Jeremy lassen ([info]jlassen) wrote,
@ 2007-08-30 10:25:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Do you start with a negative, or with a positive?
This was a response to someone in the thread of my previous post. But I wanted to pull it up top, because it touches on the core of my frustration with this whole discussion.

There are plenty of high profile female writers. Female writers sell better then male writers... because... wait for it... more women buy books then men. In fact, there are probably more successful and high profile SF and fantasy female writers than male writers.

But... and this is the problem... NONE OF THEM ARE IN MY BOOK! Get me Ursula, or Connie or someone else, and they will easily displace Bruce or Garth or some of the others. Those front five are based on simple sales numbers.... (seemingly borne out by the actual vote tallies in the original snarky post! The only difference from the poll tallies and actual list on the front was Jones and Ford).

The editor of Eclipse, Jonathan, worked his ass off to get an outstanding anthology that was a great mix of semi-comercial names and critical darlings, and damn good stories. I'm a bit upset that this discussion of the names on the front cover is overshadowing all other discussions about the quality of the book.

I'm also a bit upset that this had to begin as a Negative conversation... In an anthology that is essentially a 50/50 gender split, it could have just as easily started with "Isn't it great that an anthology edited by this guy... with NO overt gender agenda ended up with an equal split of male and female writers? Isn't it nice to see an example where the final product actually reflects the demographics, with no gender bias, one way or the other? Isn't it nice to see something that is not explicitly marketed to women has no gender bias in the contents? Isn't it nice to see a publisher taking a chance on a category of book that is a proven loser in the market place, because they believe short fiction is important?

There are a ton of positives that could have been the basis for the beginning of the conversation, that could have led into a "yeah but... look at the list on the cover... things could always be better", and this same discussion could have been had, but in a productive way, instead of a snarky counterproductive way... But some people had to start out with the negatives... they have to do it in a demeaning, snarky way that somehow ranks and pits the contributors against each other. They do it in a way that encourages people to NOT BUY THE BOOK, and then when people state "I'm not going to buy that book" nobody says... yeah.. but shouldn't we SUPPORT anthologies who's contents reflect the gender demographics, DESPITE the problem with the cover"? Don't we wan't MORE anthologies like this one? But nobody stepped in. and a productive discussion wasn't had, because it was about taking pot shots at a seemingly easy target.

It's enormously frustrating to be trying to do good, and have one negative out of a bunch of positives thrown back in your face, with no discussion at all. To have the original poster dismiss the gender split of the contents, with a virtual shrug, and continue the discussion in such a way as to encourage people to not buy the anthology... It's tiresome and maddening.

A word of advise to anybody trying to make a point, or advance a cause or agenda. You get more flies with honey rather then vinegar. In this entire ongoing discussion in the genre about gender disparity in genre short fiction markets, I'm about as sympathetic a person as there is. I'm a feminist... a vocal one who's proud of the label. I do think there are gender disparities and in whatever limited roles I am able to do so, I try and help correct this, and help correct perceptions of the issue. And if anybody who started or participated in the thread had down a little bit of homework, they could of, or at least should have known about me, and about my relationship to the book and the company that published it. But they didn't. I, and the the work of the editor, and the work of all the contributers, male and female alike were simply dismissed...Dismissed as pointless... "But it's a bit pointless doing that if you're then going to slap a boy's own cover on the thing."

Thanks... it's called not seeing the forest for the trees.



(Post a new comment)


[info]sclerotic_rings
2007-08-30 05:28 pm UTC (link)
You have the right idea, and I honestly have no problem with your decisions all the way around. I just get frustrated with the morons who will continue to bitch about how "you needed to do this" and "if you do this, I'd buy it," and then refuse to buy it anyway.

(Reply to this)


(Anonymous)
2007-08-30 05:30 pm UTC (link)
Welcome to the club, Jeremy.

---Gordon V.G.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]ktempest
2007-08-30 07:52 pm UTC (link)
again with this club!

