# #1 Rule of Social Media



## jayreddy publisher (Jun 13, 2011)

Here is an excerpt from a blog I wrote yesterday about what I see as an abuse on social media sites. All too often, I see authors alienate a potential demographic by posting religious, political, etc. opinions.

Excerpt:
I have noticed a trend lately on social media sites, where authors and other professionals are posting their opinions on politics, religion and other delicate subjects. THIS IS DANGEROUS. I understand we live in a country where we have the right to free speech, but isolating a demographic based on your personal opinions is not only unprofessional, but it WILL affect your book sales. And not in a positive way.

Think about it. Do you see Coca-Cola running a commercial that isn't directed at everyone watching a commercial or reading a print ad? Do you see them posting which presidential candidate they would support, or bashing the opposition? Do you see any advertisement that selects a specific religion to target, while excluding others? NO. Why you ask? Why would anyone spend money and time purposely excluding demographics based on a company's opinion? They would not only immediately lose sales to potential customers, but they could be seen as offensive to an entire group of people who no longer would consider purchasing their products. That is not smart advertising, in fact, it is committing advertising suicide.

Read the rest of the article here: http://hobbesendpublishing.com/1-rule-of-social-media/


----------



## Ian Marks (Jan 22, 2012)

Well, that's _your_ opinion.


----------



## Guest (Feb 15, 2012)

I thought the #1 rule of social media was not to talk about social media.


----------



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

jayreddy publisher said:


> I understand we live in a country where we have the right to free speech, but isolating a demographic based on your personal opinions is not only unprofessional, but it WILL affect your book sales.


You assume everyone is from your country, thereby isolating demographics who are not 

Now to be serious, I talk about the issues that are important to me and are also in my books. Of course I'm going to talk about gay marriage when I live in a country that's had it for years now and I have a novel with a lesbian captain who is married to a doctor. Of course I am going to talk about abortion rights, when I have an epic fantasy novel coming in April that explores the nature of abortion in that society.

Will this turn people off from my work? Hopefully. That way, I can avoid the 1 star reviews of "this is gross. Of course lesbians can't have wives."


----------



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

Edward M. Grant said:


> However, since the main characters in my not-yet-completed SF novel are an anarcho-syndicalist freigher crew, that might not quite work out .


----------



## Klip (Mar 7, 2011)

You could look at it another way.

While big companies like Coke are struggling to get us to interact with them on social media as though they are really "just people" and "build a relationship" with us, we have the edge.

We really are just people.  Real ones, with interesting opinions that not everyone will agree with.  Comes with the territory.


----------



## MonkeyScribe (Jan 27, 2011)

I'm a writer. I'm in this business in part because I believe I have interesting observations about life. If I present only the most bland professional face to the public, who will listen or care?


----------



## Ras Ashcroft (Feb 8, 2012)

Advertising is also heavily based on the concept that 'you cannot appeal to everyone, so focus on your target demographics'.

Also I don't know about other people, but I am going to be much more interested in an author that comes across as a human being with real opinions, rather than a bland corporate sales-bot with obviously fake neutral viewpoints on hot issues.

Welp, looks like I've been beaten to the punch several times over!


----------



## Millard (Jun 13, 2011)

If anyone's turned off by what I have to say, I don't want them as a reader anyway. Andy Kaufman and Stewart Lee have the right idea. It might not be as great for the bank balance, but I've no problem with being elitist over who my audience is. Some people don't deserve me, and the ones who stick with it, they've earned it.


----------



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

If expressing political or religious convictions is enough to alienate a part of your potential audience, it stands to reason it could also convince part of your _potential_ audience to become your _actual_ audience.

If you're the Coke of authors--James Patterson--you wouldn't want to alienate a demographic, because apparently your potential audience is "all." It's also self-evident most of us aren't James Patterson.

You're right that being open and vocal about your convictions can be dangerous. It also sounds like the tool some authors could use to become successful in the first place.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

jayreddy publisher said:


> Here is an excerpt from a blog I wrote yesterday about what I see as an abuse on social media sites. All too often, I see authors alienate a potential demographic by posting religious, political, etc. opinions.
> 
> Excerpt:
> I have noticed a trend lately on social media sites, where authors and other professionals are posting their opinions on politics, religion and other delicate subjects. THIS IS DANGEROUS. I understand we live in a country where we have the right to free speech, but isolating a demographic based on your personal opinions is not only unprofessional, but it WILL affect your book sales. And not in a positive way.
> ...


So I'm supposed to only have opinions on comma usage?

Nope. I'll go with dangerous. There are certain topics I have a strong opinion on and I will express them. I actively


Spoiler



campaigned against SOPA. I regularly post on LGBT-rights issues. I support the right of women in the US to contraceptives. I strongly support the Scottish right to self-determination


. (Political topics so only look if you want to know my political opinion. Political posts are not allowed here so I masked it)

If those turn people off, I will simply live with it. I am a real person. With real opinions. I think more people like that than dislike it but if I'm wrong, that's life.

By the way, many corporations make political stands, JC Penney hiring Ellen DeGeneres as a spokesperson, for example, and the entire SOPA/PIPA debate.


----------



## MonkeyScribe (Jan 27, 2011)

Millard said:


> If anyone's turned off by what I have to say, I don't want them as a reader anyway. Andy Kaufman and Stewart Lee have the right idea. It might not be as great for the bank balance, but I've no problem with being elitist over who my audience is. Some people don't deserve me, and the ones who stick with it, they've earned it.


To continue with this thought, taste is subjective. It's a niche business. Even JK Rowling has a (very large) niche. I have some readers who have dismissed my books as weird, purposefully shocking, or even blasphemous. Others have written me gushing emails or reviews. Truth is, I'm weird or wonderful depending on what the reader brings to the table. Rather than chasing after the people whose tastes are out of synch with my writing, I've decided to chase after the people who already love my stuff and make them love my next book all that much more.


----------



## Lisa Grace (Jul 3, 2011)

You can't be everything to everyone. Don't even try. Be passionate and it will come out in your writing. Walk on eggshells, and that will come out too.
Don't worry so much about what people think. Here, I'm psychic (JJ), I'll tell you what they think: 1/3 of the people are going to dislike you no matter what you do, 1/3 are going to like you, and 1/3 haven't made up their minds yet.
Now go write books, then be witty, informative, and passionate when you are on social media.


----------



## David Kazzie (Sep 16, 2010)

MichaelWallace said:


> I'm a writer. I'm in this business in part because I believe I have interesting observations about life. If I present only the most bland professional face to the public, who will listen or care?


100 percent agree with this -- and to add on, aren't we as writers SUPPOSED to comment on things that are stupid, unjust, that we find fault in? If we don't, who will?


----------



## Guest (Feb 15, 2012)

I think it's one thing to offer unique opinions and another to spout divisive, party-line rhetoric that you are regurgitating from a talking head, which is what the OP is talking about.


----------



## Rex Jameson (Mar 8, 2011)

I'm not in this business of writing about fluffy bunnies. The last time I wrote about fluffy bunnies, one went to hell and ripped the throat out of a demon in the Pink Snowbunnies in Hell Flash Fiction Anthology. People who don't like controversy and tackling social problems should stay away from my works. I blogged about this earlier today in a response to one of my reader mails.

I write about controversial issues, and religion is at the heart of my first series. It's a bit counterproductive to skirt the issue in my blogging and tweeting. I'd rather write about something interesting than sanitized, and if it alienates the type of reader that only wants to read happy endings and books that agree with their perspectives and viewpoints, then that's fine. I completely understand. I think there are plenty of readers out there who would rather discuss or think about issues that are somewhat controversial but relevant to our lives.


----------



## B. Justin Shier (Apr 1, 2011)

jayreddy publisher said:


> All too often, I see authors alienate a potential demographic by posting religious, political, etc. opinions.












You do realize this is how most authors have made their living, like, since before Plato, right?

B.


----------



## Hugh Howey (Feb 11, 2012)

Uh, oh. My books are chock-full of my philosophies and opinions in those areas.


----------



## Guest (Feb 15, 2012)

I talk about religion and politics often. My followers love it and if it's hurting book sales, I haven't noticed.


----------



## altworld (Mar 11, 2010)

We sell based on story and on our personalities too.

Social media has given the Reader greater access to the Author than ever before and we have a greater idea of their beliefs than ever. My opinions are just that, my life is just that too. I will talk about things I am passionate about, I always try to not be offensive about it. If a potential reader is scared off because I'm an Immigrant, that I support gay marriage and equality for everyone, that my belief in God is fundamentally different, and I think the GOP has turned into a bunch of loonies and the entire political system here is broke... Then its oh well... 

I've still written good all ages fantasy and a story about a Teddy Bear that will make your child smile.
Arigato,
Nick


----------



## jayreddy publisher (Jun 13, 2011)

I knew this would ruffle some feathers but that is OK. Everyone is entitled to do what you wish. I know that if you go on facebook and make a comment about a certain political group or religious affiliation, you will turn off a reader. The internet is also not dry erase board where things just go away. It will always stay there. I believe separating your personal beliefs from business, but if you don't, by all means go on social media sites and post away.


----------



## Rex Jameson (Mar 8, 2011)

jayreddy publisher said:


> I knew this would ruffle some feathers but that is OK. Everyone is entitled to do what you wish. I know that if you go on facebook and make a comment about a certain political group or religious affiliation, you will turn off a reader. The internet is also not dry erase board where things just go away. It will always stay there. I believe separating your personal beliefs from business, but if you don't, by all means go on social media sites and post away.


Book publishing is not the soda market. Hopefully, you'll approve the comments on your blog.


----------



## jemima_pett (Feb 13, 2012)

jayreddy publisher said:


> I knew this would ruffle some feathers but that is OK. Everyone is entitled to do what you wish. I know that if you go on facebook and make a comment about a certain political group or religious affiliation, you will turn off a reader. The internet is also not dry erase board where things just go away. It will always stay there. I believe separating your personal beliefs from business, but if you don't, by all means go on social media sites and post away.


