Smart Bitches, Trashy Books

I think the Blue cover is much better- except I’d take out the stupid Chihuihui and put in a Silky Terrier. 
Unless there is a Chihui in the book, then keep it in. 

The font on the pink is just wretched.  Yuck Yuck Yuck.  If they used a normal font, I would much prefer the pink cover.  It looks fun and festive. 

But I’m sure they don’t want a critique, just a vote.  I vote Blue.

I agree with SB Sarah 100%. The pink cover was IT until that font at the bottom.

Change the font, and we have a winnah.

Blue Cover: Always a big fan of Tiffany blue. I also like the profile of the face. But a chihuahua? Um, not for me, thanks. How about a bigger dog, like a husky. Or wait, maybe no dog at all. But wait, it’s NYC, all women have itty bitty dogs, right? I can’t get off the dog tangent…help!

Pink cover: I gotta go with SB Sarah and Candy on this one. 1) what’s up with the fonts? Count them: 4. 4 different fonts. That’s too many. What am I supposed to be looking at? The title? The author? The sub-title? Which book Nadine wrote before? Ahhhh, my eyes, my eyes! And yes, why is her skirt um…flapping in the wind? Do women in NYC not wear underwear? Is it professional for a women to wear tiny pieces of cloth to work, in NYC? I’m confused.

If I had to pick I’d go with Blue, but without the kickable. I like the color (it’s very soothing and happy, and of course it’s Tiffany blue!); While there are still too many fonts, they are not as spastic as the Pink cover (my favorite is the font for Nadine Haobsh); and I like the the profile and it’s position on the page.

It looks like I could have designed the blue cover in Microsoft Paint with a little cut, paste, click, and drag. The dog is jarring and I found myself staring at its ugly face instead of reading the title and/or author.

Second won is the winner, stupid font not withstanding. (The heroine is a beauty editor and probably has fantastic handwriting, so whose handwriting is that supposed to be? Her 5-year-old neice? Maybe it’s a missing plot detail…)

I don’t like either, to be honest.  The first one creeps me right the heck out.  I mean who wants their face *that* close to a chihuahuas?  ICK! 

The second cover is simply a boring retread of almost every other women’s fiction novel out there. 

My advice?  Back to the drawing board.

Blue is the winnah for me.  It gets the witty vote - I’m going to be generous and assume the designer is deliberately mocking the penchant for tiny, overdressed purse-dogs.  It’s also clean and will-fonted.  I’d pick it up.

I would not pick up Pink.  Aside from the horrible mish-mash of styles between the cover image and the cutesy title font, the image is just too generic.  This I wouldn’t see as a witty dish, but just another generic chick lit clone.  Also, white cover background is rarely a good idea.

I’d have to agree with Candy and Sarah. The blue cover would get a second look from me. The second looks like something my 15 YO niece would doodle in her math class. I don’t like the comic book font at all.

I don’t mind the Chihuahua, but hey, I own a miniature dachshund, so I’m not offended by the toy dog thing, unless of course, there’s not Chihuahua in the book. Then it’s just ridiculous and stupid.

I’d definitely say #1 over #2.

Blue!!  I’m not a huge fan of the choice of dog, but in general I like the cover.

Can’t stand the 2nd cover.  I dislike all the pink and the so-short skirt and the so-long (and so-perfect legs) in their weird, artificial stance.  (Are we sure the book is not about Mac from Karen Marie Moning’s Fever series?)  Plus the font it terrible.  The cover looks cheap and homemade and kind of predictable.

I’m voting back to the drawing board, too. I might stop to look at the blue cover, but the proximity of the dog and the face is a little off-putting. Plus I also have a rather vomitous reaction to blinged out purse dogs.  And the pink cover - my eyes, they bleed. What the hell is that font? There’s nothing sophisticated or beautiful about that at all.

Verdict: Try again.

Neither of those, pls.  Back to the art dept.  Like the Tiffany blue but smooching dogs?  No, thanks.  And all the pink and the font and the blown up skirt?  Also no.

I agree with ladypeyton—back to the drawing board. 

The text blurb sounds interesting, but neither cover brings to mind a “beauty addict”, and my initial reaction to the first cover was that my squick radar went off loud & screaming.  Especially in this era of paranormal heros, I just had an image of her banging the dog that I really didn’t want seared into my retina.

The pink cover, it just sucks for all the reasons mentioned above. 

Spamword “order45”.  I’d like to order an ARC of the book, sans either cover please.

Ugly dog not withstanding, the blue does it for me.  The pink is so standard chick/lit that I wouldn’t even take a second look.  Except for that gawdawful font which tells me it is supposed to be comic chick lit.

But I really don’t like the dog.

Well, snog a dog Maybe if they cleaned up the whisker line and showed a little tongue (on the dog), there would be enough creep factor to interest me. The color and composition of #1 works . . . a cat would so work for me here. If there’s a dog like this in the story, I’d have to pass on the story.

Cover #2 is totally gagworthy. Fuschia fabric and funky fonts are bad enough, but I know on top of those Amazon legs Sarah Jessica Parker probably lurks. Sucks in the city . . . (I just tried standing in the model’s pose wearing Nikes, and fell over).

I wouldn’t buy either book, they don’t say funny, romantic, quirky—anything that might grab me. They do say creepy and vapid.

I would like the blue cover better if it was a different type of dog, as others have said. A chihuahua is just not something I would want so near my face. The rest of the cover is good, nice fonts, good color with the Tiffany blue, nice jewels, somewhat playful.

The pink cover I would like better if the skirt was longer (sorry I just don’t get how that ties in) and better fonts. I’m with everyone else who said there are way too many styles of font on that cover and its hard to decide what you are actually supposed to notice first.

*nitpick*

Isn’t it typeface, not font?

*/nitpick*

Yeah, so that pink doodle stuff is terrible, and the idea of kissing a chihuahua makes me ill. I declare a draw—a draw of awfulness.

Note: This is SO not my reading material (what’s Cavalli?). Maybe my opinion isn’t really what’s needed here.

If I had to choose one of these two, I’d choose the blue cover. It’s kinda cute.  And I agree with SB Sarah that the icky font on the pink cover is a real deal-breaker.  If you use a better font, I’d have a much harder time making the decision.

Blue, most def. I love chihuahuas, and the contrasting expressions (detached boredom of the dog, cloying adoration on the woman) give the book some personality and that what’s between the covers might have some substance.

The Pink one looks like an ad for a complete home waxing system. Or for a douche. Or just vapid chick lit twittery - breezy urban woman taking on the world, blah blah blah. Seen it. Read it. Hated it.

Oh, and the font doesn’t help either.

So I vote Blue.

The combination of the doodle font and the stupid-short skirt on the pink cover completely overwhelm the high-fashion concept—I look at that cover and assume it’s selling YA chick lit.

As for the blue, yes, the chihuahua is ugly, but I love the juxtaposition of the jewels and the purse dog. It speaks to a whole cultural thing about fashion and spoiled luxury and urban life and, yes, the Paris Hilton phenomenon…  I like it.  It has far more personality, and it SAYS something.  The pink one doesn’t say anything other than “Hey, look, you can almost see my underpants.”  Which, granted, is also a Paris Hilton thing… but… less attractive, yeah?

I love dogs in general, but - or because of that? - I found the blue cover intensely creepy. The fact it looks like she’s about to kiss it on the mouth (plus has already covered him with those ridiculous pearls)...ewww. That turned me off so strongly that it would stop me from picking up the book.

I thought the image of the woman on the pink cover was possibly too generic - and as everyone else said, the font was terrible - but at least it really did look *fun*, which the first one hadn’t. So my vote is for the pink one, with the font getting fixed.

The cover with the dog is considerably less ghastly than the other one, but that isn’t saying much.  Both are messy, but the dog one will at least stand out a bit in both colour and design from the 842 other tooth-rottingly pink chick-lit covers with shoes and fourteen ugly fonts each which will be crowding the shelves around this book.

However, I hate most genre fiction covers, so my opinion is probably irrelevant.  I find most of them vapid and silly, and the American ones, in particular, frequently have far too much text on them. 

If there is a dog, and specifically a Chihuahua, in the book, then the turquoise cover is just about passable.  If there isn’t, it’s false advertising…

(will go back and read comments in a second, but first…)

Is there anyway to put the pretty legs in a skirt in the blue cover?

‘cause that’d be a win-win for me.

The poor dog? That’s abuse, y’all.

I have to follow the crowd here and say I liked the pink cover until I scrolled down to that godawful typeface.  Now I like the blue better, but I too wouldn’t use that chihuahua unless there’s one in the story.

I’d use a dachshund, but that’s a personal preference.  In my house, it’s all about the wiener.

Neither of these covers do justice to the written blurb.  Of the two, however, I’d most likely pick up the pink in order to read the back cover.  Then, after reading, I’d probably put it down since I’ve reached my chick-lit book quota. 

I think the art department should play up more of a before/after.  You know how those makeover shows are—split screen so the audience can see just how awesome a woman looks with a nice haircut, monochromatic clothes and make-up!  This books seems like the opposite: Fashionista to How the Hell Did You Dye Your Hair Orange?

Back to the drawing board.

I too vote to go back to the drawing board - I dislike both covers.

