Wonderful article

[scullars]

I found this article by John Eklund featured at Inversion Magazine and it talks about the myopism of today's book marketing. Eklund makes some very good points at how the book industry and marketing is all about bestseller lists and no longer has anything to do with the love of books.

Here's the link: Don't point that Ad at me (http://inversionmagazine.com/features/BiblioMrkt.htm)

[Jamesaritchie]

Reads like something written by another literary snob, to me. Of course publishers are after the next bestseller. They always have been. It doesn't make much sense to go after books the public doesn't want to read.

For a book rep, he has some odd ideas about the numbers.

5,000 copies is not a large print run for an important nonfiction book, it's an average print run. And there will be a second, larger print run, and possible a third and a fourth and a fifth, if it turns out that the public wants to read the book. And 5,000 print run in nonfiction corresponds to a $20,000 advance, which ain't chicken feed.

Most National Book Award winners sell far more than 2,000 copies, at least after they win the award. But so what? He takes this to mean there's something wrong with the taste of the reading public. I take it to mean there's something seriously wrong with how books that win The National Book Award are chosen.

I have no trust in anyone who says "When a book makes a best-seller list it is instantly less interesting to me."

This is just another way of saying "The reading public has no taste, but I have."

I'm serious glad he isn't repping any on my books.

[Hapsburg]

I enjoyed the article and thought too, that he has an interesting perspective of the industry.

He takes this to mean there's something wrong with the taste of the reading public.

There is, but I didn't take that as his implication. He said the bar is really low in the states, pointing out how few (what'd he say 6%?) of people there are that visit bookstores regularly.


I have no trust in anyone who says "When a book makes a best-seller list it is instantly less interesting to me."

To a degree I agree with him. It's not less interesting, it's simply that Best-seller means nothing to me. I've read NY times best sellers that I thought were a waste of paper. Best seller doesn't mean "great fiction" nor that I will enjoy it. He states that formulaic marketing is less effective on him than the personal experience of finding interesting books in interesting shops. He points out the flaws of marketing algorithms in the industry. I think he has very valid points and I enjoyed the article.

[Man with twohanded sword]

Well, if that's the way the market is, that's what we have to deal with. Quit whinging and start looking for factor X.