It's an interesting discussion with many valid points raised. We do have to remember that we can say things in social media which may be taken out of context and used against us. But for a writer, separating personal beliefs from m ywork is quite a challenge. I am not writing as an academic, journalist or a commentator. What I believe in can be gleaned from my books. I think it's wholesome and uncontroversial. Many people will not agree with me. But as someone else pointed out, people that like my ideas are likely to try my books. People that don't like them probably won't. I have differentiated my audience.


----------



## VincentHobbes (Jun 13, 2011)

Within the last week, I've seen indie facebook friends post such things as:

'If you're a Democrat, you're an idiot'
'Typical Christian idiots'

Of course, I'm paraphrasing....the thing is, if I'm searching out an indie author, and their only platform is Facebook, why would you insult half your potential readership? 

It might be different if your book is political/religious, or non-fiction, but that's not what the OP is talking about.

I'm fortunate in that I get to do a lot of book signings. EVERY TIME there is at least one instance where a potential customer brings up religion or politics. I never give my opinion, never argue...instead, I simply re-direct the conversation back to my book--the reason I'm there in the first place.

Good article Jairus.....very thought provoking.


----------



## VincentHobbes (Jun 13, 2011)

foreverjuly said:


> I thought the #1 rule of social media was not to talk about social media.


Ha! And this made me laugh.


----------



## VincentHobbes (Jun 13, 2011)

foreverjuly said:


> I think it's one thing to offer unique opinions and another to spout divisive, party-line rhetoric that you are regurgitating from a talking head, which is what the OP is talking about.


Well said and I agree. Strange that so many are missing the point.


----------



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

Then again, Card joined an organization aimed at stopping gay marriage in the US and it hasn't hurt him any. Sanderson said on his blog that he didn't support gay marriage (and had to do a major back peddle), but people still buy his books. There's plenty of videos and stories of dirty ol' uncle Harlan, but people still trip over themselves to read anything he's written.

So, really, sometimes it doesn't matter what authors say.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

VincentHobbes said:


> Well said and I agree. Strange that so many are missing the point.


Really?

Let me insert a couple of quotes here:



> I understand we are entitled to our own opinions, but be careful when you mix social media with personal beliefs.





> Don't mix social media with your personal opinions because it will affect your sales.


So now do I understand you to say that isn't really what you meant?


----------



## Rex Jameson (Mar 8, 2011)

VincentHobbes said:


> Within the last week, I've seen indie facebook friends post such things as:
> 
> 'If you're a Democrat, you're an idiot'
> 'Typical Christian idiots'
> ...





VincentHobbes said:


> Well said and I agree. Strange that so many are missing the point.


You do realize that your book signature is the same as your publisher's, and it's very... very... easy to spot what's going on here, right? And do I have to point out that despite your publisher having three free books to entice purchases, the paid books for this firm are hovering at 200k and 500k rankings? And now we're pushing marketing advice?

One of the most important parts of social media is to not interact with other potential readers and assume they're idiots. I'm a reader of your genres. I'm not amused. If you're going to try to garner support for the original post, please do so in a transparent manner. Appealing to your stable of authors to come post and not approving comments on your blog (when I can see you're online) is NOT a transparent process, and no one can possibly be fooled by that. Not readers. Not other authors and publishers.

Can you please not post about what not to do on social media and then do just the kind of things that cause negative controversy? I'm all for open debate, and I'm sure your publisher and you have wonderful points on these matters, but this seems just... typical... of the type of independent author tactics that we try to stop on these forums.


----------



## VincentHobbes (Jun 13, 2011)

JRTomlin said:


> Really?
> 
> Let me insert a couple of quotes here:
> 
> So now do I understand you to say that isn't really what you meant?


I didn't write the article. I think the point is, if you've written a mystery novel, why post anti religious rhetoric all over your facebook page and then ask potential readers to come view your page. Makes no sense to me, but just my opinion.


----------



## VincentHobbes (Jun 13, 2011)

Rex Jameson said:


> You do realize that your book signature is the same as your publisher's, and it's very... very... easy to spot what's going on here, right? And do I have to point out that despite your publisher having three free books to entice purchases, the paid books for this firm are hovering at 200k and 500k rankings? And now we're pushing marketing advice?
> 
> Can you please not post about what not to do on social media and then do just the kind of things that cause negative controversy? I'm all for open debate, and I'm sure your publisher and you have wonderful points on these matters, but this seems just... typical... of the type of independent author tactics that we try to stop on these forums.


Easy to spot what's going on here? HUH? Um, yes, this is my publisher's article. Not sure what that has to do with me. I'm sorry, but I don't follow what you're getting at. Am I not allowed to post on this thread?


----------



## Rex Jameson (Mar 8, 2011)

VincentHobbes said:


> Easy to spot what's going on here? HUH? Um, yes, this is my publisher's article. Not sure what that has to do with me. I'm sorry, but I don't follow what you're getting at. Am I not allowed to post on this thread?


Sure, post all you want... just don't try to act like someone you're not. You're an author under the publisher. Something like "I've worked with this guy for years, and he knows his stuff," would have been a lot more effective than "Strange that so many are missing the point," when you're coming in to support your publisher. There's something much worse to an author's online presence than discussing controversial topics. It involves a hand and a sock. I'm sure you're not trying to give that impression, and that's why I'm saying, please be transparent.


----------



## Gregory Lynn (Aug 9, 2011)

On the other hand, participating in groups that discuss things and writing books that those groups would like may be opening up markets. 

Almost any opinion you have will be offensive to someone.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

VincentHobbes said:


> I didn't write the article. I think the point is, if you've written a mystery novel, why post anti religious rhetoric all over your facebook page and then ask potential readers to come view your page. Makes no sense to me, but just my opinion.


The article refers to "personal opinion", ANY personal opinion. Not anti-religious rhetoric or whatever.

Edit: I frequently post tweets regarding LGBT rights, particularly marriage equity issues. You can call that "anti-whatever" rhetoric if you like, but it says who I am, which very often people want to know about authors. I won't offer wee pretendy bland pap about who I am or do the "buy my book, buy my book" spam that so many authors do. No doubt some people won't like me. That would be true as well if I were putting out that bland pap instead.

That my being honest about the kind of person I makes no sense to you is fine with me. My apologies though for mistaking you for the author of the post.


----------



## VincentHobbes (Jun 13, 2011)

Rex Jameson said:


> Sure, post all you want... just don't try to act like someone you're not. You're an author under the publisher. Something like "I've worked with this guy for years, and he knows his stuff," would have been a lot more effective than "Strange that so many are missing the point," when you're coming in to support your publisher. There's something much worse to an author's online presence than discussing controversial topics. It involves a hand and a sock. I'm sure you're not trying to give that impression, and that's why I'm saying, please be transparent.


What are you talking about?? Who am I acting like??

Yes, I'm an author under my publisher. Never said he knows his stuff....he's been known to have been wrong plenty of times. Sorry you don't like an author's online presence when discussing 'controversial' topics....I saw the article posted and often comment on Jairus' posts.


----------



## VincentHobbes (Jun 13, 2011)

JRTomlin said:


> The article refers to "personal opinion", ANY personal opinion. Not anti-religious rhetoric or whatever.


I think maybe he didn't articulate that part correctly....dunno.


----------



## BrianKittrell (Jan 8, 2011)

The simple truth is to be professional, clear, and competent in all correspondence. If it's about religion or politics, you can respond, just don't be nasty about it. Leaning to a moderate position tends to go over better than an extreme, but plenty of people do well sitting at the extremes of their belief structures (Rush Limbaugh? Al Sharpton?).

Anne Rice has, for instance, always talked openly about her political and religious views. She's gone from Catholic to not Christian to Catholic to an interpretted form of Christian over the years. The point is, she doesn't seem to have a problem selling books. She's well-educated and versed in religion and philosophy, so she doesn't have a problem discussing it. If you aren't, you probably shouldn't.

Easy.


----------



## VincentHobbes (Jun 13, 2011)

BrianKittrell said:


> The simple truth is to be professional, clear, and competent in all correspondence. If it's about religion or politics, you can respond, just don't be nasty about it. Leaning to a moderate position tends to go over better than an extreme, but plenty of people do well sitting at the extremes of their belief structures (Rush Limbaugh? Al Sharpton?).
> 
> Anne Rice has, for instance, always talked openly about her political and religious views. She's gone from Catholic to not Christian to Catholic to an interpretted form of Christian over the years. The point is, she doesn't seem to have a problem selling books. She's well-educated and versed in religion and philosophy, so she doesn't have a problem discussing it. If you aren't, you probably shouldn't.
> 
> Easy.


^^THIS^^

Well said.


----------



## Guest (Feb 15, 2012)

Methinks I hear the heavy footfall of Ms. Betsy, yonder.


----------



## jabeard (Apr 22, 2011)

BrianKittrell said:


> The simple truth is to be professional, clear, and competent in all correspondence. If it's about religion or politics, you can respond, just don't be nasty about it.


Indeed! I've seen people discuss religion politely without a problem, but then get nasty and offend each other when they started discussing sports. Attitude's the key, always has been.


----------



## B. Justin Shier (Apr 1, 2011)

This thread.










B.


----------



## Guest (Feb 15, 2012)

jayreddy publisher said:


> I knew this would ruffle some feathers but that is OK. Everyone is entitled to do what you wish. I know that if you go on facebook and make a comment about a certain political group or religious affiliation, you will turn off a reader. The internet is also not dry erase board where things just go away. It will always stay there. I believe separating your personal beliefs from business, but if you don't, by all means go on social media sites and post away.


Then I might want to turn that reader off because if they are turned off by that, they probably won't like the content in my books (or are probably HIGHLY touchy people) and that would only result in a negative review if they did read. Also, while it may turn 1 reader off, if might turn on 3 readers who DO agree with you.

Kelly Clarkson and Ron Paul.

Now, Ron Paul is hardly the "popular" choice. But she says she supports him and BOOM she rockets up the bestseller charts, many Ron Paul supporters saying explicitly that they checked out her music because of her comment. Now, think about this. Some said they won't buy her CD now. BUT HER SALES WENT UP. So maybe sometimes you lose some potential readers but gain a larger pool of potential readers at the same time.


