It seems the vast knowledge of the Bitchery when it comes to all things cover art is not a secret, especially among the publishing houses. I received an email from Lauren Naefe, Online Marketing Manager at HarperCollins, who asked if I consult the Oracle of the Bitchery to help settle an in-house debate. It seems the cover art for a particular book is under discussion, and there are two hotly-contested candidates for the coveted position. It’s like deciding the Democratic presidential nomination, only with Bitchery, cussing, and fun! How perfect for SuperTuesday, eh?
The book in question is Confessions of a Beauty Addict, the fiction debut of Nadine Haobsh which comes out November 18. Haobsh is the beauty editor who was outed by New York Post as blogger behind “Jolie In NYC”, a hugely popular blog about all things involving beauty secrets. Her nonfiction advice manual, Beauty Confidential was published in October of ‘07.
The summary of Confessions of a Beauty Addict reads as follows:
When Bella Hunter, Beauty Expert and all around magazine editor wunderkind, loses her job for spilling top industry secrets to Page 6 she thinks her life is over. And, to top it all off, she’s managed to dye her hair bright orange. At her wits end and desperate not to return home with her tail between her legs, Bella accepts a job a Womanly Wear: a magazine her mom reads. But how can she face her glamorous ex-co-workers now that she works in an office where khaki (not Cavalli) is the way of life? Bella is out to wage war on the beauty world one bad makeover at a time, armed with only her Marc Jacobs shoes, three meddling best friends, and a flighty supermodel boyfriend. At odds with her stuffy (and undeniably gorgeous) publisher, Bella begins to realize that she may be fighting the wrong battle.
With that in mind, here are the two covers that the folks at Avon A are battling over. Which do you like? What comments do you have for either one. Lauren has graciously offered 2 advance copies of the book to the two readers who offer the most helpful comment – so speak often and as much as you want.
Sarah: My opinion? Re: the blue cover – which one is the beauty addict? I hope it’s the chihuahua. I appreciate the play on Tiffany blue and the dripping-gem opulence of the creatures featured, but I have no idea what this has to do with the plot. That said, half the cover images of the romances I read have fuck all to do with the plot, so I’m betting this one will win just because cute dog + nice gems = browsers will pick it up to read more.
And as for the pink one, I am pleased the model has paid scrupulous attention to her waxing regimen, given the position of that skirt.
But oy, that font. Right up until the hot pink doodle font I was down with this cover, but man, that font. It’s so corny and jarring and utterly not attractive. I can understand the effort at contrast setting the doodle-font against the groomed couture of the image above it, but man. That font just kills the cover for me. It hurts my feelings. I take that font very personally, and am offended as an American by that font.
So if I pick between Blue and Pink? I go with blue. Even though I like the image of the pink one more, I hate the font so much that it turns me off the cover entirely.
Candy: I like the composition of the blue cover better—it wins on just about every front, from font usage (side note to the people who chose that kuh-ray-zee font for the pink cover: Why didn’t you just use Comic Sans and put us out of our misery? Chrissakes) to the way the faces are framed to the choice of angle to the use of whitespace. If I had any beef with the blue cover, it would be with the use of the chihuahua and the bedecking of said chihuahua with godawful gewgaws. I look at that, and I think “Oh god, another Paris Hilton wannabe.” And really, who wants to associate their heroine with Paris Hilton? Unless being a vacuous coke-snorting trainwreck who provides an instant win on the STD Bingo card is a good thing.
The blue cover (despite the negative associations I have when it comes to over-pampered toy dogs) also wins for me because it looks different. It’s not pink. It’s not some faceless woman (I mean, really, how many chick lit/romance books out there feature some faceless woman’s legs and/or shoes? I love shoes, and God knows I love me some beautiful legs, but enough already). It actually features (parts of) faces, and the faces are fun and interesting. If I were in a store, I wouldn’t stop to look at the pink cover (unless it was to marvel at the rather horrid font), but I’d stop and look at the blue cover.
What’s your verdict?
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,
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.