# Cover art that doesn’t appeal to women?



## WHDean (Nov 2, 2011)

If your story is as likely to appeal to women as men, you should tailor your cover to women too. But that's the tricky part. What sorts of cover art appeals to or turns off women? Leaving aside the well-established rules for romance covers for the moment, I think I have a _general _ idea about what _generally _ turns off women readers, but I'm less sure about what sparks their interest. Of course, I could also be wrong about the turn-offs, so I'll enumerate them first.

*Turn-offs:*

(a) *Female skin*. John Locke-style covers featuring scantily clad females or female body parts without the corresponding rippling male body.

(b) *Abstractions*. My guess is that any sort of abstraction turns women off: maps, runes, circuit boards, geometrical figures (Sorry Brian!).

(c) *SF motifs*. I know some women read and write SF. But it's far from the norm. So I suspect that spaceships, space stations, planets, aliens and chrome cities are out.

(d) *Typically male things*. I think it goes without saying that anything usually associated exclusively with males is out. I include chessboards here (Sorry Julie!) along with other sporting and technical objects.

(e) *Graphic violence*. Blood-spitting-demon heads, people being stabbed, tortured, etc. are out. Unless, of course, the horror is the more subtle kind-i.e., the unseen but implied variety.

Anyway, I'm seeking guidance from the fairer sex.


----------



## Will Write for Gruel (Oct 16, 2010)

I'd agree with you about female skin, but then how do you explain Cosmopolitan covers? I suspect "female skin" is acceptable at times, especially if there's a hunk of male skin on the same cover.


----------



## Rayne Book Covers (Sep 11, 2011)

I would not mind a nicely made cover with any of the points mentioned till the time it goes with the genre and conveys what the book is about aptly. That way I know what I am getting.


----------



## Catana (Mar 27, 2012)

Why cater to stereotypes? Women buy horror, science fiction, and a slew of genres that supposedly are male-oriented. If the cover is appropriate to the book, that's all that matters.


----------



## WHDean (Nov 2, 2011)

The Dark Rayne said:


> I would not mind a nicely made cover with any of the points mentioned till the time it goes with the genre and conveys what the book is about aptly. That way I know what I am getting.


I think the key is what "nicely made" means for women. I'm trying to figure out the sorts of things that decide _yay _ or _nay _ at a glance. That's why I'm more concerned with turn offs. I tend to think--and I may be wrong here--but that a women will simply flip past a book with an abstraction on the cover because it just won't have that instant appeal. Do you see what I mean?



Asher MacDonald said:


> I'd agree with you about female skin, but then how do you explain Cosmopolitan covers? I suspect "female skin" is acceptable at times, especially if there's a hunk of male skin on the same cover.


I know what you mean. That's why I mentioned "John Locke-style covers." There's something about them that says, "This is for males." The models on the cover of Cosmo say, "This is the sort of gal who reads Cosmo." But it's difficult to pin down the aesthetic exactly, to point to the turn-off/ turn on line.


----------



## AshMP (Dec 30, 2009)

I think what doesn't appeal to women is generalizations.


----------



## NoCat (Aug 5, 2010)

I'm a woman and none of those things listed turn me off...

Covers that do turn me off:

Bad font choices. Unreadable layouts. Cluttered covers. Covers which don't tell me the genre or tone of a book.  Obviously amateur art.


----------



## WHDean (Nov 2, 2011)

Doomed Muse said:


> I'm a woman and none of those things listed turn me off...
> 
> Covers that do turn me off:
> 
> Bad font choices. Unreadable layouts. Cluttered covers. Covers which don't tell me the genre or tone of a book. Obviously amateur art.


That's interesting. So when you're scanning covers, would you say there's nothing that would make you either skip or stop? For example, what about bright or dark colours, a chess piece?


----------



## JumpingShip (Jun 3, 2010)

WHDean said:


> I think the key is what "nicely made" means for women. I'm trying to figure out the sorts of things that decide _yay _ or _nay _ at a glance. That's why I'm more concerned with turn offs. I tend to think--and I may be wrong here--but that a women will simply flip past a book with an abstraction on the cover because it just won't have that instant appeal. Do you see what I mean?
> 
> I know what you mean. That's why I mentioned "John Locke-style covers." There's something about them that says, "This is for males." The models on the cover of Cosmo say, "This is the sort of gal who reads Cosmo." But it's difficult to pin down the aesthetic exactly, to point to the turn-off/ turn on line.


It's easy. The Cosmo cover girl is someone we can look at and wish we looked like her even if we are secretly jealous of how beautiful she looks. The skin on a Locke novel is like the sexy leg lamp from A Christmas Story. The males in the family loved it, while the mom was embarrassed. It presents the woman as a sex object of men. Sure, Cosmo does too, but it's more like, 'Read the article inside to see how you too, can be as sexy as I am.'.

Now, speaking as a female reader who likes romance, thrillers, historical and science fiction, but hate fantasy, I wouldn't be turned off by some blood on a cover, but not a headless torso with squirting blood. That is horror to me. I also wouldn't choose a book with fairies or elves on the cover. Sorry, fantasy authors! I really like books with a bit of magical realism or supernatural, like time travel or alternate dimensions. I look for those clues on a cover. Storms/lightning are images sometimes used to convey that premise, as well as watches/clocks/hourglasses.

You're right about the space ships on science fiction covers being unpopular with women. What drew me to my first (and relatively few science fiction books) was the image of a lone man on the cover. He was in space battle gear, but didn't look invincible. I like books with a good/reluctant hero main character, and that is what I got from that cover. It turned out to be exactly that kind of character, so I read the whole series. (The Lost Fleet, by Jack Campbell). I tried other books in the genre and other than Ender's Game, and an alternate dimension series (The Destroyermen), I haven't found another sci-fi book that I liked. It was the cover that totally drew me to the first.


----------



## Incognita (Apr 3, 2011)

Doomed Muse said:


> I'm a woman and none of those things listed turn me off...
> 
> Covers that do turn me off:
> 
> Bad font choices. Unreadable layouts. Cluttered covers. Covers which don't tell me the genre or tone of a book. Obviously amateur art.


This. I read across a lot of genres, and I have no problem with spaceships, abstract images, freaky zombie violence. 

A big turn-off for me is bad 3D art. It always looks (to me) like something ripped off from a porn site.


----------



## Lyndawrites (Aug 7, 2011)

For me, if the genre is a turn-off then it doesn't matter how good/bad the cover is. Even the greatest cover on a horror/zombie/erotica/gay/lesbian/sparkly vampire novel wouldn't make a ha'porth of difference. I still wouldn't buy it.

The only time the cover becomes important is when I'm deciding between two books in a genre I *do* like.


----------



## NoCat (Aug 5, 2010)

See, and I love spaceships on covers, because I read a lot of SF.  I also don't mind naked or mostly naked women on covers, a nice female body is often eye-catching and if it fits the tone and genre of the book, it works for me.  I love chess, though not as much as Go, and a game piece on a cover doesn't turn me away at all. Nor does a submarine or a tennis racket or a gun or whatever, not if it fits for the book and tells me what genre/type of book it is. If it is a genre I like, I'll look at the book. If it isn't, the most beautiful/intriguing cover in the world won't make me want to read the book.

I think the issue is trying to generalize. "Women don't read SF" or "Women don't like thrillers" are generalizations that haven't been born out by any study of reading habits ever done.  Sure, romance readers are something like 80% female, but thriller readers are about 65% female.

I think it is less a matter of "what turns off women" and more a matter of "what doesn't work for most readers?"

I think that if your cover is professional looking and fits the genre and tone of your book, you'll attract the kind of readers you want, male or female.


----------



## JuliaHarwell (Feb 19, 2012)

As a woman, I would like to make a suggestion: Incorporate whatever elements fit your genre and story, and forget about generalizations.

I have no problem with anything on your list. I mean, all those things you listed? The chess piece, map, runes, strange cityscapes? I love them all. They attract my attention when they fit the genre and story. Seriously, _it all depends on the genre_.

I don't think generalizations about what women would like or not like or what they'd read or not read like in the list would do anyone any favors. That'd be like if I said, "You know, men would totally dig my book (no matter the genre!) just because I put a big-chested woman on the cover, and she's wearing a tiny thong, and there's an explosion behind her. And let me add this sports car, and maybe some sort of gun." Just because guys are supposed to be attracted to guns and cars and big breasts, am I right?


----------



## JETaylor (Jan 25, 2011)

I don't mind any of the things on your list - but it has to grab my attention for me to pick up the book.  

I wrote about back cover blurbs on my recent blog tour - and I did say the first thing that really captures my attention is a striking cover and second to that is the blurb.  

I'm going to single out Dark Rayne here for a moment - her cover art is captivating and motivating to click through.  She does a fantastic job and I've got her book marked under my list of cover artists that I'll eventually contract.   They aren't conventional and that's what I look for - stunning art - even the more horror bound covers like the angel with the bloody heart in her hand (I love that).

I'd be more worried about creating a cover that says pick me up to anyone than trying to target a stereotype.


----------



## PAWilson (Jan 9, 2012)

I'll add my vote to the 'generalizations don't work' side. If you try to appeal to "women" as a generalization it won't work because.... Oh Yeah, we're individuals, just like men. 

My advice is think about your target reader don't worry about gender. If was going to read your genre, it wouldn't matter. 

I hate cluttered covers. Authors who try to get an image on the cover of every setting, scene or theme are not doing a good job of marketing.


----------



## NRWick (Mar 22, 2011)

Doomed Muse said:


> I'm a woman and none of those things listed turn me off...
> 
> Covers that do turn me off:
> 
> Bad font choices. Unreadable layouts. Cluttered covers. Covers which don't tell me the genre or tone of a book. Obviously amateur art.


THIS!

I also think it depends on what genre the particular woman likes. Saying "Women in general are turned off by covers like X" doesn't mean anything because it depends on what sort of books they like. For example, I don't pick up books with ladies dressed in period clothing because I don't like historical romances. Doesn't mean the covers or books are great, though. I'm turned off by couples mid passion in covers because I know they are most likely about romance and I don't care for romance. I'd much rather see blood, runes, glowing abstract forms, graphic violence, or zombies.

The biggest deal is for the cover to look awesome.


----------



## yomamma (Feb 10, 2011)

Italiahaircolor said:


> I think what doesn't appeal to women is generalizations.


This.

And I like looking at pretty women on covers. I'm not jealous of them or secretly hating on them! I *like* looking at them. Most women do. That's why the covers of so many historical romances feature the heroine alone on the cover in a gorgeous dress. We LIKE looking at other women. There doesn't have to be 'corresponding' male parts to 'clue' us in that this book is for women. Lord.

What women are looking for on a cover depends on what the genre is. Don't give me a robot on the cover if it's a romance. Don't give me a couple embracing if it's a horror novel.


----------



## George Berger (Aug 7, 2011)

WHDean said:


> (c) *SF motifs*. I know some women read and write SF. But it's far from the norm...


Eh? In my bookselling and con-going experience, there's a damned lot of women who read SF, of all sorts.

But, anyway...

It's perhaps worth mentioning here that 80-90% of ereader owners are women. Just based on simple math, the overwhelming majority of popular e-books have appealed - are appealing - to women. Perhaps because of their covers, perhaps despite their covers. Like everyone else has said, make a professional-looking cover that has something to do with the book, and women will read it...


----------



## WHDean (Nov 2, 2011)

MaryMcDonald said:


> What drew me to my first (and relatively few science fiction books) was the image of a lone man on the cover.


Believe it or not, I was going to mention this exact example. I was going to say that an SF book with broader appeal should put (e.g.,) a person(s) on the cover instead of the usual spaceship, which would signal to female readers that the book isn't hard SF for hard SFers. I say signal to female readers only because they're a minority of SF readers, yet a majority of readers.



jljarvis said:


> Chess pieces: The megahit Twilight series (YA angsty girl vampire romance) has a cover with chess pieces on it.
> 
> SciFi: Do you know how many women (on KB alone!) love the Firefly series?
> 
> hen I look at book covers of typically male sorts of books, I see HUGE san serif fonts and bold, if not primary, color palettes. With books geared toward women, I literally see photoshopped layers and/or emotional evocative images that convey intense and often conflicting emotions.


You're right, I forgot about the _Breaking Dawn _ cover. But would it have worked on the first book in the series? I don't know...

Unless I'm gravely mistaken, SF still sells to males. Maybe it really has changed in the last ten years. I could be completely wrong. But it was conventional wisdom until now.

Maybe you're right that the colour palette is the most important thing. But I can help but think that there are also certain motifs within genres that women-in general-look for or avoid. Maybe there aren't such things, but common sense says otherwise.


----------



## Lynn McNamee (Jan 8, 2009)

I'm wondering why you'd want to cater to women instead of your potential market?

I'm not fond of most sci-fi. If I saw a cover with a spaceship on it, I doubt I would look at the book description.

But why would you want me to? Would you want to mislead or trick me into buying a book I would not enjoy?

Women who enjoy sci-fi would be just as drawn to the cover with the spaceship as a man who enjoys sci-fi would.


----------



## WHDean (Nov 2, 2011)

I’d respond to some of the other comments but I don’t know how to weigh them. On the one hand, you’re saying you have no problem with anything on my list and that only the genre matters. On the other hand, you’re saying I shouldn’t make generalizations because women are all different. Leaving aside the fact that that too is a generalization, I don’t know how to take your testimony. In other words, are you denying that these things are factors in your decision because they aren’t, or are you saying it because you want to combat stereotypes? Psychologists call it social acceptability bias; I call it “I don’t know how to read what you’re saying.”

For the record, this has nothing to do with gender and genre. I’m talking about cue within genres.


----------



## darrenpillsbury (Jul 10, 2011)

I think a lot of these generalizations are just that - generalizations. Even if it's accurate 55% of the time, it's inaccurate the other 45% of the time. If your goal is to get ALLLL the female readers out there...never gonna happen. Especially not in certain genres.

Somebody brought up the Twilight BREAKING DAWN chess piece cover, which is a pretty good point, except I think the publishers could have put a monkey juggling oranges on the cover and it still would have sold gangbusters since it was the 4th and final installment.

Regarding another example, you mentioned the female skin on John Locke's covers as turning off female readers. However,

_By Locke's unofficial count, 70 percent of his readers are women, and three-quarters are 45 or older. Why? "Donovan Creed is enormously flawed," he said. "I think the reason women like this character is because they feel with the right influence he's utterly salvageable -- like the big dog you find at the pound. He tears up your house and your yard and just when you're about to take him back, he saves your life."_

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/05/john-locke-donovan-creed-_n_1317237.html

BTW, I'm not a Locke fan. The only book of his I've ever read was that "Sell a Million Copies Like Me" ebook he put out.

You could make the argument that his covers put off a lot of female readers...but they obviously weren't enough to put off the tens of thousands of women who have read his books.

You could also make the argument that he got thousands of female fans through blog posts, or tweets, or whatever, and those women looked past the cover. But there were a LOT of women who bought the books just because they were #17 on Amazon, and the cover didn't dissuade them at all.

If you're looking to appeal to 90% of women, you're probably right that it's a good thing to avoid many of the items on your list on a bad or cheap-looking cover. But if used well, cleverly, or beautifully, there's not a whole lot on your list that's a deal-breaker.

Well, for 55% of people, anyway.


----------



## George Berger (Aug 7, 2011)

jljarvis said:


> I think what you're looking for is something like this--to pull in the Jane Austen crowd without alienating the dudes.


I misread the tagline at first as "You should never fret about truffles", which I think would be a much more awesome book, personally. But maybe that's just me...


----------



## WHDean (Nov 2, 2011)

Lynn ODell said:


> I'm wondering why you'd want to cater to women instead of your potential market?
> 
> I'm not fond of most sci-fi. If I saw a cover with a spaceship on it, I doubt I would look at the book description.
> 
> ...


You're missing the point. I'm not talking about tricking people. I'm talking (but probably not for much longer if this keeps up) about specific cues or motifs that turn women off. I gave example of exactly what I meant. True, I did not specify that I mean within genres--the reader is assumed to like the genre already--but I presumed it was implied.


----------



## JumpingShip (Jun 3, 2010)

jljarvis said:


> Okay, you're probably safe assuming that leggy chicks in high heels and graphic violence will generally not appeal strongly to most women. However, I wonder if you might not be over-simplifying your analysis at the exclusion of the real core factors. For example:
> 
> 
> Chess pieces: The megahit Twilight series (YA angsty girl vampire romance) has a cover with chess pieces on it.
> ...


*raises hand* I loved Firefly.



> Typically male things like sports? There are lots of athletic women! Of course, if the typically male story happens to have boring two-dimensional jocks and their equally formulaic girlfriends, then, yeah, I'm not interested. But I'll watch _The Natural_ or _Field of Dreams_, even though I don't play or watch baseball. For that matter, I have watched a number of films about golf, and I don't even play. But as a former singer who worked in the competitive worlds of Broadway and opera, I can totally get the whole sports head game with its of competition and grace under pressure.


I also love sports although I don't read a lot of sports related books--mostly because I haven't found any, although I loved "If I Never Get Back", which is a time travel book about a guy who goes back in time and ends up playing baseball for the Cincinnati Red Stockings.

Also, my favorite tv show EVER, is Friday Night Lights, a fictionalized tv series based on the book by the same name. The characters lives revolve around the high school football team.


----------



## WHDean (Nov 2, 2011)

darrenpillsbury said:


> By Locke's unofficial count, 70 percent of his readers are women, and three-quarters are 45 or older. Why? "Donovan Creed is enormously flawed," he said. "I think the reason women like this character is because they feel with the right influence he's utterly salvageable -- like the big dog you find at the pound. He tears up your house and your yard and just when you're about to take him back, he saves your life."


I'm not saying it's false. But I find that very hard to believe.


----------



## 56139 (Jan 21, 2012)

WHDean said:


> Believe it or not, I was going to mention this exact example. I was going to say that an SF book with broader appeal should put (e.g.,) a person(s) on the cover instead of the usual spaceship, which would signal to female readers that the book isn't hard SF for hard SFers. I say signal to female readers only because they're a minority of SF readers, yet a majority of readers.


Yes. Pictures of people sell SF books to women like me, which is all I really read. Now, I'm a scientist, so I'm OK with hard SF, but I really want a character arc in there somewhere. I could care less how imperfect the character is, I want that element to it, so ANY cover that has a person on it automatically gets a second look.

Of course, if you're Peter F. Hamilton or Iain M. Banks, you can put all the spaceships on the cover you want. I'll read it regardless because I know you can write about people. But the spaceships really do turn me off as a female reader.

(I love military SF, so I'm OK with blood and guts.)


----------



## kklawiter (Jan 23, 2012)

I don't think there are specific cues or motifs that turn women off. I think women are more responsive to an aesthetically pleasing cover, no matter the genre. I think (and this is just an opinion) women are more...picky...in that manor than men.

But I will say, in my opinion, comic book style covers are more of a turn off to women because comic books are more directed to the males of our species. BUT that's just another generalization. I know many women who are comic book fans.


----------



## Sophrosyne (Mar 27, 2011)

I think the problem is in the generalization. Cover turn-offs are not gender-biased.

For me, cover turn-offs are:

Boring covers
Unreadable covers
Misspelled words on the cover


----------



## NoCat (Aug 5, 2010)

I love spaceships on covers. I read pretty much any SF though (not that partial to time-travel stuff in any genre, so things that cue that a book is about time-travel would turn me off). Here is one of my favorite SF covers: http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_uEqxUFfsfwA/TCnnek52lTI/AAAAAAAAD-8/CfsG9DFvyM0/s1600/steve_stone_evolutionary_void_front_large.jpg I love it because it tells me exactly what kind of book it is, it is gorgeous art and well done fonts and layout, and looks professional and appropriate for its genre. That's what I want in a cover, no matter what genre it is.

Here's a cover with a chess piece on it that doesn't work for me at all (it tells me nothing about the book and, having read this book, it really doesn't fit genre or anything though I'm aware that "classics" can get away with that): http://cias.rit.edu/~acn6095/portfolio/production/covers_1.jpg

Here's a chess piece cover that fits the book, the genre, and looks professional and tells me what I'm looking at so that I can decide if I want to click and check the book out: http://seanellisthrillers.webs.com/KING.jpg

Generalizing down to individual elements seems like a waste of time, to me. Readers all have differing opinions on what they like or don't like. I think making sure your cover is professional, fits the genre, and tells something about your book's tone and contents are the most important things.


----------



## Vukovina (Mar 30, 2012)

Not _exactly_ on topic-all the respondents are women-but it does give a sense of how people judge covers:

http://connect.chicklitclub.com/wp/2012/01/27/cover-story/


----------



## Geoffrey (Jun 20, 2009)

So, following this logic, what do women like to see on covers?

- Puppies
- Babies
- Rainbows
- Cleaning Products
- Kitchens
- Celebrities
- Hello Kitty

< runs and hides >


----------



## Krista D. Ball (Mar 8, 2011)

WHDean said:


> Believe it or not, I was going to mention this exact example. I was going to say that an SF book with broader appeal should put (e.g.,) a person(s) on the cover instead of the usual spaceship, which would signal to female readers that the book isn't hard SF for hard SFers. I say signal to female readers only because they're a minority of SF readers, yet a majority of readers.


As someone who reads SF, yeah, you've lost several points in this thread.


----------



## NathanWrann (May 5, 2011)

The covers in my sig for Dark Matter Heart and From Out Of Chaos are for a YA Paranormal Thriller series. The readers of YA Paranormal Thrillers (from what I've gauged by who buys my books) are 95%+ female. My books have a male mc and are written by me (a male), and the covers are designed by me (a male). So, since the genre automatically (a generalization, I know) appeals to women my goal with the covers was to make something that a woman wouldn't mind but that guy would not be ashamed to read on the bus. I think I succeeded with that, however, I am in the process of redesigning the covers with a look that is more traditionally YA paranormal but still unique enough to stand out from the crowd as something a little different.

When I had a booth at the MonsterMania horror convention in Philadelphia last month every book I sold was sold to a woman. I think if I had a cover more "traditionally" YA I would have sold even more. Why? Because for years and with many research dollars spent the "trad pubs" have determined that those types of covers sell to their target audience (women). So, by having a cover that isn't targeted to what YA Paranormal (genre) readers (mostly women) expect, I think it hurt (and is hurting) my sales.

With that said, I have had female book bloggers give me compliments about the covers as they are.


----------



## Krista D. Ball (Mar 8, 2011)

Maybe I'm wrong, but Road to Hell wasn't designed to appeal to any gender. It was designed to appeal to those who want a SF thriller:


----------



## WHDean (Nov 2, 2011)

kklawiter said:


> I don't think there are specific cues or motifs that turn women off. I think women are more responsive to an aesthetically pleasing cover, no matter the genre. I think (and this is just an opinion) women are more...picky...in that manor than men.
> 
> But I will say, in my opinion, comic book style covers are more of a turn off to women because comic books are more directed to the males of our species. BUT that's just another generalization. I know many women who are comic book fans.


You may be right that there are no statistically relevant differences. For the example, rejection of the comic book style might go hand-in-hand with the rejection of the genre's that employ it. Or, and this is key, publishers may employ these covers to attract a specifically male audience.



JanneCO said:


> Yes. Pictures of people sell SF books to women like me, which is all I really read. Now, I'm a scientist, so I'm OK with hard SF, but I really want a character arc in there somewhere. I could care less how imperfect the character is, I want that element to it, so ANY cover that has a person on it automatically gets a second look.


People use hueristics to judge things like book covers. It could be that publishers of soft SF (or female friendly SF) use people on the cover to say, in effect, this book has a story too. Again, I don't know for sure. But my gut tells me there's a kind of unspoken understanding--a purely symbolic language--that's used to cue different demographics about content. Maybe males who prefer soft SF (count me in here) use these heuristics too.


----------



## WHDean (Nov 2, 2011)

jljarvis said:


> You've tackled a very tricky issue, but a valid one for discussion.
> 
> ...there are so many factors in addition to gender,
> 
> ...sources of a Madison Avenue ad agency at our disposal, I believe that an author's best option is to design a cover that best conveys the story.


I figured there'd be some PC brow-beating, but it's a subject worth considering. Like I said, all I have are suppositions. It could be that gender is outweighted by other factors--or it could be not. All I know for sure is that knowing the real answer is more important than pretending the PC one is true.

Anecdotal evidence is also evidence. It's not the best evidence, but it's evidence. Second, it could be that someone knows of work that's been done on this subject.


----------



## John Daulton (Feb 28, 2012)

I think in the end you simply can't please all the people all the time. You just have to pick the cover, as has been said already, that best communicates the essence of the story to the audience you believe it most closely suits. 

On the female skin thing, I've had a couple of reviews on mine from women who said the cover was a turn-OFF for them, but that they read it anyway based on reviews and ended up liking it. But that means I know for a fact I'm losing lots more female readers who pass by without bothering to look at reviews. They see the "hot chick," the ripped suit, maybe the laser... and are like, "Bleh, no way."

My story isn't a typical "dude" story, but at some point you have pick your core audience and depict the essence of the book, even if there is only a nebulous "core" at all. A cover is marketing, after all, and anything that seeks to offend no-one will excite no one either.


----------



## WHDean (Nov 2, 2011)

Krista D. Ball said:


> As someone who reads SF, yeah, you've lost several points in this thread.


To lose points I'd have to be making them. I'm not. I realize some people wish I was so that they could flex their righteous indignation muscles, but I'm asking only whether the armchair theories I offered are true. So far I've received two kinds of responses: (1) more or less true, but maybe not determining factors and (2) you should've said we're all as unique as snowflakes. Now, I can't discipher your gnomic remark, but should I take it that you're joining camp number 2?


----------



## WHDean (Nov 2, 2011)

NathanWrann said:


> The covers in my sig for Dark Matter Heart and From Out Of Chaos are for a YA Paranormal Thriller series. The readers of YA Paranormal Thrillers (from what I've gauged by who buys my books) are 95%+ female. My books have a male mc and are written by me (a male), and the covers are designed by me (a male). So, since the genre automatically (a generalization, I know) appeals to women my goal with the covers was to make something that a woman wouldn't mind but that guy would not be ashamed to read on the bus. I think I succeeded with that, however, I am in the process of redesigning the covers with a look that is more traditionally YA paranormal but still unique enough to stand out from the crowd as something a little different.
> 
> When I had a booth at the MonsterMania horror convention in Philadelphia last month every book I sold was sold to a woman. I think if I had a cover more "traditionally" YA I would have sold even more. Why? Because for years and with many research dollars spent the "trad pubs" have determined that those types of covers sell to their target audience (women). So, by having a cover that isn't targeted to what YA Paranormal (genre) readers (mostly women) expect, I think it hurt (and is hurting) my sales.
> 
> With that said, I have had female book bloggers give me compliments about the covers as they are.


This is interesting. Do you think the original covers have contrained your appeal?


----------



## Katja (Jun 4, 2011)

You should come out of the cave you live in. That is all.


----------



## MichelleR (Feb 21, 2009)

WHDean said:


> Anyway, I'm seeking guidance from the fairer sex.


This is the problem right here. This sentence that sums up the tone of the whole post. That the little ladies have definite things they like and can give you a list of things they find unseemly.

When most people tell you that there can be no list like that -- just have your cover communicate the genre, and look professional, you really don't seem to like the answer.