----------



## VincentHobbes (Jun 13, 2011)

ImmortalInk said:


> Then I might want to turn that reader off because if they are turned off by that, they probably won't like the content in my books (or are probably HIGHLY touchy people) and that would only result in a negative review if they did read. Also, while it may turn 1 reader off, if might turn on 3 readers who DO agree with you.
> 
> Kelly Clarkson and Ron Paul.
> 
> Now, Ron Paul is hardly the "popular" choice. But she says she supports him and BOOM she rockets up the bestseller charts, many Ron Paul supporters saying explicitly that they checked out her music because of her comment. Now, think about this. Some said they won't buy her CD now. BUT HER SALES WENT UP. So maybe sometimes you lose some potential readers but gain a larger pool of potential readers at the same time.


Very good point. I'd say the only difference might be that Kelly Clarkson had already 'made it', while indie authors are usually in the process of 'making it'....good response.


----------



## VincentHobbes (Jun 13, 2011)

JRTomlin said:


> The article refers to "personal opinion", ANY personal opinion. Not anti-religious rhetoric or whatever.
> 
> Edit: I frequently post tweets regarding LGBT rights, particularly marriage equity issues. You can call that "anti-whatever" rhetoric if you like, but it says who I am, which very often people want to know about authors. I won't offer wee pretendy bland pap about who I am or do the "buy my book, buy my book" spam that so many authors do. No doubt some people won't like me. That would be true as well if I were putting out that bland pap instead.
> 
> That my being honest about the kind of person I makes no sense to you is fine with me. My apologies though for mistaking you for the author of the post.


I meant no offense and no worries.


----------



## Guest (Feb 15, 2012)

That wouldn't really apply here. She was falling back into the unknown, and her Ron Paul comment (however temporarily) revived her sales. From people who DIDN'T know who she was before (same as many people don't know who we are right now).

When you post anything with controversy, you draw passionate people. Those who passionately agree with you about things are probably the most likely to want to buy your book and most likely to love it when they do.

If anything, I'd say DON'T be afraid of controversy.

Be edgy. Be honest. These are the things that sell these days.


----------



## VincentHobbes (Jun 13, 2011)

ImmortalInk said:


> That wouldn't really apply here. She was falling back into the unknown, and her Ron Paul comment (however temporarily) revived her sales. From people who DIDN'T know who she was before (same as many people don't know who we are right now).
> 
> When you post anything with controversy, you draw passionate people. Those who passionately agree with you about things are probably the most likely to want to buy your book and most likely to love it when they do.
> 
> ...


Of course, you must remember that Ron Paul is quite a celebrity, ha! I understand what you mean, and I suppose it depends. I have a fantasy novel coming out. It has some political undertones, but for the most part, it's meant for the general audience. The last thing I'll be doing is posting on my website/facebook things like, 'Democrats Suck' or 'Republicans are Nazis' or whatever. If a potential reader has heard of my work and wants to know more about me, the last thing I want to do is leave a sour taste in their mouth. That being said, if some of my political beliefs come out in my story-telling, well, that's a different matter.


----------



## Guest (Feb 15, 2012)

VincentHobbes said:


> Of course, you must remember that Ron Paul is quite a celebrity, ha! I understand what you mean, and I suppose it depends. I have a fantasy novel coming out. It has some political undertones, but for the most part, it's meant for the general audience. The last thing I'll be doing is posting on my website/facebook things like, 'Democrats Suck' or 'Republicans are Nazis' or whatever. If a potential reader has heard of my work and wants to know more about me, the last thing I want to do is leave a sour taste in their mouth. That being said, if some of my political beliefs come out in my story-telling, well, that's a different matter.


the reason those phrases would turn off readers is because they are uneducated and immature. You can express political views without sounding like an obnoxious hate-filled moron.


----------



## VincentHobbes (Jun 13, 2011)

ImmortalInk said:


> the reason those phrases would turn off readers is because they are uneducated and immature. You can express political views without sounding like an obnoxious hate-filled moron.


Totally agree. Problem is, I see lots of indie authors doing just that.


----------



## Guest (Feb 15, 2012)

One of the more attractive aspects of the hardboiled private investigator mystery sub-genre, is that a PI is derived from the Wild West--he's a loner with his own moral code he's convinced of and often goes up against big shots, corruption and crime. One of the reasons I was attracted to the genre was that I too am a loner, not caring much what anyone thought--if I was convinced I was on the right path, to hell with everyone else. The PI doesn't suck up. He doesn't lie down. He may in fact cross legal lines to serve his code and his client. As such he can even be an anti-hero. The classic PI would tell people to shove PC up their backsides. He wouldn't be afraid to speak his convictions for fear of losing sales. Losing himself would be worse. The genre may not be the most popular out there these days, but genuine human beings are. They choose their own fight in their own way and don't take sniveling advice like the OP's for any amount.  

Mike Angel would say: "If you don't want to offend anyone, stay in bed." Of course, he might invite a smart Swedish blonde to join him there.


----------



## CoraBuhlert (Aug 7, 2011)

Authors are people and people have opinions. If an author feels strongly about something, it is unreasonable to expect them never to discuss or even mention it. However, I believe that when discussing sensitive topics like politics or religion you should still remain polite. Most of the time, it isn't the opinion itself that is a turn-off, but the way it is expressed. "[Insert political party/figure of your choice] sucks!" is not exactly a well reasoned statement.

A few weeks ago, I stepped into something of an internet flamewar (non-political) and pissed off a few people. Those people who normally tend towards my side of the political spectrum promptly started to attack me and became so abusive that I deleted their comments from my blog. One guy, a trad-published author on the far right of the political spectrum, also commented and politely disagreed with one of my points. I now have a lot more respect for that writer, even though I largely disagree with his politics.

Another thing you should ask yourself when posting about a potentially sensitive subject or replying to someone else's post on a sensitive subject is "Is this really worth arguing about or am I fine with privately thinking 'XXX is an idiot'?" Only post when the answer is, "Yes, someone needs to say it."

I rarely post about religion, because I'm not religious (nor the sort of strident atheist who can't shut up about the gods they don't believe in), but I do post on political issues on occasion, if I feel strongly about them. I'm not American, so I mostly post about political issues from my country, which will probably baffle American readers.

I have read and enjoyed books by authors whose political opinion I obviously don't care. There are a maybe five living writers I refuse to read because of their publicly expressed political views. In most cases it was because I cannot support the racism or homophobia of the authors in question. In one case, the writer in question is not just a bigot but obviously insane. On the other hand, there are also writers I refuse to read because of their opinions about writing, TV shows and other things or just because they are arseholes. So really, there are no safe topics - you will always piss off someone somewhere.


----------



## Rex Jameson (Mar 8, 2011)

VincentHobbes said:


> What are you talking about?? Who am I acting like??
> 
> Yes, I'm an author under my publisher. Never said he knows his stuff....he's been known to have been wrong plenty of times. Sorry you don't like an author's online presence when discussing 'controversial' topics....I saw the article posted and often comment on Jairus' posts.


/facepalm. Whatever.

The silliest thing is that this is totally irrelevant. Who cares if your publisher told you about the article? I certainly don't care that your publisher is posting silly comparisons of book publishing to soda companies. I would normally just roll my eyes--unless he's trying to convince new authors to focus on his tried and true method of acting like a Coca-Cola salesman, which is what was going on. Avoiding controversy so you can appeal to "100% of readers" rarely makes sense in the publishing industry. You're unlikely to hit any of your target audience that way.

My point, and the point of many people who posted here, is that controversy and strong opinions can be useful in building an author brand. It should hopefully build a relationship with your target audience. Do you care about the LGBT community? Do you want to appeal to a type of religious reader? Do you want to attract people interested in environmental causes because one of your books is about global warming/saving whales/stopping polution/etc.? Then blog until your hands bleed. Be passionate and be genuine, and shed light on problems that are going on. You should try not to attack anyone, but avoiding controversy is not really going to appeal to readers. It just makes you blend in with everyone else who refuses to share their opinions.

Fighting for a cause you believe in sells, especially if that cause is popular. Discussing controversial topics and facilitating good discussions on current events will also gain you the type of readers who actively seek out your books. If you are just like every other author, and if your books are just like every other book in the genre, you have a bland brand. You might as well have pulled a Greek Seaman. It would have had the same effect on sales.

We're not talking about an industry with a handful of choices. We're talking about an industry with hundreds of thousands of choices. What makes your brand stand out? That it targets everyone? Really?

*shrug* Whatever.


----------



## Caddy (Sep 13, 2011)

> Mike Angel would say: "If you don't want to offend anyone, stay in bed." Of course, he might invite a smart Swedish blonde to join him there.


Hmmm...he sounds a lot like Gastien. Did they know each other? (God help the women if they worked together as wingmen)


----------



## VincentHobbes (Jun 13, 2011)

Rex Jameson said:


> /facepalm. Whatever.
> 
> The silliest thing is that this is totally irrelevant. Who cares if your publisher told you about the article? I certainly don't care that your publisher is posting silly comparisons of book publishing to soda companies. I would normally just roll my eyes--unless he's trying to convince new authors to focus on his tried and true method of acting like a Coca-Cola salesman, which is what was going on. Avoiding controversy so you can appeal to "100% of readers" rarely makes sense in the publishing industry. You're unlikely to hit any of your target audience that way.
> 
> ...


If it's irrelevant, why did you bring it up?

My only point was this: If I write a novel intended for the general audience, and someone searches social media and finds my site/blog/facebook, and the first thing they see is me bashing republicans/democrats/atheists/Christians, they won't give me a chance. I should be promoting my WORK, not my political beliefs....now, (and as I already stated), if my book is about such topics, then I agree, and it's a different matter.


----------



## ETS PRESS (Nov 4, 2011)

I don't have a problem with people posting their beliefs as long as they are respectful about it. I do have trouble with name calling. That's immature behavior, and gets no one anywhere. I also think if you are in the public eye, you need to consider your audience and tread carefully. A couple of years ago I was president of a reading council in a major metropolitan city. The guest author/speaker completely isolated his audience, and took advantage of his platform to speak his political beliefs. He did not consider his audience at all. He insulted a lot of people, and will never receive an invitation to return. Not only that, but his evaluation to his publisher reflected the group's feelings. I don't have to agree with you politically or religiously to read your book. A good book is a good book, but if you get in my face and insult my own beliefs, I am less likely to read your book. I agree with the OP to an extent. Know your audience, and think before you speak. If the shoe fits, then by all means, wear it.