The composition of the first cover is fine, but I think the Chihuahua is ugly and would not buy a book where a beauty addict thinks that dog is the epitome of beauty.  Now if they replace the chihuahua with Paul Tholme or Gerard Butler—then I’d like it.

The second book cover looks like it was printed by a princess-loving 2nd grader and I don’t like the slutty picture.

I wouldn’t buy the book if it had either of these covers —so I’d recommend a redo.

Having read all the comments so far… if going back to the drawing board is at all possible, I beg the marketing people to do it. Please.

(is there any way to skip the dog? poor creature)

The blue cover certainly catches your eye first.  But I don’t like how it looks as if she is going to kiss the dog. 

The pink cover is cute, with the great legs and the skirt.  But that awful font-typeface.  Hate that.

So, out of the two, I’d go with the Blue as being the one to catch a consumer’s eye first.

If I saw both on a shelf, side by side, I would grab the Blue one first, flip it over and read the back cover blurb.

I get to play art director again! The bitches hit on all the high notes.  Since my snark gene is in denial, I’ll merely bore you. 

The Blue: Tiffany blue is great for fashion connection, but jarring it is the dog, the ugly rat dog who 1)looks bored and 2)is lit straight on, hiding the eyes.  The appeal of dogs and cats are in the eyes, as opposed to the soulless pits on your mutt.  Also: Note the washout of the last name of the author on the model.  Centering the author’s name is good, but not at the expense of hiding it.  I’d wager you can’t see “Haobsh” from three feet away, especially when you use a glossy paper. 
To sum: Dogs are attention grabbers, but ugly dogs with soulless eyes is a minus.  Bonus: Remove dog and replace with python wearing necklace for comic effect. 

Pink Happy Legs: The action shot of a pair of well toned legs is great, but the hint of right butt cheek with the skirt flying up makes this cover essentially an upskirt porno shot, thus the “waxing regimen” snark from the bitches.  Note the difference here between the fonts of the two covers: The Blue has “Confessions of a” in block font, and the Pink has the “Beauty Addict” in the block font.  Again hiding the author name with the slashy font. Quick, look at the author’s last name on the pink cover.  What’s the third letter?  The “Author of” line is too compressed, break it into two lines, even if you keep the compressed font. Keep the “Beauty Confidential” in a different color.

Now the horrid choice for font on the pink. You can fix this when you reshoot the model from a slightly higher angle.
You can A) Shoot her running in front of a fashion store window, with the title of the book as the text written on the store front window B) Add the mutt to the pink handbag, head sticking out, tiny pink scarf around mutt’s neck, blowing in the breeze C) All of the above (The answer is always (C)  Which font to choose to put on the store front window is up to you, but the color might be a contrasty Gold, to clash with her Pink.

Blue

But to be honest, I’m not really in love with either of them. I don’t like the choice of dog on the blue one, or the choice of jewelery (chihuahuas don’t go with pearls), and the pink one is a mix of blah and ugly.

I’m in the “back to the drawing board” camp. But that’s my opinion.

Hm. I’m not going to say “Back to the drawing board,” but I could be persuaded to.

I agree that the pink cover is pretty offensive for all the reasons above: there are too many fonts, the legs-and-purse photo is too chick-lit generic, the heinous Young Adult cartoon font of the title hurts my eyes and overpowers the teeny “Confessions of a . . .” that comes before. I would also add that there are too many shades of pink for the cover to feel pulled together for me: the letters don’t match the shoes!

But I wasn’t drawn to the pink cover even before hitting the awful title font. It really does seem like every other chick lit/modern romance cover already on the shelf. I’d walk by without a second glance. And how does this cover relate to the plot? Can we get a couple of cosmetics spilling from her purse?

I’d say if you want to fix the pink cover, fix the fonts, especially the title, and give the photo a unique tweak, like a lipstick mid-air, or a spilled nail polish bottle on the ground behind her. Or both!

Moving on to the blue cover: it definitely appeals to me much more: the white letters on the lovely shade of blue, the composition in general. I’d look at this twice in a bookstore. Like Candy, I also like that we see (part of) a woman’s face rather than face-less legs. HOWEVER - it does not prepare me to read cover copy about a cosmetics/magazine writer. It makes me think of a pampered and privileged heiress rather than a career-girl heroine. The dog doesn’t gross me out (cute!), but maybe a powder-puff or a make-up mirror would better suit the book’s plot?

Given these two choices, I’d say blue. But they could both be improved on.

/my $.02

I wouldn’t pick up the book based on either of these covers.  Cover #1-I hate that shade of blue!  It’s wishy-washy.  Is it blue?  Is it green?  It’s blah, either way.  Add to that the kitschy pocket pup, draped in bling (like the other dogs didn’t give the poor thing a hard enough time), and the daddy’s money fashionista (well, the fashionista’s lips) and I’m so not interested.  As for the pink cover, are they really trying to sell us that the truly fashionable beauty editors all head off to work wearing a skirt that wouldn’t make a belt on most women and no underwear?  I’m not sure where this woman could wear this outfit (too daytime for a nightclub, too skimpy for a picnic) but any supervisor I know would turn her around at the door as she would be a sexual harassment lawsuit waiting to happen.  And when did women become just a collection of random body parts, anyway?  Lips here, legs there.  Does it cost more to put an entire woman on the cover?  (I think it’d be cheaper since you’re buying in bulk, but anyway.)  It’s not really a deal-breaking issue for me, but I’m curious what marketing genius decided that we’d rather buy books with just a representative piece of a woman and why that would be.

If I absolutely had to pick one, though, I guess the pink with the puke-tastic font.  That’s only because the blue one seems to have absolutely nothing to do with the blurb. 

soon43…soon enough, I guess, but not this year.

As a bookseller and buyer, if I were to see either cover in a catlog, I would probably skip right over them.

The Tiffany-blue cover with the Chihuahua is the type of cover that makes me immediately think “Oh, another book about a fashion-conscious dame in New York City.”

The “pink” cover is equally as generic, *except* for the font. The juxtaposition of the chick-lit-esque image and the comic/folksy font is rather jarring, but may be more in keeping with what I perceive to be the theme of the novel, at least from the brief (catalog-copy) description provided.

Although I prefer the aesthetics of the blue cover, generic though I may find it, I think the “pink” cover is a better choice, as it seems to be more in keeping with the contents of the novel itself.

But, again, I would probably skip right over both covers in a publisher’s catalog, looking for something new and unique and not a retread of what has gone before. Neither of these covers really work 100% and I don’t think either of them are really enough to get a customer to pick up the book and find out what it’s all about.

I’m all about the blue cover. The dog is a major pull-point and makes me want to make kissy-faces at it, too.  That said: I hope there’s a purse pooch in the story, or I’d be cranky after buying it.  It’s not too overdone; understated but eye-catching with a nice flow.

The other cover. Oy. Is this YA? Because if it is, then it works.  If not, NO. Pinkand Purple girl. Pinkandpurple bag with a pinkandpurple scarf. Pinkandpurple font. Fonts. 5 freakin’ fonts? One of which looks like it was drawn by my niece?  Actually, you know if you make those shoes about 4 sizes bigger, then it actually does look like my niece playing dress up.  I bet that cover girl is wearing fake pearls and mondo amounts of makeup.  Verdict: I would pass by this on the shelf and think that I wouldn’t want to be seen at the same party with it.

Ooo, Walt - I love your idea of redoing the Legs McGee cover! Having her running past a store window (a cosmetics store, like Sephora, natch) and putting the title on the store window - brilliant!

Blue = winnah winnah chicken dinnah, but only because it creeps me out the least. By the way, what is up with the typeface on #2 pinky? It looks like the crap I used to doodle all over my brown paper bag book covers.

However, if at all possible back to the drawing board please.

The dog creeps me out.  I’m half expecting the woman to start snogging it at any moment, and that’s just…well…icky.  Ewwww, dog germs.

I happen to like the pink, but that gawd-awful typeface has to go.

I’m going to fall in the camp of neither one does it for me as a reader.  The blue has too much open space in each corner and the pink one is the epitome of everything the chick lit genre has been mocked for.

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.

Something like that would appeal to my sense of the absurd and prompt me to pick up the book.

But that’s just me

I love Tiffany blue it always catches my eye.  Lose the dog…or find a cuter dog…But my mind goes one step further and sees her kissing the dog…EEEWWWW

Pink…too boring and the font too ugly. 

I vote BLUE

While I don’t much care for either cover, I’d have to vote for the blue one.

I’m sick and tired of novels (chick lit or otherwise) displaying disembodied female body parts. While I actually like the second cover somewhat, I feel like it’s the kind of cover I’ve been cultured to like—women’s legs/butts are used for so much advertising anymore, and it just makes me feel uncomfortable, no matter how pretty the cover winds up being. 

The fact that her skirt is blowing up and we’re essentially getting a “crotch shot” here does not endear me to the cover, either. It seems to me that the second cover reduces femininity to a woman’s nether regions…even if that’s not what the cover artists/marketers are going for.

I don’t necessarily care for the juxtaposition of the chihuahua and the woman’s face in the first (blue) cover, but, as Sarah & Candy said, at least she *has* a face. And that makes a big difference to me. It also has a sort of “kissing a toad” vibe—which gives that fairy-tale feel that I think a lot of chick lit goes for.