To discuss just the first thing on your list, your women don't like scantily clad women, unless there's some beefcake next to it, immediately discounts at least 10% of female readers who are _just not that into guys._

Oh, never mind -- just stick Fabio on the cover.


----------



## Krista D. Ball (Mar 8, 2011)

WHDean said:


> To lose points I'd have to be making them. I'm not. I realize some people wish I was so that they could flex their righteous indignation muscles, but I'm asking only whether the armchair theories I offered are true. So far I've received two kinds of responses: (1) more or less true, but maybe not determining factors and (2) you should've said we're all as unique as snowflakes. Now, I can't discipher your gnomic remark, but should I take it that you're joining camp number 2?


No, it's because you are talking about SF and actually have no idea what you are talking about. Go attend a SF readercon sometime. You'll notice there's almost as many women as men. Look at Robert J Sawyer's book launches. Split down the gender and he's as hard of a SF writer as they get.


----------



## JumpingShip (Jun 3, 2010)

MichelleR said:


> This is the problem right here. This sentence that sums up the tone of the whole post. That the little ladies have definite things they like and can give you a list of things they find unseemly.
> 
> When most people tell you that there can be no list like that -- just have your cover communicate the genre, and look professional, you really don't seem to like the answer.
> 
> ...


Ew. Fabio. lol. I used to devour romance books back in the day, but never thought Fabio was the least bit attractive.

Honestly, I think that genre is more important than gender when designing a cover. Plenty of women don't stick to certain genres when they read, but they do want to know that the book they thought was a thriller isn't really a historical romance with a thriller cover.

I write thrillers and from reviews and emails, I'd say my audience is 60/40 in favor of women even though I have 'masculine' covers and don't give away my gender with my name. That just proves to me that women have no problem reading books that might be aimed at men.


----------



## WHDean (Nov 2, 2011)

MichelleR said:


> ... you really don't seem to like the answer.


Nonsense. I said several times I could be wrong and my conjectures might be insignificant. The only remarks I ignored or rejected from consideration were tainted by moral opprobrium for what it was presumed that I said--as if the question itself was unfit to ask.



Krista D. Ball said:


> No, it's because you are talking about SF and actually have no idea what you are talking about. Go attend a SF readercon sometime. You'll notice there's almost as many women as men. Look at Robert J Sawyer's book launches. Split down the gender and he's as hard of a SF writer as they get.


Would that have been so hard to say in the first place? Anyway, you may be right that the gender divide in SF no longer applies. But conference attendence isn't necessarily representative of readership.


----------



## Krista D. Ball (Mar 8, 2011)

Females are as varied as males.

I gave a panel called "Women in SF: Do we still need to discuss this?" One of the most interesting things was that the panel attendees were half/half male:female and that both gender equally said we still needed to talk about the role of female characters in SF. One of the arguments was that women read SF and are not represented well in those novels.

Then, some of the guys said they'd also like to be better represented in novels, like romance novels. A couple confessed they love a good love story, but they are never represented. There are never geeky, chubby guys in romance novels. It's always buff alpha males, which none of them are. That's why they like SF that has romance; often it's with guys like them.

Men are as varied as women. People need to remember this.


----------



## Jan Strnad (May 27, 2010)

WHDean, here's a joke I got from _Car Talk_:

A guy finds a magic lamp in his attic. He rubs it, and a genie appears. The genie offers him one wish.

"Just one wish?" the guy says. "I thought it was three wishes!"

"It's the economy," the genie says. "One wish, that's it."

So the guy thinks for awhile and finally says, "You know, I've always wanted to visit Hawaii, but the problem is, I'm afraid of flying and I get seasick. I could wish you to magically transport me there, but then how would I get back? What if I wished for you to build me a _highway_ from L.A. to Honolulu so I could drive there and back whenever I wanted? Could you do that?"

The genie rolls his eyes and says, "Aw, man, do you know how much work that would be? I'd have to sink pylons hundreds of feet into the sea floor, through thousands of feet of water, and I'd have to make the highway tall enough to let the tallest ship go under it! Plus, it would have to be hurricane- and earthquake proof! It would be an incredible miracle of engineering! Can't you wish for something easier?"

The man says, "Okay, I guess the highway to Hawaii would be a pretty big undertaking. Let me think of something else."

The man thinks for a while and finally says, "You know, I'm single, never been married, never even been on a date. The problem is, I just don't understand women. I don't have the first clue about them. So how about, I wish for you to just tell me _what women want_!"

The genie sits back and cogitates on this request for a minute, then he finally says:



Spoiler



"Did you want a two-lane highway or a four-lane highway?"



Good luck with your question, WHDean!


----------



## Monique (Jul 31, 2010)

Umbrage, umbrage, umbrage. LOL


----------



## Victoria lane &amp; R.T. Fox (Nov 10, 2009)

Sex or skin sells


----------



## NathanWrann (May 5, 2011)

WHDean said:


> This is interesting. Do you think the original covers have contrained your appeal?


I think that my covers are not doing what a cover is supposed to do (entice _readers that will like my book_(i.e. YA Paranormal fans), to give it a shot) as well as it could. I have sales (not as many as I would like). I have good reviews (not as many as I would like). So some readers are finding the book. A cover that fits better into YA Paranormal expectations will help.

This applies to the discussion here because I have to design a cover that represents the genre (YA Paranormal) that genre happens to be dominated by female readers. Which means that I have to design a cover that appeals to female readers. But because of the thousands of YA Paranormal covers that have come before mine I have a good group of highly researched material to draw from. That material was designed to appeal to readers of YA Paranormal and, in effect, women.

I think people are more trained to adapt to the book covers that represent the genre they like, rather than adapting covers to attract a certain demographic. Female readers of SF are used to seeing spaceships (or whatever the traditional SF cover has) so they have adapted to appreciate a good looking cover as long as it is within those traditional designs.


----------



## NathanWrann (May 5, 2011)

Victoria lane & R.T. Fox said:


> Sex or skin sells


Interesting that you state this, yet your covers have neither sex, nor skin on them.


----------



## Vukovina (Mar 30, 2012)

http://www.harrisinteractive.com/NewsRoom/HarrisPolls/tabid/447/ctl/ReadCustom%20Default/mid/1508/ArticleId/864/Default.aspx

Women read more mystery-thriller-crime, chick-lit, romance, religious-spiritual, self-help, true crime.

Men read more science fiction, history, current affairs, political, business.

Romance is the extreme example. 3% of men read a romance novel in an average year (v. 38% of women). The readership is predominantly women. It makes sense to create covers that women like...

*We are all snowflakes and the original poster is a cave-dwelling troglodyte, equality, equality, equality, yada yada yada.*

Seriously: if a genre is preferred by one sex, why can't something on the cover be preferred, too?

And if the preference is significant, it makes sense to pick covers that men / women like for books in genres that men / women like.


----------



## Lady TL Jennings (Dec 8, 2011)

Catana said:


> Why cater to stereotypes? Women buy horror, science fiction, and a slew of genres that supposedly are male-oriented. If the cover is appropriate to the book, that's all that matters.


Hear, hear!

/ Lady T. L. Jennings


----------



## NathanWrann (May 5, 2011)

Here are 3 book covers that sold gazillions of books to women. Why?
























How do these fit your gender specific criteria? Why do they appeal to women? Why don't they (if they don't) appeal to men?

I would argue that these covers appeal to their genres and their genres appeal to female readers.

Is there a SF novel out there that sells primarily to women, that we can use as an example?


----------



## Monique (Jul 31, 2010)

It's difficult to separate what we know about the content of the books and look at the covers in a vacuum. They all convey genre to me, although, none of them "attract" me.


----------



## WHDean (Nov 2, 2011)

NathanWrann said:


> I think that my covers are not doing what a cover is supposed to do (entice _readers that will like my book_(i.e. YA Paranormal fans), to give it a shot) as well as it could. I have sales (not as many as I would like). I have good reviews (not as many as I would like). So some readers are finding the book. A cover that fits better into YA Paranormal expectations will help.
> 
> This applies to the discussion here because I have to design a cover that represents the genre (YA Paranormal) that genre happens to be dominated by female readers. Which means that I have to design a cover that appeals to female readers. But because of the thousands of YA Paranormal covers that have come before mine I have a good group of highly researched material to draw from. That material was designed to appeal to readers of YA Paranormal and, in effect, women.
> 
> I think people are more trained to adapt to the book covers that represent the genre they like, rather than adapting covers to attract a certain demographic. Female readers of SF are used to seeing spaceships (or whatever the traditional SF cover has) so they have adapted to appreciate a good looking cover as long as it is within those traditional designs.


Thanks for the answer.



NathanWrann said:


> Here are 3 book covers that sold gazillions of books to women. Why?
> 
> How do these fit your gender specific criteria?


That's what I'd like to know. Maybe, as I've said, there isn't anything significant. But I can't bring myself to dismiss it out of hand.


----------



## John Daulton (Feb 28, 2012)

There was a woman who was far less varied than most males, but twice as varied as her fellow females. She fell in love with a man who was just as varied as most females and half again as varied as most males, although not so much as a quarter as varied as the rest. They were soon married and tried to have a child, but the woman misvaried and now they don't know what they've got.


----------



## WHDean (Nov 2, 2011)

Monique said:


> It's difficult to separate what we know about the content of the books and look at the covers in a vacuum. They all convey genre to me, although, none of them "attract" me.


But when you're scanning covers in your genre, do you find you skip some and not others for specific reasons? Now, the point isn't for you to figure out whether your reasons are gender based, only whether you have reasons. Maybe male reasons are the same for the same genre. But nothing is answered if everyone insists the answer should be one way and not the other for ideological reasons.


----------



## Vukovina (Mar 30, 2012)

_People may be surprised to learn that the differences in perception cover what people produce as well as what they prefer. In terms of productions, samples of paintings and designs spanning decades show men are more likely than women to use dark colours, straight lines, little detail, prominent and regular typography and a three-dimensional 'look'. Women are more inclined to favour rounded lines, colour, detail, non-standard typography and a more two-dimensional 'look'.

The differences do not end there. Thematically, males prefer to depict moving objects, machines and tall buildings as well as violent themes, male figures and caricatures. Females, on the other hand, favour the depiction of static objects, low rise buildings, female figures and smiling faces. These differences emerge from studies spanning the globe from the United States to Japan and hold true of paintings, drawings, graphic, product and web design. _

(https://bucks.ac.uk/en/newsroom/research_001/university-research-highlights-differences-in-male_gs1jb7aq.html)

[This makes for good reading, too: http://www.ijdesign.org/ojs/index.php/IJDesign/article/view/71/76]


----------



## WHDean (Nov 2, 2011)

Vukovina said:


> _People may be surprised to learn that the differences in perception cover what people produce as well as what they prefer. In terms of productions, samples of paintings and designs spanning decades show men are more likely than women to use dark colours, straight lines, little detail, prominent and regular typography and a three-dimensional 'look'. Women are more inclined to favour rounded lines, colour, detail, non-standard typography and a more two-dimensional 'look'.
> 
> The differences do not end there. Thematically, males prefer to depict moving objects, machines and tall buildings as well as violent themes, male figures and caricatures. Females, on the other hand, favour the depiction of static objects, low rise buildings, female figures and smiling faces. These differences emerge from studies spanning the globe from the United States to Japan and hold true of paintings, drawings, graphic, product and web design. _
> 
> (https://bucks.ac.uk/en/newsroom/research_001/university-research-highlights-differences-in-male_gs1jb7aq.html)


Well, there you go. I'd read some of this years ago, but I wondered if it translated into book covers. I'm still wondering, in part, because of the variables introduced by the other demographic features. For example, we're talking about very specific groups of people who read in genres like SF.


----------



## Krista D. Ball (Mar 8, 2011)

NathanWrann said:


> Is there a SF novel out there that sells primarily to women, that we can use as an example?


It was in your post: Hunger Games - YA SF

For adults, I'd agree Left Hand of Darkness is the best example (it's had a dozen covers, too)


----------



## NathanWrann (May 5, 2011)

WHDean said:


> But when you're scanning covers in your genre, do you find you skip some and not others for specific reasons? Now, the point isn't for you to figure out whether your reasons are gender based, only whether you have reasons. Maybe male reasons are the same for the same genre. But nothing is answered if everyone insists the answer should be one way and not the other for ideological reasons.


When I'm scanning covers some definitely catch my eye and are more likely to be purchased by me.

Like this one for example. I love this cover: 








I think I like the mystery and the grunginess of it. And I love the title. Seems scary.

This cover, I pass over all the time and don't consider buying: 








Not sure why. It just doesn't appeal to me.

I these are nice covers but I've never considered reading the books: 








Probably because it looks more romance oriented.


----------



## Krista D. Ball (Mar 8, 2011)

Aren't most of those YA?


----------



## WHDean (Nov 2, 2011)

Krista D. Ball said:


> It was in your post: Hunger Games - YA SF
> 
> For adults, I'd agree Left Hand of Darkness is the best example (it's had a dozen covers, too)


I'm more inclined to go by what you and Nathan say about your books. A mega-seller is an outlier that may have passed the point where covers actually matter to sales.


----------



## NathanWrann (May 5, 2011)

Krista D. Ball said:


> It was in your post: Hunger Games - YA SF


I don't consider The Hunger Games SF at all. I know it gets categorized there but with the exception of some plot devices (mutations, hovercrafts, cameras everywhere) and deus ex machina's (miracle cures) that Collins uses there is very little about it that says sci-fi to me.


----------



## NathanWrann (May 5, 2011)

Krista D. Ball said:


> Aren't most of those YA?


all 3 of them are. But only one of the covers appealed to me.


----------



## NathanWrann (May 5, 2011)

WHDean said:


> I'm more inclined to go by what you and Nathan say about your books. A mega-seller is an outlier that may have passed the point where covers actually matter to sales.


But the cover was a factor in getting it to the mega-seller level, no?


----------



## SunHi Mistwalker (Feb 28, 2012)

I had promised myself that I would not get into anymore arguments with people on the internet; but I think the OP's comments need to be addressed. I am a woman who reads and writes science fiction.  I knew that when I began writing scifi I would be ignored by some men because "women don't write (or read) science fiction" or at least that's what the men in charge believe.  I also know that the definition of science fiction is controlled by men.  That said, as a reader and a writer I feel that much of the science fiction written by men does not appeal to me, not because of the covers; but because of the content. I have noticed that most male writers are plot focused and neglect the characters. I prefer stories that have a heavy character focus.  When I see certain types of covers, such as a person holding a gun or a spaceship I automatically think "plot heavy, character thin."  Now that said, I will click on those covers to find out what the story is about. If it says something like, "A meteor is coming and John Doe must save the world!" I absolutely won't buy it. I don't know if that has something to do with being female; but I certainly does have something to do with the types of stories I prefer. 

I have a feeling that it could possibly be true that some women prefer character focused stories and that's why they are not buying certain science fiction books with certain covers. But as many posters have pointed out it may not have anything to do with the fact that they're women. Women like all types of different things, that's not ideological or PC it's just reality that doesn't jive well with the sexist assumptions in our society. 

For so long I have searched for science fiction that appeals to me. It's hard to find, so I started writing it. 

I also wanted to say that while some might not consider my work Scifi, because it doesn't include spaceships etc. I point to 1984 and A Brave New World as good examples of science fiction (or speculative fiction) without spaceships, aliens etc.


----------



## Monique (Jul 31, 2010)

NathanWrann said:


> When I'm scanning covers some definitely catch my eye and are more likely to be purchased by me.
> 
> Like this one for example. I love this cover: I love the title, but I'd pass because of the girl.
> 
> ...


----------



## Rin (Apr 25, 2011)

WHDean said:


> *Turn-offs:*
> 
> (a) *Female skin*. John Locke-style covers featuring scantily clad females or female body parts without the corresponding rippling male body.


Wow. Um. Yeah, because we're all straight. 



> (b) *Abstractions*. My guess is that any sort of abstraction turns women off: maps, runes, circuit boards, geometrical figures (Sorry Brian!).


Cause our tiny brains can't handle it? Of those, only maps stand out, because I prefer those after the front matter, so I don't have to compete with the text to look at it.



> (c) *SF motifs*. I know some women read and write SF. But it's far from the norm. So I suspect that spaceships, space stations, planets, aliens and chrome cities are out.


Since this was mentioned up-thread, I'm another Browncoat.



> (d) *Typically male things*. I think it goes without saying that anything usually associated exclusively with males is out. I include chessboards here (Sorry Julie!) along with other sporting and technical objects.


...not even touching this one.



> (e) *Graphic violence*. Blood-spitting-demon heads, people being stabbed, tortured, etc. are out. Unless, of course, the horror is the more subtle kind-i.e., the unseen but implied variety.


...my favourite author is Scott Sigler and I've got a fair few torture scenes in my own series. ^_^



> Anyway, I'm seeking guidance from the fairer sex.


Have you even met a girl before?


----------



## WHDean (Nov 2, 2011)

NathanWrann said:


> But the cover was a factor in getting it to the mega-seller level, no?


Sure, but I'd exclude it on the grounds of popularity. On the other hand, if you tweaked all your covers in some way (I don't know how) and your sales doubled, that would be an interesting result. Now, you can't rule out the possibility that the tweak would have applied to both sexes, but it would still be a more interesting result than trying to fathom what it is about the Hunger Games cover that made the book sell.


----------



## Geoffrey (Jun 20, 2009)

NathanWrann said:


> I don't consider The Hunger Games SF at all. I know it gets categorized there but with the exception of some plot devices (mutations, hovercrafts, cameras everywhere) and deus ex machina's (miracle cures) that Collins uses there is very little about it that says sci-fi to me.


But not all SF is Star Trek .... Plenty of SF exists on worlds where there isn't much in the way of super science.


----------



## WHDean (Nov 2, 2011)

SunHi Mistwalker said:


> I have a feeling that it could possibly be true that some women prefer character focused stories and that's why they are not buying certain science fiction books with certain covers.


That's exactly the sort of thing I'm asking about. Maybe there's a kind of unspoken code for this sort of thing, so people know it's more character than plot focused. Dunno. That's why I put forward the hypotheses.


----------



## Krista D. Ball (Mar 8, 2011)

Geoffrey said:


> But not all SF is Star Trek .... Plenty of SF exists on worlds where there isn't much in the way of super science.


*nod*


----------



## brianbigel (Jan 7, 2012)

I was rather surprised to whom one of my books has been selling. 

On the cover I have a speedometer which looks rather nice and I thought it would appeal to both genders. It mostly appeals to women it turns out as a predominance of cookbooks, wedding planners and child care are the "Also Boughts" on the sales page. That was something rather unexpected but very welcome nonetheless.


----------



## Adam Pepper (May 28, 2011)

I realize this is a touchy subject, but does anyone believe a good marketing campaign should simply ignore the role of gender? I'd think the goal isn't to appeal to all women (or men) but to appeal to as many as possible.


----------



## NathanWrann (May 5, 2011)

Geoffrey said:


> But not all SF is Star Trek .... Plenty of SF exists on worlds where there isn't much in the way of super science.


I've been under the impression that the "science" has to play a role in it for it to be considered science fiction. Am I misinformed?


----------



## AndreSanThomas (Jan 31, 2012)

Classy female skin works for women.  At least my sales tell me so.


----------



## MichelleR (Feb 21, 2009)

Jan Strnad said:


> So how about, I wish for you to just tell me _what women want_!"


_To not have our thoughts and feelings -- which vary by woman -- to be treated like a punchline or stereotype_ might poll pretty high.

If you want to know what the woman in your life wants, ask her, and pay attention. If you want to know what all women want, yeah, it probably would be easier to build the bridge.

Let me tell you what this woman doesn't find funny -- the insinuation that women are inherently illogical and basically the same. So, call them the fairer sex -- they love that old-timey talk -- pat them on the head, and stick flowers, puppies, and man-titty on book covers in order to connect with their teeny tiny little brains.


----------



## JETaylor (Jan 25, 2011)

NathanWrann said:


> Here are 3 book covers that sold gazillions of books to women. Why?


I think it's the utter simplicity of these covers that grabbed the reader. More so of Twilight and Shades of Grey than Hunger Games - and the underlying complexities associated with these simple covers. But that's a whole PHD dissertation....


----------



## WHDean (Nov 2, 2011)

Adam Pepper said:


> ...a good marketing campaign should simply ignore the role of gender? I'd think the goal isn't to appeal to all women (or men) but to appeal to as many as possible.


Exactly. Who wouldn't want to know that he'd placed on his cover something that turned off, say, 40% of female readers?



brianbigel said:


> I was rather surprised to whom one of my books has been selling.


Don't forget that women buy books for men. It could be that a number of women think their husbands/boyfriends/sons would like the book.


----------



## Andrew Ashling (Nov 15, 2010)

In my niche, which is mostly read by women, they seem to prefer bare-chested males, from twinks to hunks. Preferably two (or more) of them. Don't be afraid to objectify them either. According to some discussions in reader-groups, the only thing women deplore is the restrictions Amazon poses on the amount of male skin shown.

There you go. Hope this helps.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

WHDean said:


> If your story is as likely to appeal to women as men, you should tailor your cover to women too. But that's the tricky part. What sorts of cover art appeals to or turns off women? Leaving aside the well-established rules for romance covers for the moment, I think I have a _general _ idea about what _generally _ turns off women readers, but I'm less sure about what sparks their interest. Of course, I could also be wrong about the turn-offs, so I'll enumerate them first.
> 
> *Turn-offs:*
> 
> ...


Yes, we all know that we "fairer sex" aren't capable of understanding abstractions.


----------



## Guest (Apr 15, 2012)

JETaylor said:


> I think it's the utter simplicity of these covers that grabbed the reader. More so of Twilight and Shades of Gray than Hunger Games - and the underlying complexities associated with these simple covers.


Simplicity and color is the key. I also used the very same approach for my Crystal Shade covers and ladies used to like them. The other key element is the color. If you check all these simple covers, each of them is using two, max three major colors, no more. You need three things for a good cover...

1, simplicity, so it can be memorable
2, very few colors, mostly cold ones (Max 3 major tones + shades.).
3, good balance between the two (Oh, and none of them has XXL 120 million+ px size shouting fonts, but each of them has elegant, tiny fonts, something what against indies used to be as they believe if their covers are shouting, their book will be noticed in the mess.)


----------



## MichelleR (Feb 21, 2009)

You know, even romance novel covers -- the ones with the men with rippling muscles -- exist because of what men think women like. Covers were designed to catch the eye of wholesalers and distributors. Mostly men. They liked the clinch covers with people falling out of their clothes, because they thought women would like them, and so this is what got stocked. Because they were the ones on the shelves, they were the ones that sold. Women came to associate them with the genre, and a self-fulfilling prophecy came into being. (Some women DO really like the covers, some just like that the cover communicates the genre.)

So, it's funny that it becomes here "women like this," when the _this_ is probably not so much half-naked men as it is "a cover that gives me a clue to genre."


----------



## brianbigel (Jan 7, 2012)

> Don't forget that women buy books for men. It could be that a number of women think their husbands/boyfriends/sons would like the book.


You know, I didn't think of that before but you're probably right.


----------



## Edward W. Robertson (May 18, 2010)

Adam Pepper said:


> I realize this is a touchy subject, but does anyone believe a good marketing campaign should simply ignore the role of gender? I'd think the goal isn't to appeal to all women (or men) but to appeal to as many as possible.


Yes.

And not just from a sales standpoint. While there are differences between the male and female brain, the more I learn, the more I found out these are overwhelmingly--and perhaps 100% completely--driven by culture. The more I read, the more it looks like there may be zero biological differences between the male and female brain. Huge portions of the science supporting supposed sex differences are fueled by an endless supply of confirmation bias. Studies designed to eliminate that bias often turn up results that run shockingly contrary to our beliefs. Testosterone may have no links to aggression, for instance. The male parenting/nurturing/empathy instinct looks to be just as strong as in females. A woman's brain is just as adept at processing mathematics, systems, and abstract thought as a man's.

All these differences are cultural. This isn't a conclusion of PC softheadedness. It's a conclusion of rigorous examination of the (often laughably poor) science that continues to support the myths of biological difference.

Anyway, before this turns into an all-out manifesto, I'm starting to think gender-driven marketing is a huge proponent of these myths. It may be the single most significant factor in why we continue to think the goop in men's skulls is fundamentally different from the goop in women's. The question, then, is do you want to keep supporting these myths? How _do_ you avoid them (or oppose them, if that's your thing) when the cultural differences do exist?

Not an easy subject to grapple with.


----------



## NoCat (Aug 5, 2010)

I prefer this cover for The Forest of Hands and Teeth, personally:


----------



## SunHi Mistwalker (Feb 28, 2012)

WHDean said:


> That's exactly the sort of thing I'm asking about. Maybe there's a kind of unspoken code for this sort of thing, so people know it's more character than plot focused. Dunno. That's why I put forward the hypotheses.


I just want to clarify that my preference for character focused stories is my individual preference. There may be many women who share that preference, I really don't know. I just threw it out there as a possibility. And I thought it was a possibility because so many women read romance which is also character focused. But I have never read a romance novel in my life. See how complex this can get? It's really difficult to categorize people's preferences by gender because there are too many variables. But I understand why someone writing a book targeting the opposite gender would be concerned. Dean, if you wrote a scifi novel that was character focused I would probably buy it because I'm thirsty for that type of story. I watched the entire Battlestar Galactica series TWICE because character focused stories seem to be so rare in science fiction. However, I don't know if other women would buy it, so don't sue me if I'm wrong. 

I was actually thinking today...before I read this thread...Am I a "feminine writer." Men never think about this type of thing, or at least I imagine they don't. I actually asked myself if writing with a tight character focus was the "female way." In a way I felt silly for even asking myself that; but because storytelling standards (plot focused) are still mostly defined by men, I sometimes have this double consciousness towards my style. You see, we women are constantly told that we do things because we're women, but maybe it is not because we're women maybe it is just an individual preference.


----------



## Andrew Ashling (Nov 15, 2010)

I'm appalled that people actually judge a book by its cover. Most of the books I bought, I already knew about before I even _saw_ the cover. Admittedly, now with e-buying that has changed somewhat. Strangely enough, now that the cover serves no actual purpose anymore (it "covers" nothing), it has become more important because it is the first thing about an e-book you can easily take in.



Edward W. Robertson said:


> Yes.
> 
> And not just from a sales standpoint. While there are differences between the male and female brain, the more I learn, the more I found out these are overwhelmingly--and perhaps 100% completely--driven by culture. The more I read, the more it looks like there may be zero biological differences between the male and female brain. Huge portions of the science supporting supposed sex differences are fueled by an endless supply of confirmation bias. Studies designed to eliminate that bias often turn up results that run shockingly contrary to our beliefs. Testosterone may have no links to aggression, for instance. The male parenting/nurturing/empathy instinct looks to be just as strong as in females. A woman's brain is just as adept at processing mathematics, systems, and abstract thought as a man's.
> 
> ...


I think you are correct.

The interesting conundrum is whether a writer should feel obligated to singlehandedly fight those stereotypes. They've become quasi-iconic by now, certainly in the field of book covers. They've become, as Michelle said, "a cover that gives me a clue to genre."

So... from a marketing viewpoint what should the poor writer who just wants to sell books do?