----------



## VincentHobbes (Jun 13, 2011)

ETS PRESS said:


> I don't have a problem with people posting their beliefs as long as they are respectful about it. I do have trouble with name calling. That's immature behavior, and gets no one anywhere. I also think if you are in the public eye, you need to consider your audience and tread carefully. A couple of years ago I was president of a reading council in a major metropolitan city. The guest author/speaker completely isolated his audience, and took advantage of his platform to speak his political beliefs. He did not consider his audience at all. He insulted a lot of people, and will never receive an invitation to return. Not only that, but his evaluation to his publisher reflected the group's feelings. I don't have to agree with you politically or religiously to read your book. A good book is a good book, but if you get in my face and insult my own beliefs, I am less likely to read your book. I agree with the OP to an extent. Know your audience, and think before you speak. If the shoe fits, then by all means, wear it.


I've experience almost exactly the same thing with one of my favorite authors and I stopped reading his work.


----------



## Caddy (Sep 13, 2011)

> I should be promoting my WORK, not my political beliefs....now, (and as I already stated), if my book is about such topics, then I agree, and it's a different matter.


If the only thing you ever talk about is your work people soon see you as a spammer. Nobody wants to only hear about my books or your books whenever we jump on twitter or facebook. While a person does not need to be hateful, readers would much rather see that I am human and have thoughts, beliefs, and-yes-even positions they may not agree with then feel I just follow or friend them to try to sell a book. That gets old real quick. You lose more people that way than you ever would by voicing an opinion.


----------



## VincentHobbes (Jun 13, 2011)

Caddy said:


> If the only thing you ever talk about is your work people soon see you as a spammer. Nobody wants to only hear about my books or your books whenever we jump on twitter or facebook. While a person does not need to be hateful, readers would much rather see that I am human and have thoughts, beliefs, and-yes-even positions they may not agree with then feel I just follow or friend them to try to sell a book. That gets old real quick. You lose more people that way than you ever would by voicing an opinion.


If someone goes to my website, they should learn about my work....especially upon first glance. Never said anything about spamming. My facebook friends know me well, my thoughts, beliefs, and all that jazz....sure, if a reader wants to know more about me, they can read my blog or have conversations about whatever. Not disagreeing with anyone saying that a writer should only promote one's work.


----------



## Gregory Lynn (Aug 9, 2011)

VincentHobbes said:


> If it's irrelevant, why did you bring it up?
> 
> My only point was this: If I write a novel intended for the general audience, and someone searches social media and finds my site/blog/facebook, and the first thing they see is me bashing republicans/democrats/atheists/Christians, they won't give me a chance. I should be promoting my WORK, not my political beliefs....now, (and as I already stated), if my book is about such topics, then I agree, and it's a different matter.


Let's say for example, that I am an atheist, or more, a secular humanist. Imagine for a moment that I write a book that doesn't mention Humanism, Secular Humanism, or anything of the like but espouses the awesomeness of humanity and the fundamental heinousness of any moral system not based on doing the best for humanity.

Now imagine you're a born again Christian, ultra orthodox Jew, or fundamentalist Muslim. If I make the point you don't need a god to be moral I'm going to offend all the people who think you do.

And if you're one of the people who thinks you don't then not only is it not going to offend you, it will probably attract you.

And the same goes in reverse. Imagine I'm a born again Christian, an Ultra-Orthodox Jew et cetera and so forth and you're of an opinion that differs. Then imagine you agree.

And now understand this.

Books written for everyone are often boring. If you do nothing but talk about your work you're almost certainly boring.

And you know what? YOU DON'T NEED A BIG AUDIENCE.

That's one of the big joys of independent publishing. The costs are low enough that we can publish to a niche.

The bottom line is that if my public statements make people want to avoid my writings then there is a pretty good chance they wouldn't have enjoyed those writings anyway.

Actually, you know what? That isn't the bottom line.

The bottom line is that sometimes voicing your opinion is worth more than the money it might cost. If I say that torture is evil there are those that will take it as a slam against America and refuse to have anything to do with me. To hell with them.


----------



## VincentHobbes (Jun 13, 2011)

Gregory Lynn said:


> Let's say for example, that I am an atheist, or more, a secular humanist. Imagine for a moment that I write a book that doesn't mention Humanism, Secular Humanism, or anything of the like but espouses the awesomeness of humanity and the fundamental heinousness of any moral system not based on doing the best for humanity.
> 
> Now imagine you're a born again Christian, ultra orthodox Jew, or fundamentalist Muslim. If I make the point you don't need a god to be moral I'm going to offend all the people who think you do.
> 
> ...


I'm not saying authors shouldn't have opinions, not at all.

And I think books for the general audience doesn't mean boring....not by any means.

If someone says, 'Hey, you should check out Rex Jameson, he's a brilliant author'....what do i do?

Maybe I check out his blog/website, or facebook.....

I see nothing insulting on either his website and facebook page. Very inviting, actually, and his books look interesting. As a person, he seems interesting.

I see no, 'Obama followers are sheep' or 'George Bush is a devil worshiper' on either his Facebook Page or his website.

Great.

As a customer, I'm not insulted, not shocked, not offended, and can then focus on one simple thing: HIS BOOKS!

Which btw seem quite interesting...

Make sense?

Here's three smiley faces


----------



## Kevis Hendrickson (Feb 28, 2009)

The OP has a point. There's a reason why KB doesn't allow political discussions on this forum. We USED to have them in the early days and they always degenerated into the ugliest mud-slinging contests. MANY authors have fled KB after suicidally engaging in a political debate. In fact, an entire new ebook forum sprung up after a legendary political blood bath on these boards led to an exodus of some of our members. Maybe it does come down to how you say things. But some people are always trolling for a fight and politics is one of the hot button issues that will usually end with blood on the pavement.


----------



## Caddy (Sep 13, 2011)

> If someone goes to my website, they should learn about my work....especially upon first glance.


Well, the name of this post is #1 Rule of Social Media. That includes facebook and twitter, not just your website. Since you said you should be talking about your work on social media, it sounded like that is all you tweet and facebook about. That is exactly why I have a separate facebook page for Gastien from my personal one. Although a few authors and fans have joined my personal page, I have told fans that I may post things they do not agree with and if that bothers them to unfriend me please because I don't want to make them uncomfortable. (Not that anything I post is that awful, but I do have opinions.) As far as twitter goes, I say what I want to say.


----------



## VincentHobbes (Jun 13, 2011)

Caddy said:


> Well, the name of this post is #1 Rule of Social Media. That includes facebook and twitter, not just your website. Since you said you should be talking about your work on social media, it sounded like that is all you tweet and facebook about. That is exactly why I have a separate facebook page for Gastien from my personal one. Although a few authors and fans have joined my personal page, I have told fans that I may post things they do not agree with and if that bothers them to unfriend me please because I don't want to make them uncomfortable. (Not that anything I post is that awful, but I do have opinions.) As far as twitter goes, I say what I want to say.


I think it applies to all: Website or Blog, Facebook, Social Media, or in person at a signing.

Sorry if that point was misunderstood....my bad.

Very smart to have separate pages.


----------



## VincentHobbes (Jun 13, 2011)

DDark said:


> I just post my opinions about American Idol
> 
> I would think the rule of thumb regarding conversation aligns with improper discussions to have in the workplace. Of course, that depends on where you work.


HA!

And I completely agree...


----------



## lj.briar (Sep 15, 2011)

As many people have already pointed out, yes, posting opinions on politics/religion/education/culture/money/baking techniques/Project Runway* can will be alienating to some readers. But, as others have pointed out, some people will gravitate toward you because they share your opinions.

I don't have an actual study at my fingertips to link you to, but I believe several marketing studies have shown that, in most cases, appealing to a niche is actually financially beneficial for smaller businesses (ie. you at your desk. Yes you. I can see you. Don't turn around). I think it's because if your product fits a specific niche, you build a more stable, loyal audience, and can actually charge higher prices, making up quite a bit for lost volume. Individual results may vary of course, but that's how I understood the findings.

My two cents.

*Austin Scarlett and Mondo Guerra forever!


----------



## VincentHobbes (Jun 13, 2011)

lj.briar said:


> As many people have already pointed out, yes, posting opinions on politics/religion/education/culture/money/baking techniques/Project Runway* can will be alienating to some readers. But, as others have pointed out, some people will gravitate toward you because they share your opinions.
> 
> I don't have an actual study at my fingertips to link you to, but I believe several marketing studies have shown that, in most cases, appealing to a niche is actually financially beneficial for smaller businesses (ie. you at your desk. Yes you. I can see you. Don't turn around). I think it's because if your product fits a specific niche, you build a more stable, loyal audience, and can actually charge higher prices, making up quite a bit for lost volume. Individual results may vary of course, but that's how I understood the findings.
> 
> ...


Excellent points, and I completely agree. If your goal or your writing is intended to touch on such subjects like religion/politics, then yeah, go for it. There are most definitely niche markets, and yes, they do well.


----------



## Rex Jameson (Mar 8, 2011)

VincentHobbes said:


> I'm not saying authors shouldn't have opinions, not at all.
> 
> And I think books for the general audience doesn't mean boring....not by any means.
> 
> ...


Now, now, Vincent. Flattery will get you everywhere with me. Everywhere. LOL.

I actually went to your website and had trouble finding your blog. Then I found an article about marriage and infidelity, which made me laugh out loud when I hit the punchline in the second paragraph. At first, I was like "SCANDALOUS!" I had no idea where you were going with that.Then I navigated off the page and tried to come back and couldn't figure out the site for a while.

I found the post again--it was off Articles and Reviews->Writing (you haven't posted to here in a while). Anyway, the post shows you as a human, which I think would definitely connect with readers. Anyway...

