It seems the vast knowledge of the Bitchery when it comes to all things cover art is not a secret, especially among the publishing houses. I received an email from Lauren Naefe, Online Marketing Manager at HarperCollins, who asked if I consult the Oracle of the Bitchery to help settle an in-house debate. It seems the cover art for a particular book is under discussion, and there are two hotly-contested candidates for the coveted position. It’s like deciding the Democratic presidential nomination, only with Bitchery, cussing, and fun! How perfect for SuperTuesday, eh?
The book in question is Confessions of a Beauty Addict, the fiction debut of Nadine Haobsh which comes out November 18. Haobsh is the beauty editor who was outed by New York Post as blogger behind “Jolie In NYC”, a hugely popular blog about all things involving beauty secrets. Her nonfiction advice manual, Beauty Confidential was published in October of ‘07.
The summary of Confessions of a Beauty Addict reads as follows:
When Bella Hunter, Beauty Expert and all around magazine editor wunderkind, loses her job for spilling top industry secrets to Page 6 she thinks her life is over. And, to top it all off, she’s managed to dye her hair bright orange. At her wits end and desperate not to return home with her tail between her legs, Bella accepts a job a Womanly Wear: a magazine her mom reads. But how can she face her glamorous ex-co-workers now that she works in an office where khaki (not Cavalli) is the way of life? Bella is out to wage war on the beauty world one bad makeover at a time, armed with only her Marc Jacobs shoes, three meddling best friends, and a flighty supermodel boyfriend. At odds with her stuffy (and undeniably gorgeous) publisher, Bella begins to realize that she may be fighting the wrong battle.
With that in mind, here are the two covers that the folks at Avon A are battling over. Which do you like? What comments do you have for either one. Lauren has graciously offered 2 advance copies of the book to the two readers who offer the most helpful comment – so speak often and as much as you want.
Sarah: My opinion? Re: the blue cover – which one is the beauty addict? I hope it’s the chihuahua. I appreciate the play on Tiffany blue and the dripping-gem opulence of the creatures featured, but I have no idea what this has to do with the plot. That said, half the cover images of the romances I read have fuck all to do with the plot, so I’m betting this one will win just because cute dog + nice gems = browsers will pick it up to read more.
And as for the pink one, I am pleased the model has paid scrupulous attention to her waxing regimen, given the position of that skirt.
But oy, that font. Right up until the hot pink doodle font I was down with this cover, but man, that font. It’s so corny and jarring and utterly not attractive. I can understand the effort at contrast setting the doodle-font against the groomed couture of the image above it, but man. That font just kills the cover for me. It hurts my feelings. I take that font very personally, and am offended as an American by that font.
So if I pick between Blue and Pink? I go with blue. Even though I like the image of the pink one more, I hate the font so much that it turns me off the cover entirely.
Candy: I like the composition of the blue cover better—it wins on just about every front, from font usage (side note to the people who chose that kuh-ray-zee font for the pink cover: Why didn’t you just use Comic Sans and put us out of our misery? Chrissakes) to the way the faces are framed to the choice of angle to the use of whitespace. If I had any beef with the blue cover, it would be with the use of the chihuahua and the bedecking of said chihuahua with godawful gewgaws. I look at that, and I think “Oh god, another Paris Hilton wannabe.” And really, who wants to associate their heroine with Paris Hilton? Unless being a vacuous coke-snorting trainwreck who provides an instant win on the STD Bingo card is a good thing.
The blue cover (despite the negative associations I have when it comes to over-pampered toy dogs) also wins for me because it looks different. It’s not pink. It’s not some faceless woman (I mean, really, how many chick lit/romance books out there feature some faceless woman’s legs and/or shoes? I love shoes, and God knows I love me some beautiful legs, but enough already). It actually features (parts of) faces, and the faces are fun and interesting. If I were in a store, I wouldn’t stop to look at the pink cover (unless it was to marvel at the rather horrid font), but I’d stop and look at the blue cover.
What’s your verdict?