----------



## WHDean (Nov 2, 2011)

Edward W. Robertson said:


> While there are differences between the male and female brain, the more I learn, the more I found out these are overwhelmingly--and perhaps 100% completely--driven by culture. The more I read, the more it looks like there may be zero biological differences between the male and female brain. Huge portions of the science supporting supposed sex differences are fueled by an endless supply of confirmation bias.


It's amazing how a few death threats and some not so subtle financial pressure has cleared up the confirmation bias. Seriously, anything that's said on gender differences nowadays lacks credibility because no one is allowed to come to any conclusion by the official one.


----------



## JETaylor (Jan 25, 2011)

Doomed Muse said:


> I prefer this cover for The Forest of Hands and Teeth, personally:


Agreed and what I see in this is another sample of simplicity. Albeit more complex than either Twilight or Shades of Grey - it still has simple lines that are stunning.


----------



## NathanWrann (May 5, 2011)

Doomed Muse said:


> I prefer this cover for The Forest of Hands and Teeth, personally:


I like the model in this one better, but I like the other one better overall.

I wonder if that is a male/female difference in taste? (I'm assuming you're a female)


----------



## WHDean (Nov 2, 2011)

SunHi Mistwalker said:


> if you wrote a scifi novel that was character focused I would probably buy it because I'm thirsty for that type of story. I watched the entire Battlestar Galactica series TWICE because character focused stories seem to be so rare in science fiction. However, I don't know if other women would buy it, so don't sue me if I'm wrong.


I'm a BSG fan too and the SF I write tends to be character driven. I tend to think that some of what I write would appeal to women more than males, but I really can't say for sure. But what I don't want to do--absolutely do not want to do--is alienate half my audience because I didn't think gender should matter.

EDIT: I will sue you if I don't sell a million copies. Someone has to be the scapegoat, right?


----------



## Edward W. Robertson (May 18, 2010)

WHDean said:


> It's amazing how a few death threats and some not so subtle financial pressure has cleared up the confirmation bias. Seriously, anything that's said on gender differences nowadays lacks credibility because no one is allowed to come to any conclusion by the official one.


The "official" conclusion being that we're all born the same? Strange. I've seen a whole parcel of studies within the last few years that continue to support the idea of biological neurological difference between the sexes.

I'm just no longer intellectually comfortable taking difference as a given. Somebody's going to need to cough up some real proof first.


----------



## Krista D. Ball (Mar 8, 2011)

I personally provided a great example of a SF novel read by a lot of women: Left Hand of Darkness. If you look at the many different covers of LHoD, you can see that they were really just doing them to appeal to SF readers.


----------



## MichelleR (Feb 21, 2009)

No one listens to us, Genevieve. This is why we don't get to do the voice-overs in movie trailers.


----------



## 48209 (Jul 4, 2011)

Two things to start:

1. I am a unique snowflake.
2. I read almost everything.

I'm going to agree with what basically every woman is trying to tell you... We all like and dislike different things. If this wasn't true, we'd dress the same, have the same jobs, marry the same men, etc.

As for the skin thing, have you looked at erotica books... by _women_? They're not walking around in burkas on those covers. Keep the "Pornography: I'll know it when I see it" thing in your head and you probably won't go wrong.

Also, any cover where the female is obviously being degraded or abused in any way. Skip that.

Beyond that, I'd stick with the Unique Snowflake thing.

That said, I was just at a writer's reading for his new fantasy novel. He kept making references and saying, "Who has read ABC?" I raised my hand about 85% of the time and every single time he said, "WOW! Caitie, you've read that?" (He'd finally asked my name.) Notice, he was never surprised when a male attendee raised his hand.

When I left, I didn't care that I'd liked the cover or the book. I cared that the author kept singling me out in what began to feel like an insulting way for the entire two hours because I was a female who managed to read books he stuck in the "guy genre."

My point? It's not your original post (which, why not worded the way I would find "polite" as a woman) was a fair question. It's not your clarifying questions. It's you complete disregard for the answers you're getting: I'm a man. I say there must be a gender issue for women's covers. Forget what the women are saying, I know women better.

Make a good cover. Write a good blurb. Attach them to a good book&#8230;and for goodness sake, do not talk down to women in your marketing/blog/site/blog tour/etc. That's how you sell to women.

*joins the female Browncoat uprising someone else started earlier*


----------



## 56139 (Jan 21, 2012)

WHDean said:


> That's exactly the sort of thing I'm asking about. Maybe there's a kind of unspoken code for this sort of thing, so people know it's more character than plot focused. Dunno. That's why I put forward the hypotheses.


There is WHDean, don't let anyone tell you different. You're right about the SF covers regardless of what's been said here. People, in all genres, but ESPECIALLY SF because it is SO varied, look for cover cues to tell them this is a story they'd like. I just contracted my artist for the first book in my military SF series and while I left him a lot of a latitude, there are some things that are non-negotiable. The main character on the cover is number one because this is a character driven plot, even though it is all action. If you're looking for space battles, notice there's no spaceship - so you won't find that in this book. Move along.

Covers are there to help your audience find your book. If you put a half-naked woman on the front, Like Galactic Mage (which I haven't read but looks fantastic BTW) you're gonna lose some readers because of it. Just is. And maybe that's a good thing. Who wants people reading your book, then leaving a crappy review, because it was not what they expected?


----------



## NoCat (Aug 5, 2010)

Here's a character-driven hard SF novel: 









I picked it up because I love the author, the blurb sounded good, and the cover fit the book (it conveys SF to me and looks professional).

I think what a lot of people here have been trying to say is that you shouldn't think "what will women like?" but "what will readers of the kind of books that I'm writing like?" and go from there. Even if that readership is mostly women (which most readership is). Go for a professional cover that fits your book and your genre, and both male and female readers will find it appealing.

Or ignore what everyone here says, talk down to women, and make everything pink. I hear us girlies love pink. /lesigh


----------



## CharlieVenkman (Jan 25, 2012)

It's funny that this topic has popped up, because my one worry with my book's new cover is that it might turn off some female readers. Since my book is already about a superhero, I was worried featuring that superhero right on the cover might scare off some readers who aren't usually into that kind of thing.










What do y'all think?


----------



## Krista D. Ball (Mar 8, 2011)

JanneCO said:


> There is WHDean, don't let anyone tell you different. You're right about the SF covers regardless of what's been said here. People, in all genres, but ESPECIALLY SF because it is SO varied, look for cover cues to tell them this is a story they'd like. I just contracted my artist for the first book in my military SF series and while I left him a lot of a latitude, there are some things that are non-negotiable. The main character on the cover is number one because this is a character driven plot, even though it is all action. If you're looking for space battles, notice there's no spaceship - so you won't find that in this book. Move along.


I write and read SF. You're not convincing me.

And this idea of having the character on the cover to show it's a "character" novel? Um, no. Rob Sawyer's latest is character-driven, perhaps his most ever. There's no character on the cover. Little ol' me, with my military thriller, is uber character-focused. No people on the cover.

I can keep going if you'd like...


----------



## Krista D. Ball (Mar 8, 2011)

CharlieVenkman said:


> It's funny that this topic has popped up, because my one worry with my book's new cover is that it might turn off some female readers. Since my book is already about a superhero, I was worried featuring that superhero right on the cover might scare off some readers who aren't usually into that kind of thing.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Link isn't working for me


----------



## yomamma (Feb 10, 2011)

This thread...I just...it's all one big troll-post, right? I'm going to come back later and see "LOL APRIL FOOLS YOU GUYS" right?

right?


----------



## 48209 (Jul 4, 2011)

Charlie,

Personally, I really like your cover. So if we're sticking with this pervasive "women all think the same" thing that doesn't seem to be getting fixed here: YES, All women will like your cover.


----------



## Carol (was Dara) (Feb 19, 2011)

WHDean said:


> *Turn-offs:*
> 
> (a) *Female skin*. John Locke-style covers featuring scantily clad females or female body parts without the corresponding rippling male body.


I can't speak for all women but I have no problem with covers featuring female legs in high heels, like the John Locke covers. A cover with nothing but a closeup view of a woman's cleavage would turn me off because it implies erotica for men, which isn't what I read. But plenty of women's fiction features ladies legs, so (as long as the woman's shoes are cute), it's not off-putting.



WHDean said:


> (b) *Abstractions*. My guess is that any sort of abstraction turns women off: maps, runes, circuit boards, geometrical figures (Sorry Brian!).


I'm fine with abstracts, so long as they aren't the only things on the cover.



WHDean said:


> (c) *SF motifs*. I know some women read and write SF. But it's far from the norm. So I suspect that spaceships, space stations, planets, aliens and chrome cities are out.


Woman shopping for sci-fi like space ships, planets, alien cities, etc. Woman who aren't interested in those things aren't sci-fi fans, hence they're not your target audience in the first place.



WHDean said:


> (d) *Typically male things*. I think it goes without saying that anything usually associated exclusively with males is out. I include chessboards here (Sorry Julie!) along with other sporting and technical objects.


I think one of the Twilight covers features a chess piece as the only object on the cover. 'Nuff said. 



WHDean said:


> (e) *Graphic violence*. Blood-spitting-demon heads, people being stabbed, tortured, etc. are out. Unless, of course, the horror is the more subtle kind-i.e., the unseen but implied variety.


If your cover features graphic violence I'm assuming the book contains graphic violence. So just reflect what's inside the book and what's expected of your genre. Woman who like blood-spitting demons will be attracted, women who don't like them wouldn't enjoy your book anyway if it contains them, so there's no sense tricking them in with a picture of a rose.

As far as things I do like on a cover, I rarely buy anything that doesn't have a person on it. I'm also partial to colorful covers.


----------



## Vukovina (Mar 30, 2012)

I want to know if Susie, Jane and Mary like lollipops.

If they do, I don't care whether they're hardwired to like lollipops or whether their patriarchist parents subconsciously indoctrinated them with society-wide lollipop love. They like lollipops.

The important question isn't whether writers have a duty to "fight" against stereotypes.

The important question is: if Susie, Jane and Mary _do_ like lollipops, how do I use their preference-however it was formed-to sell them more books?

The answer may be to create more covers with lollipops on them.

There are types of books that cater to specific groups (men, women, blacks, latinos, gays, christians, jews, kids, communists, _etc._) I don't think anyone would debate that. Really, if the UN's decided it's not OK to discriminate based upon something-there's probably a literary niche for it.

How is a book for a kid different from a book for a woman?

Content:

What's written and how it's written. Kid books deal with kid themes and situations, or adult themes and situations from a kid perspective. Kid books also use simpler language. Books for Christians mentions Jesus a lot, books for communists quote Karl Marx in their front matter.

Clearly, content matters and people belonging to certain groups, whether those groups are based on innate characteristics or not, are more likely to read certain books. For example, more women than men read romance novels (see one of my previous posts for at least _one piece of evidence_ to support that), and the disproportion is significant.

Something in a type of book attracts a certain group of readers.

Men may prefer books about power tools because men use power tools more often than women.

It's beside the point why that is or whether it's "natural" or whether it's good or bad or should be changed.

The point is that if the content of the book can affect who reads it, so can the content of the cover. If people who have dogs like stories about dogs performing heroic deeds, people with dogs may also enjoy covers that portray dogs in an anthropomorphic way.

"I have a dog and I don't like that," is not a serious challenge.

It becomes a challenge when you get a thousand dog owners into a room and 3/4s of them answer in the same way.

It's not a question of _do all women think the same?_ or not. The fact is: you can profile types of books by sex, race, religion, politics, whatever. The publishing industry does an excellent job of that. In some cases, it just means that a book meant to sell to black people is about black characters. Those books might have a black model on the cover to convey to the black reader that the plot revolves around said black characters.

Common sense: people like reading about characters to whom they can relate.

It doesn't mean all black people only buy books about black characters with black models on the cover.

It means that doing that will increase your chances of getting read by a black readership-that 51% or more of black readers (your target group) will be more inclined to read it.

If 85% of your readership is black, you're further and specifically targeting the 51% of that 85%.

And if you can successfully do that by what you write or publish, you can probably do it with what you paste on the cover, too.

At least that's my slightly-more-than two cents.


----------



## A.A (Mar 30, 2012)

"women" are not a genre group.

The OP's list of things that won't attract women doesn't actually include anything that would put me off - but then I used to be a voracious reader who read sci fi, spy, thriller, horror, fantasy - you get the picture.

I think the OP may have a point in that a change to the usual genre-specific cover art may bring in more readers. It may follow that a book with a very genre-specific cover may bring in more readers if it were changed to something more inclusive (although still 'within genre'))

For example, The Hunger Games and Divergent covers (both books which are YA and have a female protagonist) have symbols on the covers - which don't specifically point to the Young Adult and female market. A male may feel more comfortable picking a book up like that, rather than one that had a teenage girl on the cover (which most YA books with a female protag seem to have)

Hunger Games Divergent


----------



## CoraBuhlert (Aug 7, 2011)

First of all, echoing what the other female posters (and many male posters) said, all women are different and have different tastes. Hence, I can only talk about myself and my preferences.

I don't mind female skin on the cover, as long as it's classy. For example, Annie Bellet's _Flashover_ has a naked woman on the cover and that doesn't bother me at all. Nor do Jill Myles' cover or the cover for the _Galactic Mage_ bother me. I have a cover with a scantily clad woman myself (I even had to arrange the letters not to violate Amazon's guidelines), so I obviously don't have any issues with skin.

What annoys me, however, are "porny" covers focussing on breasts spilling out of tops, on thong clad backsides, huge, red silicon enhanced lips, etc... or barely clad women with proportions that obviously aren't possible in nature (e.g. huge breasts and tiny waists - doesn't work that way), e.g. covers that reduce women to sex objects. That said, I'm not a big fan of the muscle-bound beefcake covers of romance either. It's not that I don't appreciate a well-built man, but I'm not a fan of the oiled muscle look and besides, I don't mind if they put on a shirt once in a while.

I like abstract and object covers very much and I doubt that I'm the only woman who likes this style (Twilight is not really a novel about apples, you know?). For example, Brian Kittrell's covers are stunning. I also loved the old abstract UK covers for J.D. Robb's _In Death_ series - which sells primarily to women BTW. I think the preference for abstract covers is more of a cultural than a gender issue, because UK covers tend to feature abstract image far more often than US covers. Nor do I mind guns, swords or knives on covers and I only mind sporting equipment, because it suggests that this is a book about sport and therefore not really what I'd like to read. Unless it's a soccer ball or something, since I would consider reading a book about soccer.

I'm another woman who likes to read SF and therefore spaceships, futuristic cities, etc... don't bother me at all. If anything they are a draw. Bad artwork, girls in metal bikinis and space nighties and the like is annoying, but it doesn't stop me from buying the book. For example, Baen's covers for Lois McMaster Bujold's _Vorkosigan_ series or Roc's covers for Simon Green's _Deathstalker_ series are horrible and yet I love the books. I'm not a fan of armoured space marines on SF covers, retro video games imagery on SF covers, of Barbarians with swords on fantasy covers or of fantasy covers that look like the cover to a D&D handbook, but that's because such covers indicate subgenres I don't care for.

One thing I really dislike are the cheesy clinch covers with historically incorrect clothing on romance novels. I hate such covers with a passion (so do many women BTW), because they indicate a historical romance that is low on the history and high on the sex. Now I do read romance, but I will only buy a book with a cheesy clinch cover with ahistorical clothing, if I know the author's track record or if the book comes highly recommended. Hence, Laura Kinsale, Carla Kelly or Lauren Willig get bought in spite of cheesy covers (and theirs usually aren't that bad). An unknown author needs to come highly recommended for me to overlook bad covers.

I'm also not a fan of thriller or crime fiction covers with very big letters and very bold sans serif fonts (Arial Black or Helvetica bold or something like that). These covers just look boring and suggest routine airport thriller to me, i.e. the sort of book you only buy because your plane is four hours late and the airport shop has nothing else. That said, I do like the current British covers for David Peace's Red Riding Quartet and they do have big, bold letters.

Finally, I'd advice you to check out the _Cover Café_, a site which runs an annual contest where readers vote for the best and worst romance novel covers of the year. There are also extensive comments on the covers, so you can see what worked and didn't work for a self-selected subset of overwhelmingly female romance readers.


----------



## MichelleR (Feb 21, 2009)

Random books on my Kindle that violate "The List." (Just some -- because like most of the people here, have a ridiculous amount of books.)

  <--- of course, the New York Times said about a year ago, I have no business liking this series/fantasy anyhow. That went over well.  <--Where's the dude?

 <-- What woman would read that one?

 <-- in my defense, the original covers might have had them shirtless and glistening.

 <-- But what does this J.D. Robb person know about what women like?





 <--- oh, never mind, it has a baby carriage on it.

Actually, too exhausting to try and figure out what I'm supposed to like.


----------



## Monique (Jul 31, 2010)

CharlieVenkman said:


> It's funny that this topic has popped up, because my one worry with my book's new cover is that it might turn off some female readers. Since my book is already about a superhero, I was worried featuring that superhero right on the cover might scare off some readers who aren't usually into that kind of thing.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


My ovaries love superheroes. However, your cover doesn't say superhero to them. It says supernatural ominous dude. But then my ovaries are simple creatures.


----------



## MichelleR (Feb 21, 2009)

Vukovina said:


> I want to know if Susie, Jane and Mary like lollipops.











Who loves you, baby?


----------



## CoraBuhlert (Aug 7, 2011)

Vukovina said:


> In some cases, it just means that a book meant to sell to black people is about black characters. Those books might have a black model on the cover to convey to the black reader that the plot revolves around said black characters.
> 
> Common sense: people like reading about characters to whom they can relate.
> 
> ...


You must have missed the various cover whitewashing decisions, where books with black protagonists ended up with white models on the cover, because publishers believed that white readers would not want to read about black people. And if a book has a black person on the cover, it is often shelved in the African American section of the bookstore, regardless of whether it's SF, romance, fantasy, etc..., which means that genre readers who might have enjoyed the book won't find it.


----------



## Vukovina (Mar 30, 2012)

CoraBuhlert said:


> You must have missed the various cover whitewashing decisions, where books with black protagonists ended up with white models on the cover, because publishers believed that white readers would not want to read about black people. And if a book has a black person on the cover, it is often shelved in the African American section of the bookstore, regardless of whether it's SF, romance, fantasy, etc..., which means that genre readers who might have enjoyed the book won't find it.


That only confirms that what you put on the cover matters. (Or at least those publishers thought so.)

They reasoned: If you're selling to white people, don't put a black model on the cover.


----------



## MichelleR (Feb 21, 2009)

CoraBuhlert said:


> You must have missed the various cover whitewashing decisions, where books with black protagonists ended up with white models on the cover, because publishers believed that white readers would not want to read about black people.


http://thebooksmugglers.com/2010/02/cover-matters-on-whitewashing.html



Vukovina said:


> They reasoned: If you're selling to white people, don't put a black model on the cover.


Yes, that is their reason, doesn't mean it's reasonable.


----------



## Vukovina (Mar 30, 2012)

MichelleR said:


> http://thebooksmugglers.com/2010/02/cover-matters-on-whitewashing.html
> 
> Yes, that is their reason, doesn't mean it's reasonable.


It's unreasonable if they're wrong. If they're right-if they do sell more copies with the white model than the non-white model-it's perfectly reasonable.

If they're right, it may be unethical or immoral or false advertising or something, but, as a business decision, it's a good one.

Selling cigarettes to children by branding them with Pokémon may be immoral.

It would also probably work.

("Gotta smoke 'em all!")


----------



## MichelleR (Feb 21, 2009)

Vukovina said:


> It's unreasonable if they're wrong. If they're right-if they do sell more copies with the white model than the non-white model-it's perfectly reasonable.
> 
> If they're right, it may be unethical or immoral or false advertising or something, but, as a business decision, it's a good one.


Right, because if you're a bigot who buys a book thinking there are none of "them" in it, you will so just laugh it off when you find out you've been had. Good business decision.

Yesterday, we were arguing over whether using an incorrect rendering of a bullet in flight is The Devil -- it apparently is, even if it makes clear the genre. Today, it's that using misleading covers based on gender and racial stereotypes is a completely valid marketing thing.

Get a bullet wrong, and oh no! Get the color of someone's skin wrong, show them as a different race, and shrug.


----------



## Krista D. Ball (Mar 8, 2011)

Road to Hell's protagonist is a married lesbian with a multi-ethnic staff. Clearly I need to change my cover to convey this, since only lesbians and those groups represented by the staff should be appealed to.

*sigh*


----------



## yomamma (Feb 10, 2011)

Krista D. Ball said:


> Road to Hell's protagonist is a married lesbian with a multi-ethnic staff. Clearly I need to change my cover to convey this, since only lesbians and those groups represented by the staff should be appealed to.
> 
> *sigh*


I didn't realize that book was for women, Krista. Where's the mantitty?


----------



## Krista D. Ball (Mar 8, 2011)

jillmyles said:


> I didn't realize that book was for women, Krista. Where's the mantitty?


The planet is exploding. That's totally for women. I didn't realize I needed a superimposed mantitty there, too  I guess that's why the print book spent some time on Amazon.ca's best seller list for SF. Men were being tricked into buying it.

I feel ashamed.


----------



## NoCat (Aug 5, 2010)

That's an exploding planet? I figured it was a new nail polish. I wish your cover had more pink on it though, you know, to appeal to my girlish sensibilities.  

(should not post before tea. should not post before tea. should not post before tea...)


----------



## CharlieVenkman (Jan 25, 2012)

Caitie Quinn said:


> Charlie,
> 
> Personally, I really like your cover. So if we're sticking with this pervasive "women all think the same" thing that doesn't seem to be getting fixed here: YES, All women will like your cover.


Hahaha...thanks, Caitie! If that's the case, and I can appeal to more than half the world's population, I'm in pretty good shape


----------



## MichelleR (Feb 21, 2009)

jillmyles said:


> I didn't realize that book was for women, Krista. Where's the mantitty?


No mantitty, no pink, no strappy high heel. WhiskeyTangoFoxtrot, but I don't understand that cover!


----------



## Krista D. Ball (Mar 8, 2011)

Sorry Doomed Muse: I clearly have the wrong cover art for that book


----------



## 56139 (Jan 21, 2012)

Doomed Muse said:


> Here's a character-driven hard SF novel:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Elizabeth Moon is not my cup of SF tea, so I'd never read that book anyway, but that cover would certainly clinch the deal. Not interested. And like I said, that is a good thing for her, why would she want me reading her book when it's not my thing?


----------



## CharlieVenkman (Jan 25, 2012)

Monique said:


> My ovaries love superheroes. However, your cover doesn't say superhero to them. It says supernatural ominous dude. But then my ovaries are simple creatures.


Interesting, Monique. Do your ovaries love supernatural ominous dudes? (And that is without a doubt now the strangest sentence I have ever written.)


----------



## dalya (Jul 26, 2011)

jillmyles said:


> I didn't realize that book was for women, Krista. Where's the mantitty?


SNORT! My new favorite word is going to be mantitty!


----------



## Vukovina (Mar 30, 2012)

MichelleR said:


> Right, because if you're a bigot who buys a book thinking there are none of "them" in it, you will so just laugh it off when you find out you've been had. Good business decision.
> 
> Yesterday, we were arguing over whether using an incorrect rendering of a bullet in flight is The Devil -- it apparently is, even if it makes clear the genre. Today, it's that using misleading covers based on gender and racial stereotypes is a completely valid marketing thing.
> 
> Get a bullet wrong, and oh no! Get the color of someone's skin wrong, show them as a different race, and shrug.


What do you mean by valid? Whether something results in more sales and whether something is morally OK are different issues.

One can be determined objectively. (I don't know if it has: has a publisher ever released the same book, one with a non-white model on the cover and and the other with a white model?) The other is subjective, though it may lean one way or the other for a majority of people.

The original post raised a question: how can I get women to buy my book by changing what's on the cover? _What do women like on book covers?_

Now we're onto race, but the issue is the same.

Do white people like white models on covers? Do black people like black models?

If I'm trying to sell my book in, say, Denmark-where there aren't many black people-will I have more sales if I whitewash than if I don't?

It's never about every black person or every white person; it's about figuring out what the majority of white / black / _etc._ people are more likely to buy. If I'm writing a book about sports, in general, I might have an American football on the cover for the U.S., a rugby ball for the New Zealand market, and a hockey puck in Canada.

Rugby balls, lollipops, naked male torsos or models of various colours, it's all the same. It's just trying to take advantage of what people like, regardless of what it is they like and why they like it.


----------



## Monique (Jul 31, 2010)

CharlieVenkman said:


> Interesting, Monique. Do your ovaries love supernatural ominous dudes? (And that is without a doubt now the strangest sentence I have ever written.)


They're kind of fond of Magneto. Does that count?


----------



## Atunah (Nov 20, 2008)

I am glaring at the manly chess board in the corner, it mocks me.


----------



## MichelleR (Feb 21, 2009)

D. said:


> SNORT! My new favorite word is going to be mantitty!


I am agog, I am aghast, that this has not been a part of your vocabulary.


----------



## 56139 (Jan 21, 2012)

Krista D. Ball said:


> I write and read SF. You're not convincing me.
> 
> And this idea of having the character on the cover to show it's a "character" novel? Um, no. Rob Sawyer's latest is character-driven, perhaps his most ever. There's no character on the cover. Little ol' me, with my military thriller, is uber character-focused. No people on the cover.
> 
> I can keep going if you'd like...


By all means, keep going. But the truth is, if you don't use the cover for its purpose (to let readers know what the story is about) you're not doing yourself any favors. And like I said earlier, if I've already read the author and know what I liked in the past about them, who cares what's on the cover.

I think the amount of OVER-REACTION by some of the women in this thread is incredible. Putting words in the OP's mouth doesn't make the collective accusations true. His point, regardless of MANY reply posts in here, was not to disparage women. He was stating some things he personally noticed in order to market his book to more people, including women. I happen to agree with some of them. You don't.

Who cares.

That's no reason to berate the guy and accuse him of being a troll (not you personally, but others). If anything, he learned something here today, not to voice his opinion about the woman's market in fiction in this forum.


----------



## NoCat (Aug 5, 2010)

Well, from my own books, I've found three things sell books (purely anecdotal).  Lesbians, werewolves, and dragons. Dragons on covers seem to sell well (my book with a dragon on it sells better than the other two books in the series that don't have dragons).  Based on this, I should only write books about lesbian werewolves and make sure every cover has a dragon on it.  That would be marketing to my readers, right?

Or... I could get professional covers that fit the tone and genre of the book and figure men and women are smart enough to decide what they want to read without my manipulating them based on incomplete data.


----------



## Katja (Jun 4, 2011)

Krista D. Ball said:


> Road to Hell's protagonist is a married lesbian with a multi-ethnic staff. Clearly I need to change my cover to convey this, since only lesbians and those groups represented by the staff should be appealed to.
> 
> *sigh*


You just sold a book with that pitch. XD I didn't know it's sci-fi -- would've thought suspense judging by the cover.

So yes, the cover DOES make a difference, but not for the reasons the OP thinks. The cover needs to reflect the genre, not a certain sex they want to read it.


----------



## Krista D. Ball (Mar 8, 2011)

JanneCO said:


> But the truth is, if you don't use the cover for its purpose (to let readers know what the story is about) you're not doing yourself any favors.


Your comments implied that cover choices like mine do not convey what the story is about because my character-driven book doesn't have a face on it. Are you retracting this statement?