Finally, the blue cover says “beauty addict” to me in a more adult/competent way than the second cover, which to me suggests the kind of flighty, incompetent heroine that plagues far too much chick lit today.

I’m wondering if we’re being tested here. Does the first person to point out that the blue cover features a Smart Bitch win extra points?

And I notice that while diamonds may be the girl’s best friend, the smart bitch prefers pearls.

Go with the puppy… ALWAYS GO WITH THE PUPPY!

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.

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!!

Yeah, that seriously pissed me off, too. Mayday! Mayday! Fattie incoming!  Bar the door!  Hiss.

Covers like these are exactly why I rarely pick up anything so easily identified as ChickLit.  I think they serve to confirm the idea that chick lit is for the brainless and/or material-obsessed.  Basically, what I’m saying is I don’t want to be seen with books that look like this!

If I’m reading a romance novel, and it looks like a romance novel?  I’m not bothered if people think I’m reading something saucy.  I am bothered if I think the book makes me look “stupid.”

I think both of these need to go back to the drawing board.  I went to your (Avon by HC) website and scanned the covers of other books recently released. 

If I had to judge by the proposed covers compared to the covers of other books you’ve released, I’d think you were marketing this as ChickLit (like a Jo Barrett)

But from the blurb of the back, it sounds more like Contemporary Romantic Fiction (a la a Patti Berg, perhaps).

Yes, the blue is successful in terms of layout, but leaves you cold and bored.  The pink is just a disaster.

Neither cover works for me.

The pink has every chick-lit cliche I loathe—faceless woman, high-heeled shoes, expensive purse. Boh-ring.

The blue cover is inscrutable, as none of its elements seem to match up with the summary. Either the summary needs to mention Bella’s beloved dog, or the dog needs to leave the cover.

Actually, neither cover as-is focuses on the book’s subject: the contrast between Bella’s high-fashion former job, and her low-fashion current one. Why not exploit that change of venue? Judging from the blurb the book is really about Bella’s negotiating the change in milieu, which is relatable: Everyone has been forced to live or work in an unfamiliar environment. Ergo, you should find a way to represent that visually on the cover.

Frankly, I find the summary much more interesting than *either* cover. I suggest going back to the art department, starting over, and coming up with a cover worthy of the summary.

Well, my perspective may be a bit skewed but I definately can’t endorse the blue one.  As a sufferer of severe pet dander allergies, just the sight of that model’s face so close to that dog makes my nasal passages instantly clog and my eyeballs itch like the very devil!

The Pink one isn’t great either.  The disembodied legs are soooo 2006 and the only thing memorable about it is that whoreanus font.

So, if I have to choose it would be the pink one but only because it does not send me running for my prescription medication.

I like the blue cover as well. It will attract more attention on the shelf- and the font on the pink cover is horrible. Though I honestly might pick it up in a store BECAUSE the font is horrible.

The dog is cute.

I’ve got problems with both, which have been ably enumerated by the previous posters and also suggest, back to the drawing board Avon!

First reaction to blue cover: Gah! Is that Tinkerbell? I hate the Paris stereotype.

First reaction to pink cover: Legs, again, whoopee…wait, is this supposed to be YA with that freaky font?

The pink is awful for a couple of reasons: (1) the cartoonish type is not cute or chic, and(2) the skinny, over exposed legs as a focal point is SO not what Nadine as an author and beauty expert is all about - she’s more the Dove real beauty type

The blue much better, however it doesn’t sound like it has much to do with the plot of the book. Would they be willing the drop the dog all together and replace that part of the image with her hand holding a compact? I do love the angle of the chin/kissing image on the bottom right - you could keep it if you did that.

Just a suggestion…

Blue!

Unless her best friend is a dog and the dog is a character in the story, I’d nix the blue cover. If I were a dog lover and bought this book, I’d want a dog in there somewhere! I’m sure they’re going for the Paris Hilton subliminal message but frankly, between Paris’s flighty image and the dog’s unsightly whiskers, the blue cover doesn’t work for me. If you’re going for romance, dog lips are right out.

The pink cover has its own problems: obviously the typeface problem (I counted at least 5, plus the small caps font change in the pull quote), the “generic chick lit” impression, and, frankly, the too-short flipped-up skirt. They *do* know they’re marketing this to women, right? Plus, most women grow out of dotting their i’s with flowers by the time they graduate high school.

No wonder they’re having trouble deciding between the two of these: picking the lesser of two evils is always tough.

The lady kissing the dog freaks me out for some reason.  I love dogs, but…

I say the pink cover with the amazing legs (which aren’t mine, unfortunately) but change the font.  The font is too YA for this title.

I actually have a very random idea that could be cool.

you know the finger to lips shh motion?

well, the primary image it could be a hand holding a compact and in the compact’s mirror the reflection is an interesting cropping of the finger to the lips…

it could be done with either photography or illustration and be very cute!

I have to agree with Jana:
I think the art department should play up more of a before/after.  You know how those makeover shows are—split screen so the audience can see just how awesome a woman looks with a nice haircut, monochromatic clothes and make-up!  This books seems like the opposite: Fashionista to How the Hell Did You Dye Your Hair Orange?

There’s so much you can do with this sort of concept without going for annoying or cliché.  Why not a high-fashion woman surrounded by khakis, either in a store or at the office?

The summary has promise, but the covers presented here just aren’t enough to catch my attention.  (At least, not in a good way…)

Both are horrible. I’d walk straight past and maybe roll my eyes a little. The pink is particularly gruesome.

The blurb sounds utterly dire, a wearisome regurgitation of every other chic lit story ever conceived. Make it stop.

This is just free publicity for Avon and Nadine Haobsh, right? I can’t believe the second cover could be a serious contender for anything, let alone cause strife among a team of marketing professionals who - presumably - have the skill and experience to know exactly why cover no. 2 in particular is shoddy and derivative.

The pink one I’ve seen a billion times and would never pick up.  The blue one promises humour and intrigues me enough to pick it up and look at the blurb.

Meriam, your cynicism makes me smile!

I hope HarperCollins knows what they’ve gotten themselves into!

Blue, definitely.  I love the color…but I’m not a chihauhau fan, so I agree with those who say unless the pooch is important to the story, he has to go.  Replace him with a universally loveable dog…a Yorkie, perhaps?  Bichon?

The pink is just…DONE.  To death.  And I can’t read the author’s name in that typeface at ALL.  The title is worse.

Great way to get pre-publication buzz, too…very smart Harper.  Very smart.

I haven’t read all of the comments, though enough to know mine won’t be unique.

If I’d had to pick one, I’d pick the blue, because of the godawful font on the pink, and call me a prude but I really don’t like how high the skirt is flaring.

I don’t like the dog so close to the mouth, though, either. That turns me right off.

If it’s possible, the best option is a different cover altogether. Neither of these say anything about the story, and neither of them are eye catching (in a good way.) It’s like the publisher is more concerned with making sure people recognize the genre than anything else. There are tons of fantasy novels for which a dragon on the cover would be totally inappropriate.

Blue cover makes me think it’s a dog grooming book.

Pink cover is more romance except the font makes it look like a 12 step program for men on how to lift the skirt a little higher.

Start over with the art. Please. Show me how the hero sees her. Or how she sees the hero.

I don’t like the women on either cover. They seem silly and shallow.

My gut instinct is for the pink cover, and as a pub quiz veteran I know to trust my gut instinct (Of COURSE the capital of Texas is Austin.  Why did I let anyone write Dallas?  I lost out on my free pint, dammit).

I don’t like the blue.  I don’t like the shade, for one thing (that’s Tiffany Blue?  It looks like a kid’s paddling pool).  And I don’t like the dog.  You know what it reminds me of?  The orange woman in There’s Something About Mary who’s always snogging her dog.  If I was Nadine Haobsh I’d get used to being known as the woman with the dog-snogging cover.

Yes, the pink is overdone.  But unless I’ve missed the mark here, this is chick-lit, right?  It goes with pink like it goes with chardonnay.  And this particular brand, which I believe is known as chic-lit (ie: the characters actually know, and give a damn about, the difference between a Dior lipstick and a Shu Uem-thingy one, as opposed to the Bridget Jones school of chick-lit, in which The Gap is considered fancy) tends to be represented by handbags/shoes.  It’s visual shorthand, yes?

Do you want to tell a potential reader that it’s about girlie things like make-up and fashion?  Then cover it in pink.  That’s what pink is for.  Girlie things.

That said, yes, the composition of the blue cover is better, it’s cleaner, and it’s more striking.  I like the clean, centred fonts.  But no to the dog-snogging.

And I second the comments about the pink writing.  I was scrolling down, thinking, “Yes, more like it,” and then I got to that and thought, “Or maybe not.”  Oh, and poor Nadine’s name is tiny—aren’t they advertising it as the woman who wrote the blog?

I honestly don’t know b/c I have issues with both covers. I like the elegance of the blue one, but the dog?!  It’s jarring to see that ugly dog mug with the jewels.  The woman’s partial face is nice, but could she be looking at something other than that scary dog face?