This is like picking which one is LESS offensive. I think Walt (lack of female gene not withstanding) nailed it the best for me.
I absolutely hate the dog cover. My first thought was the “Legally Blonde” movies. The dog totally overwhelms the woman’s face, plus puckering up toward such an ugly dog…yuck. I would pass over this book. In fact, I doubt I would read the cover blurb.
Second cover – The legs didn’t bother me as much as they did others, but the font for the title is so juvenile. A daisy as the dot over the “i”? So junior high. If I just saw the title, I would think YA and move on. The author’s name and her byline “author of” is hard to read. And I love Anita Shreve, but I can’t see this book appealing to her readers. In fact, I think they would feel cheated. This book comes off as “fluff” and Anita Shreve never writes fluff.
So, of the two covers, I like the colors of blue cover, the font on the title on the blue cover, but ditch the dog. I don’t care if the book has a dog or not. It grossed me out.
If the book if YA, go with the pink cover. No one over the age of 22 would want to be seen reading a book with this cover. (At least I wouldn’t and I’m over 22)
I don’t love either one, but then I am not the target audience for this book.
Blue: Unless this is a paranormal where the heroine is in love with a shape-shifting chihuahua, this inter-species kiss is right out. Yuck. I do like that color and the rest of the layout though.
Pink: I am 100% in agreement with everyone else that the typeface on “Beauty Addict” is awful. The rest of the cover is so clearly striving to be grownup, upscale, classy and glamorous, and then you have that slightly clunky, doodle-y, un-glamorous typeface. Why? I’d just continue with the clean lines of what you’ve used for “Confessions of a” and up the size (as you already have) for “Beauty Addict.”
As for the image, it would be much better if only her skirt was not being blown up to her navel by that well-placed wind machine, or else was about 6 inches longer. I am reminded of those skeevy guys who follow women around in the subway during the summer trying to get upskirt shots as they walk up the stairs to post to their websites. ICK.
I don’t like small yappy dogs but if these are the only two choices available—go with the dog. The pink cover reminds me a little too much of a photo some mainstream magazine (Time? Newsweek?) had on its cover a while back of some woman’s naked lower half with one leg bent and tampon string exposed. Um, yeah! Classy. The minute I saw the pink cover I looked for a string and that’s definitely NOT good.
I agree that neither is a winner, but blue is much, much better for me. The font is classy and the color vibrant without looking trashy. And the pink cover just screams trashy to me. HATE. Even if it were the best book in the world, I’d probably whip up a book cover (like the ones I covered textbooks with in high school) if I were going anywhere in public with it. Plus the legs and heels seem like every other bad chick lit book out there.
But is tres cool for Avon to consult with the Bitchery.
“Posted by Barb Ferrer Honest to God, I’d find the blue better if it had only the Chihuahua on it, draped in the jewels and sitting on a vanity table surrounded by makeup and accessories with perhaps a closet in the background with the vaguest image of a woman trying to get ready.”
Hey Barb, that would be a cute cover!
I agree with a lot of what has already been said – if forced to pick, I would say the first one, simply because it has much more character than the second one. For one thing, I don’t want to see up her skirt. For another, yeesh, the font.
It might look different printed, but I feel like the blue on the second cover almost needs a bit of pattern to break it up – something subtle, but there. I do some graphics work and that’s what I’d do. As far as the dog is concerned, I’m not highly fond of chihuahuas, but if it has to be a chihuahua then at least pick a cuter one, it looks scary in that picture. I’d rather it was a fluffy puppy of some description, or maybe a cat.
Ok, the dog snogging on the blue cover absolutely repulses me. A book with that cover would see me running far, far away.
The pink cover is better, but not much. As aforementioned, the font is terrible, and the image is fairly generic for chick lit/romance. It doesn’t actively repulse me, though, so I suppose it’s the lesser of the two evils.
Best bet? Back to the drawing board altogether.
The blue stood out to me right away. I think what’s interesting about it is it’s different. It would make me pause just because of the dog. I found it unique and not like anything I’ve seen. I’d wonder what the dog had to do with a beauty addict.
