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 wouldn’t pick up a book with either cover. Unfortunately for the blue cover, due to the Paris etc. media saturation even in my corner of the world a cover with tiny dogs, jewelery and pink lipstick would make me assume that the heroine is a vapid twerp.
As for the pink cover… Firstly, my not-so-inner feminist vomits a little in her mouth at women using upskirt shots to market books about women to other women. I’d say panty shot, but she’s obviously not wearing any. Secondly, while I’ve been known to whip out many an awful cover on the commute I’d prefer not to actively encourage creeps who like to spank it on public transport and lure them closer. Did they airbrush out her labia? (And if she can get that fake tan all the way up in there, why can’t she get it down to her feet?)
The blue is different. I like it – though the lady’s profile seems pretty wonky/weird. But not enough for me to go over to No. 2 which is very – usual, comfortable, expected.
I don’t have any issues with the font of no. 2 – I like it a lot actually (sorry!) but No. 1 wins it because it’s not the norm.
Dalia
Hurrah for standardized stock photos! /sarcasm
I’ve seen a few covers which feature the same couple in almost the same pose and only the background color’s been changed. Words cannot describe how much I hate this, and I have to admit I find myself slightly relieved it happens in Chick Lit too.
You’ve provided the only image in a strand of 200+ comments. Deserved or not you will likely be linked to the discovery for eternity. Or a few years less.
I do find myself intrigued by the fact that there’s 200+ comments. On other occasions where the SBs have invited us to cover snark for various reasons there hasn’t been near this response. Obviously the new factor is Avon’s involvement. But what about it? Just the “OMG cool” factor of knowing someone from Avon’s going to be reading this? Or are we empowered by the idea that for once our cover opinions will be heard?
After some pondering, I had another thought about the blue cover: the book is about a beauty editor, and she’s addicted to beauty products. But the first cover image conflates (DRINK BITCHES!) beauty product love with luxury love, and they’re not really the same thing. Beauty product love is accessible to most price points; luxury item love, not always.
The first cover is tiny dog and woman, both with opulent jewelry set against Tiffany-esque blue – not a beauty product in sight. So it doesn’t really reflect or come near the heroine, the plot, or the “addiction” of said heroine.
Probably a bit of both, but for me it’s the fact that we get a chance to give our opinions before the fact, instead of when the book is on the shelf already. I don’t know how much attention Avon is really going to pay us, but by commenting now, I can delude myself into thinking my contribution is going to make a difference. *g*
Yes, ultimately this is my problem with both covers: they have no connection to what the book is actually about. Which I think is a requirement for a cover, y’know?
Not to mention that there’s already another book with the stock photo from Option #2. Yeesh.
Lorelie, for me (and yes, I’ve been reading the thing compulsively) is the idea that perhaps, finally, a publisher will hear what a good chunk of its readership has to say about their marketing decisions.
That they’ll get to interact, if you will, with something more than some tired statistics that someone manipulated to tell them what ALL their readers want.
That perhaps someone will finally see that many readers buy books in spite of their awful covers (as AgTigress said first, and much better, somewhere up thread)
And I’m still not over the ‘flabby thighs’ remark.
Avon apparently asked Trashionista readers for their input as well.
Wonder how those remarks are going?
(spaminator=services31 *snicker*)
Barb, they’ve not got many comments at Trashionista yet. So far they’ve got 3 for the legs, 2 for the dog, and one pointing out that the legs have already appeared on the cover of another novel.
Wow. That pisses me off. Like damn. I don’t like taking advantage of the Bitchery and I’m pissed that it looks like I inadvertently did so.
My apologies, y’all.
are we not over stupid little drop kick dogs yet? I saw the blue cover and wanted to drop kick it.
I’ll cast my vote for the pink, even though the font/typeface looks like the book is for the YA market. Full points for very nearly showing off Lady Pepto’s poonanny!
I pretty much assumed that there was a spot of viral marketing going on…
Somewhat36: I think the spaminator’s flattering me.
