Is the TBR all it's cracked up to be?

So, yesterday, I was flipping through the NYT Book Review and noticed that they had finally gotten around to reviewing Barbara Walter's Audition. This in turn reminded me of a conversation I've had with several authors and industry peeps over the past few months - has the Times Book Review become outdated and irrelevant?

Most authors (and publicists) consider the TBR to be the holy grail of print media. Everyone wants a their book to be reviewed there. Next to, "what about Oprah?," this is the most common question I get from authors. Yet, the times (ha) I have gotten full page reviews, it's barely moved books. Not to mention, these are almost always books that have already been covered a multitude of other places. Sometimes it feels as though the TBR waits to see what everyone else is going to do, and then jumps on the bandwagon - at which point, I no longer care about the book.

For instance, this week, there was a review of Barbara Walter's Audition - which came out over a month ago and has been covered ad nauseum by bloggers, reviewers, TV and radio, etc. We all know the scandalous parts already, and anyone who cared to read the book, probably has already done so. Or is waiting for the paperback. Why bother to run a review a month after pub? Even bookstores don't like to host events after a month has lapsed...why is the Times so willing to feature a book that has arguably already jumped the shark?

There are exceptions of course. There's a review of the new David Sedaris, which pubbed only two weeks ago (and which, btw, I can't wait to read!). But again, even two weeks feels like a long period of time. As publicists, we're taught to get in as much media the week of pub. Not the second or third or fourth. I mean, we'll take coverage those weeks, but we're supposed to line up as much as possible with the hopes of moving enough books to debut high on the list.

So why doesn't the TBR follow this? I know it's not because we don't get the books to them soon enough. As soon as galleys arrive, copies are immediately sent to Dwight, Sam, Nancy, Rick...And yes, I know they received hundreds (if not thousands) of books a week, but you know what, so do all the other major outlets...which often beat the times in coverage by several weeks...is it just because they CAN? Or is it because they are struggling to keep up in an era where book news breaks quickly and bloggers have upped the ante on churning out reviews?

Or I am just being grouchy because it's Monday and I'm bitter because not enough of my books are reviewed?

--Paige Sexie

Why I love some BREs....not

So, a lovely publicist friend just passed this along to me. For those of you too lazy to click through, it's a Publishers Weekly blog entry by Editor-in-Chief Sara Nelson, entitled "Why I Love (Some) Publicists." Bascially, Sara acknowledges that we have a hard job (duh) and face constant rejections (sigh, it's amazing we retain any self esteem). But, then, she goes onto say how she appreciates it when publicists tell her the "truth" - ie, admitting that this book might not be for everyone, but here's why she should look at it anyway. Sara goes on to say:

"It’s not easy – and it usually helps to have been in the business a few years and to know the tastes of the person you’re addressing. The greatest publicists, even, will privately admit to a book’s faults without damning its author – and those, above all, are the publicists I like. No book is going to be 'perfect' to everyone, and by admitting flaws, honest publicists are helping reviewers and editors do their jobs."

Ok, first of all, I don't know anyone's tastes. I don't even know my own. I mean, I know Marilyn Stasio likes mysteries. I'm not going to pitch her a memoir about Iraq. And I know that Pat Towers isn't going to review the new advice book about how to pick up chicks. So yeah, fine. But do I have time do look through a pile of literary fiction and think to myself, hmmm, would Dwight Garner prefer the moving one about the boy coming of age during the Holocaust, or the comical story of a young woman trying to make it in finance. Um, no. And I certainly don't have time to do it for Sara Nelson - no offense, Sara.

For every book I work on, I'm pitching hundred of reviewers, editors, producers, and reporters. And yes, I try to tailor those lists based on the type of book and to tailor certain pitches. But, the book review editor in Tulsa is probably going to get the same pitch as the BRE is Atlanta (if the AJC still had one, of course). That's just the way the cookie crumbles. I don't have time to research all of you and discover your tastes. And if you care so much, why don't you let me know? How about sending me some guidance - ie, I only review this. I prefer this. Then, I can stop wasting your time and mine.

--Ladytron

Bonus question: Thoughts on who the favorite unnamed publicists are?

Number Crunching...

Remember last week when I was bitching about the number of books we (by which I mean publishers) continue to produce each year? Well, in next Sunday’s New York Times Book Review, Rachel Donadio tackles the issue (she obvi reads Slunch for her story ideas). Apparently, I was wrong about 300,000 books being published each year. That was in 2006. Last year? 400,000. Yeah, that’s right. 400,000. And while I was talking in relation to book coverage, Rachel tackles an even more disturbing trend – 53% of Americans surveyed last year hadn’t read a single book.

Now, think about this. If the population of the United States in July 2007 was 301,139,947 (according to Google), than only about 140 million something of those people were reading. Which means, we’re publishing 1 book for every 350 people or so – I think. I haven’t taken math since high school, but I’m pretty sure that’s right.

So, that doesn’t sound too bad, until you really start thinking about it. I mean, if you were working on a book, and it only sold 350 copies, I think you’d pretty much consider that a flop. And, yes, I know that many people who read will obviously pick up more than one book a year, but you also have to counter that many of these people are reading the SAME book, i.e. The Da Vinci Code, A New Earth, Eat, Pray, Love, or anything by Michael Connelly/James Patterson/David Baldacci, which all have millions of copies in print. Not to mention the fact that people aren’t confined to reading books published that year – we still have the classics and consistent backlist sellers to contend with. Which explains why, in 2006, 70% of books published ended up in remainder bins and only 1% hit the list.

I could go on, but I’m still on my first (iced – yay summer!) coffee and my head might explode. So, to summarize, the number of books we publish – UP. The number of readers – DOWN. Oh, also, there’s a recession, and despite the theory that books are recession proof, it’s still going to hurt, especially with the shitty dollar. Maybe we should all take a closer look at Jonathan Karp’s business plan before we destroy ourselves and the business.

—Ladytron

THE RAG HAS A MAG - Publicists rejoice

In a hostile environment that has seen review coverage cut entirely at some papers (Atlanta Journal Constitution I'm looking at you) and slashed at others (L A Times, tut-tut) publicists, authors and readers will rejoice to hear that New York's premiere tabloid will expand their coverage. Abby Wisse Schachter, editor at the New York Post will be heading up the new review section that will run in the Post's Sunday magazine that debuts on 9/23. And get this, as opposed to the Post Opinion reviews she ran, we'll be seeing a good selection of fiction titles covered as well.

Thank you for reinstating our faith in book coverage. Bravo Post!

Keep those news tips coming!

do tell,
the editor