Friday Column: Publicists

Perhaps it's a sign of the place litblogs are coming to hold in the great literary media ecosystem that we have our first instances of public pushback against pushy publicists. Dan got things started, and Max adds a little more about do's and dont's for publicists targeting litbloggers. I'm in general agreement with what they say.

I have a number of points to make, but before I get started I'd like to say a little something about good publicists. I've been blogging here for close to two years, and in that time I've come into contact with many, many very professional, very courteous publicists. These publicists have come from large, corporate publishers, small indies, and places in between. They "get" litblogs and their enthusiasm for the meduim is extremely heartening. Simply put, they've treated me with respect and I thank them for that.

Now then, for my take on the do's and don't. First I'll start with a big don't that I haven't seen covered elsewhere:

If you want to send me a copy of a book and are taking the time to email me first, then thank you. I appreciate that you're checking in before just sending me the book. I have enough books as it is, and I much prefer that you ask my permission than just send me something I probably won't want.

However, when you send me the email, please don't write something along the lines of "I'm writing to see if you'd like to read and review such-and-such book." Even worse is "I'll send you such-and-such book if you agree to review it within the next month." Also suspect is suggesting certain things, like that I conduct a giveaway, or post a banner ad, or post an excerpt.

Frankly, that's insulting. When you do any of the above, you're establishing an implicit (or explicit) quid-pro-quo: I send you a free book and you promote it for me. Would you make that arrangement with a newspaper? I hope not. Newspapers have paid advertising sections and so do I--inquire about rates.

Putting aside the unseemliness of "rewarding" my promise of a future review with a free book, if I get a solicitation via email, I almost always know nothing about the book in question. If I know nothing about your book, there's no way I'm going to sign on to review it, promote it, interview the author, whatever. I need to know I like something before I can even think about promoting it. Even if you send me some great press clips, or even a whole review, it would still be wrong to agree to anything until I've at least read the book.

Simply put: it's not cool to imply that a review, or anything else, is part of the terms of sending me a book.

This whole matter, in fact, brings up a good question about the status of litblogs. Obviously, the form is still emerging and defining itself--we know we're not newspapers, but we also know that we do perform some journalistic functions previously reserved for newspapers and magazines. We also know that we can help build buzz for a book, as newspapers and magazines do, and that it's desirable that we mention your book.

Fair enough. And since we do present some kind of value to publishers, I'm not surprised that publicists will try to get away with things they wouldn't normally try to get away with when dealing with more established mediums.

What it comes down to is this: litblog norms (and blog norms overall) are still being defined. This is partly the job of litbloggers, and you can see that we're trying to establish some boundaries right here, right now. But it's also the job of the publicists and publishers, to think about proper conduct. Please, at the very least, show the kind of general respect you would want us to show you. Moreover, think about what kind of rules you should follow when dealing with litbloggers. Obviously, spamming is out. I'd also say that quasi-spam (as discussed by Dan), is out, as is offering us tantalizing free books in exchange for publicity. (Note: Most litbloggers have stacks and stacks of books. Free books do not make very good carrots.)

Emily, a commentor over at a post about publicists on Ed's site discusses the evolving role fo litbloggers:

Don’t get me wrong - I’m not suggesting that anyone should be flattered by what is, essentially, spam. But I think it’s important for litbloggers to realize that marketing, and increasingly online marketing, IS hugely important to books — which, as we all know, fewer and fewer people actually buy and read. Thus, litbloggers have an important role in helping poor beleagured books find their audience, which is why I find it worrisome that so many bloggers are complaining about being emailed about ‘books they’ve never heard of’ by ‘people they don’t know.’ I know there’s a big difference between a well-intentioned long shot pitch and an obnoxious mass-mailed form letter, but there’s a hint of ‘I only want to hear about books like the other ones I like from people who I already know’ going on here that’s the exact opposite of what the industry needs. I wish litbloggers would stay more openminded — after all,’ if you only read what everyone else is reading, you’ll only be able to think what everyone else is thinking.’

I'd hasten to agree with a lot of what Emily has to say. Litblogs have a prominent place in the emerging field of online publicity, and it is flattering that publishers large and small are recognizing this. She also right that an keeping an open mind to emerging authors and presses is one of the things litbloggers often do better than print media. It's one of our best assets, and shouldn't be eroded because of errant mass emails.

However, Ed's correct in his reply that publishers also need to exercise better judgment:

While I try to maintain an open mind, one must be selective . . . I think it’s a pretty safe bet to say that “You Always Hurt the One You Love: How to Count to Ten Before Speaking to Someone” or “How I Fricaseed My Hot Dog and Learned to Call it George” is something I won’t be interested in. And it should be evident from my posts.

And, in fact, I'd argue that litbloggers have been quite openminded in terms of what books they read. Look, for instance, at the Litblog Co-op. Over there, many litbloggers (myself included) have gotten the word out about a number of books that have received virtually no coverage in print media.

Here's a couple of groundrules I think publicists should remember for this blog, and I would think, others as well:

1. There's one way a book gets promoted on this blog. I read a book and like it and think others would like it too. In that case, I'll review it and/or promote it as something others might like. As an alternative, if I read a review of a book and the review gets me genuinely excited, I'll mention the book, link to the review, and say something about why I'm interested in it.

I also have The Quarterly Conversation, which operates more as a quarterly journal than a litblog. A key different here is that for this, I have reviews written by others, as well as by myself. As with the blog, publishers should send me books for review, but don't expect anything in advance.Oof course, since TQC brings in a number of reviewers with a wide variety of different tastes, you'll often have a better chance of getting a review there than on the main page of this blog.