The pink—haven’t we seen some version of that on about 100 books?
If it’s a choice between those two covers, I’m going to have to go with the obvious third choice… “Anything Else On The Store Shelves.” I’m sorry and I certainly don’t want to hurt any arty type person’s feelings, but ye gawds and fishes! That right there is some serious fug. Do they even try anymore? I’ve seen some bad cover art over the years, but this just leaves me near speechless.
The blue cover… It’s a nice enough blue and you’ve got a nicely rendered partial face going. But that’s all it’s got going. It would help if the blue background weren’t so flat. Maybe a slight pattern or something would help. The font choice on this one looks suspiciously like one of those preset choices on the MS Works stationary wizard. I could swear that’s the same font combo as the letterhead on my yearly holiday newsletter. But the kicker is the dog… Not only is the focus on that dog’s image slightly “off” somehow, but it’s got freakin’ turkeyneck syndrome going. I look at that dog’s floppy neckskin and I can’t help but think it’s in serious need of a neck lift.
And then there’s the pink one… Yeah… I got to the legs and kept staring with morbid fascination. I had some serious Where’s Waldo scenarios running through my mind. Only less Waldo finding and more cellulite spotting. Not to mention that skirt’s a fraction of a centimeter from becoming an expose rather than a mere confession. Then I finished scrolling down and saw the font… As hideous as that font choice was, it’s not even the thing that bothers me most. My eyes keep darting to the pinky purply shoe then back to the salmony pink light pink in the font and my brain wants to implode at the serious color mismatching going.
My conclusion? “Anything Else On The Store Shelves.” A total redesign is in order because I gotta say that either one of those covers is enough for me to pass completely on the book.
I like both Walt’s suggestions for the pink cover, and Barb Ferrer’s suggestions for the blue cover.
Either way, it seems that going back to the drawing board is winning by a landslide.
Whomever said, “least offensive of the two” really nailed it, I think.
BLUE BLUE BLUE BLUE – it’s funny and pretty and luxe and sort of classy/trashy, while the pink looks like the girl got dressed in the dark and forgot how to walk.
Can’t just put Paul Tolme on the blue cover & call it a day?
I was with the 2nd cover right up until I saw the font for “Beauty Addict”. The rest of the font is good but the font for those 2 words looks like something you’d find at Limited Too and as this book is supposedly for adults I don’t think you want to use a font that would appeal to tweens. But I do like the colors. I would maybe lengthen the skirt, but that might be the spirit of my grandma speaking through me.
Over all I prefer the blue cover. The color and the font as well as the model combine to make me think it’s more grown-up than the 2nd cover with its pink and purple Limited Too font. I’d be much more likely to pick up the blue cover.
That said, lose the dog. Or get a different dog. Unless a chihuahua plays a part in the book or the main character has a chihuahua it doesn’t really tell you anything. If you must have a puppy then use a cute beagle puppy or maybe a lab mix. I see chihuahuas and I think the evil dog my grandma’s neighbor had when I was a child. Or the Taco Bell dog and I don’t think you want people to think Taco Bell when looking at this book.
Back to the drawing board.
As a reader of a “certain age”, I hated the font on the pink, trying way to hard for cute and perky and as a reader of similar magazines to what the character has been reduced to working at, rat dogs don’t appeal, Labs, Collies, Elkhounds would catch my eye before Buster from Legally Blonde.
I like the pink cover. I’ve seen that shade of blue and the soft focus Vaseline shot on a bunch of chicklit things lately and to me, it doesn’t stick out.
Oh, and if there’s a dog on the cover, there had better be a dog in the story. Otherwise, WTF? And what’s up with all this dog love anyway? I got an elegant but funny Russian Blue mixie who’d love to be your cover cat and a gorgeous gray tabby stray who comes with her own eyeliner markings. Now that’s a beauty.
The font on the pink is awful, but that’s the point. The girl with the legs and the shoes screams “shallow beauty addict trendsetter wannabe” to me and the font reinforces the fact that it’s a growth story where the heroine starts off immature and smartens up.