I suspect that this is the coming attractions to the movie of "I have been teh WRONGED!" written by and starring... someone.

god damn I am in a bad mood today.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]jlassen, 2007-08-31 05:00 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]ktempest, 2007-08-31 07:29 pm UTC

[info]mroctober
2007-08-30 05:44 pm UTC (link)
The book has a terrific TOC. That should not be forgotten.

When I was reading for So Fey, I found myself cautious of being as inclusive as possible, of both author and theme, just so that no one would be offended. But I am sure that someone will have an issue with the end result (no enough transgendered stories or bisexual tales). Plus, the cover was a big issue. As is, I fear that it is presenting the book as a collection of lesbian fantasy stories and gay men will avoid it like the plague. It seems nigh-impossible to satisfy the majority of readers/buyers.

(Reply to this)


[info]cofax7
2007-08-30 05:54 pm UTC (link)
You get more flies with honey rather then vinegar.

You really don't get to dictate the terms of the debate.

Women have every right to be angry about just as many things as men are, and to say things in anger. Now, you may feel it's unfair to be the target of that anger in this instance, but anger? Is a human emotion that apparently women aren't allowed to feel because we're then portrayed as "stamping our feet petulantly". Well, fuck that.

As for the rest of your post, I said in Niall's original post and I'll repeat it here: frankly the real problem is that your cover art and "top five-selling writers" don't accurately reflect the content of the anthology. Which is the point Niall was making about the "Boys' Own cover". I applaud you for your gender-distribution in the anthology itself, and for the catch in landing a Whelan cover. But the cover art and text contradict the contents in such a way as to negate (some of) the benefit of the gender distribution. Many of the readers who would read Gunn, Wilce, McHugh, Jones, and Lanagan will not pick this book up, because you have failed to note their presence.

Me, I would look at that cover and pass it by, in all likelihood. If you'd put Wilce and Gunn on the cover, I might have picked it up to check it out, because I know who they are and the sort of thing they're writing. And because it looks like an effort was made to be inclusive in the choice of authors.

Of course all of this is the publisher's decision. But it's the audience's right to respond, as well. And bitching about how we're not being fair won't help: you want us to buy the book, don't you?

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]mroctober
2007-08-30 06:37 pm UTC (link)
I believe I was the one who mentioend 'foot-stomping and petulance' not Jeremy.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]cofax7, 2007-08-30 06:41 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]mroctober, 2007-08-30 06:44 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]cofax7, 2007-08-30 06:55 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]mroctober, 2007-08-30 06:57 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]cofax7, 2007-08-30 07:09 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]cristalia, 2007-08-30 07:14 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]ktempest, 2007-08-30 07:50 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]cristalia, 2007-08-30 07:57 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]ktempest, 2007-08-31 01:59 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]dichroic, 2007-09-13 03:33 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]tekanji, 2007-08-30 11:21 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]cristalia, 2007-08-30 11:30 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]tekanji, 2007-08-30 11:36 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]silk_noir, 2007-08-31 02:07 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]mroctober, 2007-08-30 07:17 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]jamiam, 2007-09-03 12:15 pm UTC

[info]heyfoureyes
2007-08-31 09:17 am UTC (link)
I'm seconding here that I probably would have passed it by in the store for something with at least one woman's name on the cover. Seeing the TOC, it looks exciting. Chalk this up to experience.

I don't _only_ read women, but I do like to read women. I'm surprised not to hear male voices saying the same in this debate.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]infinitehotel
2007-08-30 06:06 pm UTC (link)
I think the length of the thread makes it seem much more significant than it really was. Without bothering to go back to count, how many people were actually commenting? A dozen? Even at twice that and considering all the lurkers who read the thread and didn't toss in their two cents, it's publicity and that isn't all bad. A lot of readers who had no idea an anthology with Beagle, Jones, Lanagan, Nix, and Sterling was in the works now do and of those, the folks who shrugged their shoulders and said "It's a cover, so what?" are the ones who are going to buy. You might have irritated a few, but I suspect you gained more sales than you lost.