> I think the amount of OVER-REACTION by some of the women in this thread is incredible. Putting words in the OP's mouth doesn't make the collective accusations true. His point, regardless of MANY reply posts in here, was not to disparage women. He was stating some things he personally noticed in order to market his book to more people, including women. I happen to agree with some of them. You don't.


I felt disparaged by being referred to as the "fairer sex", then my cover suggestions were ignored in favour of a discussion with a man. Further, the comments made about what will appeal to women and SF are baloney. As someone well-entrenched in the Canadian SF reader world (we're a small cult), I can say that nothing said about SF is true to my experiences with what women are looking for.



> Who cares.
> 
> That's no reason to berate the guy and accuse him of being a troll (not you personally, but others). If anything, he learned something here today, not to voice his opinion about the woman's market in fiction in this forum.


Perhaps he learned that women are a sliding ladder, like men, and we have interests all over the place...like men.


----------



## Krista D. Ball (Mar 8, 2011)

Katja said:


> You just sold a book with that pitch. XD I didn't know it's sci-fi -- would've thought suspense judging by the cover.


SF thriller. So, really, you're in the right spot 



> So yes, the cover DOES make a difference, but not for the reasons the OP thinks. The cover needs to reflect the genre, not a certain sex they want to read it.


Exactly. After all, M/M erotica sells mostly to women. Yet I don't see any high heels and nail polish on the bulk of those covers


----------



## MichelleR (Feb 21, 2009)

Vukovina said:


> The original post raised a question: how can I get women to buy my book by changing what's on the cover? _What do women like on book covers?_
> 
> Now we're onto race, but the issue is the same.
> 
> Do white people like white models on covers? Do black people like black models?


I am a white female. I like my covers to reflect the genre and some of the elements in the book. If the main character is a POC (person of color) and they're on the cover, I'd like there to be accuracy. It's not about "I like white people on book covers" or "I like black people on book covers." It's not about "I like daisies on covers" or "I like things going boom on covers." It's about a cover letting me know that the book is one of the genres I like -- and the one I'm in the mood for at that moment.

Now you know what a woman and a white people likes.  Maybe a guy can come along and repeat it so that it carries some weight.

If the book does sell more copies to the wrong people because of a misleading cover, while losing readers who might actually like it, where's the win?

So, the main character is black, the cover model is white, and people who don't like black folks in their book buy the book, and hate it -- maybe even as much as if someone gets the bullet wrong -- and the folks who seek out books with POC walk on by. And the people who don't care either way still make note that the cover has an error on it.


----------



## Katja (Jun 4, 2011)

Krista D. Ball said:


> SF thriller. So, really, you're in the right spot


Now when you said it's an exploding planet I can see it. But might help if you changed the colouring a bit to more spacey.


----------



## Krista D. Ball (Mar 8, 2011)

Katja said:


> Now when you said it's an exploding planet I can see it. But might help if you changed the colouring a bit to more spacey.




On the print book, the exploding planet is rather, err, obvious


----------



## Jan Strnad (May 27, 2010)

This is why all the world hates marketing people. While you, the author, are trying hard to create a cover that represents your book, the marketing folks are trying to create a cover that panders to some imagined demographic. They'd make you rewrite your book if they could! (Oh, wait...that's Hollywood.)

I'm a white male. Yet, bizarrely, I need interesting characters in my reading material, have actually purchased books with women on the cover (even black women!) in non-sexual poses, and besides that, I don't give a fig about football. I'm annoyed by the portrayals of men on TV, especially commercials, as simple dolts, but I can still laugh when Rita Rudner refers to men as "bears with furniture" because _to an extent_ it's true.

Yes, I believe that the extreme-end female brain is different from the extreme-end male brain, but it's a spectrum and any individual will fall somewhere along that spectrum. Some men's brains will be more "female" than some women's brains, and vice versa, but overall, painting with a very broad brush, yeah, women and men are different. I also believe that we are evolving to an organism that minimizes those differences, but I could be wrong.

As a long-time s-f reader, I remember the days when the paperback publishers commissioned paintings that they kept on hand and, when a manuscript came in, they grabbed a painting for the cover and sent it to the printer. Any resemblance between the cover and the story was almost coincidental. I also remember the days when someone in the comics industry realized that sales went up when they put a gorilla on the cover, and suddenly we had a whole host of gorilla villains.

Publishing is a wacky business because it's run entirely by human beings, who are infinitely wacky.

Many factors go into making a book a bestseller, and the cover is only one factor. Another factor is, you know, the book, by which I mean, the insides. That kind of matters too.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

JanneCO said:


> By all means, keep going. But the truth is, if you don't use the cover for its purpose (to let readers know what the story is about) you're not doing yourself any favors. And like I said earlier, if I've already read the author and know what I liked in the past about them, who cares what's on the cover.
> 
> I think the amount of OVER-REACTION by some of the women in this thread is incredible. Putting words in the OP's mouth doesn't make the collective accusations true. His point, regardless of MANY reply posts in here, was not to disparage women. He was stating some things he personally noticed in order to market his book to more people, including women. I happen to agree with some of them. You don't.
> 
> ...


Well, you're right. When your personal opinion is bigoted towards a certain group, I suggest hesitating a long time before expressing it on a forum where a lot of very vocal members of that group show up. I would suggest that. Some of us express our opinions in quite strong terms, and if you think we'll stop because you think he has a right to be bigoted, think again.


----------



## kurzon (Feb 26, 2011)

While I believe it's been many years since a really extensive survey was conducted, I seem to recollect that the breakdown of male/female readers of science fiction was 55/45.  So men do/did read 'more' SF, but we're not talking a 90/10 breakdown here.

As for slanting your cover to a particular audience - covers are a combination of attention attractors and highly coded messages to people who have viewed thousands of other covers and have come to be able to 'read' what the cover summarises.

Put naked flesh (male or female) on your cover by all means, if your book happens to contain something of a sexual nature with a person of that gender.  Because readers who want to read the sexy stuff will know that naked flesh = high likelihood of sexy times.  Put a semi-naked woman on the cover of a male/male romance, and you've missed your audience.  Put a semi-naked anything on a comedy of manners with, at most, some chaste kissing, and you've disappointed a group of readers.

Put a spaceship on your cover, and a reader will be d*mn disappointed if your story doesn't take them into space.  When I see a spaceship, I think "interplanetary travel!" and since I like that, I'll check out the blurb to see what sub-set of SF we're looking at.

Some covers go so abstract that the reader can no longer decipher any coded messages (that "Speed of Dark" cover is a good one), and those covers are often used by books where the publisher is trying to "transcend genre" or where the name of the author is the important thing.  Or just because it's an eye-catching image.

Focus on conveying the story, and try to forget whatever preconceptions you have about your audience.


----------



## KateEllison (Jul 9, 2011)

Doomed Muse said:


> I'm a woman and none of those things listed turn me off...
> 
> Covers that do turn me off:
> 
> Bad font choices. Unreadable layouts. Cluttered covers. Covers which don't tell me the genre or tone of a book. Obviously amateur art.


This.

I'm a woman, and I LOVE sci fi. I'm a huge fan of Star Wars, Battlestar Galactica, Firefly, etc. I like fantasy and steampunk. But I also like the occasional romance novel, and I love YA novels with fun girly premises.

Now I like chess pieces on book covers. I think it's sexy and evocative, but then, I'm a nerd. So of course I think chess is sexy  I do like beautiful covers, and I don't know if that is stereotypical of women... I do like those gothic covers with the dark, vibrant colors and the flowing dresses and an angsty model posing. I also like historical covers of women in dresses, so sue me. I also am very drawn to bright, bold colors and unique, clean fonts. But really, anything that looks cool will appeal to me. I really like those zombie covers somebody on here has in their sig line (can't think of his name, sorry!!!). They grab my attention every time. But then, I looooove me some zombies.

But really, I like a striking cover that is nicely designed and clearly communicates tone and genre. Whether or not I look further depends on whether or not the book appears to be a genre I read.


----------



## Krista D. Ball (Mar 8, 2011)

kurzon said:


> Put a spaceship on your cover, and a reader will be d*mn disappointed if your story doesn't take them into space. When I see a spaceship, I think "interplanetary travel!" and since I like that, I'll check out the blurb to see what sub-set of SF we're looking at.


Exactly. As in my example with my cover (since it's SF & character-driven, and not having a face on it), it doesn't have a spaceship. Because they don't really do any interplanetary travel 

However, the more artsy cover I'd had done for my serial DOES have a ship on it because there's a lot going on in that story 










Now, ironically, the people who are reading my serial is slightly more female than male. However, donations towards the serial are 50/50. So, again, I don't think most men care that it has a female on the cover, nor do most females care that I have a space ship on it


----------



## WHDean (Nov 2, 2011)

JanneCO, Dara England, DreamWeaver, Anya, Cora Buhlert-thanks for the candid answers. That's all I'm after and it's very informative. Half-thanks to MichelleR because I had to subtract the lecture.



Caitie Quinn said:


> I'm going to agree with what basically every woman is trying to tell you... We all like and dislike different things. If this wasn't true, we'd dress the same, have the same jobs, marry the same men, etc.


On the contrary, I'm _not _ ignoring what women are saying. And I'm perfectly happy to accept a negative answer, namely, that there are no generalizations that hold. But telling me "everybody's different" isn't a negative answer; it's just telling me something I already know. If I ask a polling firm whether to put a man or a ship on the cover of my book and the answer is "everybody's different," I want my money back. I want to know that 30% of my prospective audience doesn't care and the other 70% prefers the man to the ship. Then I can make a sensible decision.

Seriously, ask yourself what the take-away is from "everybody's different." Are you telling me you know for a fact that there are no good and bad things for covers when it comes to women? Or are you really just telling me what I ought to believe?


----------



## WHDean (Nov 2, 2011)

Krista D. Ball said:


> ...disparaged by being referred to as the "fairer sex", then my cover suggestions were ignored in favour of a discussion with a man. Further, the comments made about what will appeal to women and SF are baloney. As someone well-entrenched in the Canadian SF reader world (we're a small cult), I can say that nothing said about SF is true to my experiences with what women are looking for.


First, I didn't ignore your comment. I had no response. Second, you could have said take out the bit about the fairer sex and I probably would have. It would've made little difference to me.


----------



## WHDean (Nov 2, 2011)

JRTomlin said:


> Well, you're right. When your personal opinion is bigoted towards a certain group, I suggest hesitating a long time before expressing it on a forum where a lot of very vocal members of that group show up. I would suggest that. Some of us express our opinions in quite strong terms, and if you think we'll stop because you think he has a right to be bigoted, think again.


I don't know if you're calling me a bigot, so I'm giving you a chance to clarify; then I'm taking it personally. You may not care, I don't know. But I'll tell you now that there will be no taking it back later.


----------



## 56139 (Jan 21, 2012)

JRTomlin said:


> ...and if you think we'll stop because you think he has a right to be bigoted, think again.


I can only shake my head and laugh. OK- hey if that's what you got out of his post, then it's your right to see it that way.


----------



## NoCat (Aug 5, 2010)

Actually, that is what I'm telling you, at least.  I don't think there is a single general thing that "women" don't want or must have on covers.  It will always depend on the woman and on the quality of the cover and how it does its job conveying genre and subject/tone.


----------



## WHDean (Nov 2, 2011)

Doomed Muse said:


> Actually, that is what I'm telling you, at least. I don't think there is a single general thing that "women" don't want or must have on covers. It will always depend on the woman and on the quality of the cover and how it does its job conveying genre and subject/tone.


And that's fine because you're giving me your experience and it's duly noted. I accept it. It's when people mix up the empirical facts of their own experience with what I ought to believe. I just can't swallow that because I don't know if they're saying it because they think everyone ought to think it or because it's truly their experience. You see what I'm getting at?


----------



## Vukovina (Mar 30, 2012)

Here's an interesting piece, too: https://lra.le.ac.uk/bitstream/2381/528/1/Choices%20and%20Preferences.pdf

Abstract: _Gender differences in consumer choices and preferences were explored in two quasiexperiments. In Experiment I, business cards were collected from 144 men and 83 women attending a Young Designers exhibition. The business cards of male designers were found to be of standard size and printed on white card significantly more often than the cards of female designers. In Experiment II, 35 female and 30 male respondents indicated which of four representative Christmas cards they preferred. A significant tendency was found for respondents to choose cards designed by members of their own sex. These findings are discussed in relation to earlier research into gender differences, and implications for design and brand management are outlined._

And this one: http://users.wpi.edu/~djamasbi/PDFS/Conference%20papers/Gender%20Preferences%20in%20Web%20Design(AMCIS%202007).pdf

It has eye-tracker visualizations that show where men / women looked on several website graphics.


----------



## telracs (Jul 12, 2009)

some women like women on covers, some don't
some men like women on covers, some don't
some women like science fiction, some don't
some women like romance, some don't
some women (raises hand) like both

so, my take on all this?  an author should use a cover that THEY like. that THEY think reflects their book.  if it works for them, chances are good that it'll work for the book.


----------



## Adam Pepper (May 28, 2011)

There has to be a little more to this topic.  Corporations spend boatloads of money trying to figure out how to best market to various demographics.  The finest universities in the world have PhD programs in Sociology where learned people (men and women) study what drives different groups of people to certain tendencies.  These are established fields of study accepted as real by the most forward-thinking minds in the world.  If it was simply "all people are different" then perhaps Jane Adams, Martin Luther King and Saul Bellow should all return their Nobel Prizes.

For my own experience, I had a review that said "I loathed the cover" and another say "I would never have picked up this book in the store if I saw the cover."  Both of those came from women.  One was a five-star review.  I hate to think there is something about my cover that could cause me to lose readers, potential five-star review readers at that.

Perhaps those are just two opinions and I should write it off as that.  Or maybe there's a pattern to it and my cover doesnt appeal to the widest section of women that I'd like it to.  Does my desire to explore these possibilities make me an ignorant bigot?


----------



## Krista D. Ball (Mar 8, 2011)

You left out the part about culture and upbringing. Those affect both genders. In the 18th century, for example, rich men wore silk hose and brightly-coloured, ornate outfits:










Now, let's be honest. Many men today would call that "gay". However, in a different culture, that was manly and had the ladyfolk fawning all over it.

Corporations spend boatloads of money to figure out how to best perpetuate the stereotypes and myths of each culture so that they can make a lot of money off the average person. That doesn't mean it's based in fact. Sometimes, they are creating the fact..


----------



## Adam Pepper (May 28, 2011)

Krista, are you denying that tendencies exist?  It doesnt really matter to me if they are related to culture and upbringing or if they are biological.  All that matters to me is if it results in a sale of my book.


----------



## Krista D. Ball (Mar 8, 2011)

Adam Pepper said:


> Krista, are you denying that tendencies exist? It doesnt really matter to me if they are related to culture and upbringing or if they are biological. All that matters to me is if it results in a sale of my book.


It does matter to me when they are related to culture because I end up reading SF novels with covers like these (assuming that only men read this, and that men only want this stuff):


----------



## Adam Pepper (May 28, 2011)

60 cents?  I would totally pay 60 cents for that book.  But I'm not sure how that forwards the discussion.


----------



## Patty Jansen (Apr 5, 2011)

I am a woman and I write Science Fiction, a lot of it space-based, and a fair bit of it hard Science Fiction. My reading list covers mostly hard SF. I'll use cover images to guide me to books I might find interesting. I'll go for the spaceships, the planets and futuristic stuff. I'll stay clear of the naked torsos and sexual imagery.

The generalisation implied in this topic frankly infuriates me, as if women are an amorphous blob with the same opinions. 

A cover should reflect what is in the book. Whatever the potential reader does with that cover image is up to the reader. It is up to the author and cover designer (and publisher, if one is involved) to make decisions about what sort of book it is, gender generalisations be damned.


----------



## Adam Pepper (May 28, 2011)

Patty Jansen said:


> The generalisation implied in this topic frankly infuriates me, as if women are an amorphous blob with the same opinions.


I don't think that's it. The implication is that all demographics have certain tendencies. So if your desire is to sell as many units as possible (of any product), you want to appeal to the widest cross section as possible. You aren't selling to any one individual but rather a hypothetical composite.


----------



## NathanWrann (May 5, 2011)

Krista D. Ball said:


> (assuming that *only* men read this, and that men *only* want this stuff):


I don't think that the discussion originated (or has been perpetuated by the OP or his defenders) with the intention of determining absolutes. It isn't about "Only" or "some" it's about determining a taste test of a cover that will appeal to "most" demographics of readers that consume the specific genre.

Sci-Fi seems to be a sticking point because, as shown anecdotally in this thread, there is a nearly 50% split between male/female readers. However, what would happen if we took a sci-fi "book" and had a professional designer create 2 covers with no criteria other than both covers had to be of equal quality (meaning the designer wasn't told to emphasize one thing or another on either cover). Then we take 200 male sci-fi readers and 200 female sci-fi readers and ask them to pick the cover they like better. Do you think that both covers are going to have 100 of each gender like them? Or will one cover pull in more readers? Will the split be that one cover is liked more overall or is it possible to make one cover that pulls females and one cover that pulls males?


----------



## Krista D. Ball (Mar 8, 2011)

Nathan, that happens with SF books that go through translations, where different covers are issues. Heck, many have Canadian/UK covers vs US covers.

UK:










US:










The covers are not designed along gender lines, but cultural lines.


----------



## MichelleR (Feb 21, 2009)

WHDean said:


> Half-thanks to MichelleR because I had to subtract the lecture.


You're half-wecome.


----------



## Jan Strnad (May 27, 2010)

The whole point is, we aren't talking about individuals. We're talking about large groups and tendencies and percentages, etc. No one is saying "_All_ women like pink covers" as if they were clones. No marketing is going to succeed on an individual level or be able to predict if an individual of either sex or any age or any sexual orientation is going to like or dislike something.

Taken as an individual, a person is as unpredictable as a single electron, whose behavior you can not predict. Taken as a group, however, and looking at group behavior, you can definitely predict them just as you rely on groups of electrons to behave predictably enough to work your computer and keep your airplanes in the air.

Any conclusion that accurately predicts how such-and-such a percentage of women (or men or cats or rutabagas, for that matter) will behave will naturally exclude certain individuals.


----------



## T.K. (Mar 8, 2011)

I PROBABLY would not like anything that has say... tools (hammers, wrenches, saws, nails, etc.) on the cover.


----------



## Patty Jansen (Apr 5, 2011)

_No marketing is going to succeed on an individual level or be able to predict if an individual of either sex or any age or any sexual orientation is going to like or dislike something._

EXACTLY

And therefore, the discussion generalisations, as perpetrated on this thread mainly by men, is sexist and patronising. Like, talking over our (women's) heads while we can hear what you're saying. Like, why be so surprised that we women all feel offended by this discussion? That's why.


----------



## NathanWrann (May 5, 2011)

Patty Jansen said:


> _No marketing is going to succeed on an individual level or be able to predict if an individual of either sex or any age or any sexual orientation is going to like or dislike something._
> 
> EXACTLY
> 
> And therefore, the discussion generalisations, as perpetrated on this thread mainly by men, is sexist and patronising. Like, talking over our (women's) heads while we can hear what you're saying. Like, why be so surprised that we women all feel offended by this discussion? That's why.


I'm wondering if I should point out the generalizations in your statement.

what the hell, why not:

_"...mainly by men..."
"...we women all feel..."_

Even more interesting since you just agreed with the statement that no marketing is going to succeed on an individual level. Which means that it *has to use generalizations*.


----------



## MichelleR (Feb 21, 2009)

Jan Strnad said:


> The whole point is, we aren't talking about individuals. We're talking about large groups and tendencies and percentages, etc. No one is saying "_All_ women like pink covers" as if they were clones. No marketing is going to succeed on an individual level or be able to predict if an individual of either sex or any age or any sexual orientation is going to like or dislike something.
> 
> Taken as an individual, a person is as unpredictable as a single electron, whose behavior you can not predict. Taken as a group, however, and looking at group behavior, you can definitely predict them just as you rely on groups of electrons to behave predictably enough to work your computer and keep your airplanes in the air.
> 
> Any conclusion that accurately predicts how such-and-such a percentage of women (or men or cats or rutabagas, for that matter) will behave will naturally exclude certain individuals.


Where are these elusive women?

There have been a number of women saying that the list doesn't work for them, and then it's

__
https://491619295%2Fto-mansplain-verb
 why their opinions don't count on what women want, which amounts to "we're waiting for the women to show up who'll say our assumptions are right, the ones who really represent most women."

Maybe they got lost because they're grossed out by maps.


----------



## Kalen ODonnell (Nov 24, 2011)

> (c) SF motifs. I know some women read and write SF. But it's far from the norm. So I suspect that spaceships, space stations, planets, aliens and chrome cities are out.


Just because you assume something to be so based on whatever preconceptions you bring to the table, does not in any way, shape or form, ACTUALLY make something so. Do you have a single shred of justification for the assumption that women reading and writing SF is far from the norm, or did that declaration of fact originate with you thinking 'hmm, I don't personally know any women who read/write SF, so this must be so'?

I mean, the winners of sci-fi's most prestigious awards (the Hugo and the Nebula) might disagree with you. Considering that over 30% of the authors who've won either award for Best Novel have been women. I mean, I don't know about you, but a full third is a pretty hefty statistic. Seems hard to argue 'women reading and writing SF is far from the norm' when one out of every three award winners is a woman. Not to mention the person with the most Nebula awards for Best Novel with four wins is Ursula K. LeGuin, a woman. And that the person with the second most Hugo awards after Robert Heinlein is Lois McMaster Bujold, a woman, again with four wins. And that of the three people with three wins, one is another woman, Connie Willis. Oh, and of the 25 or so Best Novel Hugo's won by women, only THREE of those have been for fantasy novels. The overwhelming majority of female Hugo wins have been sci-fi.

LeGuin, Bujold, Willis, C.J. Cherryh, Octavia Butler, Marion Zimmer Bradley, Anne McCaffrey, Andre Norton, Elizabeth Moon - all sci-fi writers, not fantasy. Those names sound familiar right? They should, considering they regularly outsell all but a handful of male sci-fi authors, living and dead alike. And those are just the BIG names, not the legions of midlist female sf writers who nevertheless have extremely long-running series like S.L. Viehl and Kristine Kathryn Rusch. But we really don't want to get started on best-selling female sci-fi writers rather than just award winners, I suppose. Because its not like one of the most critically acclaimed and commercially successful breakout sci-fi's of the past few years hasn't been by Mira Grant...and oh, look at that, its a book about a zombie apocalypse. With a gory, bloody cover that looks like a horror novel. By the way, she just sold a new series to her publisher. It's called _Parasitology_ and its about mutating flesh-eating viruses.

Ease up on the gross miss-assumptions there, cowboy. They make you look silly.

Oh, and btw....lest my name cause any confusion...I'm a dude, so make sure you don't write off my post as feminine hysterics.


----------



## Monique (Jul 31, 2010)

I think it's time to take the women back to Christmastown.


----------



## NathanWrann (May 5, 2011)

MichelleR said:


> Where are these elusive women?
> 
> There have been a number of women saying that the list doesn't work for them, and then it's
> 
> ...


In all fairness, the amount of women replying to this post on KB hardly constitutes a big enough sample to make an informed scientific conclusion one way or the other. Especially given the way that the initial topic was worded. And since by the very nature of this board being a "writer's" board that the respondents will likely have a different take on the reality (can elements of a cover be more or less attractive to "women") of the topic than a group of "readers".


----------



## Edward W. Robertson (May 18, 2010)

Adam Pepper said:


> I don't think that's it. The implication is that all demographics have certain tendencies. So if your desire is to sell as many units as possible (of any product), you want to appeal to the widest cross section as possible. You aren't selling to any one individual but rather a hypothetical composite.


I think what Krista is getting at is that playing up to these stereotypes about tendencies (which do exist, culturally) only helps to reinforce them. SF isn't intrinsically masculine. But it's been perceived that way for decades. Advertising is specifically chosen to appeal to men. Women authors, for a long time, were pressured to take on male pseudonyms. Who knows how many books were rejected for being too feminine, meaning readers never even got to decide whether they liked them in the first place. The end result of all this is of COURSE sci-fi is a male-dominated genre. You've been playing to men all along, driving the women away at every chance you get.

Not only is this bad science, it's bad business. As this thread proves, plenty of women love reading (and writing) sci-fi--and as you say yourself, you want to appeal to the widest possible cross-section. Why continue to purposely exclude more than half the reading audience? What sense does that make long-term?

(Note--just talking hypothetically here, using the general "you." I find all this extremely complicated, personally. But if these are cultural rather than biological differences, that means they're capable of being changed. For the benefit of readers and writers alike. Not to mention that whole "society" thing.)


----------



## MichelleR (Feb 21, 2009)

NathanWrann said:


> In all fairness, the amount of women replying to this post on KB hardly constitutes a big enough sample to make an informed scientific conclusion one way or the other. Especially given the way that the initial topic was worded. And since by the very nature of this board being a "writer's" board that the respondents will likely have a different take on the reality (can elements of a cover be more or less attractive to "women") of the topic than a group of "readers".


You are so good at explaining things! Gosh! I'm such a silly thing!






In all seriousness, I don't recall anyone saying that the amount of women posting on KB are enough to ... ::scrolls up:: ... constitute a big enough sample to make an informed scientific conclusion one way or the other. That doesn't mean that it makes sense to discard the opinions here because they don't align with preconceived notions.

I'd love to see this topic put before readers in exactly the same terms as were used here.


----------



## Adam Pepper (May 28, 2011)

I was a Sociology major in college.  I don't believe that the professors I studied with were ignorant bigots bent on marginalizing women and minorities. To the contrary, they were learned intellectuals who devoted their lives to the study of different social groups in our society.

Personally, I think much of what passes for marketing is patronizing and silly. But that doesn't mean it isn't effective.


----------



## David Adams (Jan 2, 2012)

Yeah... because women don't read Sci-fi, like _The Hunger Games_, at all. They're too busy cooking to read stories about aliens and lasers.

This whole thread is pretty d*mn silly, and people are justified in pointing this out. I write Sci-fi, I have a spaceship on my cover, and I've had female readers who liked what I wrote. I've had men who didn't (my only 1-star is from a man).

I'm male and I've even read a chick-lit novel and absolutely loved it (hi Ashley!). Sometimes shaking your preconceived notions is a _good thing_.

I mean... wow.



jillmyles said:


> Don't give me a robot on the cover if it's a romance.


What if it's robot romance?

Robo-mance? EBotica?

Is this a new genre just begging for exploitation... or did Wall-E break ground on that one?

An extract from my new EBotica novel, _SPARKS WILL FLY_...

"Oh baby. Oh baby. Oh baby. Goto 1."

"The temperature of this action is approaching manufacturing tolerances."

"I concur. Increasing speed to level 8."

"Working... working... working. Session complete."

"Session complete? Error."

"Was this action within acceptable parameters for you?"

"Negative. I have received better."

"Ego unit failing."

---

It's aimed at NEITHER male NOR female readers. This is targeted towards spam-bots.


----------



## kurzon (Feb 26, 2011)

Jan Strnad said:


> The whole point is, we aren't talking about individuals. We're talking about large groups and tendencies and percentages, etc. No one is saying "_All_ women like pink covers" as if they were clones. No marketing is going to succeed on an individual level or be able to predict if an individual of either sex or any age or any sexual orientation is going to like or dislike something.