Oh, wow, I didn’t even realize at first that the cover blurb for the pink cover is by Anita Shreve. Either this book cover and description are waaaaay different from what the content is, or you need to use a quote from a different author. I would definitely expect an author quote on a cover to be from an author in at least close to the same genre of writing as the book the quote is on.
As others have said with the pink cover, gorgeous though her legs may be, I don’t need to see that much of them. And is that skirt terry cloth? The whole outfit seems ridiculous, but not to the point of deliberate absurdity intended to be humorous. The title font also make me think I’ll be reading about a 15 year old girl who’s all, like, omigod, into boys and make-up, and stuff, you know? Except she’d never wear that jewelry, carry that purse, or drape a scarf over her purse, because she’s not 37 years old yet. Bottom line, nothing matches.
The blue cover – color is great, but I’d like it better if it were a couple shades lighter, and maybe slightly more toward the blue side of the blue-green spectrum. The dog made me think of “Legally Blonde” immediately also, but that was a good thing. I guess it puts me in the mindset of a heroine who is very girly, maybe slightly ditzy, but knows she’s a smart woman and doesn’t take her girly side too, too seriously. If that’s not the heroine of this book, though, then this cover doesn’t work as well. This cover has considerably cleaner lines than the pink, which I like. And dogs will always catch my eye. Plus, the title is front and center, and the author’s name is reasonably large.
The blue cover would make me probably pick it up if I were browsing the book store. The pink probably wouldn’t. It’s just weird.
If you aren’t going to revise the covers then please, please, go with the blue one. That said, please, please revise the design. This current cover screams Hollywood.
The Blue version is classier and I think could appeal to the appropriate readership, but that dog. Ugh! It’s passe. Ditch the pup.
The pink version seems like “Confessions of a Shopaholic” gone horribly wrong—and it’s mimicking the movie poster for “Catch Me If You Can”; the cartoon font is AWFUL. None of these elements convey the story or tone that I got from reading the copy and as a reader I’d feel kind of misled if I picked this book up based on the cover (if the copy holds true to what this book is). Also, the font and image seem to be at war with whether the book is a teen read or more classic chick lit. (it’s so much easier to say what’s wrong that what’s right!)
Elements that work:
—The tiffany blue color.
—The woman with her diamond earing, in profile is classy, striking, and eye-catching. (more so, IMO, that the running-woman in pink).
—The Anita Shreve blurb is great (PLEASE DON’T LOSE THIS)
—The combo of sans serif and script font for the title on the blue cover is great. Very nice.
What’s missing:
—how about element that conveys her war on bad makeovers?
—A visual reference to her transformation;give us a hint?
—the “warmth and humanity” that Shreve references)
Anyway I can get an ARC??
Good luck! I don’t envy you.
oo, oo, I also vote for Paul Tolme on the cover! OR….how about replacing the dog with a ferret?
I don’t like either cover and would walk by both of them. I totally agree with SB Sarah about the blue cover—my first thought was, Which one is the beauty addict? My second thought was, “Yuck,” and my third thought was, “Please tell me she’s not going to tongue that chihuahua.” Overall it was a very unpleasant experience.
The second cover is one we’ve seen a gazillion million times, so there’s not much to say about it. My eyes kinda glazed over. If I had to guess what the book was about just based on the cover, I’d say it’s a follow-up to Legally Blonde: Pink, Pink, and Pink! But the figure doesn’t look very fashionable, I have to say, unless by “fashion” you mean 18-year-old Valley girls circa 1998.
So, yeah, I’d say back to the drawing board. But if I had to choose one I’d pick the blue one—at least it’s not boring (I apologize to any graphic designers I may have offended). But if I can just take a moment for a personal rant here: with a title like Confessions of a Beauty Addict, I’d think you could do A LOT with the cover. Does she discover beauty is only skin deep, fleeting, or comes at great expense? Is this some sort of beauty-and-the-beast retelling? These are all things I’d like to know about this book before I commit to buying it, and I would think they would be able to imply some of this in the cover art in a way that would be more evocative and interesting than the presented images. The fact that they haven’t done so leads me to conclude one of two things: the heroine doesn’t discover anything of import and I’m in for a long haul where Sam’s best friend from Samantha Who? is the heroine; or they don’t really care. Either way, I’m still not very interested in reading the book.