It's a good lineup; it looks like a great book. Even agreeing with the intention of the thread, I can't think of any reason not to buy it.

(Reply to this)


[info]coalescent
2007-08-30 06:13 pm UTC (link)
When I actually have a copy, then I will talk about the quality of the book. Heck, if you want to send me a proof, I'll start talking about it next week. I have said, at various times this year, how cool it is that we have some original anthology series starting up. As it stands, though, there's not a lot I can say about the quality of the book. All I can say is what I've already said -- that the full table of contents makes me want to buy the book, and the cover does not.

For me, this, what Hannah said, is the heart of it: "The names on the cover makes me think, 'Probably well-written, but pretty much the usual suspects.' [...] I'd expect to enjoy the book, but (sorry, Jeff) I wouldn't be in any particular rush to get to it. What I get from the TOC is [...] 'Wow, that's a really solid and unusual lineup.' And then I start to get excited."

My problem with you saying we should talk about the positives is simply that we can talk all we want, but we won't reach the majority of people who are going to see Eclipse on those front tables in Barnes & Noble and Borders. The majority of people are going to go by the cover; and if the cover doesn't indicate the breadth of the lineup, if the cover doesn't show them it's a book they'll want to support, how are they meant to know?

From the full table of contents, Eclipse looks strong. But this is a strong year for anthologies. Put Eclipse next to Logorrhea, for instance, and give me only the information on the cover -- in the case of the latter, Clare Dudman, Hal Duncan, Elizabeth Hand, Michael Moorcock, Jeff Vandermeer and Marly Youmans -- and I'm going to pick up Klima's book first, because it sounds more diverse, more interesting, more representative.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]buymeaclue
2007-08-30 08:43 pm UTC (link)
>For me, this, what Hannah said, is the heart of it

You said that! That's what you said! ;)

(Reply to this) (Parent)

(no subject) - [info]buymeaclue, 2007-08-30 08:44 pm UTC

[info]sinboy
2007-08-30 06:21 pm UTC (link)
It's enormously frustrating to be trying to do good, and have one negative out of a bunch of positives thrown back in your face, with no discussion at all. To have the original poster dismiss the gender split of the contents, with a virtual shrug, and continue the discussion in such a way as to encourage people to not buy the anthology... It's tiresome and maddening.

As tiresome and maddening as being part of the minority that has the problem?

Honestly, I think you did a good job pushing for equality, but getting defensive about this is not going to win you points with anyone who'd upset about things, and you're in a position of power and privilege. Hitting back is just going to create more rifts.

(Reply to this)


[info]pigeonhed
2007-08-30 06:23 pm UTC (link)
Jeremy, I actually agree with most of that, and I do know a little about your record in publishing wonderful, gorgeous books by Elizabeth bear, Liz Williams and Gwyneth Jones amongst others.

But (and you knew there was a but coming) I object to being labelled as dismissing your efforts when repeatedly I have asked questions I hoped would be answered. Its simple enough, did you consider that having an all male list might cost you as many readers as one of those names might bring you in? Did you wonder if an all-male list might be misrepresenting the anthology and negating some of Jonathan's work? Note that I say might, because such things are impossible to truly quantify.

I might ask questions or discuss the actual contents when I've had the chance to read them but as the book isnt due out for another year I can only discuss whats in front of me.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]mroctober
2007-08-30 06:36 pm UTC (link)
I believe it releases in October.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]pigeonhed, 2007-08-30 06:43 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]coalescent, 2007-08-30 06:44 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]pigeonhed, 2007-08-30 06:55 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]jlassen, 2007-08-31 05:17 pm UTC

[info]ktempest
2007-08-30 07:33 pm UTC (link)
This is going to sound extremely snarky, though it is only slightly snarky and mostly heartfelt:

You're a victim of the terrible, terrible world we live in where people now no longer expect just the basic inclusiveness that is a parity of gender in the TOC but now expect a parity of gender everywhere all at once! Woe to those caught in this sad state of affairs. Nothing is ever enough.

