July 29, 2011
"Anonymous" writes yet another book
by Melville House
Apparently, when Simon and Schuster didn’t do so well with the last book by “Anonymous,” Little, Brown decided that the problem wasn’t so much that withholding information about the author was a flawed marketing strategy, but that that S&S wasn’t vague enough.
According to this article by Julie Bosman in the New York Times, Little, Brown sent out an email to retailers this week about a late addition to their fall list of a new book by Anonymous…which withheld the title altogether. The email called the book “Untitled,” and the only information given about it was its price, page count, and the fact that it’s a nonfiction hardcover. It also included the sell line, “the inside story of life with one of the most controversial figures of our time.” To insure that accounts will purchase plenty of copies of this vaguely presented book, they’re dangling the old standby marketing/publicity bullet points such as “major media rollout” and “confirmed 60 Minutes appearance.” Oh boy.
So who could this book be by and what could it be about? Bosman was able to find out from someone at Hachette Book Group (parent company of Little, Brown and, full disclosure, former employer of this blogger) that Catherine Hooper and Laurie Sandell were listed as coauthors of “Untitled” in their database. Hooper, as it turns out, is the fiancée of Andrew Madoff, son of the infamous ponzi schemer Bernie Madoff.
So we’re looking at a book by someone in the family (or betrothed to the family) about Madoff. I’m just wondering, what took so long? Also, granted, the Madoffs are one of the most despised families in America, but does a book by a family member really merit the kind of secrecy that we grant to people who might actually be putting their lives at risk to publish a tell-all?
One thing that makes this project at least a little interesting is the fact that Laurie Sandell is mentioned as the other coauthor. Sandel wrote and illustrated the graphic memoir The Impostor’s Daughter, which was a comedic take on growing up with a con artist and swindler for a father. So spinning a graphic yarn about Madoff won’t be too much of a stretch for her.
Still, the less is more marketing strategy is starting to take its toll on booksellers who are already hard pressed when it comes to buying decisions given the exponential growth of the eBook market. ”The note I sent back to my sales reps was, ‘I hate these books,’ “Gayle Shanks, owner of Changing Hands Bookstore in Tempe, AZ told Bosman. “Generally we don’t know what they are, so we have no sense of how large it’s going to be. But you cannot not buy it.”
André Schiffrin on mergermania 
Why the Random Penguin merger could be good for indie publishers 
SLIDESHOW: Infamous book promotions over the years 
Amazon-front “New Harvest” close to launch, but booksellers still say no 
10 Comments
I love your blog. You consistently provide the best on-going reporting and analysis of what’s wrong with the book trade (A: The Book Trade).
Case in point: Gayle Shanks. Sure, you can NOT buy a book that’s presented to you. Happens with our books / reps all the time, because we’re not called Penguin / HarperCollins / Random House / &c. Just say “No thanks. What else you got coming?”
Sheesh. What We’re Up Against, Example 7,643.
I love your blog. You consistently provide the best on-going reporting and analysis of what’s wrong with the book trade (A: The Book Trade).
Case in point: Gayle Shanks. Sure, you can NOT buy a book that’s presented to you. Happens with our books / reps all the time, because we’re not called Penguin / HarperCollins / Random House / &c. Just say “No thanks. What else you got coming?”
Sheesh. What We’re Up Against, Example 7,643.
I think you’re missing the point, Rolf. To the extent that this post is about
“what’s wrong with the book trade,” it has more to do with Little,
Brown’s marketing shenanigans than indie booksellers being a little annoyed at
buying books sight unseen. What if it’s a smash on publication and
indies have no copies on hand? Should they send their customers
elsewhere, or just take a chance and buy some? The correct answer is
not, in fact, “No thanks. What else you got coming?” Not when it’s
Little, Brown, and not when you know how to run a bookstore.
I think you’re missing the point, Rolf. To the extent that this post is about
“what’s wrong with the book trade,” it has more to do with Little,
Brown’s marketing shenanigans than indie booksellers being a little annoyed at
buying books sight unseen. What if it’s a smash on publication and
indies have no copies on hand? Should they send their customers
elsewhere, or just take a chance and buy some? The correct answer is
not, in fact, “No thanks. What else you got coming?” Not when it’s
Little, Brown, and not when you know how to run a bookstore.
I think you’re missing the point. Running an indie as if it were a chain relying on bestsellers could mean ending up like … oh, I dunno … Borders?
Jesus! It’s like Little Brown said “Jump!” and booksellers are saying “How high?”
I think you’re missing the point. Running an indie as if it were a chain relying on bestsellers could mean ending up like … oh, I dunno … Borders?
Jesus! It’s like Little Brown said “Jump!” and booksellers are saying “How high?”
Buying a handful of copies of a single title guaranteed to get big press is hardly running an indie as if it were Borders.
Buying a handful of copies of a single title guaranteed to get big press is hardly running an indie as if it were Borders.
I’m not missing the point, I’m making a point. Run “Buying a handful of copies guaranteed to get big press” through Babelfish and you’ll get “37% return rates,” because we all know how automatically “big press” translates into big sales.
“Not when it’s LIttle, Brown” is EXACTLY what’s wrong with the book trade. Also translates into astonishing returns. The weirdest thing about indie booksellers’ anger towards the chains is their naive belief that the chains know something they don’t; they just end up emulating the same dumb behaviour. Return rates are a good case in point, because from 1995 until the present day, for our company, return rates for big and small retailers have been about the same. Returns are not a fact about books; they’re a fact about *retail practices* — the ones described by Gayle Shanks, and defended by Guest.
I’m not missing the point, I’m making a point. Run “Buying a handful of copies guaranteed to get big press” through Babelfish and you’ll get “37% return rates,” because we all know how automatically “big press” translates into big sales.
“Not when it’s LIttle, Brown” is EXACTLY what’s wrong with the book trade. Also translates into astonishing returns. The weirdest thing about indie booksellers’ anger towards the chains is their naive belief that the chains know something they don’t; they just end up emulating the same dumb behaviour. Return rates are a good case in point, because from 1995 until the present day, for our company, return rates for big and small retailers have been about the same. Returns are not a fact about books; they’re a fact about *retail practices* — the ones described by Gayle Shanks, and defended by Guest.