Caveat. Promotion isn't the same as discussion. Often I'll discuss a book because some part of it struck me as interesting, or worth elaborating about. In this case, yes, the book is being mentioned and word is getting passed around, but I'm not explicitly saying "you should read this." In fact, sometimes I'll discuss a book specifically to denigrate it, if I think there's a legitimate reason to do so.

2. Civility. I know this is obvious, but when dealing with bloggers and litbloggers, please exercise good judgment. In return, I'll try to do that same.

For instance, I understand if you're a legitimate literary press--say Dalkey Archive Press--and you're emailing about a new book that's likely to be of interest to literary bloggers, and you included me on some literary blog mass email. That makes sense. Chances are, when I get your email in my inbox, I'm not going to twist my face in confusion and hit delete. I understand you don't have the time to send sweet little personal emails to all of us, so it's cool if you want to send me an impersonal email to just get the word out.

But, if you have a book that's clearly not of interest to me or readers of this blog, say a stunning first memoir of a 19-year-old burnt-out teen, or the stunning new novel by that master of suspense Stephen King, or (Lord help us) a self-help book, then take a moment to prune your email list. I understand that some presses are quite large, and they they publish many things: literary fiction, thrillers, teen memoirs, Buddhist mysticism, whathaveyou. I would suggest not using the same blog email list for each segment of your enterprise.

After all, your blog email list can't have that many names on it. Just take a few minutes out of common courtesy to scale it back a bit.

And, as mentioned, if you want to send me a book, absolutely don't suggest--either subtly or not--that you're expecting something in return. Litbloggers are not an arm of your marketing machine. We're people who like to talk about books.

With all that said, I'd be interested in hearing the publicist side of this. I'm sure there's a fair amount about you that I'm not getting, and I'd like to get it. So, if there are any publicitsts reading (and I hope there are, or else I've pretty much just wasted my time), drop me a line.

Comments

[Max]

Great points, Scott. I'd love to hear some publicists chime in on this as well. Also, thanks for highlighting that the litblogger/publicist relationship is not an adversarial one, nor should it be - a point that I probably did not make very well in my post. Looking forward to more discussion on the topic.

[birnbaum]

I am a bit cloudy on what a "free" book is. Books I receive are either read or unread. A read book — seems to me to mean that I have invested some labor, thus what's "free" mean in this case. An unread book —well, it has no value, or perhaps negative value, as taking up space and collecting dust is not what books are for. Right (I have learned this incisive gambit from news anchor-in-waiting, Katie Couric)?

Anyway, Scott touches on what is for me the larger issue. Which is, what is it that all of us in literary journalism are doing?

Just to get the ball rolling without at the moment getting bogged down in this loaded issue let me say as clearly as I can that — I AM NOT DOING PUBLICITY. IS THAT CLEAR?

[David Thayer]

Scott, You touched on several things that I think about when a book lands on my doorstep. Problem one is litbloggers are diverse in their tastes as any group. I'll promote books I like, authors I like, but there is no telling what that book might be. That's fun for me but kind of a nightmare for publicists.

[Dan Wickett]

I would think though David, that within each group or forum, that a really good publicist will determine those varying tastes. There are probably newspapers that publisher publicist A knows hates story collections, or mysteries, or historical fictions, and so, won't waste the time, or money, in sending them books of that nature.

I think the same could be being done by publicists when they think about the forum of litblogging. I think spending a certain amount of time at the site of a litblogger you are considering sending a book to will greatly help you decide if it makes sense to do so.

I think the good publicists do this very well. Not to imply others don't do this (because a great many do), but to come up with a single example I'll use Caitlin Hamilton-Summie, mainly because she's probably done this more than any other publicist for me over the years. She hasn't once missed when suggesting to me that she's positive I'll enjoy a book. And, that's not just books she's been responsible for publicity on - but other books that she's read and is just sure I'll like them. They usually rank amongst my favorites each year.

So, while it's kind of a nightmare for publicists to keep track of everybody that they're sending books out there to - it's also kind of their job.

[Michael]

Great post, Scott. While I don't blog about books too often, I do get emails from publicists and find some of those messages disconcerting for the same reasons you do. The whole promotion/free-book-only-if-you-review-it/giveaway thing always strikes a bit of a sour note with me: I'm only going to want to review and "promote" a book if I think it is worthwhile; plus, I don't want to give the impression that I'm reviewing something (especially if I'm reviewing it positively) because I or my readers are getting something out of it. If I did that, it would seem that my review was determined by some sort of gain or incentive, instead of by the qualities (or lack thereof) of the book in question.

You're right about how litblogs have become very important to the reviewing and the marketing of books, and it is nice to see that publishers are beginning to take bloggers seriously. Related to this is how litblogs can really help bring attention to writers who deserve recogniton based solely on the quality of their work. I once received an email from someone who had written a book about Virgina Woolf; I was unable at the time to review it, and I felt bad about it too -- because it was the writer who went out of her way to contact me knowing that, based on some of my interests, I might find use with her book. That kind of request isn't as common as the generic ones publicists send out -- but I think it's an indication that blogs have a way of getting the word out about lesser known or up-and-coming writers.

[David Thayer]

Miriam Parker at Hachette is a publicist who gets both the lit blog potential and is always polite about what she sends. She's introduced me to the work of Elizabeth Crane and Dave King, for instance, so hats off to Miriam.