In a completely non-snarky comment, it is partly due to the fact that there are several levels of stuff to address that, once one level is all done now, you move on to the next level without lagging on the lower level to offer congratulations and handshakes. This can feel really unfair, especially to folks who are honestly trying, as you seem to be.

But I submit that the discussion of the cover is very valid, though negative. It's the next level up from discussions of a balanced TOC. The problem as a whole does not end when you fix one aspect of it. People recognize that.

I do think it's not good that people rolled up with the snark as if Nightshade was a subsidiary of F&SF. You guys don't deserve that. But Jason's comment REALLY did not help matters. Any time folks who are in the role of "teh ebil oppresur!" roll up and start whining, defending, accusing, and stomping with the little foot, it just looks bad. And it lessens the chance that the discussion as a whole can focus on what's been done right. That's all.

Sometimes I feel like I should teach a course on how to deal with this kind of situation.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]sinboy
2007-08-30 08:27 pm UTC (link)
Sometimes I feel like I should teach a course on how to deal with this kind of situation.

Next Readercon?

(Reply to this) (Parent)

(no subject) - [info]nightshadebooks, 2007-08-30 08:42 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]ktempest, 2007-08-30 09:31 pm UTC
(no subject) - (Anonymous), 2007-08-30 10:09 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]ktempest, 2007-08-30 10:19 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]_swallow, 2007-08-31 04:38 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]jlassen, 2007-08-31 05:37 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]_swallow, 2007-08-31 09:08 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]susansugarspun, 2007-08-30 11:20 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]jlassen, 2007-08-31 05:54 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]susansugarspun, 2007-08-31 08:06 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]benpeek, 2007-08-30 11:11 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]ktempest, 2007-08-31 12:20 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]benpeek, 2007-08-31 12:46 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]ktempest, 2007-08-31 01:03 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]benpeek, 2007-08-31 01:23 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]ktempest, 2007-08-31 01:46 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]benpeek, 2007-08-31 02:05 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]ktempest, 2007-08-31 02:23 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]benpeek, 2007-08-31 02:50 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]ktempest, 2007-08-31 02:59 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]pigeonhed, 2007-08-31 08:44 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]ktempest, 2007-08-31 12:51 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]silk_noir, 2007-08-31 03:01 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]pigeonhed, 2007-09-03 11:27 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]jlassen, 2007-08-31 06:04 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]ktempest, 2007-08-31 07:53 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]pigeonhed, 2007-08-31 08:47 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]ktempest, 2007-08-31 02:31 pm UTC
FIVE names - [info]heyfoureyes, 2007-08-31 03:51 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]jlassen, 2007-08-31 05:30 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]ktempest, 2007-08-31 07:49 pm UTC

[info]buymeaclue
2007-08-30 08:40 pm UTC (link)
>There are a ton of positives that could have been the basis for the beginning of the conversation, that could have led into a "yeah but... look at the list on the cover... things could always be better", and this same discussion could have been had, but in a productive way, instead of a snarky counterproductive way... But some people had to start out with the negatives... they have to do it in a demeaning, snarky way that somehow ranks and pits the contributors against each other.

Have any of the contributers other than Ford weighed in? 'Cause he didn't seem to feel particularly pitted.

Honestly, I think you're being a bit oversensitive here, and glossing things over as a result. Several people were explicitly enthusiastic about the TOC. Several people commented that part of their disappointment with the cover was precisely its disconnect with the strength and diversity of that TOC. The tone of much--not all, granted, but much--of the conversation wasn't, "These guys suck!" It was a combo of "That's odd" and "What a shame." As snark goes, most of this is awfully mild.

But I think this is exactly the point. The cover is your foot forward. The message to be taken away from this is that the foot you're putting forward, in this case, may not be accurately representing the rest of you[r book] to follow.

Whatever you think of snark--and sure, I agree, it can be hard to look past a mocking edge--it's a mistake to ignore the message because of the medium.

Which isn't to say that, having examined the message in genuine good faith, you might not still decide that you don't accept it. But to say, "You're snarky, therefore you don't have anything good to say," is not quite the thing.