Sorry, but all I can think when I see the green-blue cover is “It’s A MILLION LITTLE PIECES—Dog Version!”
I’m not crazy about the pink one, either, but I wouldn’t dismiss it out of hand. I would change the font and consider adding some background color, though.
The email I just sent to Lauren Naefe at HarperCollins:
I received the following reply from Lauren Naefe at HarperCollins:
This seems awfully far in advance for a viral marketing campaign. I find it plausible that Avon is just looking for different perspectives. After all, I’ve often wondered just how representative this site’s readers are. (Sometimes, I suspect, not very!)
For the record: no ARC of this for me, thanks but no thanks. Bad taste in me mouth, savvy?
Given the stock photo used in the pink cover, and the trashionista post… what does your gut tells you, SBSarah? true naiveté or furious backpedaling?
Lauren here – seriously your comments are awesome. Please continue being hilarious.
Also: woah about the Elizabeth Bloom cover.
And there really is no backpedaling. We were srsly getting perspective from two different audiences.
But anyway.
They’re both pretty bad… I’d like the second one more if not for the bad title font, and I don’t get the first one, unless that little dog is important to the plot. XD
I am so horrendously sick of bare-legged, high-heeled, disembodied covers that I could vomit. I would not pick up #2. I would roll my eyes in disgust at cover #2. And yeah, the cartoon lettering is painfully stupid-looking, and would look stupid on any book marketing to the over-5 set.
#1, on the other hand, at least got my interest. It’s got a striking color, it’s got a different layout. I’m not quite “ew, kisses the dog” on it since lips aren’t touching. I just uh, hope there IS a dog in this story, or else it’ll come off pretty dumb once it’s read. (I remember the author of Accidentally Engaged was annoyed that she has a dog on her cover, and no dog in the story.)
Ms Naefe, I did not mean to offend you, but I do hope you can see how it isn’t easy to take your email to SBSarah at face value.
On the covers: if the release is indeed a year off, please please please go back to the drawing board. Check out the many amazingly good suggestions by the collective Bitchery. I’m sure the art and marketing departments can come with something much better than either of these if they pay attention to them.
Can’t say I’m in love with either one. I fail to see what the dog has to do with anything in the blurb or the story, and if the dog doesn’t take as much stage in the story as it does on the cover, there’s no good reason for something that ugly to take up so much real estate. If you’re going for cliche’d characterization code images, find a different one than the dog. I do like the Tiffany blue and the fonts on the cover, although I’d seriously suggest sticking with no more than three. And soften the edges of the model’s face against the background—dunno if it’s the scanned image, but I can see the pixels of her nose and chin and they give it a cut-n-pasty feel. The dog whiskers just creep me out.
The second cover would make me walk right past the book without a second glance. Without flashing my undies. Actually, it’d make me tell the bookstore manager that some teenagers were getting kicks defacing the covers of some of their stock. Also, flighty city girl, purse and shoes, and Anita Shreve—one of these things is not like the others.
I’d suggest back to the drawing board. Try magazine covers—mags and newspapers seem to be a theme in the story, and you might be better served with playing on the periodical aspect.
Thanks azteclady! You didn’t offend me. I’m naturally skeptical myself and in lieu of the cover duo, I get it.
And yes – these comments are all extremely helpful. It will be really really ridiculously hard to pick which two are the most helpful.
But in addition to those 2, I can say that JMM definitely gets an advance copy of the book for spotting the Bloom cover!
I shall preface this by saying that I firmly stand by my opinion that both cover choices proposed are less than desirable. A redesign is definitely in order and there have been some really fabulous ideas tossed out there for consideration.
Given that the pink “upskirt” cover uses the same image as a recent release by another author and the hideousness of the dog in the other proposed cover choice is so revolting, I wondered exactly what the cover for Haobsh’s non-fiction book “Beauty Confidential” looked like. I looked it up on the Harper Collins website and it gave me a few thoughts.