*handshake and a hug*
*passes a plate of apple cobbler and some chocolate*


----------



## Guest (Feb 16, 2012)

VincentHobbes said:


> Totally agree. Problem is, I see lots of indie authors doing just that.


Yeah, sometimes I see authors acting like idiots, too. I don't point the finger though because I also see a lot of people being hypocrites, and maybe sometimes I act like an idiot and don't realize it. So, I wouldn't want to be the idiot calling others idiots. Have you ever seen someone do that?


----------



## VincentHobbes (Jun 13, 2011)

Rex Jameson said:


> Now, now, Vincent. Flattery will get you everywhere with me. Everywhere. LOL.
> 
> I actually went to your website and had trouble finding your blog. Then I found an article about marriage and infidelity, which made me laugh out loud when I hit the punchline in the second paragraph. At first, I was like "SCANDALOUS!" I had no idea where you were going with that.Then I navigated off the page and tried to come back and couldn't figure out the site for a while.
> 
> ...


Ha! I'm actually downloading one of your books tonight because it did sound interesting.....go figure.

*returning the handshake and hug....

Good debate....much better than watching television.

And for you, five smiley faces


----------



## VincentHobbes (Jun 13, 2011)

ImmortalInk said:


> Yeah, sometimes I see authors acting like idiots, too. I don't point the finger though because I also see a lot of people being hypocrites. Have you ever seen that?


For sure....and I'd venture to guess that at times I've been a hypocrite myself...

...human nature I suppose.....

....But as a book buyer, I don't want to be insulted. That's my only point.


----------



## Guest (Feb 16, 2012)

VincentHobbes said:


> Totally agree. Problem is, I see lots of indie authors doing just that.


Also, you didn't say "don't be an idiot about". you just say the number one rule was not to do it. I'd say you very much CAN do it without hurting sales.


----------



## Guest (Feb 16, 2012)

VincentHobbes said:


> If it's irrelevant, why did you bring it up?
> 
> My only point was this: If I write a novel intended for the general audience, and someone searches social media and finds my site/blog/facebook, and the first thing they see is me bashing republicans/democrats/atheists/Christians, they won't give me a chance. I should be promoting my WORK, not my political beliefs....now, (and as I already stated), if my book is about such topics, then I agree, and it's a different matter.


readers have a million places to hear about our work. Quite often they are MORE interested in buying our books when they get to know the author, too.


----------



## VincentHobbes (Jun 13, 2011)

ImmortalInk said:


> Also, you didn't say "don't be an idiot about". you just say the number one rule was not to do it. I'd say you very much CAN do it without hurting sales.


I'm not the OP.

I say the customer is always right, and why offend unless it's necessary to create sales.

We are in the business of selling, right?


----------



## VincentHobbes (Jun 13, 2011)

ImmortalInk said:


> readers have a million places to hear about our work. Quite often they are MORE interested in buying our books when they get to know the author, too.


I'd guess that well over 90% of books I buy I don't have a clue about the author. Only if and when I become a fan do I seek them out. I'd say readers who aren't writers don't search for books that way, but maybe I'm wrong.


----------



## Guest (Feb 16, 2012)

VincentHobbes said:


> If someone goes to my website, they should learn about my work....especially upon first glance. Never said anything about spamming. My facebook friends know me well, my thoughts, beliefs, and all that jazz....sure, if a reader wants to know more about me, they can read my blog or have conversations about whatever. Not disagreeing with anyone saying that a writer should only promote one's work.


So when you say not to talk about it on social media, you mean don't talk about it on your website but you do talk about it on facebook (which I consider more social media than a blog) ... !?!?

Stop backpeddling. Are you willing to admit you were wrong or do you simply not know where you stand on the issue. Either is fine, but lay it on the table and stop talking in circles.


----------



## Guest (Feb 16, 2012)

VincentHobbes said:


> For sure....and I'd venture to guess that at times I've been a hypocrite myself...
> 
> ...human nature I suppose.....
> 
> ....But as a book buyer, I don't want to be insulted. That's my only point.


I think you are probably right. And you probably keep making the same mistake without realizing. Many people do. You wouldn't be alone. Better to worry about yourself and stop telling others what to do, IMO. But to each their own. You've probably turned me off more from your book talking about this than you would have if you told me you were an Obama fan  (which would be not at all, even though I'm not an obama fan) No worries, I'm sure it's mutual, but since you seem to care about this sort of thing, you might want to evaluate yourself instead of others.


----------



## Guest (Feb 16, 2012)

VincentHobbes said:


> I'd guess that well over 90% of books I buy I don't have a clue about the author. Only if and when I become a fan do I seek them out. I'd say readers who aren't writers don't search for books that way, but maybe I'm wrong.


I've made a lot of sales because of people I've met on blogs, facebook, twitter. They end up promoting my book, and that's when it sells to strangers. I think it's a bit different from indies and new authors. Kind of like indie bands and indie film makers...


----------



## Guest (Feb 16, 2012)

all the indie books I've bought, I met the author in some way or another first. because of how things are set up, I wouldn't know their book exists otherwise--not at THIS stage in their career. Maybe down the line. Big Six authors are another story.


----------



## VincentHobbes (Jun 13, 2011)

ImmortalInk said:


> So when you say not to talk about it on social media, you mean don't talk about it on your website but you do talk about it on facebook (which I consider more social media than a blog) ... !?!?
> 
> Stop backpeddling. Are you willing to admit you were wrong or do you simply not know where you stand on the issue. Either is fine, but lay it on the table and stop talking in circles.


I think you're missing the point. I'm not talking in circles. When I come across an new indie author on Facebook, the last thing I want to see is countless pics and posts about 'if you follow this political, you're scum'...

I check into authors to find out about their work, not their political ideology.

Unless, of course, their book pertains to such....then it's a different matter.


----------



## VincentHobbes (Jun 13, 2011)

ImmortalInk said:


> I think you are probably right. And you probably keep making the same mistake without realizing. Many people do. You wouldn't be alone. Better to worry about yourself and stop telling others what to do, IMO. But to each their own. You've probably turned me off more from your book talking about this than you would have if you told me you were an Obama fan  (which would be not at all, even though I'm not an obama fan) No worries, I'm sure it's mutual, but since you seem to care about this sort of thing, you might want to evaluate yourself instead of others.


Not sure what your deal is.....I didn't write the article, I was only expressing my opinion and having a good debate. Not telling anyone what to do. Just observations as a writer and as a reader.

Chill bro.


----------



## VincentHobbes (Jun 13, 2011)

ImmortalInk said:


> all the indie books I've bought, I met the author in some way or another first. because of how things are set up, I wouldn't know their book exists otherwise--not at THIS stage in their career. Maybe down the line. Big Six authors are another story.


I've not bought indie books because I get flamed with political/religious propaganda by being facebook friends

Different strokes I suppose.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

You really seem to find it impossible to understand that expressing an opinion is not synonymous with rants and calling people names. Expressing an opinion is not "propaganda".

Someone earlier mentioned Branden Sanderson and his comments on gay marriage. I have never agreed with him, and although he has tried to soften his statements, I still don't. However, he has always been courteous to people who disagree with him. I respect him for that even though we will never agree on what I consider an important topic. It certainly won't keep me from buying his novels.

There is a big difference in having and expressing opinions and being a jerk to people who disagree with you. Calling people names demeans me and not the person I call a name. It doesn't take a lot of maturity to start figuring that out.


----------



## VincentHobbes (Jun 13, 2011)

JRTomlin said:


> You really seem to find it impossible to understand that expressing an opinion is not synonymous with rants and calling people names. Expressing an opinion is not "propaganda".
> 
> Someone earlier mentioned Branden Sanderson and his comments on gay marriage. I have never agreed with him, and although he has tried to soften his statements, I still don't. However, he has always been totally respectful of people who disagree with him. I respect him for that even though we will never agree on what I consider an important topic. It certainly won't keep me from buying his novels.
> 
> There is a big difference in having and expressing opinions and being a jerk to people who disagree with you. Calling people names demeans me and not the person I call a name. It doesn't take a lot of maturity to start figuring that out.


Not sure who this comment is directed toward...

Mind clarifying?


----------



## VincentHobbes (Jun 13, 2011)

Immortal Ink: 

As we all know, recommendations sell books. I buy most of my books because someone recommends it. 

So, for example, if someone told me to check out your company and your titles I'd do two things as a reader: look you up on Facebook and then see if you have a website/blog.

1. Your Facebook page is professional. I can clearly tell you're a publishing company, and that you take great pride in your titles. Under the info section I can find your website, and under photos I can see your book covers. I see no banners/pictures of any political bias. No lengthy discussions on why Republicans or Democrats are wrong. As a reader, and potential buyer, I'm not offended from the get-go. Great news! You didn't insult the customer. In return, (as a reader), I'm impressed. You seem friendly, your covers are works of art. 

1. I then check out your website. It's quite impressive, and as a reader, I take interest in your titles. I see no political opinions, no banner ads inferring half the population is wrong. Your titles seem interesting, your company has A+ presentation, and your market of potential buyers has now doubled. Why? Because you didn't insult me (the reader) with personal opinions on such subjects as politics and religion or other 'controversial' matters. 

*Your twitter is the same.*

Strictly as a reader, I appreciate this and wish your company tons of success....not sure why we got off on the wrong foot.


----------



## EC Sheedy (Feb 24, 2011)

LisaGraceBooks said:


> You can't be everything to everyone. Don't even try. Be passionate and it will come out in your writing. Walk on eggshells, and that will come out too.
> Don't worry so much about what people think. Here, I'm psychic (JJ), I'll tell you what they think: 1/3 of the people are going to dislike you no matter what you do, 1/3 are going to like you, and 1/3 haven't made up their minds yet.
> Now go write books, then be witty, informative, and passionate when you are on social media.


And threaded among the dislikes, likes, and undecided are those who don't give a sh-- rip what we think--they just want a good book.


----------



## Guest (Feb 16, 2012)

VincentHobbes said:


> I've not bought indie books because I get flamed with political/religious propaganda by being facebook friends
> 
> Different strokes I suppose.


