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 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).
Holy shit. JMM isn’t kidding: check out the paperback cover of See Isabelle Run by Elizabeth Bloom, Grand Central Publishing, March 1, 2006.
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. 😀
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. 😀
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. 😀
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’.