(In other news, a recent experiment run by some folks here at work suggests that while you do get more flies with honey than with vinegar, you get the most of all with beer.)

(Reply to this)


[info]affinity8
2007-08-30 09:53 pm UTC (link)
What I hear you saying is that you picked the names on the cover because you believe they are most likely to sell your book. Which is indeed practical and professional. I hear people disagreeing with your choices both on a gender basis and on an individual basis -- who is more popular by U.S. standards or U.K. standards, or whatever.

What I do understand about publishing is that nothing is a guarantee. You can't be sure that picking those 5 names is better than picking a more representative mix. Unless you put two covers and track sales by each, it's impossible to know what's the most effective mix. Past performance is no indicator of success. Names that sold yesterday are not guaranteed to sell tomorrow. If you are creating a product that you want to have a shelf life for many years, wouldn't you want to include those names you think will be most popular tomorrow in addition to those that are most popular today?

It's a risk, of course it is. All publishing is. You refer to yourself as a feminist, so you can understand those women sf writers, readers and critics who say they get turned off by something that doesn't seem to represent them. You want them to look beyond the cover to the TOC or the back flap but you're not offering any tidbits to entice them into doing so.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


(Anonymous)
2007-08-30 10:06 pm UTC (link)
Blame the buyers at the chains if you're going to blame anyone. Jason and Jeremy have to look at the past track record because that's what the book buyers look at. It's that simple.

You, Affinity8, just don't get it. You are talking from a position of lack of information.

And Jeremy and Jason, by being honest about this, are getting flack they don't deserve, frankly.

JeffV

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]affinity8, 2007-08-30 10:19 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]jlassen, 2007-08-31 06:22 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]affinity8, 2007-08-31 06:50 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]jlassen, 2007-08-31 11:10 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]ktempest, 2007-08-30 10:21 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]cristalia, 2007-08-30 10:35 pm UTC
(no subject) - (Anonymous), 2007-08-31 08:23 am UTC
(no subject) - (Anonymous), 2007-08-31 08:35 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]susansugarspun, 2007-08-30 11:14 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]bondgwendabond, 2007-08-31 12:28 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]jlassen, 2007-08-31 06:35 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]susansugarspun, 2007-08-31 08:08 pm UTC

[info]seajules
2007-08-30 10:43 pm UTC (link)
You get more flies with honey rather then vinegar.

Physician, heal thyself.

Or, to put it in terms of moving books and making money: In this equation, the readers are the flies. I am the fly. And what you and your illustrious partner have offered me, both with that cover and with your various comments and posts, sure as hell isn't honey.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]jlassen
2007-08-31 06:42 pm UTC (link)
What have we offered you, except the cold realities of publishing?

I'm a publisher who plays the odds. I put 5 names on the cover that have a proven sales history that is better then the ones I didn't put, because that is how, statistically, anthologies sell.

I (and my partner) posted about the realities of the publishing industry, and why those 5 names were chosen.

If the tone of the posts didn't seem to be honey laden, its because the conversation that was going on wasn't. And THIS is the point was trying to make about Honey.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]seajules, 2007-09-01 07:52 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]jlassen, 2007-09-01 07:07 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]seajules, 2007-09-01 07:27 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]jlassen, 2007-09-02 04:43 am UTC

[info]tekanji
2007-08-30 10:51 pm UTC (link)
Let me put it this way: I don't know any of the listed authors. Your book exists in a different part of the genre than my reading list is in.

With only male authors on the cover, I won't bother to pick it up at all because I'll assume the book is just yet another anthology of stories containing the usual amount of sexism (like I said in the other thread, I've been burned by too many male authors to give them the benefit of the doubt).

With female authors, I have a better chance of picking up the book at looking at the back. Then the 50/50 split will be enough to catch my attention, and it will make me more predisposed to like the book, even if it's a type of SF that I normally don't read.