But the article you are agreeing with doesn't talk about flaming. It talks about expressing an opinion on those matter...

Which brings us back to the backpeddling.

And if you want to talk about your work, talk about your work instead of how other people choose to use social media outlets. You aren't taking your own advice here. I guess you just don't see that, though...


----------



## Guest (Feb 16, 2012)

I talk about politics and religion frequently on twitter. I don't on the publishing account because there's no need to. Those aren't *my* followers. I talk to my followers about what I want. They listen if they  want. They engage if they want. We have lots of political and religious debates. Sometimes things get heated. They still follow me. They still buy my books. They still leave me nice reviews on Amazon. I guess I am just lucky who my followers are, but either way, I say to each their own.


----------



## VincentHobbes (Jun 13, 2011)

ImmortalInk said:


> I talk about politics and religion frequently on twitter. I don't on the publishing account because there's no need to. Those aren't *my* followers. I talk to my followers about what I want. They listen if they want. They engage if they want. We have lots of political and religious debates. Sometimes things get heated. They still follow me. They still buy my books. They still leave me nice reviews on Amazon. I guess I am just lucky who my followers are, but either way, I say to each their own.


As you said, to each there own.

No biggie....I still agree with his article.

Have a good one.


----------



## VincentHobbes (Jun 13, 2011)

EC Sheedy said:


> And threaded among the dislikes, likes, and undecided are those who don't give a sh-- rip what we think--they just want a good book.


Yup. And I'd say the majority of buyers fit in this category


----------



## Klip (Mar 7, 2011)

...and the last word goes to...

*waits in anticipation*


----------



## Susanne O (Feb 8, 2010)

MikeAngel said:


> One of the more attractive aspects of the hardboiled private investigator mystery sub-genre, is that a PI is derived from the Wild West--he's a loner with his own moral code he's convinced of and often goes up against big shots, corruption and crime. One of the reasons I was attracted to the genre was that I too am a loner, not caring much what anyone thought--if I was convinced I was on the right path, to hell with everyone else. The PI doesn't suck up. He doesn't lie down. He may in fact cross legal lines to serve his code and his client. As such he can even be an anti-hero. The classic PI would tell people to shove PC up their backsides. He wouldn't be afraid to speak his convictions for fear of losing sales. Losing himself would be worse. The genre may not be the most popular out there these days, but genuine human beings are. They choose their own fight in their own way and don't take sniveling advice like the OP's for any amount.
> 
> Mike Angel would say: "If you don't want to offend anyone, stay in bed." Of course, he might invite a smart Swedish blonde to join him there.


If she is smart enough she'll stay out of his bed.


----------



## Rex Jameson (Mar 8, 2011)

Susanne OLeary said:


> If she is smart enough she'll stay out of his bed.


I shouldn't have been drinking water when I read this. Thanks, Susanne!


----------



## Susanne O (Feb 8, 2010)

Rex Jameson said:


> I shouldn't have been drinking water when I read this. Thanks, Susanne!


You're welcome. Sorry about the water. You OK?


----------



## Guest (Feb 16, 2012)

VincentHobbes said:


> ImmortalInk said:
> 
> 
> > I talk about politics and religion frequently on twitter. I don't on the publishing account because there's no need to. Those aren't *my* followers. I talk to my followers about what I want. They listen if they want. They engage if they want. We have lots of political and religious debates. Sometimes things get heated. They still follow me. They still buy my books. They still leave me nice reviews on Amazon. I guess I am just lucky who my followers are, but either way, I say to each their own.
> ...


Nothing wrong with agreeing with the article. I'm merely pointing out that there is a lot of evidence the article is wrong. I'm personally not one to ignore evidence. Grass is green, sky reflects the ocean, butterfly has wings. Hey, if someone wants to think those things aren't true, that's fine. but when they start trying to convince others that lies are truth, that's when I get confused


----------



## Guest (Feb 16, 2012)

JRTomlin said:


> You really seem to find it impossible to understand that expressing an opinion is not synonymous with rants and calling people names.


That's because we're talking about* two different things*. Props to Vincent Hobbes for putting up with everyone in this thread. No one has a problem when authors express their opinions in a general sense, but when authors wade into political/religious territory you're bound to turn some people off and lose readers or revenue as a result. If you need proof, search for the book corner thread that had 20 pages of debate over if people were less likely to read a book because of what its author said or did. At least 50% of the people said yes, and I'm in general agreement with them.

So instead of piling on Vincent, I'm ready to hear people try to refute that fiction authors spouting divisive political talking points damage their ability to connect with readers.


----------



## Paul Clayton (Sep 12, 2009)

I think you have a point, up to a point...  yeah, writing your opinion on the President, or this potential law or that, could cause some folks to want to go do the equivalent of spray painting your car (One-star drive bys), but when it comes to my fictional worlds, well, if you don't feel comfortable there, I'm sorry, but I'm not going to rearrange the furniture for you.  And not only because I'll alienate that other guy/gal over there, but because I only have this one life, and I'm going to live it according to what I believe.


----------



## Guest (Feb 16, 2012)

Edward M. Grant said:


> Who's talking about 'spouting divisive political talking points'?


The OP. That's what this thread is about.



> are posting their opinions on politics, religion and other delicate subjects. THIS IS DANGEROUS.





Edward M. Grant said:


> When did religious/political opinions come to mean 'spouting divisive talking points'?


Sure, you can talk about issues without being blatantly partisan about it, but even bringing up something like abortion, for instance, in even the most subtle, nuanced, or original way is still going to rub a sore point for people.


----------



## Rex Jameson (Mar 8, 2011)

foreverjuly said:


> So instead of piling on Vincent, I'm ready to hear people try to refute that fiction authors spouting divisive political talking points damage their ability to connect with readers.


I don't think any commentary should be divisive when it comes to insults, and from my experience talking with readers, I know that cursing, in general, should be avoided at all costs in social media. Audiences will shrink from that in social media.

The main point has been that anything you do in social media should be about shaping and appealing to your target audience. If what you're doing isn't building trust and likeability but instead making you look like a whackjob, then yes, you're doing irreparable damage. If you're discussing the pope's recent visit to Chicago and the dichotomy of his speech and how it might show divisions within the church and listing sources for people to read more about a potential power struggle within the Vatican, then it's unlikely to cause you irreparable damage, even though the OP claimed that it would. In fact, that kind of story would probably get you on blog rolls. It's all about your pitch.

Now, topics like abortion will push the envelope of any reader, and care should be taken with that. But discussing current tension between Islam and Christianity and its effects on local communities? How religion affects publication and suppression of information in certain countries or regions? Ongoing wars and their effects on economies? Intelligent dialog on and interviews of interesting political or religious people? Discussing the pros and cons of stem cell research?

These are likely to show readers that you can do research and communicate effectively.

Throwing out a 50% survey on whether or not readers think that something an author says would affect book purchases? I'd say that percentage should be 100%, but that type of survey is not targeted at whether or not ANY political or religious commentary would turn off readers. It's only an affirmation that anyone can do something incredibly stupid online and be rejected by readers before they even look at the book. We've seen author blowups on review sites that affirm this is true. But does that mean that any author comment on a blog reviewer's site is detrimental? No.

So that survey doesn't prove that readers aren't wanting to see coherent essays or discussions of controversial topics. It just reaffirms what everyone has said in pretty much every post in this thread--whether it was Vincent or JR or anyone else. Don't alienate your target audience. Know your target audience and grow it. Even in social media, we should be writing effectively.


----------



## Guest (Feb 16, 2012)

Rex Jameson said:


> I don't think any commentary should be divisive when it comes to insults, and from my experience talking with readers, I know that cursing, in general, should be avoided at all costs in social media. Audiences will shrink from that in social media.
> 
> The main point has been that anything you do in social media should be about shaping and appealing to your target audience. If what you're doing isn't building trust and likeability but instead making you look like a whackjob, then yes, you're doing irreparable damage. If you're discussing the pope's recent visit to Chicago and the dichotomy of his speech and how it might show divisions within the church and listing sources for people to read more about a potential power struggle within the Vatican, then it's unlikely to cause you irreparable damage, even though the OP claimed that it would. In fact, that kind of story would probably get you on blog rolls. It's all about your pitch.
> 
> ...


I'll agree that presenting a level-headed argument on some issues isn't going to inflame tensions as much as others. And I'm glad we see eye to eye that there are some topics that are altogether best left alone, but even for those topics you mentioned about the Pope's visit or Stem Cell research, you have to also consider whether or not you're doing passive damage by being unfocused in your communications. I'm no expert on branding, but the general gist of it is to develop an expertise in a particular range and then stick to it, both because your audience has an expectation of what they'll be getting when they come to you and because you may not be speaking to their interests. You don't see a gun fight when you tune in to Jeopardy.

So you can either send them running with inflammatory talk or let them wander out on their own by talking about anything and everything. Of course everyone should be allowed to say anything pretty much in a space for personal communication.


----------



## Guest (Feb 16, 2012)

Edward M. Grant said:


> Your quote doesn't mention anything about 'divisive talking points' and talks about political and religious opinions in general.


Most likely for your readers those are two sides of the same coin.



Edward M. Grant said:


> And appeal to others.
> 
> As I posted on my blog yesterday, any book you write is going to offend someone; even if you write a happy, fluffy romance it's going to offend people who think that women should be beaten and locked away if they look at a man. So why worry about it? I suspect that devout Christians are going to be more offended by the novel I'm finishing off (about a low-budget movie crew breaking into an old monastery to film a lesbian vampire movie) than by my posting an article saying that I think evolution is more likely to explain the world than creationism.
> 
> If you think that mere political opinions will prevent a writer reaching an audience, then I have two words for you: Ayn Rand.


Yes. Uh huh. And the point of this thread is that we should be striving for an inclusive strategy that appeals to as many readers as we can. If you write something that appeals to a specific group, by all means target that group and espouse opinions that they'll agree with. But if you write fiction of most varieties, you aren't going to want to slice up your readership by choosing only those in your preferred political group, religious affinity, or economic-orientation.