If you took, say, your standard chic lit cover style - basic blocks of colour, often pastels, outline of a woman in heels - add a cut-out of a gun and a spaceship (also in bright block colours) and put it on an Honor Harrington novel (space battles with female lead) in hopes of attracting a larger female audience, then you're going to...get some interesting reactions.

Putting "things women like as a large group" on a cover about space battles will not attract more women. Because the cover is "coded" wrong. Correctly conveying to the audience genre, level of sex and violence, comedy level is half the work in getting the intended audience to pick up the book. Some of those covers will seem 'girly', but that's a function of conveying the contents of a novel which is light, 'fluffy', fun.

[If I had the drawing skills, I would so do Stephanie Plum taking Honor Harrington's place for a space battle. It's quite a thought!]


----------



## MichelleR (Feb 21, 2009)

David Adams said:


> Yeah... because women don't read Sci-fi, like _The Hunger Games_, at all.


I think at some point it was explained how The Hunger Games isn't real sci-fi.


----------



## NoCat (Aug 5, 2010)

Here, two covers, same book.









The gender conventions provided say women should like the above cover more than the following cover:









Maybe that's true. I don't know. I, personally, like the second cover. It's prettier and has a cool abstract steampunk layout that appeals to me.

How about this cover:









vs this cover?









Does one appeal to women more? The first cover, btw, is the one the trad publisher put on the book. Clearly their marketing people thought that cover would appeal to someone.

Or how about Neuromancer?









My favorite cover there is second one in on the top. Maybe I'm "supposed" to like the first one, I mean, after all, it has a butterfly on it and girls like those, right? Or maybe the blue one with the face, that has a person, so it must mean this book will be about characters and girls like books about characters, right?

Covers vary. Publishers try different things. Some of this probably has to do with gender, but mostly it seems that cover marketing is aimed at genre readership more than gendered readership.


----------



## Randirogue (Apr 25, 2011)

MichelleR said:


> <--- oh, never mind, it has a baby carriage on it.
> 
> Actually, too exhausting to try and figure out what I'm supposed to like.


Squee! I LOVE Christopher Moore! That one is one of my favorite of his books (all which I have read, some more than once, including that one). The girliest thing about that book was the daughter killing people and animals by saying "kitty!" I liked "Fool" and "Lamb: The Gospel according to Biff, Jesus' childhood best friend" by him more though.

I am also a huge sf fan. Hard sci-fi, too, and gave been since I was very young. I love Battlestar Gallactica, Dr. Who, Star Trek, Gattica, Star Wars, most stuff by William Gibson, Isaac Asimov... There' this short story called "The Macine Stops" by "Aonymous," I read for a class in college (mostly full of girls, btw) that I have reread at least a dozen times. I have degrees in English and Mass Communications, but simply for interest, I studied beyond required math and sciences for fun (even got a perfect score on a calculus exam and my physics professor kept using me as an example of a physics major to the class no matter how many times I told. Him I wasn't one).

I love when gore ISN'T avoided when it suits the moment of the story. Sometimes, even when it's not. Though, in the cases of gore-PURELY-for-the-sake-of-gore I tend to like it for humor purposes.

I don't read anything that's strictly romance. I don't have any propagnda-reason behind it... Just not interested. Granted, I can enjoy the merits of romance (just like any other type of relationship between characters), when it's part of a larger picture, and expertly woven into the fabric of the plot.

I also like high fantasy and contemporary fantasy, speculative, dystopia, paranormal... Oh, and comic books. :-D

With that said, I am attracted to "cool" covers. I can no more specify what that is on a list of specific, absolute elements, than I've ever been able to say what makes a person "cool."

I do not typically gravitate towards books with skin (male or female) on them, though some of the books I own do showcase it (usually darker contemporary fantasy with strong female leads). I DID NOT pick these by their covers. These covers just aren't cool enough to have caught my eye. I am gratful most of them are hardbacks, because I take their covers off when I read them. I own them because they were later books in a series I was following, or because someone who understands my reading (tv and movies) tastes highly recommended them.

Also, I wanted to point out that the statement "men read more sf" does not necessarily equate to "women read less sf." And today, I fully believe that an accurate tally of all current active readers of sf would show a significant percentages (or numbers) being female.

I hope that helps rather than stirs the pot.

(ETA: I read "The Stupidest Angel" by Christopher Moore every Christmas. I love me some Christmas miracle Zombies!!! Oh, and I love chess and was a cheerleader too! I wasn't "cool" though. I'm glad if I can pass for "adorkable.")


----------



## David Adams (Jan 2, 2012)

MichelleR said:


> I think at some point it was explained how The Hunger Games isn't real sci-fi.


Firefly?


----------



## MichelleR (Feb 21, 2009)

Randirogue said:


> Squee! I LOVE Christopher Moore! That one is one of my favorite of his books (all which I have read, some more than once, including that one). The girliest thing about that book was the daughter killing people and animals by saying "kitty!" I liked "Fool" and "Lamb: The Gospel according to Biff, Jesus' childhood best friend" more though.


I love Moore, too. He can be so ridiculous, and then all of a sudden he says something profound about life, Jesus, love, or "eff" socks.


----------



## Randirogue (Apr 25, 2011)

MichelleR said:


> I love Moore, too. He can be so ridiculous, and then all of a sudden he says something profound about life, Jesus, love, or "eff" socks.


Yup! We just got his latest, signed, in the mail he other day. Too bad there are three books ahead of it in my queue.


----------



## MichelleR (Feb 21, 2009)

David Adams said:


> Firefly?


Of course not, sillypants - fireflies are pretty and sparkly!


----------



## David Adams (Jan 2, 2012)

MichelleR said:


> Of course not, sillypants - fireflies are pretty and sparkly!


So that's why Hunger Games and Firefly aren't real Sci-fi, because women enjoy it?

*lightbulb* AHHH...!


----------



## Randirogue (Apr 25, 2011)

If the OP doesn't think that women are a very large percentage of potential readers for SF, then why bother trying to appeal to them with the cover? Wouldn't you be alienating the larger portion of your potential readers in order to appeal to the few? If you truly believe that women won't like these elements, then it doesn't sound like it's a sound business decision to try to attract them to your books.

This isn't meant to be argumentative or snarky or anything like that.



MichelleR said:


> Of course not, sillypants - fireflies are pretty and sparkly!


I have ooh, sparkly moments all the time. Sometimes it's over kittens cuddling a baby, other times it's a werewolf disembowling a pack enemy, or a sleek ship design, or a thought-provoking theory, or my new cake recipe... :-D

(ETA that "NOT" up at the top. Talk about a bad time for a typo with my iPad. Lol Gah, it wasn't a typo... I blame lack of sleep. It's 2:30am here and I'm supposed to be getting up at 4am for work).)


----------



## MichelleR (Feb 21, 2009)

David Adams said:


> So that's why Hunger Games and Firefly aren't real Sci-fi, because women enjoy it?
> 
> *lightbulb* AHHH...!


Yes, exactly. Women don't like sci-fi -- well, not most women -- and so if women like it then it's highly unlikely to be sci-fi. It's just, you know, a soap opera in space, or -- if written by a woman -- a rip-off of something a guy wrote better.

For pete's sake, Katniss actually saw Peeta sparkle! Us girls just can't help ourselves. (Randi's last post confirms it. )


----------



## Rayne Book Covers (Sep 11, 2011)

JETaylor said:


> I'm going to single out Dark Rayne here for a moment - her cover art is captivating and motivating to click through. She does a fantastic job and I've got her book marked under my list of cover artists that I'll eventually contract.  They aren't conventional and that's what I look for - stunning art - even the more horror bound covers like the angel with the bloody heart in her hand (I love that).


Aww thank you!  I'll be looking forward.


----------



## David Adams (Jan 2, 2012)

... actually, I thought a little bit about this thread, and I gotta say... maybe he's right. :/

I mean, although I do have female readers... most of my readers _are _male. I'm a bit nervous now; I have a new book coming out soon, and I'd rather not alienate (pardon the pun) a huge portion of my potential readership.

With this in mind, I decided to create a "Female Edition" for Lacuna. I already have a PG-13 Edition available, so why not one go one further and _really _sanitize it?

BEHOLD!










*Checklist:*

(a) *Female skin*. Check. I covered Liao's face with a mask. I wanted a Burqua but I just couldn't swing it. Sorry. That said, an ugly troll face should help prevent uncontrollable surges of envy from female readers so I think it's a good choice.

(b) *Abstractions*. I don't have any abstractions in my original cover, so I guess I get a huge tick for this one already!

(c) *SF motifs*. I wasn't sure removing the entire planet was necessary (please advise) but I did remove the spaceship and replaced it with something more appropriate. Not sure if unicorns are passée however.

(d) *Typically male things*. I don't use chessboards or sporty things, but there IS a construction crane on my cover. I left it in for now since IRL my mother runs a construction company, so I personally see it as kinda gender neutral. Please advise.

(e) *Graphic violence*. I added a few pink bows and hearts to try and lighten the scene up a bit. I hope I've done enough.

I've got a good feeling about this one, even though it'll take significant rewrites. Here's a sample extract:

-----

Liao gasped. "Like, _ohmigod_... aliens!"

Saeed snapped his fingers back and forth. "Oh you did _NOT _do that, girlfriend!"

"I baked a cake," offered James, "now let us spend eighteen paragraphs describing my impossibly muscled chest."

"Tee hee, let's!"

_Four hours later..._

"So like, we invited those meanie poo poo bum bum head aliens over for dinner and they were like, _omigosh_, let's be _best friends!_"

Everyone cheered and it was the best day ever!

_THE END_


----------



## Katja (Jun 4, 2011)

David Adams said:


>


OMG!!!111 YEEEEES!11 You've nailedmanicured what females want in that cover!!!!!111111 One critique though... the gray shirt looks fugly, so maybe make it pink too? And some kittens don't hurt either.


----------



## David Adams (Jan 2, 2012)

Katja said:


> OMG!!!111 YEEEEES!11 You've nailedmanicured what females want in that cover!!!!!111111 One critique though... the gray shirt looks fugly, so maybe make it pink too? And some kittens don't hurt either.


That's right... chicks _dig _kittens.

Pink sparkles and kittens! Yeah!


----------



## David Adams (Jan 2, 2012)




----------



## David Adams (Jan 2, 2012)

Don't worry ladies. Soon _everything_ you love will be destroyed dumbed down for your convenience!

Edit: Picamatic sucks for multiple images.


----------



## Katja (Jun 4, 2011)

I'm getting the feeling someone is procrastinating. XD


----------



## Jenmills (Feb 22, 2012)

NathanWrann said:


> I'm wondering if I should point out the generalizations in your statement.
> 
> what the hell, why not:
> 
> ...


Generalizations that women make about their own preferences are probably closer to the truth than the generalizations men make about women's preferences.

I can't believe this even needs to be pointed out.


----------



## yomamma (Feb 10, 2011)

OMG! Where can I buy these girl books?  *gets out wallet*


----------



## 48209 (Jul 4, 2011)

David,

You were on my TBR pile. I just bumped you up and plan on buying your book now in my next sweep this week.


----------



## David Adams (Jan 2, 2012)

Caitie Quinn said:


> David,
> 
> You were on my TBR pile. I just bumped you up and plan on buying your book now in my next sweep this week.


... woo! Thank you. I guess IT DOES WORK!


----------



## Guest (Apr 16, 2012)

The only thing on the original list that would turn me off from buying a book is the excess skin. Not because I'm offended by it, but because it screams "THIS BOOK IS ABOUT SEX" to me and I'm not really interested in reading those sort of books. When I see a naked ass, torso, boobs, etc that tells me that either A. the book is erotica and I don't read erotica so I wouldn't buy it or B. The book is highly sexualized and sex is the primary focus of the plot (either the content lends itself to such or the author is lazy and using sex as a crutch) and I don't read those kind of books either. If you book ISN'T that, then avoid showing naked people on the cover if you want someone like me to read the book. 

Insofar as blood and such, if I'm looking for a good horror story that might actually get my attention, because it would indicate I am looking at a "horror" novel and not just a "paranormal" novel. In fact, if you are writing a vampire story, I encourage you to make the cover bloodly so that I know your vampires are monsters and not just supermodels with sun allergies and a liquid diet


----------



## WHDean (Nov 2, 2011)

Kalen ODonnell said:


> Just because you assume something to be so based on whatever preconceptions
> 
> I mean, the winners of sci-fi's most prestigious awards (the Hugo and the Nebula) might disagree with you.


As I've said a dozen times, they're conjectures, not preconceptions. Anyone was free to dispute them or ignore the thread altogether. Some disagreed, others agreed with some items, and some cast aspersions because they need to find offence to make their lives meaningful. If you'd read what I've said, instead of going by what the grievance-mongers wished I'd said, you wouldn't be suggesting that I'm the silly one.

As for your evidence, the gender of authors isn't representative of the gender of their readers. This is obvious. The fact that a female author has a gory cover is immaterial because it says nothing one way or the other about the audience.


----------



## Katja (Jun 4, 2011)

WHDean said:


> As for your evidence, the gender of authors isn't representative of the gender of their readers. This is obvious. The fact that a female author has a gory cover is immaterial because it says nothing one way or the other about the audience.


If female authors are not the ones opinion you're looking for, why even ask this in the Writers' Cafe? Shouldn't you be asking this on the reader sections? You've systematically tried to disqualify every female opinion in this thread and it disgusts me. I'm pretty sure you've lost a lot of potential female readers with your behaviour.


----------



## WHDean (Nov 2, 2011)

MichelleR

1. I’ve read what everyone said. But how am I supposed to respond to “everybody’s different” other than with a shrug? I know this. I don’t dispute it. But it doesn’t tell me whether some large portion of women out there dislikes or looks for certain things on a cover now does it? And why are you ignoring the empirical evidence cited by Vukovina? Maybe it’s wrong, maybe it’s right; but it counts for more than boilerplate assertions like “everybody’s different.”

2. I note one of the salient ironies on this thread. On the one hand, you have people like Krista complaining that corporations don’t listen to what women want. On the other hand, you and others (including Krista) are deriding me for asking women what they think. So which is wrong: listening or not listening? For some people, both apparently.


----------



## 48209 (Jul 4, 2011)

David Adams said:


> ... woo! Thank you. I guess IT DOES WORK!


Now, the real question is... Am I secretly a guy *snort*


----------



## David Adams (Jan 2, 2012)

Caitie Quinn said:


> Now, the real question is... Am I secretly a guy *snort*


LOL. You must be... _girls don't read science fiction!_


----------



## Katja (Jun 4, 2011)

He's taken by the evil Kindle Select program. Can't buy the book of unicorns and kittens. *mutter*


----------



## Krista D. Ball (Mar 8, 2011)

Words cannot describe how awesome I think David Adams is right now. I might actually buy one of his books, even though they are in the evil Select. That's how many brownie points he just earned, people.


----------



## David Adams (Jan 2, 2012)

Katja said:


> He's taken by the evil Kindle Select program. Can't buy the book of unicorns and kittens. *mutter*


Haha aww. Poor Select. Serious question though, why?  Just don't like the program so don't support authors in it?


----------



## David Adams (Jan 2, 2012)

Krista D. Ball said:


> Words cannot describe how awesome I think David Adams is right now. I might actually buy one of his books, even though they are in the evil Select. That's how many brownie points he just earned, people.


My face:


----------



## T.K. (Mar 8, 2011)

David, all I can say is... BEST COVER EVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Katja (Jun 4, 2011)

David Adams said:


> Haha aww. Poor Select. Serious question though, why?  Just don't like the program so don't support authors in it?


No, it's that Amazon wants to charge me a bit too much extra, since I live in Finland, that I can't justify paying that much for an ebook. I start feeling itchy when the price hits closer to six dollars... yours would cost me over 8 dollars and it just goes over my pain threshold.


----------



## yomamma (Feb 10, 2011)

WHDean said:


> 2. I note one of the salient ironies on this thread. On the one hand, you have people like Krista complaining that corporations don't listen to what women want. On the other hand, you and others (including Krista) are deriding me for asking women what they think. So which is wrong: listening or not listening? For some people, both apparently.


It's not that you asked. It's that you couched it in an insulting, derogatory way. This reminds me of the time that I went to go look for a car and the first thing the salesman pointed out was where the makeup mirror was. And what a pretty color the car was. Yeah.


----------



## David Adams (Jan 2, 2012)

Katja said:


> No, it's that Amazon wants to charge me a bit too much extra, since I live in Finland, that I can't justify paying that much for an ebook. I start feeling itchy when the price hits closer to six dollars... yours would cost me over 8 dollars and it just goes over my pain threshold.


Um. Wow, that sucks. I did not know that and will send you a free copy to try and make up for all the annoyance this must have caused you. o_o Check PM.


----------



## 56139 (Jan 21, 2012)

WHDean said:


> MichelleR
> 
> 1. I've read what everyone said. But how am I supposed to respond to "everybody's different" other than with a shrug? I know this. I don't dispute it. But it doesn't tell me whether some large portion of women out there dislikes or looks for certain things on a cover now does it? And why are you ignoring the empirical evidence cited by Vukovina? Maybe it's wrong, maybe it's right; but it counts for more than boilerplate assertions like "everybody's different."
> 
> 2. I note one of the salient ironies on this thread. On the one hand, you have people like Krista complaining that corporations don't listen to what women want. On the other hand, you and others (including Krista) are deriding me for asking women what they think. So which is wrong: listening or not listening? For some people, both apparently.


It's too late, they've generalized you a BIGOT WHDean. You've offended them, so ya know, you don't count anymore. Welcome to Feminism 2012.


----------



## Jan Strnad (May 27, 2010)

One thing I'm taking away from this discussion is that people don't like being marketed to. Not just women...people.

We don't like being categorized, and we don't like people assuming they "know" us based on one or two obvious traits.

On the other hand, we also don't want Google looking at our browsing habits and Facebook postings in order to better market to us as individuals.

So basically, we don't like being marketed to! Period. Or exclamation point.

Hey...look at my avatar of the moment. If you look at it around 4/16/12, it'll be me in a straw hat and sunglasses, striking a manly pose, snapped on a drive through Winslow, Arizona. Actually, I'm about as "cowboy" as a two-dollar pony ride (note the Hawaiian shirt, you can't see the Bermuda shorts), but if you want to assume you know me based on one photo, go ahead. You want to try to appeal to me by putting a grizzled, cigar-chompin' tough dude on the cover licking his Glock while stuff blows up real good in the background, you can do that, too. You'll be mistaken on about every count, but I know you'll do it anyway because:

We're hard-wired to do this. Our brains are always looking for shortcuts and profiling people based on looks and quickly perceived traits like gender, height, clothing, etc. is what our brains do. It's a survival trait that marketers use (or attempt to) to sell us stuff, from perfume to politicians.

And, we all resent it. Because, in the words of the Brian-worshipping crowd in the Monty Python movie (let's hear it in unison), "We are all individuals!"

I like the genie joke because, no, it doesn't reduce women to a punchline. Rather, it honors their diversity and complexity and, if anything, pokes fun at the men who can't deal with that complexity. Jokes about men, on the other hand, generally reduce them to troglodytes or play on "male" stereotypes. Such as:

Q. Why does it take 100,000,000 sperm to fertilize one egg? 
A.


Spoiler



Because not one will stop and ask directions.



A stupid generalization that is true often enough that the joke made me laugh.

There are a lot of stupid generalizations in publishing that impact us as authors.

How about, "Men won't buy books written by women, but women will buy books written by men"? Come on...you've heard it. You've maybe written under a pseudonym (I certainly have) because of it. But if you're a woman or _have a name that sounds like you're a woman_, and you get sufficiently fed up, you'll finally write under your real name and say "to hell with the marketers." And maybe, like Ursula Le Guin, you'll become very successful because your books are really good. Despite the name. Despite the cover. Despite the assumptions of the marketing departments.

Anyway, I knew WHDean was stepping in it with his question, for various reasons. It's been like watching a man play golf in a mine field. If you survive, WH, meet me at The 19th Hole, drinks are on me.


----------



## Jan Strnad (May 27, 2010)

Krista D. Ball said:


> Words cannot describe how awesome I think David Adams is right now. I might actually buy one of his books, even though they are in the evil Select. That's how many brownie points he just earned, people.


Don't believe her, David. You know what teases women are.

(I'm kidding! I'm kidding!) (Sort of.)


----------



## jennybizz (Jan 16, 2012)

Italiahaircolor said:


> I think what doesn't appeal to women is generalizations.


...exactly this...


----------



## Adam Pepper (May 28, 2011)

David Adams said:


> This whole thread is pretty d*mn silly, and people are justified in pointing this out.


Is it though? Is it silly that Ellen DeGeneres is the spokesperson for JC Penny, Beyonce for L'Oreal, Derek Jeter for Ford and Mark Wahlberg for Calvin Klein? Are these people just randomly selected? The answer is obvious. Derek Jeter wouldnt be the best guy to sell L'Oreal and Ellen wouldnt look as good as Marky in Calvins.


----------



## Katja (Jun 4, 2011)

Adam Pepper said:


> Ellen wouldnt look as good as Marky in Calvins.


Liar. Ellen would look absolutely amazingly hot in Calvins.


----------



## David Adams (Jan 2, 2012)

Adam Pepper said:


> Is it though? Is it silly that Ellen DeGeneres is the spokesperson for JC Penny, Beyonce for L'Oreal, Derek Jeter for Ford and Mark Wahlberg for Calvin Klein? Are these people just randomly selected? The answer is obvious. Derek Jeter wouldnt be the best guy to sell L'Oreal and Ellen wouldnt look as good as Marky in Calvins.


Maybe I'd look good in something from JC Penny.

Having a female spokesperson for a female clothing company is a bit different than, well, standing up and going... "Hey, if you want women to read your books, cut out the spaceships and the chess boards and crap, because they won't read it!"

It's not really about who reads what, it's about female readers being _told_ what they like (or the OP encouraging other people to essentially tell them what they like). Which they resent. Which is understandable.

I wouldn't appreciate being told, "Hey, if you want to appeal to men, don't have pink on your cover."

Well you know what... maybe I like pink.


----------



## WHDean (Nov 2, 2011)

JanneCO said:


> It's too late, they've generalized you a BIGOT WHDean. You've offended them, so ya know, you don't count anymore. Welcome to Feminism 2012.





Jan Strnad said:


> Anyway, I knew WHDean was stepping in it with his question, for various reasons. It's been like watching a man play golf in a mine field. If you survive, WH, meet me at The 19th Hole, drinks are on me.


Bah! I find the fits more embarrassing than hurtful. I'm not especially pessimistic either. Most of the women I know and work with (including my wife) are scientists and professionals. They're not offended by these sorts of questions. In fact, most of them would make it a point of pride _not _ to be offended-it would be beneath them to fly into a rage over questions, regardless of "tone." To their credit-and this should also be noted-a lot of women here (like you JanneCO) answered the question or gave their opinions whether they found my phrasing offensive or not.

As for the 19th hole, count me in. You can leave the Glock at home, but do bring the cigars.


----------



## telracs (Jul 12, 2009)

Adam Pepper said:


> Is it though? Is it silly that Ellen DeGeneres is the spokesperson for JC Penny, Beyonce for L'Oreal, Derek Jeter for Ford and Mark Wahlberg for Calvin Klein? Are these people just randomly selected? The answer is obvious. Derek Jeter wouldnt be the best guy to sell L'Oreal and Ellen wouldnt look as good as Marky in Calvins.


Ellen would look better than Marky in Calvins.....

And Mark would do fine for JC Penny, Beyonce for Ford. And Derek Jeter could probably sell just about anything to fans.

Telling me that women don't like chessboards because they are exclusively male makes no sense. Very few, if any things are EXCLUSIVELY one gender or the other.


----------



## WHDean (Nov 2, 2011)

David Adams said:


> It's not really about who reads what, it's about female readers being _told_ what they like (or the OP encouraging other people to essentially tell them what they like). Which they resent. Which is understandable.


Now that you've established your credentials as an understanding guy, how about understanding my original post? I _asked _ whether these things held true. I did not, contrary to your claim, _tell _ anyone what to think. That part was projected onto me by others for their own reasons. Anyone was free to disagree or contradict what I said without accusing me of bigotry.


----------



## Adam Pepper (May 28, 2011)

I understand people's indignation and I'm not saying it isnt justified.  I'm just saying that the question itself is a valid one (not that there's a simple answer but it is a valid question): "How can I sell more books to female readers?"


----------



## Krista D. Ball (Mar 8, 2011)

Adam Pepper said:


> I'm just saying that the question itself is a valid one (not that there's a simple answer but it is a valid question): "How can I sell more books to female readers?"


Here's an idea: send copies to female book reviewers. The reviewers will be promoting to their viewers, many of which will be women.


----------



## David Adams (Jan 2, 2012)

WHDean said:


> Now that you've established your credentials as an understanding guy, how about understanding my original post? I _asked _ whether these things held true. I did not, contrary to your claim, _tell _ anyone what to think. That part was projected onto me by others for their own reasons. Anyone was free to disagree or contradict what I said without accusing me of bigotry.


Sure, you asked. But... like I said, it was the way you did it. That's all I can really say.


----------



## Katja (Jun 4, 2011)

David Adams said:


> Sure, you asked. But... like I said, it was the way you did it. That's all I can really say.


And the fact that's he's ignored and disqualified pretty much all advice given by women in this thread.


----------



## Jan Strnad (May 27, 2010)

> Well you know what... maybe I like pink.


Maybe you would want to read this: http://www.colormatters.com/pink

It's a run-down on the color pink, historically and in different cultures.

Or this: http://blog.kissmetrics.com/gender-and-color/

A study of color preferences and classifications by men and women. Doesn't consider if the preferences are genetic or learned.

Or this: 

I haven't read it, but it looks interesting to me as an attempt to discern between genetic gender differences and socially created ones.

Edited to add: The super-soft pastel colors of the book cover put me off. (Really, I'm not kidding.) I'd be kind of embarrassed to be seen reading this book, which appears to be aimed at new mothers. Apparently the publisher has chosen a demographic and is marketing to it. Success! A man is _not_ buying your book despite the appeal of the subject matter!


----------



## David Adams (Jan 2, 2012)

Adam Pepper said:


> I understand people's indignation and I'm not saying it isnt justified. I'm just saying that the question itself is a valid one (not that there's a simple answer but it is a valid question): "How can I sell more books to female readers?"


Krista's idea is a very good one (offer copies to female reviewers). This is a lot more effective than the other suggestions.

Although... well, why just female reviewers? Money that's touched male hands may have icky cooties, but Amazon will wash it for you before they EFT it to you. I would answer this question in the same way I answer the other questions about "How can I sell more?"

- Write good stuff.
- Keep writing.
- Get honest, non-paid-for reviews. Even a negative review can be good because it gives you something to improve and it gives your book authenticity.
- Be active in places authors and readers frequent (Goodreads, Kindleboards, etc) as time allows, but don't allow it to take from #1 and #2.
- Run free days, or price-match, or do other pricing tricks.

Etc etc.

If you basically work hard, write well and keep doing it... eventually women will find your book, as will a bunch of men, and if it really is the next Great American Novel in women's eyes then they'll recommend it and buy it. Honestly, though, underestimating the diversity of the gender spectrum is probably done at your peril...