Has it occurred to the art and marketing departments that Haobsh’s last book featured a cover in a lighter shade of the same blue as the proposed “dog snogging” cover? As I see it, there are two very different avenues they could pursue. The obvious would be to use a different background color completely in order to prevent confusion with the earlier non-fiction title. I’m not always a big fan of the easy and obvious answer, though.
In keeping the blue background choice of the proposed dog sporting cover, there’s a heck of an opportunity for cross promotion of both books. Particularly if they go back to the non-fiction cover and pull in elements such as font choice and those nifty teal designs in the background. People already familiar with the first book would be highly likely to pick up the new fiction work. The elements used in the “Beauty Confidential” cover seem to be far more in keeping with the feel of the story teaser for this new fiction story. If they are going to use the same family of blue for the covers, it’s makes sense to maximize the marketing potential by cross-selling the books. It rather opens up the potential to appeal to a wider market base, generate greater interest, and garner readers that normally wouldn’t give fictional fare of this sort much more than a cursory glance. Isn’t that really, in essence, what a book cover is supposed to accomplish?
If option C of creating a new cover is an available…dear lord for the sake of everyone’s eyes, please choose option C.
I just don’t see either of these covers as an example of what the book is about. Since she’s a addict in reform, why do something like cosmetics falling down one side of the cover into a trash can? Or you can put a woman in the background tossing these items over her shoulder to land in the trash.
I’d go for the blue one over the white one. The white one looks like every other rich girl novel out there, most notably that Shopaholic series where the cartoon comic heroine is always surrounded by shopping bags.
The blue cover looks like fun. She’s about to pucker up to a Taco Bell dog. Dude, I think she likes Taco Bell. And well, it’s a pretty Robin Egg’s blue, and the girl on blue cover looks like she’s fun.
The girl on white cover just looks like she ran away with Daddy’s credit cards and did a shopping spree that would make Paris Hilton jealous.
Hope I didn’t repeat any comments. I didn’t feel like reading 225 plus comments.
But regardless, I will be reading this book!!
I have to say I like the color blue, but get rid of the dog, please. I’d rather have her kissing up to a lipstick or perhaps even a picture of the back of a head of orange hair (against a blue that would really pop) writing the title Beauty Addict in lipstick…
If this is truly about a beauty addict, where are all the used up bottles, tubes and jars of beauty products?
Neither cover really is working at this point.
I’m not going to belabor the point that everyone has made so well – both of these covers are kind of weak. I will say that the blue cover has the most potential, and could totally be saved with a little tweaking. The Chihuahua? Gots to go. I’m a huge dog lover, but something is not right with that pooch’s profile; it looks like some seriously twisted taxidermy. Does this beauty confession involve formaldehyde by any chance?
If the dog were replaced by another item, the blue cover would totally work for me. Maybe they could pick something that would reflect the storyline better, something unexpected that would create a little visual tension. I’m thinking of contrasting the classy feel of the Tiffany blue background/diamond earrings with a Bonny Bell compact, or other cheesy, low-budget beauty item. How about including the model’s hand, dripping with diamonds, about to apply a push-pop like lipstick?
Neither of these covers suggest anything about a fashionista’s tumble from Tiffany’s to Target. Remove dog, insert kitsch. Done.
I don’t like either cover. None of them is even a little original and none of them would make me pick up the book if I saw it in a bookstore. That said, the blue one with the dog is just yucky. I think if they can’t do anything more inventive with the cover, they should just choose two nice, contrasting colors and do a plain background with a plain, easily readable font. At least that wouldn’t offend anyone!
Since the theme of the book seems to involve makeovers, how about a human version of this?
http://www.mitchell.derbycounty.co.uk/lion_cat.jpg
stay97 Hey! I haven’t even got there yet!
First, kudos to Lauren for garnering advance hype by engaging prospective readers! Heck, I just send my covers to Sarah and she’s like all, “Looks like a @!!%$ing cookbook!” and I’m like, “I know,” and she’s all, “Dude!” and I’m like “Totally!” And she’s all, “Suddenly I so want a mimosa.” And I’m like, “Me, too!”
