an ‘agency’ model that would pay Amazon 30% of e-book proceeds and allow Macmillan to set its own retail price for e-books. (Currently, Amazon buys e-books as a reseller at a discount of 50% off the retail list price and sells at the price it chooses.) Macmillan's price under its agency model, in many cases, would be higher than the $9.99 ceiling that Amazon has been seeking to impose on the industry.”
What I get from this is Macmillan wants to pay Amazon less on one end and ask more for their book on the other side. It also looks to me that Macmillan fired the first shot and when it hit reinforced steel, it bounced off. Macmillan then got mad and accused Amazon of not playing fair. I think I’d be a little unhappy if someone who had been paying me 50% told me they would now pay me 30% and that from now on they were going to control book pricing that I had controlled for years, especially when these are the same people who’ve been putting up with the 100% return policy imposed years ago by bookstores, a policy, I might add, that is a contributing factor the descent of the publishing industry today. Ask any author who’s had to take a hit because of returns because his book hit the stores at the wrong time or stayed there a little too long.
My take on this is that $14.95, which is in the realm of the trade paperback, is too expensive for electronic ink that can’t be placed on my library shelf or given to a friend or my daughters when I’m finished reading it. Macmillan is telling me as a reader, that if this price isn’t made higher than $9.99, that I won’t buy first run, hardcover books priced at around $27.00 because I’ll go to Amazon to buy all my books because of the lower prices. This means they and their authors will suffer. As a reader, this just sounds like greed to me. Of course, I can understand Authors Guild’s stand on this as they represent authors and not readers. Actually, nobody represents readers, do they?
Considering the cost of producing an electronic book when compared to the print version, I find the Kindle price even at $9.99 ridiculous, especially with what publishers offer authors for their electronic rights. Where’s the cost and how does raising the cover price of a book benefit me as a reader? Answer that question, Macmillan and Authors Guild, and you’ll have me on your side. But, alas, this is all a moot point as it seems Amazon has already caved because of falling stock price pressures and the looming threat of the Apple’s IPad.
As a reader, the end user of all book products, apparently I’m being forgotten yet again. Do publishers and distributors ever consider me in their squabbles? I guess not. It considers the producers of the product, but not the consumers. Hence, the Readers Rights Organization. I would love to see an advocacy group for readers started, regardless of what it would be called. I don’t mean one started by a bunch of writers who are also readers and who will think of it as another way to control their products, but one founded by people who truly just love to read.
Like me.
For further reading: Click here to link to another article on the matter, which I will respond to at another time.
Sharene and Robert
This brings me to today’s rant, er, I mean, post. After reading the Authors Guild’s stand on the Amazon/McMillan war, I would like someone to explain to me AG’s stand on how higher priced books will HELP readers. Yes, I agree that Amazon’s action was a little harsh; however, it is THEIR business and THEIR business model that’s being threatened, isn’t it?
This whole debacle looks like two turf-hungry bullies fighting over their right to control a market that was thought, for years, to be so insignificant it didn’t warrant anything but an upturned nose. Now, all of a sudden, it seems McMillan smells money, like a shark smells blood, and the results are the same. Good for shark; bad for prey.
You, dear readers, are the prey.
The Authors Guild posted an update on its site stating that “Last Thursday, Macmillan CEO John Sargent informed Amazon that beginning in March, it would offer Amazon access to a full range of e-book titles only if Amazon were willing to sell books on an ‘agency’ model that would pay Amazon 30% of e-book proceeds and allow Macmillan to set its own retail price for e-books. (Currently, Amazon buys e-books as a reseller at a discount of 50% off the retail list price and sells at the price it chooses.) Macmillan's price under its agency model, in many cases, would be higher than the $9.99 ceiling that Amazon has been seeking to impose on the industry.”