----------



## Gone To Croatan (Jun 24, 2011)

foreverjuly said:


> And the point of this thread is that we should be striving for an inclusive strategy that appeals to as many readers as we can.


Only if you're writing 'inclusive' books that appeal to as many readers as you can. Personally I'd rather write the books I want to write and not worry about people who won't like them because they're never going to like them.

The devoutly religious are probably never going to like my books (except maybe Buddhists and Taoists). Nazis are not going to like the next one. Marxists aren't going to like the one after that. So I don't see why I should be worried about offending them. My market is reasonably intelligent people who aren't fanatical in their views; I don't much care about anyone who's going to not buy my book because I say I think evolution is the most likely explanation for life on earth, or that I think Hitler and Stalin were evil.

Again, as I mentioned on my blog, the problem comes when people become fanatical in their views, because very few people like a fanatic. Rand may have had extreme political views, but she could at least provide detailed explanation of why she held those beliefs (in fact, you hardly stop her from giving such explanations for hundreds of pages at a time).


----------



## Stephen T. Harper (Dec 20, 2010)

MichaelWallace said:


> I'm a writer. I'm in this business in part because I believe I have interesting observations about life. If I present only the most bland professional face to the public, who will listen or care?


Agreed. Also, controversy sells. Lots of talk on religion and politics after both Da Vinci Code and Mel Gibson's "Passion of the Christ" movie. Each one pissed off opposite ends of the spectrum. Each one was a huge success.

That said, I'm done with Frank Miller. Totally and irrevocably.


----------



## J Dean (Feb 9, 2009)

jayreddy publisher said:


> Here is an excerpt from a blog I wrote yesterday about what I see as an abuse on social media sites. All too often, I see authors alienate a potential demographic by posting religious, political, etc. opinions.
> 
> Excerpt:
> I have noticed a trend lately on social media sites, where authors and other professionals are posting their opinions on politics, religion and other delicate subjects. THIS IS DANGEROUS. I understand we live in a country where we have the right to free speech, but isolating a demographic based on your personal opinions is not only unprofessional, but it WILL affect your book sales. And not in a positive way.
> ...


 I am as God made me and saved me. I won't cram who I am down anybody else's throat, but I don't hide it either.


----------



## Rex Jameson (Mar 8, 2011)

foreverjuly said:


> I'll agree that presenting a level-headed argument on some issues isn't going to inflame tensions as much as others. And I'm glad we see eye to eye that there are some topics that are altogether best left alone, but even for those topics you mentioned about the Pope's visit or Stem Cell research, you have to also consider whether or not you're doing passive damage by being unfocused in your communications. I'm no expert on branding, but the general gist of it is to develop an expertise in a particular range and then stick to it, both because your audience has an expectation of what they'll be getting when they come to you and because you may not be speaking to their interests. You don't see a gun fight when you tune in to Jeopardy.
> 
> So you can either send them running with inflammatory talk or let them wander out on their own by talking about anything and everything. Of course everyone should be allowed to say anything pretty much in a space for personal communication.


In this case, I was thinking about the diversity of many of our independent authors who are targeting primarily adult audiences. You look at Phoenix Sullivan, and she has a pretty diverse set of audiences--everything from Arthurian history to Evolution and Science. The topic of one of her books resulted in a pretty strong backlash from Dear Author, but she's recovered very well from that. Science fiction authors like KC May also have a wide range of audiences from Fantasy to realistic sci-fi with ethical questions about hot topics. TK Kenyon is a PhD, among many other things, and has strong opinions on many issues, which have attracted certain types of fans. Gloria Brame's books on sexuality? All erotica authors, for that matter? We've got a pretty diverse group of author-types in the Writer's Cafe. And it's hard for many of the authors to not engage the community in controversial topics because many of their books deal with these topics. In fact, shying away from controversial topics in their books is probably counterproductive for their specific brands. There's a few very popular authors that target adults as well that use controversial topics to build their brand, but I'd rather not use them as examples because it's too easy to see them as exceptions.

Now, you? You're in a different boat, imo, and I think you're probably right that controversial topics in social media would shrink your audience. This also likely applies to Debora Geary, Sybil Nelson, and many other authors targeting YA, MG, and family-friendly targets. You have to worry about not only the intended audience but often their parents, who often do most of the purchasing and are generally highly sensitive to controversial topics affecting their children. I look at how Debora is going about her brand building, and it's perfect for her audience. She mingles with her devoted fans on Facebook. She participates in their communities, and she builds a positive feedback loop that will probably be with her for the rest of her career. Perfect example of targeting an audience, and a more general audience in this case, and following through. Oddly enough, she's targeting witchcraft, which is a very controversial topic. Thanks to Harry Potter and other high profile books in the genre, it's a lot easier to appear mainstream with discussions on that--especially with the family edge Debora has going for her, which makes the material more accessible for a general audience.

Anyway, not going to disagree with those points at all. If you feel the topics are too poisonous to your audience, don't talk about them. However, there probably are ways to get around this, if you are interested in having discussions.

For instance, a blog post that asks what parents think about controversial topics and allowing them to comment on the blog post (within reason)? Teenage pregnancy or the prevalence of drugs and sex? Basically asking them how they feel about it and if it is a problem. It may work in promoting interest if your current books are tackling some of those issues (in a way that is appropriate for your audience).


----------



## ThomasSandman (Aug 10, 2011)

i'm a reader, not a writer. would never make a good writer. I do buy indie books and i usually find indie authors on social media websites and occasionally by simple amazon searching. this article resonates with me because if i find a FICTION author spouting to much politics, i move on. Unless of course their book is SUPPOSED to be controversial, there's no point in doing so. Just my opinion as a reader who has read many indie authors. im surprised at the lack of discussion and instead the bashing of fellow authors. is this what kindleboards has become?


----------



## ThomasSandman (Aug 10, 2011)

Stephen T. Harper said:


> Agreed. Also, controversy sells. Lots of talk on religion and politics after both Da Vinci Code and Mel Gibson's "Passion of the Christ" movie. Each one p*ssed off opposite ends of the spectrum. Each one was a huge success.


This is not what the article is about.


----------



## Guest (Feb 16, 2012)

Susanne OLeary said:


> If she is smart enough she'll stay out of his bed.


Folks who consider themselves smart don't have nearly as much fun as those who make no pretense of wisdom.


----------



## Guest (Feb 16, 2012)

To Edward and Rex, I'm very much in agreement that each author has his or her own specific range for on and off topic discussions, and that is absolutely dependent on viewpoints or issues explored in the texts at hand. We all have things that are good fodder for the discussions we want to have, and I bet we're all pretty good at unconsciously navigating our communications away from things we don't think would go over well. I think that's all we're saying here; there should be a connection between what you say in your book and what you say when talking to readers.


----------



## Susanne O (Feb 8, 2010)

MikeAngel said:


> Folks who consider themselves smart don't have nearly as much fun as those who make no pretense of wisdom.


If they consider themselves smart, of course not. But if they are smart without trying then they have lots of fun.

I do. Do you?


----------



## Guest (Feb 16, 2012)

Susanne OLeary said:


> If they consider themselves smart, of course not. But if they are smart without trying then they have lots of fun.
> 
> I do. Do you?


Of course. I speak from experience. Lots and lots and oodles of oodles of carnal experience. Of course, that was in my youth. Now it takes a special sort of dreamboat to stir my imagination.


----------



## Guest (Feb 16, 2012)

> I'll agree that presenting a level-headed argument on some issues isn't going to inflame tensions as much as others. And I'm glad we see eye to eye that there are some topics that are altogether best left alone, but even for those topics you mentioned about the Pope's visit or Stem Cell research, you have to also consider whether or not you're doing passive damage by being unfocused in your communications. I'm no expert on branding, but the general gist of it is to develop an expertise in a particular range and then stick to it, both because your audience has an expectation of what they'll be getting when they come to you and because you may not be speaking to their interests. You don't see a gun fight when you tune in to Jeopardy.


As I read through this thread yesterday the thought struck me how much we are truly products of our times. Even 20 or 30 years ago it would be unheard of for someone to openly champion homosexual causes, for instance. Whether you cheer those sorts of urgings on or wish they'd just shut up and keep it all to themselves, has a lot to do with your age.

I'm not sure a person can really escape the times he was born and raised in. For me certain behavior will always be immoral, regardless of how vocal the minority hollers for legitimacy. My father's generation suffered a great depression and a horrendous world war. It produced far more character than my baby boomer set. Today many younger folks feel entitled, want stuff from the government and don't believe in judging nearly any behavior. What will tomorrow's generation stand up for, if anything--those born this year?

A great movement is on in the US to return to traditional values. Writers have a lot to do with shaping public attitudes. I doubt that avoiding controversy in social media would do much to put a spine in writers. Better to be, to thine own self true. At least then you can admire the face that stares back from the mirror.


----------



## Susanne O (Feb 8, 2010)

MikeAngel said:


> Of course. I speak from experience. Lots and lots and oodles of oodles of carnal experience. Of course, that was in my youth. Now it takes a special sort of dreamboat to stir my imagination.


Lots and lots of carnal experience? You are either boasting or very old. Or both.


----------



## Guest (Feb 16, 2012)

Susanne OLeary said:


> Lots and lots of carnal experience? You are either boasting or very old. Or both.


In the immortal words of Jack Webb: "Just the facts, ma'am. Just the facts."


----------



## Millard (Jun 13, 2011)

Yeah, well I kissed a girl once, so deal with that.


It was in a daydream, but that totally counts.


----------



## Susanne O (Feb 8, 2010)

MikeAngel said:


> In the immortal words of Jack Webb: "Just the facts, ma'am. Just the facts."


I rest my case. And everything else.


----------



## B. Justin Shier (Apr 1, 2011)

MikeAngel said:


> A great movement is on in the US to return to traditional values.


Are you talking about 



?

B.