I would definately pick up this book based on the blurb but to be truly honest, I don’t think I’d pick up the book by simply scanning the cover. The Tiffany blue would catch my eye for sure but the doggie kiss would turn me off. The Pink cover to me is sleeker until you hit the title font that is way to hokey. My suggestion. Switch the blue background to the pink model (making it a different saturation so it doesn’t clash of course) and use the font from the blue on the pink. Voila, best of both worlds. =)
Wow, I’m really torn. I hate the whole dog as an accessory thing. But I have a friend that reads this kind of thing that will by anything with a blue cover. As for the pink, the whole body with no head is a big trend in cover art and I dig it but I completely agree about the font I’d never buy a book with that font. So ..BLUE and I’ll think of the dog in more of an Elle Woods context instead of Paris Hilton.
Aaagh! No more headless waxed high-heeled shoed legs, puhlease.
I’m a dog lover, but that chichi chihuahua is a little gross. I still like the this cover a lot more than the pink one.
Okay, now that initial gut reaction is out of the way—
BLUE COVER
Like the cover on the whole. Like the clean, classy font. Like that the title is the first thing I read on the page, unlike the pink cover. I’m not sure what relevance the dog has but I don’t find it repulsive; perhaps a little puzzling but that wouldn’t prevent me from looking at the book. Although, I agree that the dog isn’t making eye contact with the reader OR the model, so it looks like it’s just kind of blankly staring off at nothing. It lacks an emotional connection.
The white font of the author’s last name is a bit hard to read against the model’s pale face, so perhaps something should be reworked there. But the author’s name is otherwise nicely sized and fairly prominent. The “also author of” line is readable but doesn’t take precedence (again something that the pink doesn’t manage to do). For being a book about beauty, the model’s face features nicely—lovely skin, so the connection is clear enough in my mind. The purse-accessory dog and the jewelry may not be beauty-related but they create an overall image of a pampered, luxury-seeking young woman, and the ambiance as a whole works for me. I’d pick up this book in a store to read the back.
PINK COVER
Juvenile on multiple levels, not least the much-mentioned title typeface. I don’t like the plain white background; it washes out the cover. The pink is just too much and it borders on garish. The upskirt shot of the legs (and butt cheek) looks trashy, not flirty. And I’ve never thought pink and black make a particularly pretty color combination.
The author’s name is hard to read on the cover, and rather small. And strangely enough, although the title of the previous book is in small font, because my eye glazes right over the hard-to-read author font and the awful block-lettered title, “Beauty Confidential” are actually the words I read first. I think this pink cover lacks cohesion.
Furthermore, even without my distaste for the presentation of the model, I don’t see how this has to do with beauty. Perhaps I’m being overly literal in thinking of the beauty industry, but when someone says “beauty addict” I think of skincare, makeup, spa treatments, etc. The pink cover is much more fashion- and clothing-related, i.e. Shopaholic or brand-name fetishists. Nothing works for me in the pink cover and I would not only pass by it on the shelf, I’d wonder how a book like that got published—looks almost (and I hope I don’t offend) self-published.
I’d giggle at the blue cover and wonder who gave the dog a “pearl necklace” lmao..
that said, between the two I’d pick the blue.. simply because the other one looks like a thousand other overly cutsie chick lit book that I pass up every time I’m at the bookstore.
I’m a Graphic Designer in real life and also a dog person; I show dogs in conformation, agility, and Rally and have Dobermans and Min Pins. I’ve also designed books, and covers, for Clean Run (an agility/dog training publishing house).
For me the blue cover is far more pleasing than the white/pink cover. I like the simplicity and the use of white space. And I don’t mind chihuahua’s, but this is not the best choice here plus I think most of us are sick of the whole “cutesy purse dog” fashion statement.