And then I can’t get the changes I want because my editor doesn’t take me seriously when I relate this insightful conversation.
I have learned a few things about cover design: 1) people respond to things that are similar to things they already like. Thus the pernicious copy-catting of covers. It works. 2) Book cover design is not at the forefront of all design. 3) There will never be any consensus on cover art. What works for one reader will make another hurl.
talpianna, that cover is adorable! And it explains again how my 9lbs cat holds her own against the German Shepherd mix and the Lab.
I’ve read about half the comments and can tell I’m not going to say anything new. I’ll vote for the blue cover, because it’s at least slightly different from all the other covers out there. Although the chihuahua? I despise and loathe chihuahuas. They are rats with attitudes from hell. I once was attacked by a pack of 13 chihuahuas, and it’s not a good memory. My poor ankles are still scarred. (I hated them before that, though.) I do like the angle of the woman’s face on that one, though. Beautiful profile. Lose the earring, though, because isn’t the point of the book that she’s going through a rough time financially? When I’m broke, I don’t wear diamonds, I pawn them.
If there must be a dog, how about one that has eyes? The black demon pits of despair on that dog’s face are srsly creeping me out like damn.
The pink cover is terrible. She’s a beauty addict? Really? Her top doesn’t match or compliment her skirt. Her purse doesn’t come close to matching either. Her shoes… well, okay, they’re the same pepto-pink as her skirt, but the multi-colored elementary school font? Doesn’t match ANYTHING. Plus I really didn’t want to see her butt cheek. Yes, I know branding is important and this tired, overused image does indeed scream “chick-lit,” but dang, it’s terrible, truly bad. I’m finding it hard to believe Avon didn’t just slap that pink one together to give the Bitchery something to comment on. As someone else said, good plan to build interest, but like anyone’s going to pick that trainwreck pink over the (almost as bad but not quite) blue?
I’d really rather vote “Try again.”
Just saw the previous comment with the reused Damnation In Pink image and I think that ends the debate. Overused is one thing, but completely swiped with some new font? Yep, this has to be a fake cover from Avon just so there will be something to vote against and they can build pre-release buzz for free.
The Bitchery has just been used, and it pisses me the fuck off, y’all.
Quite honestly while the blue cover is somewhat more calming, I’d not be very likely to pick that book up on cover alone. The second cover’s font annoys me, looks a bit too juvenile, but it also has that sort of familiar look to it as if it’s be a book I’d like. It looks more young while the blue cover makes me wonder if the book is about a little old lady and her codependent relationship with her dog.
I prefer the blue one given those choices, however if I were involved in the process I would involve maybe magazines in the cover, or at least an image that isn’t quite so flippant. The woman in this story is going through something of a life crisis here – she’s not a 16 year old skipping her was through a shopping spree or lounging with her pet in her pearls. I think that most women would identify with someone who looks a little more stressed. Maybe they want to feature some combination of magazines and beauty products.
I do like the composition of the blue one. If I must pick one, definitely the blue.
Blue cover, hands down. I really don’t like the font of the other for one thing. I just think that my eye would be drawn to the blue cover in a book store; I would quickly pass over the white cover.
While I agree that the font on the pink cover is ugly, I think the pink cover fits the genre. It’s all about the d@mn shoes and handbags.
To me, the pink cover goes perfectly with the book description.
(And both guarantee it *won’t* be a book I’ll be remotely interested in).
How about including the model’s hand, dripping with diamonds, about to apply a push-pop like lipstick?
What a great suggestion! I say, unless the dog has some important role in the plot, ditch it for an actual beauty product. Lipstick is a bit phallic but would provide a pop of color.
here’s some words i never thought i’d say: i vote for the pink.
scanning, it looks like the majority are going for the blue, but i hate the rat dog & wouldn’t even pick that one up to look.
i do agree with many of the comments on the pink, but i’d at least look at that one.