What I get from this is Macmillan wants to pay Amazon less on one end and ask more for their book on the other side. It also looks to me that Macmillan fired the first shot and when it hit reinforced steel, it bounced off. Macmillan then got mad and accused Amazon of not playing fair. I think I’d be a little unhappy if someone who had been paying me 50% told me they would now pay me 30% and that from now on they were going to control book pricing that I had controlled for years, especially when these are the same people who’ve been putting up with the 100% return policy imposed years ago by bookstores, a policy, I might add, that is a contributing factor the descent of the publishing industry today. Ask any author who’s had to take a hit because of returns because his book hit the stores at the wrong time or stayed there a little too long.
My take on this is that $14.95, which is in the realm of the trade paperback, is too expensive for electronic ink that can’t be placed on my library shelf or given to a friend or my daughters when I’m finished reading it. Macmillan is telling me as a reader, that if this price isn’t made higher than $9.99, that I won’t buy first run, hardcover books priced at around $27.00 because I’ll go to Amazon to buy all my books because of the lower prices. This means they and their authors will suffer. As a reader, this just sounds like greed to me. Of course, I can understand Authors Guild’s stand on this as they represent authors and not readers. Actually, nobody represents readers, do they?
Considering the cost of producing an electronic book when compared to the print version, I find the Kindle price even at $9.99 ridiculous, especially with what publishers offer authors for their electronic rights. Where’s the cost and how does raising the cover price of a book benefit me as a reader? Answer that question, Macmillan and Authors Guild, and you’ll have me on your side. But, alas, this is all a moot point as it seems Amazon has already caved because of falling stock price pressures and the looming threat of the Apple’s IPad.
As a reader, the end user of all book products, apparently I’m being forgotten yet again. Do publishers and distributors ever consider me in their squabbles? I guess not. It considers the producers of the product, but not the consumers. Hence, the Readers Rights Organization. I would love to see an advocacy group for readers started, regardless of what it would be called. I don’t mean one started by a bunch of writers who are also readers and who will think of it as another way to control their products, but one founded by people who truly just love to read.
Like me.
For further reading: Click here to link to another article on the matter, which I will respond to at another time.
Sharene and Robert
Sunday, January 24, 2010
Friend or…Fan?
Although I don’t really like terms that include s-n-a-r-k, I find that at the moment this is the most appropriate word to describe the tone of this post. I just have the urge to engage in a little writer snarkiness, so for this post, pretend I’m not an agent. Pretend for a moment that I’m a writer and, more importantly, a reader.
I’ve come across a strange phenomenon on Facebook, and since it has to do with semantics, it captured my interest. Many writers use FB as a marketing tool with great success, as well as Twitter and other social networking/crowd sourcing type applications. One of the keys to being good at marketing your book is interpersonal communication skills and knowing how to relate to people who enjoy (or don’t enjoy) your work. To do this, you have to ask yourself some questions:
1. What do readers want from my book?
2. What do readers want from me as an author?
3. How do readers perceive authors and publishing in general?
If you’re a reader, which most writers are, you understand these questions, and you can answer them. Think about one of your favorite authors. What attracts you to her book? What level of interest do you have in the author? Some people want to meet a favorite author. Others want to hang out with him and have some nice conversation. Some readers don’t care about the author as long as she keeps writing the books they like. There are also those readers who just want to meet an author because they think that—and I’m desperately trying to keep a straight face as I write this—being an author is glamorous.
That brings me to my observation, which may or may not be worth the pixels that display it. On FB, a person can have up to 5,000 Friend connections, or “Friends.” We all know that on FB, “friends” is a catchall term that can mean anything from, “I don’t know this random stranger but I’m a marketing dynamo and will friend anyone who might buy my book,” to “This is my mother who carried me for nine long and laborious months,” with varying degrees of familyship, friendship, acquaintanceship, strangership, and professionalship in between. After the 5,000 limit is reached, no more Friends can be added. This leaves some authors in a dilemma. What does one do when he reaches that limit and still receives Friend requests and there’s oh-so-much more marketing to do?