I think you could remove the dog all together, make the typfaces of the title a bit larger and move them up just a hair, and the cover would look great, like the model is kissing the title. I don’t have a problem with the author name over the model’s neck, I think it’s quite readable.
Even aside from the atrocious type used for the title of cover 2 that jars against the sleek style of the rest of it, it’s too busy and not at all attention-getting.
Oh, and a typeface consists of a family of fonts. So a typeface might be, say, Adobe Garamond, and a font would be Adobe Garamond Light Italic or Adobe Garamond Black.
Look, I know this isn’t helpful, but yuck. The dog looks like he’s going to drool in the woman’s mouth, and I’ve never been gaga about kissing dogs anyway. The pink one shows the way to Chicago sans map – why do you have to be excessively bare when talking beauty? Bottom line, take out the dog, replace it with a mirror, have her holding a mascara wand or lipstick, and voila! Oh, no pink.
I vote for doggie.
The pink cover is made immeasurably worse by an action shot that looks 100% faked. Her muscles look like she’s standing in place, and while the skirt ripples, the scarf on the bag is completely motionless.
Nothing to add about the art. I don’t like the pink font but it wouldn’t stop me from buying the book. The dog would stop me. When they say babies and dogs help sell any product, they mean cute babies and golden retrievers.
But for the back cover…can we get an apostrophe somewhere in “wits”? Who has access to the OED online? I would look it up myself but I’m using The Chicago Manual of Style as a doorstop.
The idea of reading a book about some fashionista twit bemoaning and beautifying the “normal” world around her doesn’t appeal to me at all. Don’t we have enough books about the Sex and the City life? Just once, I’d like to read about some size 14 ethnic chick who likes to shop at Old Navy and still gets the hot guy.
But putting that aside, I wouldn’t pick up either cover for the many, MANY reasons already articulated above.
I know I already got in my vote, but I just wanted to add I like Barb Ferrar’s cover idea. It sounds fun and interesting, if you must keep the dog.
The first cover…with reservations.
No dogs. No dogs. No chihuahuas. No dogs. I’ve worked at one of Avon’s biggest rivals, so I do understand the market. Chihuahuas are not your audience. I’m 24, so I am your audience. I know this is Women’s Lit, and is suppose to focus on the woman, but it might not be so bad to replace the dog with the new boss—even an out of focus picture of the boss in the background could work.
The blue is a great color choice, though. I’m reminded of the very successful covers for Hester Browne’s Little Lady Agency books.
~Might I add as a sidenote that I’m sick to death of animals overpopulating our pop culture. I watched my Giants kill on Sunday night and I had to leave the room everytime there was cute SuperBowl commercial featuring another adorable furry friend. (Exceptions being the bad-ass mouse who jumped out of the wall during the Doritios commerical and the dalmation training the horse in the Budweiser commercial). Nearly every other commercial had an animal expressing a message that a human could obviously relate more effectively. I suppose the cost of hiring those animals is cheaper than actually giving real American actors work. I’m this close to writing some sort of treatsie on how our country has replaced real human realtionships with relationships with our pets. I also think that the very existence of women’s lit (formerly chic lit)is tied into my theory…~
Honestly, the blue cover spoke to me more, but I don’t know that I’d pick it up. The pink was awful. Why does chick lit have to be pink or purple? And as everyone is saying, those fonts are awful!
Here are my issues with the blue cover: The book is supposed to be about a woman who goes from high-fashion, to a mama’s mag? Then either the woman or the dog needs to represent the mama’s mag. I’d vote for the dog, as the shot of the woman is interesting. Great triangulation on the cover, and the fonts are very pleasing to the eye, and legible! That’s important when I’m looking for books!
YEAH MALA!!
quote
“Just once, I’d like to read about some size 14 ethnic chick who likes to shop at Old Navy and still gets the hot guy. “
except old navy stopped selling plus sized clothing in store and only sell it online . cant have chicks in store who look bigger than a size 2!!