----------



## David Adams (Jan 2, 2012)

Jan Strnad said:


> Maybe you would want to read this: http://www.colormatters.com/pink
> 
> It's a run-down on the color pink, historically and in different cultures.
> 
> ...


That's really interesting. 

I knew blue used to be known as the women's colour and pink the mens, but yeah. Interesting stuff.


----------



## WHDean (Nov 2, 2011)

David Adams said:


> Sure, you asked. But... like I said, it was the way you did it. That's all I can really say.


So you're saying that women _in general _ don't like that tone? Better be careful. That's a blatant contradiction of the Snowflake Theory...


----------



## Vukovina (Mar 30, 2012)

"Women like romance novels." is not incompatible with "I'm a woman and I don't like romance novels."

"Canadians play hockey." is not incompatible with "I'm a Canadian and I don't play hockey."

In Canada, 80% of crimes are committed by men (http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/85-002-x2008001-eng.pdf). If we assume that the numbers of men and women in Canada are generally even, that means men are more likely than women to commit a crime.

Stating that fact doesn't mean all Canadian men are criminals.

It doesn't tell Canadian men to be criminals.

In the U.S., women are 9.5x more likely than men to read at least one romance novel per year (http://www.harrisinteractive.com/NewsRoom/HarrisPolls/tabid/447/ctl/ReadCustom%20Default/mid/1508/ArticleId/864/Default.aspx).

If I write a romance novel and sell it in the U.S., I want to market it to women. Presumably, if women-considered as a group of Americans distinguished by their sex-like something about the romance novels themselves, they can also like something about the book covers that go on those novels.

Trying to identify that something (or somethings) isn't offensive. That something could be flowers or it could be mathematical proofs. I could care less what it is. I could care less _why_ it is. I just want to know about it so that I can stick it on my cover.

I understand that people disagree with the original poster's ideas about what those somethings are, but the suggestion that asking the question is itself indicative of being a bigot doesn't make sense to me.


----------



## NathanWrann (May 5, 2011)

Jan Strnad said:


> One thing I'm taking away from this discussion is that people don't like being marketed to. Not just women...people.
> 
> We don't like being categorized, and we don't like people assuming they "know" us based on one or two obvious traits.
> 
> ...


All of the generalizations in this post (like: "*we* don't like being marketed to") are offending me. I actually like being marketed to.


----------



## David Adams (Jan 2, 2012)

WHDean said:


> So you're saying that women _in general _ don't like that tone? Better be careful. That's a blatant contradiction of the Snowflake Theory...


Heh. Okay, that made me chuckle.


----------



## jennybizz (Jan 16, 2012)

This thread has consumed 20 minutes of my life so far, so I thought that I would make an appropriate response.

I*f your story is as likely to appeal to women as men, you should tailor your cover to women too. But that's the tricky part. What sorts of cover art appeals to or turns off women? Leaving aside the well-established rules for romance covers for the moment, I think I have a general idea about what generally turns off women readers, but I'm less sure about what sparks their interest. Of course, I could also be wrong about the turn-offs, so I'll enumerate them first.

Turn-offs:

(a) Female skin. John Locke-style covers featuring scantily clad females or female body parts without the corresponding rippling male body. I believe that through the other posts in this thread, we can conclude that most women readers do not mind having female skin on the cover.

(b) Abstractions. My guess is that any sort of abstraction turns women off: maps, runes, circuit boards, geometrical figures (Sorry Brian!).Also, by reading posts here, we can conclude that it depends on the individual woman...just as I would hesitate to say that MOST men like covers with these items. These are simply generalizations that are not true.

(c) SF motifs. I know some women read and write SF. But it's far from the norm. So I suspect that spaceships, space stations, planets, aliens and chrome cities are out. Again, we have established that this is not "far from the norm". SF readership is split pretty much down the middle.

(d) Typically male things. I think it goes without saying that anything usually associated exclusively with males is out. I include chessboards here (Sorry Julie!) along with other sporting and technical objects. Obviously, this does NOT go without saying. By reading responses here, you can clearly see that there are plenty of women who do not mind covers like these, myself included.

(e) Graphic violence. Blood-spitting-demon heads, people being stabbed, tortured, etc. are out. Unless, of course, the horror is the more subtle kind-i.e., the unseen but implied variety. Again, by reading responses here, if the book is in the horror genre, then this type of cover would be fine.

Anyway, I'm seeking guidance from the fairer sex. * I understand that you may not realize it, but this remark is offensive to women. I'm not going to get into the reasons why.

*Maybe you're right that the colour palette is the most important thing. But I can help but think that there are also certain motifs within genres that women-in general-look for or avoid. Maybe there aren't such things, but common sense says otherwise. * Yes, this is what we are saying - that there are not certain things that turn us off, besides badly designed covers.

*In other words, are you denying that these things are factors in your decision because they aren't, or are you saying it because you want to combat stereotypes? Psychologists call it social acceptability bias; I call it "I don't know how to read what you're saying."* Sigh. AGAIN, yes, this is what we are saying..these things really do not matter...it's not a case of anyone trying to be politically correct. Do you really think that we can't differentiate between those two things?

*Seriously, ask yourself what the take-away is from "everybody's different." Are you telling me you know for a fact that there are no good and bad things for covers when it comes to women? Or are you really just telling me what I ought to believe? *At this point is where some of the women on the board are feeling ignored. Yes, that's what we are telling you. We don't know how else to say it.

*1. I've read what everyone said. But how am I supposed to respond to "everybody's different" other than with a shrug? I know this. I don't dispute it. But it doesn't tell me whether some large portion of women out there dislikes or looks for certain things on a cover now does it? And why are you ignoring the empirical evidence cited by Vukovina? Maybe it's wrong, maybe it's right; but it counts for more than boilerplate assertions like "everybody's different." We are telling you that there are not certain things on covers that turn us off. I understand that you find this difficult to believe, but that's the way it is. As far as the evidence by Vukovina, I gathered that that study was done about authors designing their covers, not what readers thought about the covers.

2. I note one of the salient ironies on this thread. On the one hand, you have people like Krista complaining that corporations don't listen to what women want. On the other hand, you and others (including Krista) are deriding me for asking women what they think. So which is wrong: listening or not listening? For some people, both apparently. *Um, actually both those scenarios have the same problem...they are both assuming that women want something other than a well designed, genre-specific cover just because they have girl parts.

If you want to sell more books to women do these things:

1. Write a good book.
2. Get a professional, well designed cover.

..and don't you dare ask me what I, as a woman, think a well designed cover is...It's the same thing that a man thinks a well designed cover is. The cover is either good or it's bad. Gender has NOTHING to do with it.

Also, David, marry me.


----------



## NathanWrann (May 5, 2011)

Katja said:


> And the fact that's he's ignored and disqualified pretty much all advice given by women in this thread.


I think he's already responded to this statement (or statements like it) repeatedly. Let's not get repetitious here.


----------



## John Daulton (Feb 28, 2012)

Vukovina said:


> "Women like romance novels." is not incompatible with "I'm a woman and I don't like romance novels."
> 
> "Canadians play hockey." is not incompatible with "I'm a Canadian and I don't play hockey."
> 
> ...


This!

I won't speak to the OP's diplomatic skills on this, but I read the original question as doing something like this, seeking data. Looking for some kind of statistically backed guidance. That's all marketing is. You watch numbers, make some assumptions, do A/B testing, derive results, make some conclusions about it, and try it again. Eventually statistical trends emerge. If people want to be offended by statistical trends, that is certainly their right, but the data collectors were not intending to offend, they were simply adding up columns of data. As you said, who cares why that particular reality exists? It's hard enough to sell books, why not seek data to help you out for whatever you've decided your target market is? Sure you might be picking the wrong audience, but, it's your book, so, whatever.


----------



## Jan Strnad (May 27, 2010)

> All of the generalizations in this post (like: "we don't like being marketed to") are offending me. I actually like being marketed to.


Point taken!