In terms of general marketing, I know others have mentioned this but I'd just want to say it again: while it's good to have some big names on the cover, only having the big names isn't necessary. Adding some rising stars -- some of whom, it was pointed out, are women -- is also a solid strategy, and it helps boost up authors that might work with your company in future ventures.

If companies let their marketing exclude women because they aren't "big" enough, then how can they ever expect women to rise to the same prominence as men? A good chunk of marketing is creating hype, and what your cover does is only create the hype for the male part of your book.

Since you keep emphasizing that the author split is 50/50, you obviously have an idea of the state of sexism in the genre. So, here's a friendly piece of advice: accept criticism -- even angry criticism -- gracefully and use it as a learning experience. People are angry because they care, and the way you handle them may make the difference between them buying your company's books or not (since quality isn't the only criterion that consumers use to decide their purchases).

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]lisamantchev
2007-08-30 11:01 pm UTC (link)
If companies let their marketing exclude women because they aren't "big" enough, then how can they ever expect women to rise to the same prominence as men? A good chunk of marketing is creating hype, and what your cover does is only create the hype for the male part of your book.


Yes, yes and more yes. Thank you voicing this thought!

(Reply to this) (Parent)

(no subject) - [info]scalzi, 2007-08-31 02:30 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]ktempest, 2007-08-31 03:10 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]tekanji, 2007-08-31 10:25 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]coalescent, 2007-08-31 10:41 am UTC
(no subject) - (Anonymous), 2007-08-31 11:00 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]tekanji, 2007-08-31 11:01 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]coalescent, 2007-08-31 11:11 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]ktempest, 2007-08-31 12:53 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]scalzi, 2007-08-31 05:58 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]scalzi, 2007-08-31 05:49 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]lagringa, 2007-09-01 02:28 am UTC

[info]ritaxis
2007-08-31 03:37 pm UTC (link)
total tangent, not related in any way to the discussion, which I'm still digesting: you've got a then/than and advise/advice confusion thing going on in your fingers: you need to get your brain to straighten them out.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]jlassen
2007-08-31 06:46 pm UTC (link)
I know. It's how my brain works, and how I parse words, as visual shapes, instead of individual letters. Mild dyslexia that I don't bother to correct for when I'm doing casual posting. Because if I did, it would take me 5 hours to have a clean post the size of the one I made.

I am constantly mocked for it by my friends and colleagues... but its either that, or simply not be able to post in any significant amount.

Thank you for pointing it out though. :)

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]wishus
2007-08-31 04:10 pm UTC (link)
Hello!

If it's any consolation, I didn't even think of the gender* of the writers on the cover when I first followed [info]coalescent's link. Like you, I would have picked the bigger names regardless of gender**. I think Nightshade do a good job publishing some lovely books by some fab women writers - I mostly know of you through the Liz Williams books you publish. Look forward to reading that anthology when it's out.

*I perhaps should have - I am female, I'm writing a dissertation about feminist utopias, I subscribe to Mslexia...but I didn't.
**I work in publishing too, and I like to know about the industry I work in.

(Reply to this)


[info]netmouse
2007-08-31 05:25 pm UTC (link)
Hey there. First off:

*wordless admiration and support for putting out an anthology that has half women writers in it. I'm all for that. It's not in any way made pointless by points in marketing*

also,

*sympathy and respect for your notion that people shouldn't suggest people avoid purchasing the book because of the cover list, and especially that you do not deserve to get ranted at in a carping tone*

Secondly, just to give more specific feedback, having read the lists in the previous post, taken the poll, and looked at the poll results, I have to say I haven't read Garth Nix or Jeffrey Ford and am not drawn by their names. Beagle is big right now, so, sure, use him. Sterling I adore. Lucius Shepard I've heard of and I'm sure I've read something of his and respected it.

But Maureen F McHugh, who is an awesome and award-winning author and hard to find (because she hasn't written as much) would have been a bigger draw to me than any of the authors you chose to list on the cover. I note also that she is (currently) just beneath Jones on the poll.