This is where it gets interesting, as I’ve seen a couple of different solutions. One is that authors establish a Fan Page, which basically allows for the same type of interaction but has no limit. Some authors send a kind note explaining the situation and politely encouraging the person sending the Friend request to Become A Fan. Actually, most authors do this. However, I’ve seen one or two authors create another FB Profile to accommodate the rest of the people who’d like to connect with them.
Which do you think is best?
While you’re pondering that, let me give you my take on it. This is from me as a reader and writer, remember, not as a agent.
To be quite frank, it usually really irks me to friend an author whose work I admire, which I do under my pen name, only to receive an e-mail informing me that the person is no longer accepting friend requests and requesting that I please join her Fan Page. Now this isn’t necessarily insulting in and of itself. I have gotten some responses that were so kindly worded that I wasn’t insulted, because the author truly didn’t seem to know what else to do, and he had 4,999 friends already. These authors get me as a Fan, even though there is another solution.
However, the authors who write who have 2,000 friends and are directing me to their Fan Pages are doing it because after friending anyone and everyone in a marketing frenzy, they suddenly realized they may not be leaving room for the really important people who can help them achieve personal glory, i.e. agents, editors, and publishers. Readers, well they’re just fans anyway, right? Just a target demographic?
Also, I think these writers believe that having thousands of Fans sounds more impressive than having thousands of Friends, at least to a publisher. Or so these authors think. I know what I think. I think said author views me as some schmuck who might buy her book as opposed to a real human being who might want to connect to an author whose work I admire. She is purposely herding me in with all the other people in the demographic her book serves.
Oh, I know that a Fan Page has no limit and that an author can still communicate in the same way as on a Profile, but the words Friend and Fan have different connotations, and believe it or not, some people find the minute differences very important. Some people, meaning the readers who are actually the ones whose cash funds your paycheck.
Networking via establishing connections with publishing industry professionals is important; however, realizing that treating a reader like a sales unit can turn off even the most loyal fan is even more important. It sends a message about what the writer thinks of the “little people” who comprise the foundation of his career. As a writer, you can always think your readers are mere rungs on the ladder to success, but letting them know in no uncertain terms that they fall low on your priority list is a really bad idea.
A couple of writers actually started second profiles to accommodate Friend requests, and they have a Fan Page as well. While this may be more work and will probably prove to be terribly inefficient, apparently these authors “get” how important words, particularly labels, can be, in one’s marketing efforts. Imagine that. A writer who understands the value of words. Wonders never cease, do they?
Perhaps FB will change the Friend limit, and this will be a moot point, or maybe it’s just me being overly sensitive to the nuance of words. That happens sometimes. I don’t think so, though. I know that, as a writer, I think the world of the people who take the time to sit down and read something I’ve written, especially after paying for it, and for me to say “Sorry, you can’t be my Friend, but you can be my Fan,” just seems somehow dismissive. If they’d wanted to be my Fan, they’d have searched for my Fan Page to begin with, don’t you think?
Like I said, maybe it’s just me. Maybe I’m just hyper-sensitive to words. They’re how I process, think, resolve, function. My life is the written word, even grocery lists. All words have a story to me. All words have meaning. None of them can be wasted. So perhaps I'm just being too critical. I mean, what does my opinion matter anyway?
I'm just a reader. *wink*
I’ve come across a strange phenomenon on Facebook, and since it has to do with semantics, it captured my interest. Many writers use FB as a marketing tool with great success, as well as Twitter and other social networking/crowd sourcing type applications. One of the keys to being good at marketing your book is interpersonal communication skills and knowing how to relate to people who enjoy (or don’t enjoy) your work. To do this, you have to ask yourself some questions:
1. What do readers want from my book?
2. What do readers want from me as an author?
3. How do readers perceive authors and publishing in general?
If you’re a reader, which most writers are, you understand these questions, and you can answer them. Think about one of your favorite authors. What attracts you to her book? What level of interest do you have in the author? Some people want to meet a favorite author. Others want to hang out with him and have some nice conversation. Some readers don’t care about the author as long as she keeps writing the books they like. There are also those readers who just want to meet an author because they think that—and I’m desperately trying to keep a straight face as I write this—being an author is glamorous.