The pink one~the women’s body and purse are okay, but that font~it hurts my eyes!  A font that says “fun” without saying “cutesy”. That font is something I’d expect to see on Hannah Montana or High School Musical.

that comment above should say “A font that says “fun” without saying “cutesy” would be better. The font on this book now is “cutesy”.

Definitely the blue.  The font on the pink cover is distracting as all heck, annoying enough that I’d pass on buying the book for that reason alone.

*smacks forehead* That’s where I’ve seen that before! It was driving me crazy

All I can think is…what if the dog started to drool??

Second comment, please forgive!
You know, the more I think of it, the kind of cover I’d like to see would be either:

a) something with her chic clothing laid out on a bed like she’s getting ready for work, but with a pair of khakis on top of them up (or maybe in mid-flight like they’re being thrown).

b) model, complete with bright orange hair, taking off her makeup.

And if you just /have/ to do legs why not have the khakis paired up with expensive shoes?

Don’t know if anyone mentioned this before, am secretly posting during a deadly dull audio conference at work but the pink cover sucks not only because of the fonts and such but because the clothes are surprisingly lame for a “Beauty Addict.”  The shoes have a generic/Payless (though the Payless description is no longer valid as Payless shoes have been surprisingly cute for some time) vibe, the hem of the blouse and skirt are totally forgettable and the purse!! Great day in the morning!  Would a beauty addict not carry Gucci’s latest or something that looks like Gucci’s latest?

It’s that holiest of times in NYC:  fashion week.  I say get HColl to spring for a couple o’ tickets to some fab runway thing to get some ideas.

However, if you’re only option is to choose between the two, then go for the blue.  Everything about it is cleaner looking and therefore more appealing.

I vote for the pink cover even though it is very generic and the fint is creepy because the kissy face with the dog takes my mind to unpleasant places. I do like Barb’s idea about having just the dog on the cover. I’m not usually a fan of the chick-lit but that idea would definitely grab my attention

Can you say Pepto-Bismol on the pink cover? I need some after looking at it. That font is TCTL (Too Cute To Live). I not only would not pick up that book to see what it was about, I would RUN! Pink is just not my thing (despite all the pink on SMTB’s site - the rhetoric is so compelling, I don’t notice!)

I love Tiffany blue. Blue is always good. But like so many, what’s up with the Chihuahua? I thought it was a silly plot device in

Legally Blonde

movies. Why not put a sexy cat up there? (Gah! Did I just say that? I’m a big dog person) But srsly, as the lolcats say. A cat in a jeweled collar just screams beauty and sex to me.

If I had to pick one or the other as is, cast my vote for the blue.

I’m sure someone has already make this point. But anyway
Dog + anything to do with beauty or fashion = bitch.
It is a cliche but its one a lot of people are going to jumb to and possibly form the worng impression of the lead character.
If the lead character is a bitch its a clever way of suggesting it but if the reader is supposed to sympathise with her i think it gives off the wrong impression.
Having said that
Pink is just wrong and not even the girlest of girls ever really writes like that.

Definitely, the chihuahua cover. Not only is the bling-dripping dog an unexpected and eye-catching element, so is the proferred kiss and the position of the title.  Besides…there are lots o’ dog lovers out there!

The other cover seems far too generic-chick-lit to be in the least bit noticeable. It even strikes me as a bit dated.  As a reader, I wouldn’t have the slightest interest in anything that lay beneath that cutesy, cartoony exterior.

P.S. I’d suggest tweaking the blurb, as well—or, at least, proofreading it.

I think the pink is more appropriate. Where did the pooch pop up from????

But having said that, I feel that I have seen this type of cover (the pinkie) dozens of times b4. Cute, breezy blah blah. Give me something new.

Something about kissing dogs just turns me off, plus the pearls make me think uppity people.  Which might be the point.

I like the pink cover better, between the two… more movement, more action going on, more contrast, even if I do think the skirt is going up a little high, and the font is a turn-off… much too young-girl, and not enough ... class, I believe the the term I’m looking for..

Just reread mine - sorry for the typos. should have proof read.

Strangely, I love the blurb.  Usually romance novel blurbs make me want to cry

However . . . I can’t hold back my tears at the covers.

BLUE

I cannot believe this seems to be winning.  The blue seems a bit too staid to catch the eye from across the room.  While I absolutely love that there’s actually part of the face on the cover, I dislike that it still embodies the decapitated model trend by not having her eye in the picture.  (Actually, the crop looks messy because there’s just a glimmer of her eyelashes at the edge.  Her earring is cut of instead of shot nicely to play up the fashion angle.)

As for the dog . . . ew.  It makes me think snotty heiress and it isn’t particularly cute.  The picture they chose faces straight instead of angling toward the woman like both characters are actually interacting.  (Not that her kissy face isn’t disturbing alone . . . )  The pearls are kind of pretty, but they clash with the owner’s diamonds.

I love the typeface of the title; however, they could do something more interesting than white block text for the author’s name.

PINK

The legs, shoes, and purse are cute.  The skirt isn’t.  The book is marketed towards WOMEN.  Heterosexual women.  The panty shot doesn’t do it for me, and I’d be embarrassed reading the novel with the jacket on.  If the skirt didn’t blow up, I’d probably rather like the cover despite it’s lack of originality.  After all, it is about the fashion and cute shoes and a cute purse say it all.

That typeface is distracting.  On a different novel it could be quite effective and endearing.  For a novel about a high fashion gal?  Not so much.  On top of that, the pinks used to fill the letters clash.  (Not that the photo doesn’t naturally clash with the handdrawn look . . . )

While neither covers are true winners, I’d go with the pink.  (With all these feedback, maybe the Avon A will change the font.)

Those covers are both beyond words.  If this was a serious question and not just a way to generate buzz/advertise, I want to know what the marketing folks were thinking. Ewwww.

The more interesting question to me is whether anybody here is now prepared to buy the book?  It seems like a lovely marketing ploy, but utterly unsuccessful on this particular reader as I’d rather not read another book ever than read any kind of chick lit or women’s lit or whatever lit.

Spam word: taken98. Well, I was not taken with Avon and the covers.

I vote for the blue one.

Both have their drawbacks, (blue: Photoshopping on the dog&jewels is poorly done, pink: the font is a ‘scroll down fug’—to quote Go Fug Yourself—and the image of the woman is overused) but the blue one is definitely my first choice.

Huh.  I actually *like* the blue cover.  I will admit that the pearls around the dogs neck gave me pause but it totally brought to mind “Legally Blonde”, which I adore, and kissing Bruiser is a totally Elle thing to do.  So it didn’t squick me out like it obviously has some folks.  I also think the fonts, especially the “Beauty Addict” part are wonderful.  I like the juxtaposition of the clean look of “Confessions of a” with the more stylistic “Beauty Addict.”  The other fonts are also nice and clean and appealing.  Frankly, I’m more offput by the woman’s glittery earrings on that cover than just about anything else.

The pink cover doesn’t do it for me in any way, shape, or form.  Is she supposed to be running?  Walking?  What would have her knee quite that high up, with the heel coming out of her other shoe as well?  It’s not a natural pose for pretty much anything other than trying to show off her latest Brazillian wax.  It’s also way too much pink in varying shades.  I’m as fond of pink as the next person but this was just overmuch and I think it gives the wrong impression.

Others have also mentioned the fonts.  I like the font for Nadine Haobsh and Confessions of a.  But the Beauty Addict font?  No.  It does not goe with any of the other fonts.  Nor does it proclaim Beauty Addict.  It proclaims “Suddenly I’m 12 and dot my i’s with flowers.”  It’s a doodle and doesn’t go with the them of the book or the look of the cover.  It’s distracting and off-putting in the extreme.

I don’t like the alternating pinks of the font in Beauty Addict, either.  Again, it’s a little too 12-year-old girl for what I think the book intends.  You have to wonder who thought that would be an appropriate font for either this cover or this book in general.

I like the blue cover, without the dog. It’s soothing, looks like it will be a fun book to read, but then I look at the dog and I just say no thanks-what does a dog have to do with beuty addict. As for the pink cover, it makes me think of the book as more sex & the city-lots of men, sex, and great shoes. The font on the pink cover is awful, looks like it should be on a comic book cover, not an adult book. I say go with the blue cover, without the dog-it looks interesting.

I want to read the book from what you say about it - but I’d never EVER pick up the book with either of those covers!

Remove the dog from the blue one, and I’d go for that one, with the pink one… the girl would have to cover more of her thighs/ass and have another leg position and… the font as everyone else’s mentioned too.

All of those things makes me feel sick just looking at the covers. I hope they’re never released.

Incidentally, how on earth does one pronounce ‘Haobsh’?  Maybe just as well that one can’t even make it out on that trashy pink cover.

I wonder if the publishers will manage to pick up, from this discussion, the fact that many readers of romance and other genre fiction buy and read the books in spite of their loathsome, embarrassing, infantile, vulgar cover art, rather than because of it?

No, that would be too much to hope for.

Opinion: both of these covers have terrible problems.

The blue is okay, but the chihuahua…words fail me. It’s stupid and will “turn off” readers who don’t like Paris Hilton’s hijinks OR the aura of conspicuous consumption/selfishness implied by the little thing draped in bling. (Poor dog.) I look at that and I don’t think kicky chick lit. I think Leona Helmsley.

