The Age Banding Issue

Have you seen some of the coverage of the "Age Banding" issue in the UK press and on various blogs? One blog also asserts that "Age Banding" will lead to a two-tier system because big name authors don't want recommended ages on their covers, so books with age bands will be seen as "lesser" books. There's also a No to Age Banding site with a lot of supporters. This has even hit SmartBitches.

The controversy probably came to the attention of many when Philip Pullman (in the first article linked above) learned that his publishers were going to put age recommendations on their children's books. He objected to this, and the publishers said they would never do anything without his consent. Many other writers also object to the process. Some say that putting an age on a book is like telling people who aren't in that age range to "stay away" from the book. Also, many point out that a reluctant reader who is reading below their age level won't want to pick up a book that is labeled as being for younger kids. However, others say that it's a guide to parents, grandparents, and others who want to buy a gift.

When I saw some of this coverage, I was confused. Don't many children's books in the U.S. already carry a recommended age range? I looked up some random books on my shelf. The first one I checked was an older copy of a Joan Aiken book, and it had a discrete "9-12" on the back cover. Ella Enchanted also had an "8 and up" on the back cover. And Aiken and Cushman seem to do pretty well. On the other hand, some major children's publishers don't put a recommended age on the cover, and they seem to do well, too.

Do you think putting ages on children's books in the U.S. has had any effect on how those books are treated, how they are bought, who reads them, etc.? Do you think the publishers would be better off without those labels? Do you think it depends on the type of book? Or is this simply one of those controversies where everyone has good points?

Mumut said:

Good points. For children's books, though, I think age banding is needed. I mean, if Harry Potter was age banded a huge number of sales could have been lost.

Click to expand...

I think that like Pullman, Harry Potter is a great example of a book that would probably not get an age band anyway.

Interestingly, I think Penguin is one of the publishers that doesn't put ages on its children's books, even in the U.S. market. And Penguin is based in the UK. Could this be a UK versus US thing? I've never heard of U.S. writers being upset about the ages being on books. (Then again, in the U.S., the practice predated the Internet by decades, so nobody was blogging about it. )

Nakhlasmoke said:

I think it's stupid beyond belief.

Not all books fall into neat little age categories.

What band should go on Alice In Wonderland?

Click to expand...

They probably wouldn't put a band on the classics, or on books that they know are read by many age groups. There are a lot of books (like Alice in Wonderland, Harry Potter, Philip Pullman, etc.) that are read by people of all ages. Publishers would hesitate to label those as they're considered "For All Ages."

I always got the impression that the labels were concerned more with reading level than with anything else. Books in the U.S. used to use grades rather than ages. And some children's books don't include an age, but if you look inside, the copyright page will tell you the Flesh-Kincaid level or something like that. This helps teachers and other educators more than parents (as most parents don't know what the numbers mean).