Writer Sanctum
Writer's Haven => Marketing Loft [Public] => Topic started by: Jan Hurst-Nicholson on February 01, 2025, 01:45:23 AM
-
This headline caught my attention. :confused:
In a decision some in the book business might call ?stunning? or a ?tour-de-force,? Simon & Schuster publisher Sean Manning, who succeeded Jonathan Karp last year at the top of S&S?s flagship imprint last year, has decided to no longer require authors to obtain blurbs for their books. In this essay, he explains why.
The 'blurbs' they are referring to are what I would call 'recommendations/reviews' from fellow authors. :icon_rolleyes:
https://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/industry-news/publisher-news/article/96957-why-simon-schuster-s-flagship-imprint-won-t-require-blurbs-anymore.html
-
Interesting article. "It takes a lot of time to produce great books, and trying to get blurbs is not a good use of anyone?s time."
Sure. The way I see it, a publisher is a writer's marketer. It should be the publisher's job to provide marketing materials, ie. blurbs, not the writer's in the first place. And a great many bestselling authors in the trad published world don't write their own blurbs, they have other writers write them for them. So makes loads of sense to me to not ask writers to worry about blurbs when submitting manuscripts.
Blurbs are marketing materials. When writers get that, they write better blurbs. It's all about getting readers interested in your stuff.
If you can advertise and sell a book without a blurb then I say... why not?
-
Interesting article. "It takes a lot of time to produce great books, and trying to get blurbs is not a good use of anyone?s time."
Sure. The way I see it, a publisher is a writer's marketer. It should be the publisher's job to provide marketing materials, ie. blurbs, not the writer's in the first place. And a great many bestselling authors in the trad published world don't write their own blurbs, they have other writers write them for them. So makes loads of sense to me to not ask writers to worry about blurbs when submitting manuscripts.
Blurbs are marketing materials. When writers get that, they write better blurbs. It's all about getting readers interested in your stuff.
If you can advertise and sell a book without a blurb then I say... why not?
Their definition of a blurb in this article is not what I would term a 'blurb'. Publishers employ blurb writers to write the summary of the story blurb. But I understand this article to mean that publishers expect their writers to get 'endorsement blurbs' from fellow writers. :confused:
-
The 'blurbs' they are referring to are what I would call 'recommendations/reviews' from fellow authors. :icon_rolleyes:
Lots of blurbs for other authors were written by a famous author who is currently mired in sex-crime allegations and is being canceled across the board, so I wouldn't be surprised if this policy change was sparked by that brouhaha. The timing is a bit too coincidental.
-
The 'blurbs' they are referring to are what I would call 'recommendations/reviews' from fellow authors. :icon_rolleyes:
Lots of blurbs for other authors were written by a famous author who is currently mired in sex-crime allegations and is being canceled across the board, so I wouldn't be surprised if this policy change was sparked by that brouhaha. The timing is a bit too coincidental.
Hadn't heard about that :icon_rolleyes:
-
The 'blurbs' they are referring to are what I would call 'recommendations/reviews' from fellow authors. :icon_rolleyes:
Lots of blurbs for other authors were written by a famous author who is currently mired in sex-crime allegations and is being canceled across the board, so I wouldn't be surprised if this policy change was sparked by that brouhaha. The timing is a bit too coincidental.
Hadn't heard about that :icon_rolleyes:
Ditto.
Is this author famous the way d-list has-beens are considered dancing stars? :hehe
-
The 'blurbs' they are referring to are what I would call 'recommendations/reviews' from fellow authors. :icon_rolleyes:
Lots of blurbs for other authors were written by a famous author who is currently mired in sex-crime allegations and is being canceled across the board, so I wouldn't be surprised if this policy change was sparked by that brouhaha. The timing is a bit too coincidental.
Hadn't heard about that :icon_rolleyes:
Ditto.
Is this author famous the way d-list has-beens are considered dancing stars? :hehe
https://www.vulture.com/article/neil-gaiman-allegations-controversy-amanda-palmer-sandman-madoc.html
-
Oh, him. Okay. That one's been out so long I'd forgotten about it already.
-
"Ohhhh!" I was thinking, "Man, this is stupid!" But they are talking about the "blurbs" as in quotes they get from other authors. Yeah, those are useless. Readers don't care and they never swayed many readers to buying the book. People are gonna buy what they want regardless of a quote or even review for that matter. I started off years back with Simon and Schuster (yep) and had blurbs for my books and saw no effect it had. Good riddance.
-
"Blurbs" do sometimes have an effect. Soman Chainani (author of School of Good and Evil and the other books in that series) has written that his first book nearly tanked. He'd been trying to get a blurb from a well-known author and failing at it. (And yes, that does seem to be something the publisher should be doing, not the author.) Bookstores weren't ordering in the numbers they should have been. But at the last minute, Chainani got a blurb from RL Stine. Immediately, pre-sales picked up, the book did reasonably well, and Chainani got a Netflix movie deal.
I don't know how typical that is, but apparently, some of the bookstore buyers are very influenced by the presence (or absence) of big-name blurbs.
-
I certainly wouldn't rule out their value. It's a form of social proof and it may also depend on how the other author's "blurb" comes across. That is, if it comes across as, "my publisher wanted me to tell you how great this book is" or "this author is a friend of mine and I am obligated to say something about this book", then that's not going to convince anyone to buy. But, if you have an unknown author and a known author writes something that tells you they (the known author) believe it is a good book, that may convince you to buy if you know trust that author or like their work or trust their recommendations, etc.
I suspect that maybe many of the "blurbs" that publishers include may come across as the "I'm obligated to say this is a good book" type rather than the "I enjoyed this book and think you will too" type and maybe that's why they are no longer requiring them because those would be the ineffectual kind.
-
I can't say ever seen a blurb like that. I suspect it wouldn't be used if it came out that way.