That brings me to my observation, which may or may not be worth the pixels that display it. On FB, a person can have up to 5,000 Friend connections, or “Friends.” We all know that on FB, “friends” is a catchall term that can mean anything from, “I don’t know this random stranger but I’m a marketing dynamo and will friend anyone who might buy my book,” to “This is my mother who carried me for nine long and laborious months,” with varying degrees of familyship, friendship, acquaintanceship, strangership, and professionalship in between. After the 5,000 limit is reached, no more Friends can be added. This leaves some authors in a dilemma. What does one do when he reaches that limit and still receives Friend requests and there’s oh-so-much more marketing to do?
This is where it gets interesting, as I’ve seen a couple of different solutions. One is that authors establish a Fan Page, which basically allows for the same type of interaction but has no limit. Some authors send a kind note explaining the situation and politely encouraging the person sending the Friend request to Become A Fan. Actually, most authors do this. However, I’ve seen one or two authors create another FB Profile to accommodate the rest of the people who’d like to connect with them.
Which do you think is best?
While you’re pondering that, let me give you my take on it. This is from me as a reader and writer, remember, not as a agent.
To be quite frank, it usually really irks me to friend an author whose work I admire, which I do under my pen name, only to receive an e-mail informing me that the person is no longer accepting friend requests and requesting that I please join her Fan Page. Now this isn’t necessarily insulting in and of itself. I have gotten some responses that were so kindly worded that I wasn’t insulted, because the author truly didn’t seem to know what else to do, and he had 4,999 friends already. These authors get me as a Fan, even though there is another solution.
However, the authors who write who have 2,000 friends and are directing me to their Fan Pages are doing it because after friending anyone and everyone in a marketing frenzy, they suddenly realized they may not be leaving room for the really important people who can help them achieve personal glory, i.e. agents, editors, and publishers. Readers, well they’re just fans anyway, right? Just a target demographic?
Also, I think these writers believe that having thousands of Fans sounds more impressive than having thousands of Friends, at least to a publisher. Or so these authors think. I know what I think. I think said author views me as some schmuck who might buy her book as opposed to a real human being who might want to connect to an author whose work I admire. She is purposely herding me in with all the other people in the demographic her book serves.
Oh, I know that a Fan Page has no limit and that an author can still communicate in the same way as on a Profile, but the words Friend and Fan have different connotations, and believe it or not, some people find the minute differences very important. Some people, meaning the readers who are actually the ones whose cash funds your paycheck.
Networking via establishing connections with publishing industry professionals is important; however, realizing that treating a reader like a sales unit can turn off even the most loyal fan is even more important. It sends a message about what the writer thinks of the “little people” who comprise the foundation of his career. As a writer, you can always think your readers are mere rungs on the ladder to success, but letting them know in no uncertain terms that they fall low on your priority list is a really bad idea.
A couple of writers actually started second profiles to accommodate Friend requests, and they have a Fan Page as well. While this may be more work and will probably prove to be terribly inefficient, apparently these authors “get” how important words, particularly labels, can be, in one’s marketing efforts. Imagine that. A writer who understands the value of words. Wonders never cease, do they?
Perhaps FB will change the Friend limit, and this will be a moot point, or maybe it’s just me being overly sensitive to the nuance of words. That happens sometimes. I don’t think so, though. I know that, as a writer, I think the world of the people who take the time to sit down and read something I’ve written, especially after paying for it, and for me to say “Sorry, you can’t be my Friend, but you can be my Fan,” just seems somehow dismissive. If they’d wanted to be my Fan, they’d have searched for my Fan Page to begin with, don’t you think?
Like I said, maybe it’s just me. Maybe I’m just hyper-sensitive to words. They’re how I process, think, resolve, function. My life is the written word, even grocery lists. All words have a story to me. All words have meaning. None of them can be wasted. So perhaps I'm just being too critical. I mean, what does my opinion matter anyway?
I'm just a reader. *wink*
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