The pink is worse. Not only is that font just horrifying, but that shade of pink will make the book blend into the stacks and make it thoroughly passe within three months.

As far as I’m concerned, neither of these covers is a win. The blue is less objectionable, but that’s the best that could be said of it…

Laura Vivanco wins! Bwahahahaha.

I’m not your core audience for purchasing this book. YMMV in regards to MO.

The blue cover makes me want a nap. And what in hell does the Dawg! have to do with Beauty, unless you’re saying “Bitches! Go from THIS to This!”. Or, ya know, Paris, like SB Sarah said.

I like the pink cover, but agree the bottom font must be eliminated. Please implode and reconstruct at will. (the font reminds me of a kiddie book I saw today)

As a side note, thank you for allowing this Bitch a comment or nine billion about the covers, but opt me out of the running for one of the books.

Not to belabor the point, but the summary mentions “Cavalli.”  I guarantee you that Roberto Cavalli et al wouldn’t be caught dead in the vicinity of that pink outfit.

I’m in the “back to the drawing board” camp, but the blue cover MIGHT be fixed if you replaced the dog with a Siamese cat—they’re born elegant and they look great in bling.  And they come equipped with a “don’t you DARE kiss me” expression, which would neutralize that problem.

However, it seems that what the cover needs to say is CONTRAST—fashionista editor now working for the likes of LADIES’ HOME JOURNAL.  So instead of a bling-heavy pet and ditto heroine (and those earrings are all wrong for the office), you should have something like a Kate Spade handbag side by side with a cooking utensil—maybe sitting in a casserole dish—or a sewing kit or one of those godawful “country” goose tchotchkes.  Or maybe a string of cut-out paperdolls colored khaki with one in the middle in power red with (real) pearls.

And I have a real problem with the premise of the book: 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.

Isn’t that what cutting-edge journalists are SUPPOSED to do?

The blue cover might prompt me to pick up the book and check out the blurb (with a Siamese I’d actually look inside!), but one glance at the pink cover and I’d pass by on the other side.

That will be $5000 for the consultation.  Cash only, please.

million16 —The pink cover will sell the book to 16 million teenagers.

The first. I’m not a big dog person myself, and I cannot understand people who kiss their dogs, so it wouldn’t be a cover I would love - but it would draw my attention. Like the colour, the jewellery, and the title and author’s name are very clear.
The second - I just wouldn’t notice it in a bookshop. The part of my brain that scans covers would assume it was YA and I’d browse straight past.

Bella Hunter, Beauty Expert [...] Bella is out to wage war on the beauty world one bad makeover at a time

I was too stunned by the covers to notice this first time through, but now the name seems to be rather obviously symbolic. She’s a Beauty Expert called “Bella” and she’s “waging war” and trying to find real beauty (not bad makeovers) so she’s “Hunter.”

At her wits end and desperate not to return home with her tail between her legs

And again, the symbolism becomes so much clearer. That smart bitch on the cover must be Bella’s alter ego/a symbol of her inner bitch who doesn’t want to go home “with her tail between her legs.”

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.

Reading through the comments, I realised that some people think this book is a romance. Is it? I was assuming that the stuffy but gorgeous publisher was an older woman whose mature, natural (i.e. un-face-lifted, accepting of smile lines) beauty Bella comes to appreciate.
If that part of the blurb is supposed to alert me to the possibility that Bella will dump the beautiful boyfriend and take up with a gorgeous (male) publisher, then perhaps this needs to be made a little bit clearer?

AgTigress said,

I wonder if the publishers will manage to pick up, from this discussion, the fact that many readers of romance and other genre fiction buy and read the books in spite of their loathsome, embarrassing, infantile, vulgar cover art, rather than because of it?

Alas, I sincerely doubt it.

Or perhaps they have proof that the Bitchery is in the minority in this matters, and that these covers actually sell what’s between the covers. *shrug*

I absolutely would go with the blue cover. It’s a little weird, yes, but it is about a thousand times more striking than the other one.

I manage a bookstore (one of the three big retail chains - no, not that one; nope, not that one either; yes, the other one), and I’m generally the person at my branch who does the merchandising. I would be way more likely to face out the blue cover when putting books away. If I had enough copies, I’d even use it to fill in some blank space on a women’s fiction endcap if we were out of the titles that corporate dictates (which is pretty much always).

It’s a great shade of blue, and it’s unusual. The other cover is a dime a dozen. If it weren’t for the godawful font, it wouldn’t stand out to me at all. As it is, the font is the only thing remotely memorable, and it is terrible.

The second cover looks like a hundred other books I have on the shelves at my store right now. I’d forget it in an instant. The first cover. I might actually take a moment out of my busy day to peruse the copy on the back.

This may be the most shallow answer ever, but…I’d pick up the blue cover because I’m an animal lover and the doggy - though dripping with bling-bling - is cute.

The chick on the pink cover, however, with her thigh-master legs and buns ‘o steel prominently displayed, just makes me want to run my chunky ass in the opposite direction. Ugh, do I really need to buy a book that reminds me I should diet every time I glance at the cover? I’ll take the pooch, thanks. At least he looks like I could eat a cookie with him.

P.S. Yay Avon for being wise enough to consult the Bitchery! Makes me proud to be one of their authors.

I agree with the many that have said I would scrap both and start over.

Since she is supposed to be a beauty editor I picture an Audrey Hepburn looking model with hair upswept and black dress with pearls sitting at an antique desk in front of a laptop as if she was typing.  If the dog plays a role in the story it could be sitting on the desk also looking at the computer screen.  You could even tie a scarf around the dogs neck instead of the pearls.

“I wonder if the publishers will manage to pick up, from this discussion, the fact that many readers of romance and other genre fiction buy and read the books in spite of their loathsome, embarrassing, infantile, vulgar cover art, rather than because of it?”

I agree with this point. And from my observations, it seems like some publishers (including Avon) have been experimenting with design changes in the past months.

More shots from the back, profiles, non-bodice ripper women, or partial face shots (think Christina Dodd, Eloisa James, Suzanne Enoch, Galen Foley). While they may not be perfect, they are making some changes.

Not saying that it couldn’t still be improved, just that I’ve noticed some changes, which this reader would like to optimistically attribute to publishers hearing and reacting to reader feedback.

I hate the pink one, and not just because of the typeface.  It’s too busy, and I hate the photo.

I don’t hate the blue one.  I don’t hate the poor, homely chihuahua.  But I agree, if there’s no dog in the book, scrap it from the cover. 

I think a close up of someone in a green facial mask, red lipstick, pearls and rhinestones would be catchy though.  Or more of a play on the beauty addict concept- a hand coming out of a pile of cosmetics, purses, shoes, etc. or a notebook page with pearls draped across an edge, and the title being written in lipstick?  But really, simple, bold covers catch my eye best, and all of my suggestions may be too busy for that.

I am so tired of pink (except here at the Bitchery, of course) and Chick Lit and our obsession with all things fashionable: khaki, quelle horreur!

Why do “vapid” and “self-absorbed” have to be the New Black? That’s what both of these covers say to me. If I were Anita Shreve, I’d take my blurb back.

I think its important to point out that someone like myself who often goes into the store waiting for the perfect book to jump at me, is definitely drawn by cover art and design.

Looking at both covers they’re very strong, but I think the despite the dog and the anticipated kiss between the two (I find kissing dogs a little gross) the blue cover stands out and is actually going to catch eyes faster in a store when someone doesn’t know what they’re looking for. (I hope the Spine is blue with the simple white font as well). I still don’t like the dog at all though and based on the summary I’m not sure how it fits. I’m guessing that maybe Bella has a dog. She seems like the type based on the summary, but it’s worth mention to make the image have more since. Also the dog doesn’t look like it’s enjoying itself and in fact looks a little scared. I think you should if possible rethink the images on the blue cover to make it more appealing, but if not the color more then makes up for it and will definitely get some attention. Plus strange covers are better then almost perfect covers which I think is what you see with the pink and white.

With the pink and white cover, I feel I’ve seen it before. I’m least likely to actually go straight for this book when I’m in the store. It’s very ordinary and the font while different makes me think of something that would show up in the YA section next to Knocked Out By My Nugga Nuggas.

I think the blue cover is better, while I don’t like the dog, the cover is meant to attract attention. The US cover for Sparkles was actually covered in sparkles and the woman on the front looked strange. I hated the cover, but it got my attention in a giant room full of books and I actually ended up buying it.

Blue, blue, blue.  Not a fan of little dogs, personally, but it’s different enough that I’d pick it up.

I think that the legs on Pink may belong to a well-waxed drag queen.  Or possibly an eighteen year old girl who hasn’t even heard of cellulite yet and who likes to bounce away on the stepper machine in her sorority’s basement while singing along to Rihanna.  They certainly don’t belong to an editor who, one presumes, is over twenty-five (and they make me feel hostile as the little dog does not.)

im not a fan of that blue, but i do like the shot…it tells me that bling DOES matter, vanity matters, and i should read her story.. seems kinda classy too

the pink is refreshing but kinda juvenile and the font is horrific

I would definitely go for the blue. I’m sick to death of headless women, and even more sick to death of covers with nothing but a pair of legs. I love the angle and what they’ve done with the space. that cover pulled me in, and I would have picked it up in a bookstore.