----------



## Krista D. Ball (Mar 8, 2011)

Out of curiosity, has there been a female in this thread who has defended the OP. I'm seeing lots of guys...  

~~~

Let's try to address to original question: how do I attract more female readers? I'll use what I call the Lesbian Jew rule*, where I interject a lesbian Jew into the conversation. So, how do I attract more lesbian Jews as readers? That in itself is not offensive, though it's a little weird. But, I can see it.

So, how will I attract these throngs of lesbian Jews? Let's see? I could:

*Get reviewed/interviewed by Jewish and/or LGBT magazines and blogs
*Unite with other lesbian jewish authors and do a group reading/blog tour/whatever
*Speak at panels and conferences that are aimed at lesbian and/or Jewish concerns/literature/etc

I can keep going.

Ok, so the question seems to stand on its own merit. Therefore, why 10 pages of offended women? Perhaps it was presentation, attitude, and the idea that the cover would be the thing to bring in the throngs of lesbian Jews/women and used stereotypes to justify those statements. The stereotypes were what offended the women in this thread, not the question.



*Many people use different ones. Sometimes, gender, sometimes race, sometimes religion.


----------



## 56139 (Jan 21, 2012)

I'd just like to say you can all feel free to call me the 'fairer sex'. 
I'm not offended by much, and that certainly isn't in the top 1 million of things I might be offended by.


----------



## NathanWrann (May 5, 2011)

Krista D. Ball said:


> So, how will I attract these throngs of lesbian Jews? Let's see? I could:
> 
> *Get reviewed/interviewed by Jewish and/or LGBT magazines and blogs
> *Unite with other lesbian jewish authors and do a group reading/blog tour/whatever
> ...


Is that all it takes to get readers? I have a few questions for you:
How does an author (unknown) get reviewed/interviewed by magazines and blogs?
How does an author (unknown) get invited to speak at panels and conferences?

Usually, in my experience, sales (or a big marketing budget) come before those opportunities. So it brings it back to the original question: how does one increase their sales and visibility among jewish lesbians?


----------



## Coral Moore (Nov 29, 2009)

Wow, I avoided this thread for so long and today I got curious. I promised myself I wouldn't get involved in another one of these gender bias things, but I can't resist!



WHDean said:


> They're not offended by these sorts of questions.


I'm not offended by the question of what might appeal to me. I always think that's a fascinating discussion to have. What I'm offended by is your original conclusion of what an author should avoid if they want to appeal to women. That's two very different things. Your list reads like it's from the 1950's or something. Girls don't like sports. Girls don't like science. Girls are squeamish and easily upset. Heck, you even managed to slide in the implication that any woman who reads SciFi isn't normal. You really don't see how your wording could have offended someone? I'm baffled.

Let me cast another vote for "nothing on your list would put me off a book in the slightest." What does put me off books? Badly drawn or rendered people, covers that look like a grade-school collage, and I'm sure a few more things I can't think of right now. I love spaceships, I own quite a few books with scantily clad ladies, and blood-spitting demons sound like a good time to me. Of course gender biases exist, but that's not what your list is about. You claim that books with those things won't sell to women, and that's just not true. You might not like MichelleR's snark, but you should go back and look at the covers she posted again because there are books in there that are hugely popular with women that directly conflict with what you've assumed.

Also, I just want to add that the idea that women are some sort of unknowable, mystical creatures that are beyond understanding is the worst type of cliche. While I don't find it offensive, I do find it a bit sickening. I wish someone would come up with a new trope. Blech.

TLDR: Put a genre-appropriate cover on your book and you'll attract the readers you want. The End.


----------



## Krista D. Ball (Mar 8, 2011)

NathanWrann said:


> Is that all it takes to get readers? I have a few questions for you:
> How does an author (unknown) get reviewed/interviewed by magazines and blogs?
> How does an author (unknown) get invited to speak at panels and conferences?
> 
> Usually, in my experience, sales (or a big marketing budget) come before those opportunities. So it brings it back to the original question: how does one increase their sales and visibility among jewish lesbians?


This is what I've done:

I submit my work to magazines and blogs. I form relationships with people through Facebook, Twitter, conventions, local book readings, and volunteering. It took a couple of years, but now I have a list of people who want to know when I have new work out so that they can review it. Further, I am moving to where print magazines in my genre are asking for my new release to review.

To get noticed in the local community to speak at conventions and panels, I got involved. I developed relationships with people. I let organizers know I was happy to help. I moved from someone who had to have others vouch for me to being contacted to do them (i.e. I'm speaking at Comic Expo next weekend, for example, which is a fair-sized con for Canada).

I have often repeated that my business plan has been about my niche as a Canadian SF&F author. I have a long way to go, but I continue to work towards being recognized for my Canadian settings, Canadian POVs, and my career. None of it is easy. But, it's been fun, rewarding, and I wouldn't have it any other way.

So, to summarize: if you want them to recognize you, you need to recognize them. Get involved!


----------



## NathanWrann (May 5, 2011)

Krista D. Ball said:


> This is what I've done:
> 
> I submit my work to magazines and blogs. I form relationships with people through Facebook, Twitter, conventions, local book readings, and volunteering. It took a couple of years, but now I have a list of people who want to know when I have new work out so that they can review it. Further, I am moving to where print magazines in my genre are asking for my new release to review.
> 
> ...


*LIKE*


----------



## MichelleR (Feb 21, 2009)

WHDean said:


> MichelleR
> 
> 1. I've read what everyone said. But how am I supposed to respond to "everybody's different" other than with a shrug? I know this. I don't dispute it. But it doesn't tell me whether some large portion of women out there dislikes or looks for certain things on a cover now does it? And why are you ignoring the empirical evidence cited by Vukovina? Maybe it's wrong, maybe it's right; but it counts for more than boilerplate assertions like "everybody's different."
> 
> 2. I note one of the salient ironies on this thread. On the one hand, you have people like Krista complaining that corporations don't listen to what women want. On the other hand, you and others (including Krista) are deriding me for asking women what they think. So which is wrong: listening or not listening? For some people, both apparently.


I have no idea why this post is addressed to me.

I know you think the answer that "everyone is different" is patently obvious, and doesn't need saying. _But it's the answer to your question._

There's nothing wrong with asking questions, but you asked one and received answers you don't like -- and so you've determined the people answering are flawed, not the question that led to the answers.

No one is deriding you for asking what female think. The reaction is to the stereotypes you present in your question, and you don't listen to the responses -- which brings us back to not listening.

"Women of the board, I'd love to hear from some of you on what you like to see in cover designs. I know that everyone is different, but I'm interested in individual responses."

Where is the offense in the above? And you cut down on the everyone's different responses, because you allow for that. Responders now answer what they like and don't, and don't feel talked down to, or as if they have to speak for their sex. And women who don't fit any of the assumptions on your list don't feel particularly insulted. The individual answering can think that all boys are icky, if they're so inclined, and the women who like those other genres can share that without feeling defensive.

What _about_ the empirical evidence presented by Vukovina? Do you want the women here to change their answers? Would that be helpful? If this is what you want, cut out the middle fairer sex, and just go with that.

I don't think anyone is disagreeing that if enough women answer that some patterns might emerge, but you didn't present your post in a way that values individual responses and doesn't ask people to generalize for all women, and you haven't appreciated the answers you received.

Ask a better question, get a better answer.



JanneCO said:


> It's too late, they've generalized you a BIGOT WHDean. You've offended them, so ya know, you don't count anymore. Welcome to Feminism 2012.


1. Why whenever there is a disagreement with women, if the topic goes on long enough someone will blame it on feminism, and long for the halcyon days when the ladies would just fix guys a sandwich? (This is me being sarcastic, not alleging that anyone here thinks exactly like that.)

2. Before this thread, did you think the women here were drunk with the feminism? Obsessed with the topic? Could it be that this thread just struck a cord?

3. I don't actually know or think that WH is a bigot. True story.


----------



## Guest (Apr 16, 2012)

Do you know that most molded school desks are designed for right-handed people? That most power tools are designed for right-handed people? That most kitchen utensils such as can openers are designed for right-handed people? If you know a left-handed person, you have probably seen him or her use these things and not thought twice about it. But give a right-handed person a tool made for a leftie and watch them struggle with it. Generally, this is because left-handed people have had to "adapt" their entire lives to living in a right-handed world. Whereas the right-handed person rarely encounters a situation where he has to adapt to a left-handed environment.

What does this have to do with the conversation? Many women have said they don't mind seeing skin, or blood, or abstract items in covers. Note that few have said they were ATTRACTED to such covers. Only that they aren't offended or bothered by them. Women will buy books that depict violence on the cover or show some flesh and not think twice about it. How much of this ambivalence is because we have simply "adapted" to living in a male-dominated culture?

I play roleplaying games. This means I spend a great deal of time with game books featuring chainmail bikinis in the illustrations. I'm pretty blind to them, to be honest. If I want to enjoy the hobby, it is the sort of thing I expect to see so I just glance over it without much thought. They don't offend me. They won't keep me from buying a book. But they aren't a selling feature to me, either. For years, I suffered through buying D&D books with their sword and sorcery style covers that catered to guys, because that was my only real option.










Then came Vampire: The Masquerade. I remember grabbing that book off the shelf at the local hobby shop having no clue about the game system. There was something understated yet mysterious about the cover. I flipped through the book and saw all that gorgeous ink work from Tim Bradstreet which was so far removed from the typical hobby book art that it seemed surreal. That was the only time I bought a game book based solely on the cover and the art. And I wasn't the only one. White Wolf Game Studios is often credited with the rise of female gamers coming into the hobby. I just got back from I-Con where I was on a panel discussing Women in Gaming, and Vampire was discussed as the "watershed moment" that made hobby gaming attractive to women.










The point is, I think the OP has taken a lot of heat for the wrong reasons. A lot of ladies have felt obliged to state that they aren't offended or turned off by the things he mentioned. But that wasn't really what he was asking. Unfortunately, we women are taught from an early age we shouldn't be "offended" and should be accommodating. I think those of us who read sci-fi and horror and thrillers have simply adapted to the norms of those genres and tune out the fact that the visual cues are more male-oriented.


----------



## 48209 (Jul 4, 2011)

Julie, I'm currently annoyed because my rental car's "switchblade key" is for right handed people. I keep sticking my palm every time I have to drive somewhere.

How's that for an off-topic post


----------



## MichelleR (Feb 21, 2009)

Jan Strnad said:


> I like the genie joke because, no, it doesn't reduce women to a punchline. Rather, it honors their diversity and complexity and, if anything, pokes fun at the men who can't deal with that complexity.


I can see that take on the joke, honestly. However, the punchlines of jokes are not usually flattering to the objects of the jokes. To me, it says that women are illogical, and so there's no understanding them -- so don't try. Men are the Spocks and women are the hormonal wrecks. 

In the first season of Mad Men, there was a recurring question "What do women want?" The dismissive answer from one man was essentially this year's version of last year's candy pink stove. Finally, the main female character responded, without realizing she was answering that question -- it was market research on lipstick -- that they wanted to be treated like individuals, not all grouped together.

Market research works. I did a little of it. But you don't lead the person to the answer, and you don't present your own bias, and you don't usually ask the person to speak for everyone in their demographic. You don't even get to interpret your words. If they say "um," you write down "um."

"Rate how much you agree with this statement on a scale from 1 to 5..." You get enough people to do it, and then you can see if there's anything to be determined.

And yes, false assumptions are made about men, too. 

[URL=http://current.com/shows/infomania/90569059_sarah-haskins-in-target-women-doofy-husbands]http://current.com/shows/infomania/90569059_sarah-haskins-in-target-women-doofy-husbands.htm[/url]


----------



## MichelleR (Feb 21, 2009)

WHDean said:


> Now that you've established your credentials as an understanding guy, how about understanding my original post? I _asked _ whether these things held true. I did not, contrary to your claim, _tell _ anyone what to think. That part was projected onto me by others for their own reasons. Anyone was free to disagree or contradict what I said without accusing me of bigotry.


Asking if they held true means you believed them to be true, or leaned toward them being true, and so the answers come from a place of "this is what this guy thinks." Where is the projection? If you didn't have any opinion on it, where'd you get the list?

And projected onto you from people for their own reasons? What reasons would those be? No one here presented a list of things that are true for you. I still don't think you're a bigot.


----------



## telracs (Jul 12, 2009)

no matter what you do, some people will love it, some people will hate it, some will be offended and some will be wryly amused.

remember, when reading a post, sometimes it's more about how people are reading it than how the author meant it to be read.


----------



## MichelleR (Feb 21, 2009)

JanneCO said:


> I'd just like to say you can all feel free to call me the 'fairer sex'.
> I'm not offended by much, and that certainly isn't in the top 1 million of things I might be offended by.


It's not the top of my list either, but I think it becomes the cherry on the sundae in that post.


----------



## George Berger (Aug 7, 2011)

Krista D. Ball said:


> This is what I've done:
> 
> I submit my work to magazines and blogs. I form relationships with people through Facebook, Twitter, conventions, local book readings, and volunteering. It took a couple of years, but now I have a list of people who want to know when I have new work out so that they can review it. Further, I am moving to where print magazines in my genre are asking for my new release to review.
> 
> ...


While I'm not questioning the effectiveness, nor the labor-intensity, of this tactic - don't unleash the Kraken! - _what does this have to do with marketing to Jewish lesbians?_

You're a Canadian, and an SF&F fan. Everything you wrote basically speaks to establishing and maintaining _your_ bona-fides as such, and letting people know that _you_ exist. Great. Supposing you'd written a book with a Jewish lesbian in it - presumably a Canadian Jewish lesbian, 'cause that's your thing  - what would you do to market _it_ to Jews, lesbians, Jewish lesbians, heterosexual Jewish Canadian women, Canadian non-Jew lesbians, and any other possible combination of demographics I might be overlooking?



> So, to summarize: if you want them to recognize you, you need to recognize them. Get involved!


Wait, so, on a less-hypothetical level, am I - a creepy middle-aged misanthrope - really supposed to "get involved" with local teen LGBT groups in the hopes they buy my books with high-school LGBT youth in them? I know all publicity is good publicity, but being arrested for "grooming" and being branded a sex-offender requires a _bit_ more dedication than I'm willing to give.


----------



## Krista D. Ball (Mar 8, 2011)

George Berger said:


> While I'm not questioning the effectiveness, nor the labor-intensity, of this tactic - don't unleash the Kraken! - _what does this have to do with marketing to Jewish lesbians?_
> 
> You're a Canadian, and an SF&F fan. Everything you wrote basically speaks to establishing and maintaining _your_ bona-fides as such, and letting people know that _you_ exist. Great. Supposing you'd written a book with a Jewish lesbian in it - presumably a Canadian Jewish lesbian, 'cause that's your thing  - what would you do to market _it_ to Jews, lesbians, Jewish lesbians, heterosexual Jewish Canadian women, Canadian non-Jew lesbians, and any other possible combination of demographics I might be overlooking?


 

If I decided that the lesbian Jewish demographic was key to the success of my book (which, btw, we're starting to see this as kinda funny now aren't we?), I'd target Jewish blogs, lgbt blogs, do some opt-ed work for magazines, take out ads, etc (lots of opts).



> Wait, so, on a less-hypothetical level, am I - a creepy middle-aged misanthrope - really supposed to "get involved" with local teen LGBT groups in the hopes they buy my books with high-school LGBT youth in them? I know all publicity is good publicity, but being arrested for "grooming" and being branded a sex-offender requires a _bit_ more dedication than I'm willing to give.


For youth, you market to their parents, teachers, librarians, and schools my dear man 

Now, I know we're being silly here, but it is important for us to look at the reason why we aren't getting offended by my example. It was because I was identifying a target audience and began brainstorming what to do without using any assumptions about what this particular demographic would be interested in.

So, again, I think we can discuss how to get the world out to female readers without offending anyone. It's when we make assumptions that cause the trouble.


----------



## Coral Moore (Nov 29, 2009)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> What does this have to do with the conversation? Many women have said they don't mind seeing skin, or blood, or abstract items in covers. Note that few have said they were ATTRACTED to such covers. Only that they aren't offended or bothered by them. Women will buy books that depict violence on the cover or show some flesh and not think twice about it. How much of this ambivalence is because we have simply "adapted" to living in a male-dominated culture?


Now that's an interesting question! On the flip-side to that, I've actually sort of wondered if the whole pink thing isn't more about keeping men away rather than appealing to women. I don't have much of an opinion one way or another on the color, and it seems like men have a much more visceral reaction to it than any women I know. I wonder if that very pretty pastel-colored book will tell me the answer to that... In case you're wondering, that was a joke. I'm not picking up that book not because it's pink, but because I don't like children. No really, it has nothing to do with what is or isn't on the cover at all. Which I think is really the point of this particular ramble of mine.

I would say in this case the answer to the question doesn't really matter. If we few(?) women readers of SciFi/Fantasy know that in order to get our fix we have to put up with chain mail chicks on the cover, doesn't that mean that the cover has no impact on our picking it up so long as we can recognize the contents as being something we want to read?


----------



## Guest (Apr 16, 2012)

Coral Moore said:


> I would say in this case the answer to the question doesn't really matter. If we few(?) women readers of SciFi/Fantasy know that in order to get our fix we have to put up with chain mail chicks on the cover, doesn't that mean that the cover has no impact on our picking it up so long as we can recognize the contents book as being something we want to read?


I know for me personally, I'm more inclined to look at the _production value of the whole_ than the image itself. I'll tolerate the chain mail chick if the art is well done and it looks like some care was put into production. But I can't stand computer-generated quasi-3D looking images. It just looks so cheap to me.


----------



## Vukovina (Mar 30, 2012)

Slightly off-topic, but I was glancing through: http://www.bizreport.com/2011/08/ereaders-popular-among-women.html

And then I read Coral Moore's reply, and I thought, "hmm, maybe being seen reading a book with a certain cover could be a reason for not buying the book (even if you don't mind the cover yourself)."

If you're a guy and you're on the football team and you're taking the bus to a game with all the other guys and the coach, you might not want to read the book with the puppy and flowers on the cover.

If you're a gal on the bus and it's getting dark and you're riding through Pervert District and you get the urge to read some erotica, the one with the more discrete cover may be more strategic than the one with lots of sexy naked flesh if you don't want dirty eyes on you.

And to add my own little bit:

Production values are pretty important to me, too. I'd rather the images be cropped properly, for example. I figure that if the author / publisher has a professional-looking cover, she either spent lots of time doing it or paid someone else to do; in both cases, that tells me she values the writing. They invested in it.


----------



## Coral Moore (Nov 29, 2009)

Vukovina said:


> Slightly off-topic, but I was glancing through: http://www.bizreport.com/2011/08/ereaders-popular-among-women.html
> 
> And then I read Coral Moore's reply, and I thought, "hmm, maybe being seen reading a book with a certain cover could be a reason for not buying the book (even if you don't mind the cover yourself)."
> 
> ...


That's also an interesting point that could spawn a whole other thread. I wonder how much of gender biased "success" in marketing is all because of how people want to be seen? If so, it would make sense if eBooks didn't follow those same buying habits. I think that's kind of what someone in this thread was getting at with the John Locke books.

I do agree with the production value comment as well. The more I've thought about Julie's comments, the more I realize that what's on the cover doesn't really have an impact on me beyond if it's nicely done. A nicely-made cover, even if it's of something that I'm not necessarily drawn to, is worlds better than a shoddy cover.


----------



## Jan Strnad (May 27, 2010)

MichelleR said:


> It's not the top of my list either, but I think it becomes the cherry on the sundae in that post.


I'm offended by that one and by "better half" referring to the wife. The former makes me the "uglier sex" and the latter makes me the "worse half." Who needs that?

Yeah, Michelle, anyone who is joked about usually does not fare well. But aside from making sure that all of our jokes are socially correct and inoffensive (Q: What's long and brown and sticky? A:


Spoiler



A stick.


) the best thing we can do IMO is to be able to take a joke and joke about ourselves (I was an ugly kid. One day I got lost. I went up to a cop and asked if he could help me find my parents. He said, "I don't know, kid, there's lots of places they could hide."--Rodney Dangerfield) and remember Pogo's advice: "Don't take life too serious. It ain't nohow permanent."

I'm older, married 33 years to the same woman. We get along by cutting each other some slack, despite our differences. For example, she likes to talk to me during sex. Last night she called me from a motel. (Okay, who's the butt of that joke, me or her?) Anyhow, at this age I think I'm immune to most marketing but sometimes it works. I saw an ad with a polar bear and now I want to buy a car...who figured that one out?

Ultimately, to me it's all mysterious and complex, just like a...hmm...uhh...the...Large Hadron Collider. Yeah, that's it. Mysterious and complex like the Large Hadron Collider.


----------



## MichelleR (Feb 21, 2009)

Vukovina said:


> Slightly off-topic, but I was glancing through: http://www.bizreport.com/2011/08/ereaders-popular-among-women.html


I've read similar things, Vukovina, and a lot of comments from women on romance novel-centric boards backing up that in some cases it is a factor.

As mentioned, the "clinch" covers were really a self-fulfilling prophecy -- men (we're talking the seventies here, and so it was mostly male buyers and distributors) though they'd sell, so this is what they bought and stocked, and women came to associate them with the genre - and so they sold. In truth, some women do like them.

However, other covers that are associated with the genre do quite well also, and some of that could be that they're less embarrassing alternatives, for those who are "embarrassable." The problem is that they become just as tired as the clinch covers when pubs leap on them and overuse a style. The design of a simple flower tends to become popular for a while and then fades again. Stepbacks -- classiness on the outside layer, lustiness when you open the front cover -- also seem to be a solution. 

[URL=http://www.covercafe.com/contest/2006/TIC-res06]http://www.covercafe.com/contest/2006/TIC-res06.html[/url]

(I googled stepback cover, found an image I sort of liked, and it tracked to a thread on KB, by me -- I must really have liked the image.)

Of course, sometimes just a woman in period appropriate costume tends to do the job. Courtney Milan's recent covers are a good example. Well, there are guys on them, but I look at the rich colors of the dress.

These, however, are books for a certain genre. What do people who like romances gravitate to in a cover? You can't extrapolate that what women associate with romance covers translates to what they want on the latest Orson Scott Card book, even _if_ they do like the way romance covers look, or read them. (Big Ifs)


----------



## Randirogue (Apr 25, 2011)

WHDean said:


> If your story is as likely to appeal to women as men, you should tailor your cover to women too. But that's the tricky part. What sorts of cover art appeals to or turns off women? Leaving aside the well-established rules for romance covers for the moment, I think I have a _general _ idea about what _generally _ turns off women readers, but I'm less sure about what sparks their interest. Of course, I could also be wrong about the turn-offs, so I'll enumerate them first.
> 
> *Turn-offs:*
> 
> ...


Since the OP keeps stating that the women here are not answering his questions, but complaining about his asking (and its tone), I decided that I will answer them as if it were a poll. To do so without wanting to cringe at the way the questions are posed, I'm editing your questions to less slanted, insulting, and offensive variations. I'm stripping them down to more sterile verbiage, a-la a "poll".

Questions in bold. Original portion of question is also italicized. My personal answer that in no way is trying to speak for any percentage of the female population other than my individual self follows each.

A: *Do you or don't you find Female skin (for example: John Locke-style covers featuring scantily clad females or female body parts without the corresponding rippling male body) appealing? To what extent and why?*

No, I am not attracted to these covers. I am not attracted to covers with any salaciously presented flesh on a cover whether it is female or male flesh. I am turned off by a book when I see such covers and do not seek to find out what they are about if my only relationship to the book is by view of its cover. I wont bothe reading the blurb or a sample. I am not offended by these images. My interest merely isn't piqued by the, thus I simply move on. Such covers give me the impression that they are first and foremost romance, erotica, or overt involvement of hyper-sexualization of pictured flesh. As these are not the primary themes I am looking for, I move past them.

However, such elements would not prevent me from purchasing a book when it is a story I wanted to read prior to seeing that the cover used them. This can occur in a series, where, several books in, a romantic undertone rises to the forefront for one or two installments, or perhaps a new side character with such themes is featured in that installment, or some aspect of the plot brings theories and concepts into the mix for that installment. As I am eager to find out what happens next in the overall story and since the writer has already incited my trust with his or her way of writing in a genre I am already interested in, then I will purchase the book regardless of what is on the cover.

Also, I expect sex and romance to show up as it is appropriate within the context of the story just as I would expect a parent/child or killer/cop or colleague/client (and every other possible variation of) relationship elements to show where they are appropriate within the context of the story. And, I prefer that none of these aspects be watered down. If its there, it should be for a purpose, and if there's a purpose, then make me, the reader experience it.

I only added that last part because I did not want my lack-of-interest in female/male flesh to be misconstrued as a abhorrence to sex, romance, eroticism, etc. I prefer these aspects to be mostly undercurrents that occasionally rear up and take center stage, but then fall on the priority level when other more personally fulfilling plot elements retake the spotlight again.

B. *Do you or don't you find appeal in Abstractions (for example: maps, runes, circuit boards, geometrical figures, etc.) on covers? To what extent and why?*_

I absolutely love abstractions. They are tres cool. I will nearly always check out the blurb and sample of a book with these elements on the cover. Such elements are a common sign that the book will be in one of my preferred genres. I love abstractions so much that my screen savers and backgrounds on my computers and digital devices (I love tech!) are made up of at least 90% abstractions such as you described, especially fractals.

However, if abstractions are of poor quality (low res, badly lit, amateurishly rendered, etc.), I will be still read the blurb and maybe even the sample, albeit with a more critical eye than I would for a book with a cover featuring high quality abstractions. The poorer quality will give me the impression that the writer treated the plot, theories, setting, characters, etc. with equal amounts of care and through less keen perceptions.

C. *Do you or don't you find appeal to SF motifs (for example: spaceships, space stations, planets, aliens and chrome cities on covers? Why and to what extent?*

I absolutely am attracted to covers with SF motifs such as you suggested. One of my all-time favorite dvd covers is for "Metropolis," which features a chrome city. Those elements will always excite me to read the blurb and check out a sample, and if cool enough... Outright purchase just by the cover. I have often drooled over HG Geiger's art and love his design of the aliens in "Alien" and "Aliens."

However, like with abstractions, poor quality renditions of these elemIents will make me feel skeptical of their treatment within the context of the story, and as such, I will ingest them with a more critical eye than I would for a cover featuring high quality versions.

The higher quality images of these types of elements grants the storyteller more leniency on my part. That is artistically sad and embarrassing, but nonetheless true.

D. *Do you or don't you find appeal in images featuring stereotypically male things (for example: *_*chessboards, sporting and technical objects [/I] on covers? Why and to what extent?*

This one is harder for me. I love to play sports. I played and excelled on boys' soccer teams and baseball teams until I reached a certain age and the officials of the leagues told me and my parents that I had to switch to the female equivalent. While I grew very fond of fast-pitch softball and the 12-games-in-48-hrs championship tournaments, when I was first forced to change, I loathed it. That rooted some bad bias at times. I don't like to watch sports, but I do love playing them, though they are not high on my priority lists anymore. Because of that, I would probably skip over the cover with sports elements on it in favor of finding a cover with abstractions or SF motifs instead.

However, I would be very attracted to chess pieces (I love to play chess and have gone through about half a dozen complete boards-and-pieces collections). Same with technical objects. I love looking at pictures of the supercollider. In my job, I am sometimes responsible for tv/theater tech tasks, and am usually eager to take them on. I love computers and other digital tech. I like imagery of high and low tech equally. It's one of the appeals of steampunk for me.

Covers with high quality images of technological objects and chess pieces would definitely make me check out the blurb and the sample, and grant more leniency towards them. Like with abstractions and SF motifs, poor quality images would still invite my interest, but with a vein of distrust in how the author would handle the subjects.

E. *Do you or don't you like images of  Graphic violence (for example: blood-spitting-demon heads, people being stabbed, tortured, etc. on covers? Why and to what extent? *

YES! That said, I'm a bit desensitized to it (especially after watching "Dr. Caligari" and some extreme fringe anime and Asian films). These images are not as evocative as much for me because their overuse for shock value has diminished their effect to me. Taming them doesn't make them appealing either. But, creepy subtleties with them (which isn't the same as taming) can be very appealing. My brain will fill in the shadows, hints and allusions (yes, I said allusions, not illusions) with very dark and horrible things. Yaay! Sometimes, it's the things NOT SHOWN that will make me buy the book if for no other reason than to see if what happens comes close to the despicable evil things the dark side of my imagination came up with.

That said... It better pay off. I don't want gore tamed or watered down any more than I want it to be pointless. Both are equally boring. Give it to me good, and make me ache for it as it approaches.

So, I still hope you accept my answers to your originally posed (though rephrased to remove the bother they originally incited in me) as what they are: an honest representation of my personal opinions.

But, before I end this very lengthy and more likely to be skipped over post, I have to add...

Although you've argued against it, your tone IS important because tone is a *vital* element of writing, and it is the writers job to communicate effectively, including purposeful use of tone for a specific desired reaction of those to whom the writing is aimed. If you are asking questions of a specific group of people and, despite your intentions, your tone is upsetting the vast majority of that group, then you, as the writer, are responsible for learning what it was about your communication that had the undesired effect and take steps to correct them, (be it phrasing, tone, vernacular, etc), especially if ou want direct nswers to your questions rather than more criticism over how you phrased them.

As I got the impression from your OP that you are a writer who was asking females if a particular set of stipulations about cover appeal (or revulsion) are true or not, it would seem to me that how you come off via your written communication with those women would matter a great deal. Insukting them in the process of seeking their opinion would, in fact, do more to turn away those very same readers (a great many who seemed to be avid followers of the genres you alluded to, and thus the very women you SHOULD be trying to attract to your stories, if indeed that is your goal). Even if you out of what you learned here allowed you to develop the template for the perfect cover to attract their interest, by insulting them significanly (even if just through the tone of your communications in this thread), you'd lose them as potential readers, sales, and their friends, and their friends.

My personal bother about the OP was not about the idea that you were trying to find out if women had some commonality in preferences and why. My bother was in your phrasing of the questions. You didnt ask them directly. You posed statements in the form of facts and politely dared us to contradict them. Okay, that was strongly put, laced with my bother you incited. But, your "questions" had some significant subtext to them, some more blatant than others. Reading them felt like you had already decided these things a majoriy, irrefutable facts, like you had answered them for us, but wanted our replies confirming them so you could pat yourself on the back for being right about us. .

And I'm doing what I expressly didn't want to do... Vent, lecture, etc.

If you had read my honest answers and had attributed any validity to them (though truthfully, it's insulting that you would infer to anyone that their opinions are not their own, but instead product of social expectations because in telling those opinions they included criticism about the means by which you sought them)... Well, as you have already done to others here, I expect you will discard my answers as confusing or not-really-my-own, thus invalidating them in your tally... Because I ALSO commented about your communications in with criticism.

Ah, well.


----------



## MichelleR (Feb 21, 2009)

Jan,
I'm not saying we eradicate offensive jokes. I'm saying that if you're trying to get answers from a group of people, starting out with old-fashioned terms for them and jokes about how they're illogical is not your best bet. 

We all have our issues and prejudices. We all have our friends who share our issues and prejudices. I don't sweat what a group of guys might talk about when they get together, what they might say about women, no more than I sweat what a group of women might say while together. I might be better not knowing the details, but it's all good as far as I'm concerned.

In general, I have no problem with what people say in private, say among friends, but what they do in public, how they treat people outside their group. If I'm in a group where people don't seem to share my values, I find a new group. So, jokes, quips, insults, and brags don't bother me -- unless someone is asking a favor for me, and then giving me a generous portion of stereotypes about me. 

This was simply the wrong thread for that old chestnut of a joke, which I'll acknowledge was mild. Just like Fairer Sex is normally only a mild teeth-grinder for me, but was -- as mentioned -- the cherry on the sundae. 

So, the point is not "kill all politically incorrect jokes," because I'd miss them and be struck semi-mute -- appealing, yeah? -- but that you might want to consider the mood of the room. 

It's sorta like the cover discussion. What do you like in a cover? An professional look that indicates the genre and some of the elements. What do you like in a joke? Something that makes me laugh, and isn't hostile to the people you're sharing it with. A cover can be wrong for Book A, but not Book B -- a joke might be great for the gang at the bar, but wrong for another place or time, if you want the conversation to stay open and friendly.


----------



## WHDean (Nov 2, 2011)

jennybizz said:


> This thread has consumed 20 minutes of my life so far, so I thought that I would make an appropriate response.


This question is important to self-pubbers who don't have access to the same mounds of demographic data that corporations do. Yet the topic itself is inflammatory, and anyone should know that there's no way to broach it without inviting scorn. I broached it bluntly for two reasons: (1) the people who complained turn up on every thread to jeer and claim offence would have done so anyway; (2) my stating it so bluntly invites the fire on me so others can contribute by playing the Voice of Reason card-as they've done. In other words, they can blame me for being boorish then ask the same question and gets the answers while I play Goldstein for a day.

I should add, however, that nothing I said was derogatory. Offence is something people choose to take, after all, derogation is something said. So, yes, I knew it would be made "offensive" because I knew the usual suspects would be trolling for it. But that's unavoidable; and as far as I'm concerned, anyone who says there's an inoffensive way of putting it-meaning some way of asking the same question that some people won't take offence with-is engaged in wishful thinking.

Anyway, on to your remarks.

Two things. First, the refutation of a generalization is another generalization. There's nothing inherently bad about generalizations-even inconvenient ones. Second, I'm only responding to points worth responding to (meaning you can keep the others).

_(b) Abstractions...we can conclude that it depends on the individual woman._

Most of the people who brought up abstractions jeered. Some said they liked abstractions. So it may be false.

_(c) SF motifs... SF readership is split pretty much down the middle._

Inconclusive. No one produced demographic evidence except Vukovina; and that agreed with me (unless I misread).

_(d) Typically male things...there are plenty of women who do not mind covers like these, myself included._

The only contradictory evidence mentioned was the Breaking Dawn cover. I conceded that, but suggested the second book of a major seller is not a good example. Of course, this might not even apply in the genres concerned with here. It's more of a nonfiction trope.

_(e) Graphic violence... if the book is in the horror genre, then this type of cover would be fine._

I agree. This one appears to be false.

_"Yes, this is what we are saying - that there are not certain things that turn us off, besides badly designed covers."_

Here's the problem with statements like this so far. If you're speaking for you and those you know, fine. That's how I take you. But many here are drawing on the Snowflake Theory to say all women are different, then turning around and presuming to speak on behalf of the gender. That's trying to have it both ways.

_"...some of the women on the board are feeling ignored. Yes, that's what we are telling you. We don't know how else to say it."_

Everybody's different doesn't become a good answer just because no one can think of a better one. Why not just pick a genre and say these are the best covers for me? Simply denying the generalization-instead of presenting counterevidence-is disingenuous because it tells me you're objecting to the belief in the generalization, not the content of it. I'm not asking whether broccoli is a healthier choice than steak, I'm asking which you prefer.

_"I gathered that that study was done about authors designing their covers, not what readers thought about the covers."_

The reaction of the genders to the covers was the salient point.

_"...that women want something other than a well designed, genre-specific cover..."_

Tell me something I don't know. Like how the things on the list fit into well-designed covers. I don't know what "well-designed" means for you. Give me something concrete, like a list of your favorite covers and least favorite covers.


----------



## WHDean (Nov 2, 2011)

MichelleR said:


> I know you think the answer that "everyone is different" is patently obvious, and doesn't need saying. _But it's the answer to your question._
> 
> There's nothing wrong with asking questions, but you asked one and received answers you don't like -- and so you've determined the people answering are flawed, not the question that led to the answers.


No, it isn't an answer. If I ask you whether you think more women like chocolate or vanilla ice cream and you say "everybody's different," you didn't answer the question. You told me what you want me to believe about women and ice cream. That's why when you accuse me of not accepting the answer, I respond by saying it's not an answer at all, it's just a belief you want me to embrace.

Now, it might be a good practical course because there are no reliable generalizations. If so, just say that and be done with it.


----------



## telracs (Jul 12, 2009)

I'm sorry, WHDean, but after 11 pages, I've lost the thread.....

Exactly what IS your question.  A short version, please.  

I ask because when I read your original post, it seemed like you were stating what didn't appeal to women, not asking women what they found appealing.  If I'm wrong, please let me know.


----------



## Randirogue (Apr 25, 2011)

whatshername said:


> I'm sorry, WHDean, but after 11 pages, I've lost the thread.....
> 
> Exactly what IS your question. A short version, please.