In my mind, Margo Lanagan is also a pretty recognizable name right now due to her awards and nominations just last year. There must be some sort of reciprocal relationship between how authors are promoted and how they are percieved by fans - it is not completely an audience draw.

I do think that just in terms of representing the nature of the book to potential readers you would have done better to list at least two female authors among your five.

(Reply to this)


[info]klwilliams
2007-08-31 10:48 pm UTC (link)
I probably wouldn't have heard of the book if it wasn't for this controversy, and now I'm going to buy it because I love short story collections. (Yes, I'm the other one in the world who does.) It doesn't matter what people say, it just matters that they're talking about you.

And as far as sexism goes, your poll shows 40% women in the top 5. So, there is room for improvement in your marketing, since having at least one woman's name on the front would give a better impression of the contents.

(Reply to this)


[info]stephendann
2007-09-01 11:31 am UTC (link)
The forest appears to consist of trees. You are telling consumers to be happy when consumers are voicing a complaint. This indicates that there is market research feedback in your possession, and you would be well advised to make use of this valuable data.

Most of all, perhaps listen to the market. Your points in the post are interesting, in that the book did everything right for gender split, demography, and the content, and then proceeded to have an error in branding judgment that placed an unintended but quite distinct brand onto the book as a male author dominated anthology.

Perhaps you could consider how the branding based on the author listing on the cover failed to deliver the message of the book. Coding errors in the message process are exceedingly common in marketing communications, and good feature laden products can be disadvantaged by miscued branding that doesn't support the intended message for the product.

Placement on the cover is an important aspect for an author, and does indeed influence sales, and in an equal gender split anthology with a five person title listing could have easily used the top three male authors and top two female authors.

Options exist, and are carefully selected, and your decision was based on arguing the case that the five male authors would sell the book - the message coded was "This book has these five authors who are popular. Purchase this book for their stories". That was the encoded message, or else these five would not have been the selected cover - the secondary message encoded was "the remaining 11 authors are not salesworthy enough to warrant cover space".

If you are concerned that despite all of the positives that were incorporated into the project, this is a stumbling block, it indicates that your primary market research didn't deliver on a key value proposition - recognition of the merit of the female authors by cover placement. A failing in data collection that is currently being addressed by market feedback.

Being close to the market and project as you are, it may be difficult to step back and see the feedback for the positive marketing data that it is - which, since you're focusing on the negativity ahead of realising the passionate engagement of the audience, you might need to check where the trees end and the forest starts.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]jlassen
2007-09-01 07:09 pm UTC (link)
thanks for the feedback. This is what I meant by constructive discussion.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]pantryslut
2007-09-04 08:47 pm UTC (link)
Just FYI, the honey and vinegar line is one that's made to just about anyone who ever raises a fuss about any issue of oppression... especially feminist ones...especially men who are taking a stand of being sympathetic to feminist and/or people of color issues, *but*. I see it all the time in feminist blogs. It makes me less inclined to listen to your points because it implies that you won't listen to mine unless I phrase things exactly to your liking.

I ain't saying that's how you meant it (in fact I suspect quite otherwise, or I wouldn't be saying anything here); I'm just saying I'm not going to be the only person who hears it that way. Again, food for thought for the future, is all.

(Reply to this)

Hello
(Anonymous)
2007-10-27 01:10 pm UTC (link)
Hello!
How are you?

(Reply to this)

Goood aafternoon look at sites
(Anonymous)
2008-01-08 06:37 am UTC (link)
is hill. it a on from keep no," his "though some field to around on But and the the may corn and planted be is high. side a after farms your you to be a green Hal, What mean time that gardens is of warm begins enough." your so to grow, over, yellow ground hoed called the corn in of here I the "However planted, is corn from That done blowing for corn very will in tall, that made. the West are sometimes so was eat it meal for weather ten twelve to such feet be we may or fully little sort or corn, corn now cob which is it beans as is Spring kind going plant, hill. sweet Oh, and the grows for is the That not laughed stalks grow boiled. high. corn, and in
day corn after The from father, is

(Reply to this)


Create an Account
Forgot your login?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…