The dog doesn’t bother me, but I don’t love it. The kissy face doesn’t make much sense without it, though.

I love the blue cover, except that something about her chin makes her throat look like a giant penis.

The manifold horrors of the pink cover have been suitable covered already.

The pink is beyond horrendous. My first impression was “thirteen-year-old whore”. Change the font to something having a more mature connotation and give the girl a skirt long enough to cover her and perhaps it would work.

The blue would be better if the dog were actually looking at the woman and not staring out into space with dead eyes. (Is that dog real or stuffed?)

God, I hate the blue cover. First, the blue is just eye-shockingly painful to look at. It needs to be toned down. And the whiskers on that chihuahua are very distracting…in a gross kinda way. I would also agree with Charlene, if the dog were actually looking at the woman, it would be better.

I would go with a cutsie dog cover, but lose the chihuahua and pick a cuter type of dog. And then change the blue to something below eye bleed level.

Okay first off I am never a fan of cross-species spit exchange because it makes me think of all the parasites you can get from the fecal-oral-oral-fecal cycle.  I’m a medical student, what do you want.  I also have a feeling that women with small, short-haired dogs wouldn’t be able to resist plucking out the neck whiskers so prominent on this pooch. 

That said in the pink cover the woman is wearing what looks to be a terricloth skirt.  I don’t think any fashion guru would ever be caught dead in terricloth but I could be wrong.

So my vote?  The blue cover by default but personally I would not be likely to pick it up even to peruse the back cover if I thought a main theme was gratuitous dog smooching.

I agree that the dog whiskers on the blue are offputting, but the pink one is so generic as to make it invisible - except for the UHT (Universally Hated Typeface).

I’d notice the blue, but I’d like it better with the dog looking less taxidermied.  If the other comments were poker bets, I’d say I’ll see your “doggie eye contact” and “no whiskers,” and I’ll raise you a “paw with nail polish on it” to play up the “beauty” aspect. 

Or you could put lipstick on the dog, but I’m thinking that might not be the way to go.

*Gulp*

Y-y-y-you mean that’s a REAL BOOK?  The publisher paid MONEY for THAT?  You’re NOT B-Essing us?

Dear Diety.  No wonder everyone hates America.

I’m gonna go shoot myself.  Or a publisher.  Or maybe no one.  Depends how much booze I can suck down before I find my gun.

Okay - I’m loving the font & color behind the blue cover…but I’m a big fan of ditching the overly ridiculous pampered toy pup. If they wanted to keep the idea, could we see something a little more…interesting? A cuter dog face (maybe a pug?) with less crap on it? If you have to have the sparklies, show her hand with some (non-diamond) fripperies on it. Change the angle to accomplish that so it’s more over her shoulder than straight on from the left.

Too many comments to read so my ideas have probably already been said ... but that said, here’s my two cents.

Definitely the blue cover, for design, use of space, and fontage alone. I would switch the dog & face so that she’s kissing down to the dog that’s looking up.

The white cover is too white, with crappy fontage, and too many fonts at that (I could 4 different ones). The blue one has 3 but at least they are from related families. I too am sick of headless women and “perfect” legs, would definitely put a cover over that one if I had to read it.

Other thought ... I’m tired of authors names being just as big (or bigger) than the actual title. I guess you *are* buying the name, but it would be nice if the actual TITLE be the first thing you see.

— Bonz

I don’t like either one of the covers and I probably wouldn’t like the book!

*offers Expiring Writer some water and unfortunately virtual diabetic chocolate* There, there. No shooting on the pink site.

Now, as far as the covers. The primary functions for a cover as far as I am concerned as a reader is (a) to make the genre patently clear (i.e. I want to know if this is chick lit, which is obviously what the cover designers were trying to show) (b)to not be embarrassing to display on my shelves.

Neither covers would make me think that it was anything other than chick lit, as the disillusionment would occur with the blurb and/or little reading of a bit of the book. As far as grabbing your attention: yes, the blue does so because it’s more original BUT it contains a massive ICK factor of those women who are disgusted at Paris Hilton or do not want to read about rich people falling from grace (as the obsession with the dog and jewelry seem to imply).

Vote? Pink, because it doesn’t imply things about the plot that’re distasteful. I might actually read the book.

The best course of action, however? Reworking the books using above ideas, STAT.

What does the author have to say about the book covers anyway? Which one does she prefer? Did she have any input?

The blue cover turns me off. I would have to walk past it a few times before I would pick it up. The whole kissing dogs (small, cute or ugly) does not appeal to me. The cover doesn’t fit the plot outline and when does pearl on a dog equal high fashion? It suggests extravagance, not chic.

The pink cover is fluffy and fun. The “Beauty Addict” font should be revamped but it does catch the eye. I would probably pick this book off the shelf, even if to ogle, the bright pink bag. (I *need* one of those…) The excess white space is annoying; if there was a side-walk/city background it would fit better.

Conclusion: Go pink.

Both covers say, “RfP, babe, you will hate this book.”

The blue one adds, “But I’m a little unusual and that’s to be commended.”

I agree that the font on the pink cover is a poor choice.  It looks more like it would belong on the cover of Chick Lit version YA.  But honestly I am just over the trend of headless torsos that chick lit seems so fond of.

I like the blue cover.  The compostion is good, the fonts are easy on the eyes, and the woman with the pampered bejeweled pooch makes me think of some celeb addicted glam hound imitating her favorite tabloid diva.

I commented earlier, but don’t see my post.  So I’m doing it again.

I don’t like either cover, but if I had to pick between the two, then I pick the Blue cover.

The pink has too much white and that yucky font.

But I am not a big fan of kissing the dog.

I’ve seen the second cover before.  Woman’s high-heeled legs and a purse.  Actually, I’ve seen it on at least two different covers.  Different shoes, different bag, different skirt.  Same cover.

I could do without the kissing of the dog on the first cover.  But, that’s me.

I think the pink one looks funnier.  Also, I hate chihuahuas.

I vote blue.

I actually like the scribble font on the pink cover… for an indie teen movie.  It works for “Juno.”  Not for a novel that adults will read.  It’s too much of a non-sequitor, and the bright shades clash with the pale pastel of the model’s shoes.

Speaking of the model… while I like that she’s not stick thin, I wish that her ass wasn’t on partly view.  That’s what happens when you wear a thin polyester miniskirt and skip, I guess.

But why is she skipping?  From the summary given (and considering her choice of shoes), I’d expect her to be trudging.

I’m not madly in love with the blue cover, but I like that it’s blue (I’m sick of pink on book covers), and a strong shade of blue at that.  The blue cover is less simperingly “girlie.”  It also has a nicer composition… two strong images at cross-corners on a strong base, with its text cleanly and firmly centered.  The pink cover, with a bunch of little images and bits of text on white seems slightly erratic.

PS: Who wears all that pink with “bright orange” hair?

Ye Gods and little fishes. Both covers are bone-deep ugly, with the pink edging the blue one out by the width of a hanging nose hair.

Okay, maybe the blue color isn’t so bad, but everytime I see the dog and remembering how nervous small dogs get, I think he is two seconds away from peeing all down the front of her chest, which is *so* not sexy. I’d certainly prefer it to be a cat, and turn its head so you can see its eyes.

The pink… where do I begin? The “Flashing Coochee” shot? The immaturity and girly-girlyness of the font and color(s)? Eee. I’d shoot myself before appearing with this book in my hands.

I’m going to join the majority here. The Blue is marginally less hideous. If I *had* to choose one, that would be it. Otherwise, back to the drawing board, please.

Spamword-Justice63. If either of these gets published, the author is going to be looking for justice… with a vengeance!

Aside from the fact that the girl on the pink cover is about to be arrested for indecent exposure… that cover’s been around. “Run, Isabelle, Run”, Paperback version.

Change the position of the dog and the woman, and the Blue cover, definitely.

I was in a bookstore today and saw a book with a model in the EXACT SAME POSITION, EXACT SAME POSE on the cover of some advice book on how to be successful and ballsy and pretty and fashionable, except the model was wearing a trench coat and brown shoes.  It freaked me out.  (Their legs were even the same shape.)

So, please, not the pink.  Maybe not the blue either, but NOT THE PINK.

Not a Chicklit fan, and neither of these would tempt me to pick them up in the bookstore.

Blue…evil, evil little yapper dogs. To me this says annoying not entertaining, although the color is attractive. IMO cover says, “spoiled TSTL twit with more money than taste”.

Pink…too short skirt revealing flabby thighs.  Appears artist trying for fun and flirty, close but no cigar. Cover leans more towards upper end trailer park than upper end beauty salon.  Also looks somewhat YA.

If I was looking for this book on the shelf, I would be looking for a cover that reflects the beauty industry…cosy, gossipy salonish.

Karen & Robinjn…like the sounds of your cover suggestions!

Ye Gods, flabby thighs? Are we calling those thighs flabby?

Yikes.

If those are flabby thighs, your reality differs greatly from this poster’s… really significantly, totally…

Wow.

Are you still reading opinions this late in the day?