> 
> I ask because when I read your original post, it seemed like you were stating what didn't appeal to women, not asking women what they found appealing. If I'm wrong, please let me know.


+1


----------



## WHDean (Nov 2, 2011)

whatshername said:


> I'm sorry, WHDean, but after 11 pages, I've lost the thread.....
> 
> Exactly what IS your question. A short version, please.
> 
> I ask because when I read your original post, it seemed like you were stating what didn't appeal to women, not asking women what they found appealing. If I'm wrong, please let me know.


Asking open-ended questions is a waste of time because the topic is too big. So I drew up a list of steretypes and asked if they were true. Simple. Do you think they are true or not; if not, why not.


----------



## WHDean (Nov 2, 2011)

Randirogue said:


> +1


I noted your answers--thank you--but I didn't have time to read them.


----------



## MichelleR (Feb 21, 2009)

WHDean said:


> No, it isn't an answer. If I ask you whether you think more women like chocolate or vanilla ice cream and you say "everybody's different," you didn't answer the question. You told me what you want me to believe about women and ice cream. That's why when you accuse me of not accepting the answer, I respond by saying it's not an answer at all, it's just a belief you want me to embrace.
> Now, it might be a good practical course because there are no reliable generalizations. If so, just say that and be done with it.


You didn't ask women, as individuals, if they like chocolate or vanilla ice cream. The question would still be limiting -- at best, it would be which one do they prefer -- they might not really groove on either, but this is a question. *I* like chocolate. My sister likes vanilla. You listed all your assumptions, and then asked women to essentially step forward and have to accept or deny your points on behalf of those equipped with vajayjays and heterosexuality. (Hence, "everyone is different.")

You say people would have been offended, no matter what. More than one woman has told you a phrasing she would have been okay with, and would have garnered the results you indicate you want -- feedback on cover preferences of individual women that you could them use to note if there are any trends. I know I mentioned a couple different ways the thread could have worked.

You indicate that the only person who answered your post in a way you found useful is the one who agreed with you, and reinforced your assumptions. I believe that you have to see the flaw in that. Maybe not.

Instead of being angry at the answers, why not consider if the question is flawed?

A very popular cover with a chess piece was offered to you, and you respond that it's a sequel to a popular series. Okay, it's also a beautiful cover, imo. I have purchased at least two or three covers with chess pieces -- the one in the earlier example isn't one of them, although it's -- again -- gorgeous. I showed in this thread one of them. Yet, you gravitate to the example that you feel you can dispute. How about the fact that Julie has a chess piece in a book in her signature?

And none of that is conclusive, but it's what women here have offered to you, and since they're the people you seemed to want to know about...


----------



## telracs (Jul 12, 2009)

WHDean said:


> Asking open-ended questions is a waste of time because the topic is too big. So I drew up a list of steretypes and asked if they were true. Simple. Do you think they are true or not; if not, why not.


Okay, you're gonna hate this answer. But no, I don't think they are universally true, because nothing is universally true. I like SF, so I like books with spaceships on them. I don't think there really is anything exclusively male or female, so I think maps, runes, chessboard or anything else, if it fits the story, should be on the cover. I don't like excessive female flesh, but then again, I don't like excessive male flesh. That's just me. I don't like stories that are excessively violent, so a cover with torture etc will be a turn off for me.

You can ask 100 people what they like and while you might not get 100 different answers, you will not get a complete consensus either.

However, I think the consensus here has been, if the image fits the story, it will "appeal" to the reader who likes that kind of story.


----------



## Greer (Sep 24, 2011)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> I know for me personally, I'm more inclined to look at the _production value of the whole_ than the image itself. I'll tolerate the chain mail chick if the art is well done and it looks like some care was put into production. But I can't stand computer-generated quasi-3D looking images. It just looks so cheap to me.


I agree with Julie and the other folks who said that production values are generally more important than the image itself -- mostly because it shows that the author cares about the product they're putting out there.

In a case of something like mantitty or bodice-bursting cleavage on the cover of a book, it doesn't offend me, but I don't read romance, so I wouldn't pick the book up, either. And if it was a mystery, which I do read, I would assume it wasn't because mysteries aren't known for their copious amounts of mantitty, and would not pick it up anyway.

For me, the only things that I truly don't like on covers are things which cause a strong negative emotional reaction. I like psychological horror, and love me a good b-grade slasher movie, but I can't stand torture-porn, and really dislike anything where animal characters are killed, so anything on the cover that would suggest the story was something like that would turn me off. Also, objectification of women in a misogynistic way is a huge turn-off -- a little heaving bosom is fine, because it's usually done from an appreciative slant, but anything that hints at treating women like, uh... toys (if you get what I'm saying) will have me headed the other way really fast.


----------



## NoCat (Aug 5, 2010)

I think the most important thing isn't if the cover appeals to women, but if your story appeals to women. If your cover fits the book, fits the genre and tone and looks professional, that's good. If the story happens to be something that most women wouldn't read (not sure what that would be, exactly, because we're at least 50% of the readers of most fiction genres), that's a whole different issue than if the cover is something a woman would appreciate.

If you write a gritty thriller and put this on the cover:








I imagine you won't hook the kinds of readers you want, male or female. Sure, the art is lovely, but it won't fit your book, so anyone who picks up the book based on that cover art will be expecting something else and hate it.
If you'd put something appropriate, like this:







then I think both male and female readers of *gritty thrillers* would pick up the book and like it because they would know exactly what they are getting.

So maybe a better question to ask yourself if you want to appeal to female readers isn't about the cover at all, but if you have written a book that women who read that genre would want to read.


----------



## Randirogue (Apr 25, 2011)

DreamWeaver said:


> I am a woman, and I absolutely hate pink! And it's the only color that I find repulsive.


Me too!

There is the rare occasion I let it slip by though... very rare. I prefer red, dark (not maroon and not cherry red). and really dark purple.



WHDean said:


> I noted your answers--thank you--but I didn't have time to read them.


Heh... Maybe it's best you don't. I got a little going at the end there. I can *roll* with the worst of them, apparently. Especially when I've been awake for 30 hours straight and gotta be up and moving at 4am again tomorrow (which I hate, but I like my day job, and all the pretty, pretty tech equipment I work around in the control booth).

And why do I have a really odd urge to holler, "It's Miller Time!"? (I _very rarely_ drink, and even _*more rarely*_, beer.)

(*ETA:* EEK! I meant "roll"; I didn't mean troll. Bad keyboard and sleep-slurry fingers! Bad typo! Bad, bad! I'm not calling anyone a troll. *corrected it*)


----------



## MichelleR (Feb 21, 2009)

LOL, and the typo made perfect sense.


----------



## Jan Strnad (May 27, 2010)

Okay!

I'm so glad we got all that straightened out!

Group hug, bar's open, and remember that margaritas are only $2 until 7:00 pm!


----------



## MichelleR (Feb 21, 2009)

Um, is it ladies night?


----------



## Randirogue (Apr 25, 2011)

MichelleR said:


> Um, is it ladies night?


I'm thinking it's Tigger and iPad night with the a/c on full blast and thick fuzzy blankets to hopefully coax my tired booty to sleep.

And it's really off topic.

So, something on topic...

Since they OP has enumerated about what he had learned about what women didn't want, has he come up with anything from all of this about what they do like in covers? I mean, besides as it directly related to what was listed as "don't likes" in the OP. Finding out what someone or a group of someone's *don't like* doesn't mean that they *like* the opposite of that.

I'm curious to find out if he thinks he learned something they like that he hadn't thought up before posing his query.

That's not meant to be snarky... I swear it.

But, in the OP he stated that he would enumerate on what they *like* later. I'd like to hear his conclusions on that thus far. (Again, not limited to what he proposed himself, but by what women, and others, offered up here).

And I think I'm repeating myself... (Where's Tigger? It's cuddle time! And I'm of the mind to read a little vampire/werewolf gore, and maybe even love--who knows where it will go next? The writer, I'd assume. But I don't want spoilers, so shh!)

Ookay, I think I should stop posting before I really scare people (and myself). Apologies.


----------



## NathanWrann (May 5, 2011)

Randirogue said:


> DreamWeaver said:
> 
> 
> > I am a woman, and I absolutely hate pink! And it's the only color that I find repulsive.
> ...


That's Impossible. "Everybody's different"


----------



## Jan Strnad (May 27, 2010)

MichelleR said:


> Um, is it ladies night?


I am sooo glad it was you who said that and not me!


----------



## GPB (Oct 2, 2010)

Doomed Muse said:


> If you write a gritty thriller and put this on the cover:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Overlay crosshairs. Done.


----------



## MichelleR (Feb 21, 2009)

Jan Strnad said:


> I am sooo glad it was you who said that and not me!


Yes, well, your parents clearly didn't raise a fool.


----------



## WHDean (Nov 2, 2011)

whatshername said:


> Okay, you're gonna hate this answer. But no, I don't think they are universally true, because nothing is universally true. I like SF, so I like books with spaceships on them. I don't think there really is anything exclusively male or female, so I think maps, runes, chessboard or anything else, if it fits the story, should be on the cover. I don't like excessive female flesh, but then again, I don't like excessive male flesh. That's just me. I don't like stories that are excessively violent, so a cover with torture etc will be a turn off for me.
> 
> You can ask 100 people what they like and while you might not get 100 different answers, you will not get a complete consensus either.
> 
> However, I think the consensus here has been, if the image fits the story, it will "appeal" to the reader who likes that kind of story.


I'm not taking issue with personal preferences; I'm trying to elicit them. So your answer is fine by me. I have to ignore the bit about universals, however, because I have a background in philosophy and there are about three things wrong with that statement. And like Puss in Boots with the laser-pointer I'll be distracted from my quest if I take it up.

That aside, the question is whether you would pass by abstractions or whether you'd be drawn to them. Conventional wisdom says-and conventional wisdom could be wrong-that you would pass over them in favour of less abstract covers.

As for consensus, I don't care about it. I'm asking whether the things on the list really do alienate some women, but don't matter for others, or don't matter to any. Maybe these things even attract them. That's the key question.


----------



## WHDean (Nov 2, 2011)

MichelleR said:


> You didn't ask women, as individuals, if they like chocolate or vanilla ice cream.... You listed all your assumptions, and then asked women to essentially step forward and have to accept or deny your points on behalf of those equipped with vajayjays and heterosexuality.


True.



> You say people would have been offended, no matter what. More than one woman has told you a phrasing she would have been okay with, and would have garnered the results you indicate you want -- feedback on cover preferences of individual women that you could them use to note if there are any trends.


Some people gave me the helpful hint advice because they thought it would smooth things out, yes; but they would have acted civilly no matter what, because they are. Others just used tone as a pretext for throwing a fit. If my "tone" couldn't have been picked on, it would've been some other excuse to tell me to "go back to my cave"-which, by the way, didn't show a lot of class either, now did it?



> You indicate that the only person who answered your post in a way you found useful is the one who agreed with you, and reinforced your assumptions. I believe that you have to see the flaw in that. Maybe not.


It would be foolish to weight answers that conform to accepted beliefs equally with answers that contradict it. So, yes, I do give more weight to unconventional answers than socially acceptable ones.



> Instead of being angry at the answers, why not consider if the question is flawed?


Yeah, I'm the angry one...



> A very popular cover with a chess piece was offered to you, and you respond that it's a sequel to a popular series. Okay, it's also a beautiful cover, imo. I have purchased at least two or three covers with chess pieces -- the one in the earlier example isn't one of them, although it's -- again -- gorgeous. I showed in this thread one of them. Yet, you gravitate to the example that you feel you can dispute. How about the fact that Julie has a chess piece in a book in her signature?


I mentioned Julie's cover in the original post. The answers are ambiguous on this one because the females only came out strongly for chess pieces, yes, but not machines/technical things in general. Only Randirogue said she liked mechanical/technological things.


----------



## WHDean (Nov 2, 2011)

Randirogue said:


> Since the OP keeps stating that the women here are not answering his questions, but complaining about his asking (and its tone), I decided that I will answer them as if it were a poll. To do so without wanting to cringe at the way the questions are posed, I'm editing your questions to less slanted, insulting, and offensive variations. I'm stripping them down to more sterile verbiage, a-la a "poll".


Thank you very much for the detailed response. I have to admit that I am surprised by the answers to B-D. I don't doubt you're sincerity, I am just surprised. For E, I'm starting to be won over by Julie's suggestion that it comes down to enculturation: people who read in a genre start to internalize the norms of the genre, so even if you were initially less disposed to graphic violence, you've become desensitized to it.

Now for the tougher question, which has to be blunt: do you think you're a bit of an outlier here? Or would you say that your friends (or whoever else) have more or less the same preferences?

As for my communication skills, well, I might be smarter than you think. My aim wasn't to spend hours "communicating"; it was to get sincere answers, and I got some. If I'd been more mealy-mouthed about it, you might have followed suit and stated things less forthrightly than you did. But since you figured me for a jerk, you decided to tell it to me like is without dancing around.


----------



## WHDean (Nov 2, 2011)

Randirogue said:


> Finding out what someone or a group of someone's *don't like* doesn't mean that they *like* the opposite of that.
> 
> I'm curious to find out if he thinks he learned something they like that he hadn't thought up before posing his query.


Don't likes are important because they rule out a book no matter what else it has going for it. It's important for indies to know whether there are some things that some demographics hate for reasons they might be wholly oblivious to.


----------



## WHDean (Nov 2, 2011)

Doomed Muse said:


> I think the most important thing isn't if the cover appeals to women, but if your story appeals to women. So maybe a better question to ask yourself if you want to appeal to female readers isn't about the cover at all, but if you have written a book that women who read that genre would want to read.


The reason I'm posing these questions is that it's well known that some images and types of things turn people off. Knock the Golden Section all day long, but people simply prefer it over other ratios. Similar things may hold for women, in particular, that don't hold for men.


----------



## telracs (Jul 12, 2009)

Jan Strnad said:


> Okay!
> 
> I'm so glad we got all that straightened out!
> 
> Group hug, bar's open, and remember that margaritas are only $2 until 7:00 pm!


7 PM where?


----------



## Krista D. Ball (Mar 8, 2011)

All I know is that my opinion was asked for, and when I said how the question made me feel, I was talked down to for expressing those feelings.


----------



## WHDean (Nov 2, 2011)

Krista D. Ball said:


> All I know is that my opinion was asked for, and when I said how the question made me feel, I was talked down to for expressing those feelings.


Normally, I don't apologize unless I actually said something inappropriate and I definitely don't give fake "I'm sorry you feel that way" apologies. But in this one case--and only in this one case--I'll apologize on the assumption that something I said to you was actually condescending or derogatory. But no one else is getting one.


----------



## MichelleR (Feb 21, 2009)

WHDean said:


> Some people gave me the helpful hint advice because they thought it would smooth things out, yes; but they would have acted civilly no matter what, because they are. Others just used tone as a pretext for throwing a fit. If my "tone" couldn't have been picked on, it would've been some other excuse to tell me to "go back to my cave"-which, by the way, didn't show a lot of class either, now did it?


Okay, I'm one of the people who gave you my best advice on ways that it might have worked out better, yet I get the impression that you're not grouping me with the civil folks. 

I was sincerely annoyed with your post, but probably a 4. There are times that your responses, and some of the other responses, got me to about a 7, because it felt like the issues with the OP were recurring. However, I wasn't looking to "throw a fit," but to express my take on the topic, and to vent a little.

My comments on how this thread could have went a lot better are sincere. I think the comments from the other women about feeling ignored here are also sincere. The women here are not in cahoots, and so that a number of them say that they feel they were dismissed means something. That a number, who'd have no gripe with you, say the tone was off-putting, means something. That a number gave the same answer about the premise assuming too much means something.

It might just mean a genuine misunderstanding all around, but it means something other than people were looking to pick on you. Why would that be the case anyhow?

I never told you to go back to your cave. I never called you a bigot, either. I rather think this whole thing is a failure to communicate, not malice.

***
I didn't see you mention Julie's cover, but I believe you. I honestly think chess pieces are great. And chess analogies:

Pretty sure there'll be language:


----------



## Rachel Schurig (Apr 9, 2011)

WHDean said:


> That aside, the question is whether you would pass by abstractions or whether you'd be drawn to them. *Conventional wisdom says-and conventional wisdom could be wrong-that you would pass over them in favour of less abstract covers.
> 
> *


I guess I'm not understanding something. Why does conventional wisdom say abstractions are a no-no?


----------



## NRWick (Mar 22, 2011)

OMG, that cover for The Shepherd is FANTASTIC. This pink wearing, horror and gore loving *female* bought a copy purely because the cover was so awesome. Sure, the story sounded cool too, but I wouldn't have gone to amazon, done a search, read the description, or bought it if the cover hadn't been.

That is all.



Doomed Muse said:


> I think the most important thing isn't if the cover appeals to women, but if your story appeals to women. If your cover fits the book, fits the genre and tone and looks professional, that's good. If the story happens to be something that most women wouldn't read (not sure what that would be, exactly, because we're at least 50% of the readers of most fiction genres), that's a whole different issue than if the cover is something a woman would appreciate.
> 
> If you write a gritty thriller and put this on the cover:
> 
> ...


----------



## Krista D. Ball (Mar 8, 2011)

WHDean said:


> Normally, I don't apologize unless I actually said something inappropriate and I definitely don't give fake "I'm sorry you feel that way" apologies. But in this one case--and only in this one case--I'll apologize on the assumption that something I said to you was actually condescending or derogatory. But no one else is getting one.


*nod*

I did try to turn the thread to discuss the issue. It didn't work, but I did make the attempt.


----------



## WHDean (Nov 2, 2011)

MichelleR said:


> Okay, I'm one of the people who gave you my best advice on ways that it might have worked out better, yet I get the impression that you're not grouping me with the civil folks.
> 
> I was sincerely annoyed with your post, but probably a 4. There are times that your responses, and some of the other responses, got me to about a 7, because it felt like the issues with the OP were recurring. However, I wasn't looking to "throw a fit," but to express my take on the topic, and to vent a little.
> 
> ...


Look, I bear no ill-will against you or anyone else (the stated exception notwithstanding). And I appreciate the fact that you're trying to help me out with my communication skills. But here's the simple fact of the matter: as vital as this topic is, it is also inflammatory by its very nature. If I had gone your way about it, the whole thing would have swirled down into the touchy-feely "everybody's different" consensus and no one would have learned anything. The only way to get a response was to pose the theses and invite refutation. Keep in mind too that not everyone agreed with you. Some of the women said that the listed items do affect their choices.

You can bet too that a lot of the silent observers in the 3,500+ views are mulling this over in a way they hadn't before. In fact, I'll go further. A lot of the people silently reading this thread believed those things I said at the outset. They just don't say it out loud because they know it's taboo, and they don't want to ask the question because they don't want to be labeled. Now, maybe they'll start wondering if those things are true because of what's been said. So before you knock my method, consider the very real possibility that the overall outcome might have gone in your favour.

(For the record, I mentioned Julie's book in parentheses in the OP.)


----------



## WHDean (Nov 2, 2011)

Rachel Schurig said:


> I guess I'm not understanding something. Why does conventional wisdom say abstractions are a no-no?


In a nutshell, the theory is that women are attracted to (e.g.,) people rather than abstractions. So when they scan for books, they skip the ones with abstractions in favour of the ones with people.


----------



## Rachel Schurig (Apr 9, 2011)

WHDean said:


> In a nutshell, the theory is that women are attracted to (e.g.,) people rather than abstractions. So when they scan for books, they skip the ones with abstractions in favour of the ones with people.


Is this your theory or is it coming from somewhere else?


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

WHDean said:


> In a nutshell, the theory is that women are attracted to (e.g.,) people rather than abstractions. So when they scan for books, they skip the ones with abstractions in favour of the ones with people.


Ah, that must be why Twilight didn't sell to women. The cover represents an abstraction.

Now I understand. Forgive me for being nothing but a stupid woman. You wouldn't expect me to actually understand your superior male thinking, now would you.

Edit: And, of course, I have to run out and re-do all my own covers since they are ALL to some degree violent. No one told me this "conventional wisdom" that we have to read about tatting and not anything with violence in it. Just a silly little woman who always gets it wrong.


----------



## WHDean (Nov 2, 2011)

Rachel Schurig said:


> Is this your theory or is it coming from somewhere else?


Conventional wisdom is what people think is true. And what does it matter where the theory comes from? Do you think it is true of your experience or not?


----------



## Rachel Schurig (Apr 9, 2011)

I'm not sure why you assume this is conventional wisdom. I was curious if it came from a study or something. When you say "conventional wisdom" I feel confused, possibly because it is so far from my experience--which is to say, I love abstractions.


----------



## WHDean (Nov 2, 2011)

Rachel Schurig said:


> I'm not sure why you assume this is conventional wisdom. I was curious if it came from a study or something. When you say "conventional wisdom" I feel confused, possibly because it is so far from my experience--which is to say, I love abstractions.


It's a bit of an old-fashioned belief, yes, but the fact that it's unpopular nowadays doesn't make it false. At any rate, I find it quite interesting that so many female readers like abstractions. It's not because I believe the conventional wisdom, it's because I only believe facts. So thanks for the answer.

EDIT: forgot to say thanks


----------



## MichelleR (Feb 21, 2009)

WHDean,
I could respond to your latest post, but I know we're still not having a meeting of the minds, and the circles we're going in is wearing a path in the carpet. I disagree that asking women, as individuals, what they like or dislike would have let to a touchy-feeliness, but I understand that this is your belief -- and will let it go.


----------



## George Berger (Aug 7, 2011)

JRTomlin said:


> Edit: And, of course, I have to run out and re-do all my own covers since they are ALL to some degree violent. No one told me this "conventional wisdom" that we have to read about tatting and not anything with violence in it. Just a silly little woman who always gets it wrong.


Have you ever read Commitment Hour by James Alan Gardner? The government in the village the book mostly takes place in is entirely run by men, save for the role of "Mocking Priestess". Her duties include instructing others in the various "women's mysteries" and acting as the sole voice of reason, speaking up whenever folks are about to do something moronic and testosterone-laden.

All her pronouncements begin "I'm just a silly woman, but..." and people have come to learn that you very much ignore the Mocking Priestess at your peril.

Sadly, it's out of print and not available as an ebook, but paperback copies aren't too hard to find.


----------



## CoraBuhlert (Aug 7, 2011)

JRTomlin said:


> Edit: And, of course, I have to run out and re-do all my own covers since they are ALL to some degree violent. No one told me this "conventional wisdom" that we have to read about tatting and not anything with violence in it. Just a silly little woman who always gets it wrong.


But be sure not to put the tatting on the cover, because tatting patterns look rather abstract. A nice looking woman in a pink dress who is tatting should work, however.


----------



## Rex Jameson (Mar 8, 2011)

WHDean said:


> It's a bit of an old-fashioned belief, yes, but the fact that it's unpopular nowadays doesn't make it false. At any rate, I find it quite interesting that so many female readers like abstractions. It's not because I believe the conventional wisdom, it's because I only believe facts. So thanks for the answer.
> 
> EDIT: forgot to say thanks


Is your next thread going to be about how women can't do math because it's conventional wisdom? Because I'd love to see that one. I can even give the url to the dozens of PhD women in the math conferences I'm attending.


----------



## Katja (Jun 4, 2011)

I so hoped this thread would've died during the night.


----------



## WHDean (Nov 2, 2011)

MichelleR said:


> WHDean,
> I could respond to your latest post, but I know we're still not having a meeting of the minds, and the circles we're going in is wearing a path in the carpet. I disagree that asking women, as individuals, what they like or dislike would have let to a touchy-feeliness, but I understand that this is your belief -- and will let it go.


I didn't mean to suggest that women would have caused the thread to go touchy-feely--not what I'm was saying at all. I think the same underlying sociological reasons that drive all such threads to social (rather than intellectual) consensus would also have driven this one there had it been otherwise constructed. Don't really want to get into my thinking here, only want to mention that it has nothing to do with women as such.


----------



## Seleya (Feb 25, 2011)

WHDean said:


> Unless I'm gravely mistaken, SF still sells to males. Maybe it really has changed in the last ten years. I could be completely wrong. But it was conventional wisdom until now.


_
it was conventional wisdom _ ... 
and that is exactly the problem with it,_ conventional wisdom_ is what gets passed on and taken for true without getting verified (same as 'popular knowledge'), the same thing that defines the overwhelming majority of 'classical' science fiction writers as white, male, straight, christian (really?, have a read at their bios, please). Almost all the women I know (in person and on-line) read SF, a spaceship on a cover would have me pick up the book (or download the sample) in a second, ditto for a chesspiece (and then I'll be really disappointed if chess weren't a major theme in the book, though).

Zombies or gore would turn me away, simply because I don't like either in my reading, but what turns me off are amatourish covers, bad art and bad layout, covers that have no relation to the content of the book.


----------



## George Berger (Aug 7, 2011)

My *GOD*.

I've just had an epiphany.

Like, seriously. I was standing there, eating breakfast over the sink, when I realized the answer. Not just "an" answer. *THE* answer.

There's a *TWO BILLION DOLLAR* per year industry that' markets *100% EXCLUSIVELY* to women. It must be among the most ruthless, cutthroat industries in the world, and what they spend on market research must surely boggle the mind. If anyone knows how to appeal to a woman's heart - to form an instant, emotional connection with that rare and elusive female market - it's these guys.

And you know what? I've seen a huge amount of their advertising over the years, and there's a common element that runs through *all* of it. If you think about it logically, that element is "it" - the X factor - the holy grail - the one thing in the world that's more attractive to women than anything else.

Marketing does not lie, guys. Two billion dollars a year, remember? This is it, guys. The big one.

Put a glass of blue water on your book cover, and it's _guaranteed_ to appeal to women, guys. The feminine hygiene products industry can't be wrong!


----------



## Coral Moore (Nov 29, 2009)

WHDean said:


> It's a bit of an old-fashioned belief, yes, but the fact that it's unpopular nowadays doesn't make it false. At any rate, I find it quite interesting that so many female readers like abstractions. It's not because I believe the conventional wisdom, it's because I only believe facts. So thanks for the answer.


It also doesn't make it true... It means at some time in the past--by your own admission you don't even know when--some people believed it to be the case. Though we're not a statistically significant number, I think every woman who has responded to this thread has said that abstractions are fine. Is there any data to back up this fact you believe in so staunchly?


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

> "In a nutshell, the theory is that women are attracted to (e.g.,) people rather than abstractions. So when they scan for books, they skip the ones with abstractions in favour of the ones with people."


I asked myself what turned me off on a cover and was stumped. I was inclined to say I accept just about anything. So I looked at the books on my shelf, and there weren't many people on the covers. Symbols were plentiful. I didn't realize this until I looked.

Then I looked at the cover of my own book. Symbols. There's a Templar Cross, the Islamic Star and Crescent, and the Papal Coat of Arms. No people. The background is a map.

Very interesting and informative. It's reasonable to speculate my own unconscious preferences, documented by my purchases, had a great influence on the cover of my own book.

It's also reasonable to speculate that I don't consciously know what appeals to me or turns me off in a cover.

Lots to think about.


----------



## 48209 (Jul 4, 2011)

Terrence, 

The next question would be: Are you someone who buys based on a cover.

I don't. It's not one of those factors for me. I do most of my purchasing based on recommendations, reviews, articles, etc. Honestly, I don't CARE what's on the cover.

If I find the cover appealing.... that still doesn't mean I'll buy it.

If I find the cover ugly (but well done)... that still doesn't mean I won't buy it.

Perhaps what you enjoy reading has those covers. Covers (just like the rest of publishing) has trends. Maybe what you're reading falls into that cover trend. Or maybe you are drawn to them


----------



## WHDean (Nov 2, 2011)

Terrence OBrien said:


> I asked myself what turned me off on a cover and was stumped. I was inclined to say I accept just about anything. So I looked at the books on my shelf, and there weren't many people on the covers. Symbols were plentiful. I didn't realize this until I looked.
> 
> Then I looked at the cover of my own book. Symbols. There's a Templar Cross, the Islamic Star and Crescent, and the Papal Coat of Arms. No people. The background is a map.
> 
> ...


I always stop and look at books with symbols or maps (etc.) too. That's why I mentioned Brian Kittrel's book. It sticks in my memory because of the symbol on the cover.

Now, maybe you and I and a large (or small) cross-section of the population have a preference for such covers that translates into sales for people who use them. Maybe it's a cognitive quirk _completely unrelated to gender_. Maybe, on the other hand, there's a correlation between symbols on covers and content.

One way or the other, I think it's worth knowing the answer.


----------



## WHDean (Nov 2, 2011)

Caitie Quinn said:


> Terrence,
> 
> The next question would be: Are you someone who buys based on a cover.


Here's the thing. If you get me and Terrence to stop and look at the book, then you vastly increase your chances of a sale. That's something valuable all on it's own, isn't it?


----------



## Atunah (Nov 20, 2008)

Or maybe there is a correlation between the cover and the genre. Period.


----------



## WHDean (Nov 2, 2011)

Atunah said:


> Or maybe there is a correlation between the cover and the genre. Period.


Every genre uses symbols, maps or other abstractions on covers.


----------



## Atunah (Nov 20, 2008)

WHDean said:


> Every genre uses symbols, maps or other abstractions on covers.


And if they fit the genre and the rest of the cover fit the genre, then that is what matters.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

> The next question would be: Are you someone who buys based on a cover.


My behavior indicates it is a significant factor in selection.

I can see covers from a distance where I can't read the title or author. Something draws me to a few of those books. I also notice I scan rotating displays and tables, and my eyes pick up on one or two books. When I pick them up, their probability of being purchased is greatly increased. When I inspected my shelves at home, I saw a high correlation to symbols. The same thing happens when scanning down an Amazon best-seller list.

This type of targeting certainly doesn't guarantee a sale, but it definitely increases the probability the targeted book will be purchased.

Likewise, I completely ignore some books when scanning the display. Since I ignore them, I really don't know what I'm ignoring.

What's the cognitive process at work, and how does it operate? I don't know, but I can observe the behavior.


----------



## MichelleR (Feb 21, 2009)

More book covers I own. This was the first post: Covers Posted Earlier In Thread.


----------



## WHDean (Nov 2, 2011)

MichelleR said:


> More book covers I own.


So do you, like Terrence and I, linger on the symbols or not?


----------



## George Berger (Aug 7, 2011)

I'm kind of surprised the Harlan Ellison(TM) one doesn't have a more, y'know, vivid image. Then I look at my paperback copy of his "Partners in Wonder", with a bizarre, semi-abstract Leo and Dianne Dillon cover, and shrug. It could be worse...

You'd think his publisher could at least get the _whole_ book description on Amazon, though.


----------



## MichelleR (Feb 21, 2009)

WHDean said:


> So do you, like Terrence and I, linger on the symbols or not?


I think my response to covers largely happen at a subconscious level. Attractive or Unattractive, Cheesy or Professional. If my mind says attractive and professional, then I tend to stop and focus. When I get to that point -- focusing -- I then look at the details, colors, symbolism.

There are people with books in their signatures that I've never noticed. They've made no impression on me at all. There are other authors with books that made me stop and take notice.

We've mentioned, directly or indirectly, the Twilight books repeatedly with



as the most relevant cover.

If the beliefs in the OP holds true for me, I'm not supposed to like it. I _love_ it -- all the covers in the series are gorgeous. I love the covers so much that, against reason, they make me want to buy these books. I say against reason, because I've determined long ago that there is enough stuff in the book to make me not want to read them.

I love the simplicity of it. The black and white with the splash of red, which is sort of the branding of this series.

Chess pieces or boards tend to catch my eye, because I associate them with strategy, mind games, and scheming. This cannot be used with all genres, though. If I pick up a book with a rook (and read it on a Nook) I expect there to be some of those concepts, at least a metaphorical use of the concept of chess. While I like a lot of genres, a chess piece, no matter how attractive, cannot be transported to any book with equal success, because it will lead me to pick up the wrong book for the moment.

This is the main purpose of a cover for me. Might I like this book, if the elements of the cover translate to what's inside? If the elements present on the cover hold true, is this what I want to read right now?

However, the genre has to work with that, too, which I think is part of the most common response here. A chess piece could be prominent on a thriller or mystery, but might shrink to a small detail on a romance cover.

Color might be the most important thing to catch my eye, but the actual color -- beyond hue -- doesn't matter, as long as it matches the genre.

Love the blue in the Shutter Island cover, the reds on Peeps and Tamed, and the black and white of "Bishop."



George Berger said:


> I'm kind of surprised the Harlan Ellison(TM) one doesn't have a more, y'know, vivid image. Then I look at my paperback copy of his "Partners in Wonder", with a bizarre, semi-abstract Leo and Dianne Dillon cover, and shrug. It could be worse...
> 
> You'd think his publisher could at least get the _whole_ book description on Amazon, though.


Yeah, all of his ebook covers are sorta like that.

Now, this is a great (print) cover:


----------



## CaedemMarquez (Mar 23, 2011)

I am several days late ro this tgread. On page six. Though it is already bed tims Iam going to keep reading to get to good stuff!


----------



## WHDean (Nov 2, 2011)

MichelleR said:


> If the beliefs in the OP holds true for me, I'm not supposed to like it. I _love_ it -- all the covers in the series are gorgeous. I love the covers so much that, against reason, they make me want to buy these books. I say against reason, because I've determined long ago that there is enough stuff in the book to make me not want to read them.
> 
> I love the simplicity of it. The black and white with the splash of red, which is sort of the branding of this series.
> 
> Chess pieces or boards tend to catch my eye, because I associate them with strategy, mind games, and scheming. This cannot be used with all genres, though.


I don't know if this one will cause you an 8 or who knows, maybe even an 11, but the only cover I like in the second batch is Silkin's _Bishop _ (though I liked most of the first batch). The _Breaking Dawn _ cover might be beautifully rendered, but the symbolism is over the top. The red pawn there lurking in the shadowy background while the white queen holds the foreground spotlight-it's so ham-fisted that it strikes me as a corny. The Rorschach patch would keep me from even looking, the dog tags have been overused, the typeface on the Lehane cover strikes me as inappropriate and I've seen that washed out nebula picture a million times (although I picked up the short anyway).

Unfortunately, none of this says much one way or the other. So back to my earlier question rephrased: can you name one or several specific things that would grab your attention? I won't assume you speak on behalf of the sex, but I'd be curious to know anyway.


----------



## MichelleR (Feb 21, 2009)

WHDean said:


> I don't know if this one will cause you an 8 or who knows, maybe even an 11, but the only cover I like in the second batch is Silkin's _Bishop _ (though I liked most of the first batch). The _Breaking Dawn _ cover might be beautifully rendered, but the symbolism is over the top. The red pawn there lurking in the shadowy background while the white queen holds the foreground spotlight-it's so ham-fisted that it strikes me as a corny. The Rorschach patch would keep me from even looking, the dog tags have been overused, the typeface on the Lehane cover strikes me as inappropriate and I've seen that washed out nebula picture a million times (although I picked up the short anyway).


Doesn't register on my annoyance meter at all. 

I mean, I'd be crazy-pants to think I can talk someone into liking a cover. It's too much of an instinctual thing. You either like, or don't like, and you can then explain why or why not, but like any emotional response, or laughter, it either is or it isn't.

Also, these are just books I own, not necessarily covers I like. I hate the nebula picture, too -- but it didn't unsell the book.

I like the dog tags, because of the use of the red -- the lettering, and the blood in the fur. Again, I like the blue on the Lehane cover, but the thing that I think they did really well was make his name prominent, acknowledging it as powerful.



WHDean said:


> Unfortunately, none of this says much one way or the other. So back to my earlier question rephrased: can you name one or several specific things that would grab your attention? I won't assume you speak on behalf of the sex, but I'd be curious to know anyway.


No? I mean, I can tell you what grabs me about individual covers, but I can't compose a list of things I like in covers without one in front of me. And even if I could do a list, it depends on the execution, and the genre.


----------



## ParisRivera (Oct 28, 2012)

I think the best covers will leave a little to the imagination! Surely, what makes things erotic is the movement and transition. If all is revealed, where is the transition?


----------



## That one girl (Apr 12, 2011)

I'm a woman who loves sci-fi, but I like low-tech sci-fi (dystopian and post-apocalyptic mostly) so I usually don't go for books with spaceships and battle scenes on the cover. I like a sci-fi book to be more about the characters and the mystery than the technology. I guess I just love books set in the future.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

humblenations said:


> Hahahhahaha! Brilliant response. I thought the original poster was being a tad sexist really with their assumptions. But you've hit the nail on the head - badly designed covers are always going to be a turn off to men and women alike.


Exactly. Well, I would disagree on the tad sexist part... In the details, what attracts some people will put off others, depending upon the genre they prefer, etc.


----------



## Krista D. Ball (Mar 8, 2011)

Come come, JR. You know that every fantasy novel should have a cover like this:


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Krista D. Ball said:


> Come come, JR. You know that every fantasy novel should have a cover like this:


Yep. Absolutely. That appeals to ME all right.


----------



## Krista D. Ball (Mar 8, 2011)

Look at those heels!


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Those should be comfy for fighting in. And you'd never all off them and break an ankle!


----------



## George Berger (Aug 7, 2011)

That weapon-y thing is pretty awesome. Good thing her costume includes what seem to be half gloves, or the third blow with that thing - after the two pointy bits break off, as designed, and she's left with a double-headed mace sort of thing - would leave her hand numb.

_--George, or maybe the pointy bit shoots off, Kurgan-style?_


----------