Sassy Legs have been beat to death and I’m surprised they aren’t all black-n-blue. No need to get into the font.
I choose blue (but get a different breed of dog). It can be shelved with mainstream without a blink.
spaminator: long38 Don’t you come near me with that thing, pal.
I actually really liked the indie-style doodle font on the pink cover. It seemed quirky and fun. A Beauty Addict that manages not to be an annoying cookie-cutter bitch and have a quirky and interesting personality? I’m there!It was the REST of that cover that I dispised. I echo Candy on this point: I HATE the faceless woman with expensive accessories that always seems to be on these covers. Why are there only ever body PARTS? Ideal womanhood represented by disembodied legs, waxed smooth and in painful shoes. Just shoot me please. Ugh.
So, I guess despite my love of the doodle font, I’ll have to go with the green cover. Firs point in its favour? It’s not pink. And, while the woman is still mostly faceless, at least the parts we get this time perhaps convey some sort of emotion and a hint of actual human identity. The diamonds dripping off her ears in that abnoxious, and paradoxical, nouveau riche heiress manner? Not amazing, but whatever. And the childishly dressed up dog? Even less amazing. Oh please, she’s supposed to be a grown woman working at a magazine. Can she NOT play dress-up with her dog like a five year old does with her doll? Please?
So, in summary, they’re both kind of crap. But the green cover is less crap, so… I’ll vote for that one.
The blue one is just terrible for me. I don’t normally like small dogs and this one particularly. The pearls and diamonds do nothing for me, other than making me think that the owner is over self absorbed and either goes to far with the jewelry for the dog, or is trying to look pretentious and has fake jewels for the dog. It’s just not appealing to me. Even the dog still on the cover (which should really only be there if the lead female has one) would be fine without the jewels. There’s also too many typesets on this cover. Not as bad as the other cover, but still, quite distracting.
The color is nice, not something you see in the romance section very often (though, I suppose there’s only so many colors to pick from). The composition and placement is appeasing to the eye.
As for the pink one, the position the woman is standing in only brings to mind the art for the movie “Catch Me If You Can”. The skirt being hiked up so high is almost pornographic in how much is revealed. Pornographic, not sexy. Also, the position looks completely unpractical. There are too many completely different and conflicting typeset competing for the reader’s attention. And, to be honest, it kinda reminds me of Sophie Kinsella’s Confessions of a Shopaholic.
If I had to pick one or the other, I’d say go with the blue cover. But, the preferable option would be to go back to the drawing board. Or, at least, take the jewels off the dog and have a few less different typesets.
Trying not to recap what everyone else has said but my first thought was “Oh Christ, don’t kiss the dog.” I don’t care how many times I’ve been told dog’s mouths are “cleaner” than ours, I ain’t buying.
That said, I dislike the pink one more.
I’d like to see a re-do on the blue cover. Cut out the dog and replace with something that says Womens Wear and kahki, that’d be a nice juxtaposition with the beautifully made face and the ear rings I covet. (I’m assuming she grows as a person and learns not everyone needs to be designer-decked. Or some such rot.)
I don’t like either.
Blue: gah…dog. Yuck. And those black hairs sprouting out of it’s face are completely freaking me out. Ewww. Love the color blue, but the chick says “I don’t need a job” to me and the point of the story is that she’s GOT to work, right?
Pink: Eww…cooch. I have one, already, thanks. Love the pink, though, but that cartoon writing’s got to go. I thought she was stylish…why the “Jr. High Diary” font?
My vote: Be different! Go clover green!
Pink. Different font. Grosses me out that she is going to kiss the dog.
I’m not the wildest fan of either. The blue one instantly made me think of Legally Blonde part 3, and the second, pink one I feel has been done a ton of times, only this time with an obnoxious font.
I’m a huge fan of juxtaposition – where is anything remotely hinting at the plot? Maybe a desk covered with “older woman” gear with a cute pair of pink stilettos thrown in or something. With the chihuahua curled up nearby, if you must insist.
I veto both.