The Blue Cover:

The design layout of this cover is appealing, as is the color.  BUT.  The tiny bejeweled dog calls nothing to mind so much as a talentless, entitled heiress with a penchant for purse dogs and nose candy. 

The model herself, along with the cover color and typeface, suggests a Breakfast at Tiffany’s vibe, which I like.

This design also makes good use of blank space, so the eye is drawn to the title without being overwhelmed.

But seriously, could the dog be jettisoned?  No?  I can’t say it would stop me from picking up the book, but it may not be my very first choice.

The Pink Cover:

The typeface seems to be all over the damn place, both in style and placement.  It reminds me of those god awful early 90’s websites with the epilepsy inducing animated gifs and ...gah! Just, no.  No.

And the scribbly pink font?  This makes me think this is either one of two stories:

1. Wacky chick-lit character gets a job teaching kindergarten. Hunky do-good guy is the principal.  She’s torn between snarly day trader boyfriend back in the city and kind hunky principal.  Along the way she learns valuable lessons, like a.) hunky do-gooders make the good sex, b.) Manolos + tempura paint = TRAGEDY, c.) the children are, in fact, our future, teach them well and let them leeaad the waaayyy.

OR

2. Wacky chick-lit character keeps a diary where she dots her i’s with twee little flowers and scrawls “Mrs. Brad Pitt” in the margins.

The only real point of focus on this cover is the heinously typefaced title, and there are just too many other details (4 different typefaces, that flower (oy!), the purse, the scarf, the shoes, the legs, the short-short skirt, the shiny silver bracelet) for the eye to take in and immediately be drawn to.

Besides, we’ve seen this cover a gagillion times before.  Not interesting.

To sum up: neither is a home run for me, but between the two it’s the blue one, hands down.

Wow, who knew I felt so strongly about this?

Very cool that Avon asked you to submit this to the bitchery. Can we get a romance book next time?

I vote for blue because the color, costume jewelry, and fonts give it the retro vibe of a 1950’s magazine cover (of course her lipstick would have been a vivid shade of orange-red instead of beige-pink).

Are the Avon folks pulling the Bitchery’s collective leg, then?

(I’m still shocked by the flabby thighs thing…)

Right then, where do I start? Well the blue cover would be a good place. I don’t remember seeing anything about a dog in the synopsis at all, so I really don’t understand that whole thing. However, if it is something that links it to the world of fashion, then it is an overdone technique and should be reconsidered (or at least made with a dog thats reacting to the kiss). The blue color stands out and would be highly visible on the bookshelf. I like the simple open design with only the face and dog but they both completly override the title and author information. The fonts that are used are nice and not jarring, however the lines are thin and it’s too small. Overall the cover is mediocre but the dog is a little “wow, what was the artist thinking?”

Now on to the white cover. Nice color usage and balance. I however, was immediately brought to think of the movie poster for Catch Me If You Can because of the exact running pose used in both the poster and book cover. Secondly, the outfit and purse used on the model was very much like the one used in 13 Going on 30 posters. Was the graphic artist watching movies the day this design was conceived? The font used for the writers name was nice, elegant, smooth and tends to remind me of a fashion department store. The blurb, why even have it, one can barley see it make it bigger and sell the book. Now then, the title looks as though it was ripped out of the artist’s sketch book and pasted on because the deadline had to be met. It’s childish and makes the book look like it’s for teens.

Neither cover really works well and frankly wouldn’t make me pick the book up off the shelf. For the most important component that sells the book to the book buyers and consumers a rethink is in order for this books’ cover.

Haven’t read all the comments—too many for me and I’m too far behind—but that dog is fat and old.  If you’re going to use a Chihuahua, use a thinner, younger one.  That’s what was jarring for me.

And can’t stand the font on the pink cover.

Oops. Does Avon know, yet, that someone already used the pink cover? Who owns the rights to that? Guess that helps Avon pick the cover…

learned22: I’d say I learned more than 22 things about book covers today.

I’d take the 2nd book and use the font from the first.  I like dogs, but I’m soooo not into kissing them.  If the book is about clothes, fashion, etc., then a skinny model-type chick with a barely there skirt would probably work best.  :D

Or just take the image from the first and slap it onto the first one.  Either way, anything is better than a person kissing a dog.  Just MHO

My word verification girl16.  I guess if I was a 16 year old girl with legs like that, I’d wear a skirt that short.  :D

I took environmental and public health in college… it traumatized me for life.  So while I know that a dog’s mouth is probably cleaner than a lot of other things out there, I am not a fan of doggy kisses. I am a fan of dogs, though little yappy ones would not be my first choice. However, if the pooch is that prominent on the cover, I would expect it to be a key part of the story too.

Having said that, I take a different issue with the dog.  As previously mentioned, the eyes are so vacant and soul-less, I’m not so sure that critter is even alive.  It looks like it’s been stuffed and mounted (not in a good way) to the wall.  I’m thinking that if that dog were alive, he’d be looking really disgusted at being dressed up in ridiculous human bling and being waved above her head like that.

The blue background is an appealing color, and the whole look is much better overall. It would be improved with a bit of texture to that blue, and by switching the angle of the woman/pooch and using a live dog.

As to the second cover, ditto to all that has been said about the slutty look and the fonts.  Further, I look at those clothing colors, along with all that white space, close my eyes and shudder.  I made a quilt using fabrics in those very shades a few years ago – and it looked pretty darn spectacular if I do say so myself.  But I chopped the colors into itty bitty triangles and blended them with other hues and contrasting values to give it some personality.  Those clothing colors, side by side in big clashing chunks, are just sad, sick and wrong.  Perhaps this is an example of the bad makeover she is waging war against? If not, it should be.  Our intrepid heroine should make that first makeover belong to her newly-found twin from See Isabelle Run.

So my vote, with reservations, would be for the blue cover. But I still think it needs a living dog and some texture to the background. Perhaps that would differentiate it from the not-yet-identified twin cover that most likely exists for that one.

Diane

You know what, scrap my previous entry. 

Here’s my suggestion…instead of either cover, redo. 

Have a woman sitting at a desk with piles of paper, a computer, etc. all placed haphazardly around her.  Have her with the lovely orange hair and have her head down on the desk like she’s at the end of her rope & can’t handle it anymore.  One fist death-gripped around a pen and the other one covering her head like she’s trying to hide.

I think that covers all the angst you’d be looking for.  People are getting so tired of the cartoony lower body shots.  Even if you still use cartoony pictures, do a full-body one that gives some clues to the inside story.

AND MAKE SURE YOU GET BETTER FONT!  The font you’ve got going on now is just horrid.  JMHO.  :D

I liked the layout of the blue cover much better, for one thing, and for another, CHRIST AMIGHTY do we really need the panty shot? I suppose I’m not the target audience, though, so my comments may be meaningless. The only reason I would pick up a book with the second cover would be to show it to whomever was unlucky enough to accompany me into Powell’s and say “Argh! It’s things like this that make me want to run away and be a radfem!”

Both covers are so obnoxious that people will look at them. Marketing wins! 

But everything about the pink one has been done to death.

Trouble is, everything about the blue one also has been done to death, though it’s the cleaner design.

I like dogs, but I don’t buy books about animals. I buy books about people. And I don’t buy books with crotch shots on the cover that would make me feel twitchy as this one does.

Yes, you might make me look at either cover, though it would be easier to pass the pink one by because it’s so hackneyed. But I would not buy either.

This was fun reading. I’ll bet it’s a new sensation for Avon to see so many opinions. Hey, ask us anytime. We’ll tell you what we think.

I would AVOID both books.  And here I am a big lover of books with humor….  Double And, I like the plot write-up.  Yet both covers would KEEP ME from ever turning the book over to read the plot synopsis.

Cover Blue:  Nope, I’m not gonna read a cliche-ridden book about an ultra rich “princess” and her silly, little, pampered dog—a dog who, no doubt, snaps at everyone yet we’re supposed to think this is cute.  (I love dogs, by the way, and do dog rescue work.  But the cover is a big cue that the human and dog will be heiress-bound, and I ain’t a-taking that train.)

Cover Pink:  Nope, I’m not gonna read another re-tread about a clue-less (skipping) girl who can’t wait to show her who-ha off.  Rah-rah another book about shoes and handbags.  Seriously, I’m all about being a girl, and yet somehow that never equates to shoes/purses-are-my-life.  If this is either A) the life of the heroine or B) the coping skill of the heroine, this is not going to be a protagonist who can begin to handle a real life or… you know… a real plot.

So, I like the plot synopsis.  I’d like to read that book.  I’ll never read it if it’s hiding behind these covers.  And that makes me very sad for the author, who I hope never reads my comments.

The blue cover (I’d call it green, but whatevs) is better art- good use of positive-negative space, nice value and color contrast, good proportions. It also conveys a message better from a distance.  It does use a slightly tired cliche—the blinged up chihuahua—but when you look at that dog… he’s totally cool with it, just staring off into space like James Dean. The images of faces and jewelry say “beauty” to me more than the “hooker-late-for-her-next-john” legs shot does.

The white and pink cover has too much negative space, and the space has no shape.  This cover would be improved by placing a geometric shape in a medium value and contrasting or complementary color behind the legs and title to unify the composition, make it look less spindly.  Also, the typeface/font is so wrong for the type of story described.  If the Beauty Addict was a junior high school girl—maybe, but a professional needs something more sophisticated.

Well, frankly I’m still reeling from that “flabby thighs” comment, but…

I think Meriam pegged it in one. I’m having trouble believing either one of those ever spent more than an hour apiece in the art department. Initial comps maybe, but I seriously hope they weren’t really the final two choices!

Both of them suffer from either lazy or fuzzy concepting. The blue because it has all the referents to “poor little rich girl (see Paris Hilton) or Breakfast at Tiffany’s” and none whatsoever to a beauty/fashion addict. The synopsis gives the picture of a woman who knows firsthand the thin line between fashionista and fashion victim. On the other hand, the blue cover features relatively understated jewelry, resembling estate jewelry, and no other nod to a fashion addiction. As for the inclusion of the dog, it’s largely wasted because it fails to add anything engaging to the picture. If the dog were absolutely overloaded with bling and accessories and was staring straight at the viewer with a bored/disgusted expression, then it would engage my attention. Otherwise, not so much. I can’t really comment on the blue color, because on my home screen it did resemble Tiffany blue, but at work it looked like a very strong teal. I hope it’s the former, because I loathe the latter. I don’t have a problem with the fonts here, other than the stunning blandness of most of the choices.

The pink cover looks even more amateurish. I assume the idea with the doodled title was to convey the “confessional” feel of a diary, a la Bridget Jones. Unfortunately, it’s slipped more into Princess Diaries territory. The remaining font choices are at least more interesting and effective than the blue cover, although the author’s name is somewhat hard to read. Which is never good. I’m a bit puzzled at the use of the Anita Shreve blurb here, too. I associate her with women’s fiction, not chick lit, and yet this cover fairly screams chick lit to me. Is there much crossover in readership? I hesitated to suggest reshooting the cover image, given how expensive that would be. But now that we know this cover image is a stock shot, may I suggest finding something more appropriate? Perhaps a row of khaki clad clones with one outrageously fashionista woman front and center. By all means, cut off their heads, if you must. Just give me *something* that’s interesting or engaging left to look at when you do. I’d also like to mention how unpleasant I find the white background on this cover. Yes, yes, I assume they were going for clean and iconic, but instead it has the glare of an operating room. (Or perhaps they meant to suggest a gynecological exam?)

Mainly, what these covers make me feel is itchy, because I’m longing to get my hands on them and make them better. But that’s just the graphic artist in me.

I could definitely see myself skimming my fingers over cover the blue one, especially if it was all texturally intriguing with matte/satin for the blue and glossy for the pictures and text.  Which would of course lead to flipping it over to read the summary.  That said, as soon as I see mention of cutesy contrived things like matchmaking pets I tend to put them down.  Granted, this is not a romance novel, and I’m sure the dog isn’t irritating like that, but I’m still pretty anti-dog on the cover.

As for the second one, what really bothers more than even the font is that the pinks in it aren’t drawn from the much more purpley pinks in the photo.

Just the fact that the IDENTICAL cover image is already on another recent book… wow, I’m sorry for this author.

omg ! good catch rfp

I like the blurb, but neither cover will make me pick up this book.  BLUE:  Paris Hilton wrote a book? I don’t like the dog.  The blue is nice, but it looks bland.  PINK:  The font is really atrocious.

Ditto to whoever said that the woman’s neck looks like a giant penis (sorry; eyes are getting strained trying to scroll through and relocate that comment).

I am wondering…I mean, Smart Bitches broke a huge plagiarism scandal…and that pink cover is definitely the same picture from a previous book…

Hmm.  Interesting to see if the blue one is also.  Wonder if the whole thing is a test to see if copyright infringement is mentioned.

The blue cover would get my attention. The pink has too much white on it to grab my attention; it blends in too well with everything else. The font doesn’t bother me on the pink cover either, but the legs do. That doesn’t speak “Confessions of a Beauty Addict” to me, that just speaks “LOOK! I’VE GOT LEGS!” The blue cover, however, has that Paris Hilton kind of foofoo look, what with the typical way to make a woman look “glamorous” is to toss a chihuahua into her arms, wrap a string of offwhite pearls around his neck, slap on some diamonds and make kissy faces at it. THAT speaks Confessions of a Beauty Addict.

If I have to choose between these two, I go with the blue. Aside from the fact that the cover image is already in use on another book (!!), the pink cover is just too generic to stand out from all the rest of the pink covers. As little as I like the idea of my face that close to a dog’s, at least the blue cover stands out and has nice composition. And I suppose that the fact that the ugly little dog is wearing jewelry is to demonstrate the beauty “addict” part of things.

I vote blue.

‘Twas the smart bitch JMM who noticed the reused cover. I simply provided the visual.

I’ve got my BFA in Graphic Design, work in packaging, read romance and chick lit often, and the blue cover pops for me. 
-The contrast between the flesh/fur tones and the Tiffany blue background is excellent.
-The warm tones in the opposing corners frame the title beautifully.
-It looks like it would be picked up by a wider age bracket.  My mom and I would BOTH buy this type of book.

Pink cover:
-Nothing to distinguish it from any other chick lit released this year.
-The font and the pink make me feel like someone’s insulting my intelligence.

The only change I would have to the blue cover is to have the bottom text right justified along the curve of the neck.  It’s a visual trick that would cause people to READ the text instead of visually dismissing it.

I think both covers are problematic, though I prefer the blue one.

Blue Cover:  The cover is nice, looks professional and has a hint of sex without being too much.  However, I think the image is nice, but it conjures too much Paris Hilton-esque imagery, and makes me think that it should be the cover for “Confessions of a Rich Bitch” instead of “Confessions of a Beauty Addict.”

Pink:  The visual composition of this one is off.  The cover makes no visual sense—it seems like three seperate parts instead of a cohesive cover.  It’s hard for me to look at.  The lettering of the title screams pre-teen YA paperback, and conjures images of Claire’s, Wet Seal, et al. instead of high fashion.  I think the image of the woman is more appropriate than that of the dog, though the sexuality of it is a bit much and the pink is a bit too teenager-esque.

Neither cover is all of that appealing to me, but I may actually pick up the blue one, but I would completely bypass the pink one.

The turquoise cover is good, though I do have to agree with Candy’s negative association of the toy dog to Paris Hilton and her ilk. But the colors, spacing, font, photo…all nicely acceptable. Nothing pops out that would make me say “OMGWTFBBQ I have to buy this book!” but I might pick it up and read the back if it was prominently displayed at Borders.

I would be totally down with the pink cover if 1.) the fifth grader’s font wasn’t so…fifth grade and 2.) chickie’s assage wasn’t quite so…there. That skirt is flipped up about an inch too high for me. I really don’t care to stare at the curve of her ass cheek or the shadow of what very soon turns into vajayjay. I do, however, really like the font used for the author’s name and “Confessions…”

Shades of Paris Hilton with that chihuahua.  I definitely vote for the second (pink) cover, although the skirt is too short and the font too flippant.  Come to think of it, the skirt’s pretty flippant too.

The turquoise cover looks more like a tell-all book rather than fiction.  While the addition of a blurb and the placement of Nadine’s cred are more visible and add to the appeal of the pink cover.

BTW, not to be bitchy or anything, but I’m assuming the typo—

“... Bella accepts a job AT Womanly Wear ...”

is a function of re-typing rather than the actual cover blurb? 

Kiss, kiss.

I prefer the blue one.  I like dogs, even chihuahuas.    Legs on covers have had their day.  Also don’t like the font.

Dog kissing turns me off. However, the font choice on the chick lit reminds me that I get migraine nowadays.

Putting that aside: overall, I prefer the blue cover as a cover, but the pink one tells you it’s chick lit and therefore fiction, while it’s not obvious from the blue one that this is fiction rather than a follow-up to the previous non-fiction book.

I wouldn’t pick up either of these. Which would be a shame, because the blurb sounds interesting even though I’m not interested in the world of fashion.

I knew that pink cover looked familiar! Nice catch rpf!

I hope it’s NOT the chihuahua. Those things creep me out.

The blue cover looks very much like the photography in a Susan Elizabeth Peters book to me .... this could be a plus or a minus ....

The dog is also quite polarising—not a neutral image ....

megan, I don’t think it’s plagiarism per se. Both art departments probably picked out the same stock photo.

Without the teenlit font, the photo isn’t quite as squicky to me. That font just pegs the Lolitameter for me, I suppose.

“Just the fact that the IDENTICAL cover image is already on another recent book… wow, I’m sorry for this author.”

And the cover for Bloom’s book looks much better because it has a normal font.

I think the blue cover has a more cohesive design, and would choose it, despite the fact that I hate the shade of blue and the dog. It would at least cause people to take a second look. I’m with those who said change the dog to a different breed or something.

I love the blue one I would buy the book w/o reading the blurb cause I think it’s so damn adorable.

The pink looks like the new SEP headless model with fugly shoes and an even uglier skirt. What kind of beauty addict is she anyway? Everything she’s wearing is damn ugly :/

Blue.  Definitely.  I don’t like chicklit but the blue hints at something more than the usual whereas the pink says ‘yeah - I’m standard chicklit’.