----------



## Guest (Feb 16, 2012)

MikeAngel said:


> As I read through this thread yesterday the thought struck me how much we are truly products of our times. Even 20 or 30 years ago it would be unheard of for someone to openly champion homosexual causes, for instance. Whether you cheer those sorts of urgings on or wish they'd just shut up and keep it all to themselves, has a lot to do with your age.
> 
> I'm not sure a person can really escape the times he was born and raised in. For me certain behavior will always be immoral, regardless of how vocal the minority hollers for legitimacy. My father's generation suffered a great depression and a horrendous world war. It produced far more character than my baby boomer set. Today many younger folks feel entitled, want stuff from the government and don't believe in judging nearly any behavior. What will tomorrow's generation stand up for, if anything--those born this year?
> 
> A great movement is on in the US to return to traditional values. Writers have a lot to do with shaping public attitudes. I doubt that avoiding controversy in social media would do much to put a spine in writers. Better to be, to thine own self true. At least then you can admire the face that stares back from the mirror.


You're right that age does have to do with it, but actually research has shown that people generally grow more tolerant of other people as they get older. http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/15/getting-more-liberal-with-age/?hp



> At any given time older people are likely to be more conservative than contemporaneous young people. But relative to _themselves_ as young people, today's older folks have generally become more liberal than they once were.


So you're welcome to entertain your delusions that there are throngs of people ready to turn a blind eye to the injustices of others, but the vocal minority you speak of is actually a growing majority by any poll that's been conducted recently. I'd say that fighting for the basic rights of other human beings is a very impressive thing our generation is standing up for, and from D.C. to New Jersey to Maine (just in the last week), politicians in office have voted in response to that fight.


----------



## Kent Kelly (Feb 12, 2011)

Art is controversial, and artists more so.  The world would be a very boring place if everyone was always striving to be as inoffensive as possible!


----------



## Stephen T. Harper (Dec 20, 2010)

ThomasSandman said:


> This is not what the article is about.


I was responding to the comment quoted in my post. Not the article linked by the OP.


----------



## CoraBuhlert (Aug 7, 2011)

MikeAngel said:


> As I read through this thread yesterday the thought struck me how much we are truly products of our times. Even 20 or 30 years ago it would be unheard of for someone to openly champion homosexual causes, for instance. Whether you cheer those sorts of urgings on or wish they'd just shut up and keep it all to themselves, has a lot to do with your age.


The gay rights movement got going in the 1970s, so people were openly championing these causes more than thirty years ago. Discussion of GLBT rights has become more mainstream and that is a good thing IMO. But these issues were being discussed 20 or 30 years ago as well.


----------



## Scott Doornbosch (Jun 6, 2011)

I don't even have to start a discussion on a topic that may offend people. I have already received hate mail about my book BASIC BLACK just because some of the things my protagonist said about the catholic church. I never even discuss the topic in a social media platform: it has gotten started on it's own in some of these arenas.

http://www.amazon.com/BASIC-BLACK-Black-Mystery-ebook/dp/B0051X49W6/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1329438509&sr=8-2.


----------



## Guest (Feb 17, 2012)

> So you're welcome to entertain your delusions that there are throngs of people ready to turn a blind eye to the injustices of others, but the vocal minority you speak of is actually a growing majority by any poll that's been conducted recently. I'd say that fighting for the basic rights of other human beings is a very impressive thing our generation is standing up for, and from D.C. to New Jersey to Maine (just in the last week), politicians in office have voted in response to that fight.


You can be deluded into thinking I'm delusional all you like. That's your right. You may also take comfort in thinking of "throngs" and "growing majority." But I think it's telling that there has never been a popular vote by any state for what your generation fallaciously sees as a "civil right." Politicians have traditionally ignored the will of the people. What you are seeking isn't a "basic right," but to label what is immoral as legitimate. We differ on this issue, but don't give me that old tired saw that time is on your side.


----------



## Guest (Feb 17, 2012)

foreverjuly said:


> Most likely for your readers those are two sides of the same coin.
> 
> Yes. Uh huh. And the point of this thread is that we should be striving for an inclusive strategy that appeals to as many readers as we can. If you write something that appeals to a specific group, by all means target that group and espouse opinions that they'll agree with. But if you write fiction of most varieties, you aren't going to want to slice up your readership by choosing only those in your preferred political group, religious affinity, or economic-orientation.


Just as a note.

My readership are not an inclusive bunch. We curse. There's cursing in my books. When I made a twitter pitch that included a curse word, I made more sales using that than my other tweets AND people twittered me to say they liked that. If people didn't like that, I wouldn't know. They said nothing. They probably weren't going to buy my book anyway and IF they were they would have rated it poorly for the cursing and violence. I also expect some religious fanatasic might not be too pleased with the way I depict a christian cult in my story. "Safe" isn't what sells these days anyway.


----------



## Benjamin A. (Oct 1, 2011)

I guess it depends on how you're trying to brand. It would weird me out if Coca-Cola did start spouting stuff off. Coke isn't a person, it's a company. My blog, where I feature my work, is about ME. My books are only one part of my life. Just because I write fiction, and spend my time dreaming up other worlds, doesn't mean I ignore what happens here in the real one. I have things I'm passionate about, and want to accomplish in my life. There are things I hate about the world, and want to see changed. I will write about them if I have something to say.

If you turn away from an author because you don't share the same views, then you probably better stop reading. All your favorite authors have views that run contrary to your beliefs. You just may not know it right now.


----------



## Guest (Feb 17, 2012)

I really wouldn't want someone who's easily offended reading my book. Just saying. MAYBE I cuold keep that kind of person liking me on twitter. Perhaps I can trick them into thinking I'm a "safe" writer who never rocks the boat. But as soon as they read my book, they'll see I'm not afraid to write about things that others find taboo. Personally, I rather them know that in advance. They'll be happier they did, and I''ll be happier as well (because I won't get a bad review from someone shocked that my book is nothing like my "safe" twitter page). If you write "safe" books, then maybe a safe social media presence would be a good thing. Evidence shows me it's not a good ting *for everyone*. I don't think it's a good "Rule Number 1" since I'd say it's clearly not an *absolute* rule.

I think Rule Number 1 for social media should be DO WHAT WORKS. If it works for you, do it. If it doesn't work for you, stop doing it.

There will always been people who don't want certain things talked about. You can bet that a lot of people didn't want to talk about racial equality back in the day. I'm glad they did. Some people are probably still angry about that. Who has the issue? And should we lose sleep over the idea we might lose a sale from someone like that, especially if we have a book that is forward in thinking or ahead of it's time in terms of acceptance of current issues?

I think people should also be themselves. Maybe this is where I differ from most, but I don't see readers as dollar signs. They are PEOPLE. When I use social media, I'm not like "Oh no, I might not get that dollar sign to transfer their monetary value to my book!" Hell no. I enjoy finding out what I have in common with my followers. I enjoy having healthy debates with them.

I got in a very heated debate with one person in particular before my book was released. We're closer friends now than we were before--even though we still disagree. She still bought my book. She bought it, loved it, rated it highly, promotes it on twitter, her website, and on facebook. And I support her as well. And that's the kind of people I want reading my book. Because THAT is the kind of person who will be happy reading my book. I have no desire to trick people to make the sale. This isn't a bait and switch. I'm not a fan of false advertising, and personally, it may help sales for a time but will eventually just backfire in the end. I'm not going to sit and pretend that every thing I have to say can be agreed with by most of the world. I'm pretty sure that in my book, there's always at least one idea each person won't agree with. and they probably expect that before buying, and they go into reading my book expecting that and not caring or holding it against me.

That's my ideal reader. I think we should try to attract our personal audience, not try to attract ALL people. "Safe" might result in more people who don't buy your book liking you, but it doesn't mean more people will buy your work.

And controversy sells  Maybe not to the people who hate your views, but to the people who agree with them. They are passionate people, not wishy-washy people. And passionate people are more likely to buy your books if they like what you say.

Let's put it this way.

If I talk about fruit on twitter, no one gets offended. 10/10 are unoffended. 1/10 people buy my book. Cool.
If I talk about religion, 3/10 people get offended. 7/10 are unoffended. Those 3 people vow never to buy my book. They probably weren't going to anyway  people just like to say that. Like parents who say to their kids after a tantrum "now I'm not taking you to the park" when they had made no mention of doing so previously and haven't taken their kid to the park in 2 years. So, yeah, they weren't taking them anyway, peopel aren't buying anyway. but now 7/10 people are like WOW right on, I totally agree, you're awesome, your ideas are like mine and you weren't afraid to share them. 4/7 of them buy your book.

The reason controversy sells is because you're more likely to sell something to someone who passionately agrees with you about something controversial than you are to sell something to someone who has no opinion one way or other about the fluff you're talking about, because it's mild and unworthy of opinion.

That's my two cents. I love my followers too much to stop giving them what they love just so I might appeal to fluffy bunny people who wouldn't like my book even if they did buy it.


----------



## ThomasSandman (Aug 10, 2011)

ImmortalInk said:


> And controversy sells


and what if your book isn't controversial?? what would be the point? I buy books based off what the book is about, controversial or not. Just doesn't make sense, but then again i'm not a writer, just an avid reader who supports many indies


----------



## ThomasSandman (Aug 10, 2011)

Benjamin A. said:


> I guess it depends on how you're trying to brand. It would weird me out if Coca-Cola did start spouting stuff off.


This is exactly the point of the op in my opinion. if an advertisement said buy coke, vote democrat, they'd lose a LOT of money.

simple really


----------



## ThomasSandman (Aug 10, 2011)

Edward M. Grant said:


> The Coca-cola company aren't selling books.
> 
> How much money do you think Ayn Rand lost because of her political views?


Her books were political in nature. Apples and oranges.


----------



## Guest (Feb 17, 2012)

ThomasSandman said:


> and what if your book isn't controversial?? what would be the point? I buy books based off what the book is about, controversial or not. Just doesn't make sense, but then again i'm not a writer, just an avid reader who supports many indies


I hear you. But there are avid readers who support many indies who DO write about controversial things. Obviously if you are a "safe" writer (like I said before) then talking about controversial things probably isn't a great idea. but if you're an edgy writer who isn't afraid to write the truth even if it might offend some people, then I'd say it's safe to have the same kind of presence in social media. Your readers will then know what to expect. I'd say by being myself, without filters, I've attracted more readers to my books than I would have if I was trying to "play it safe". The reason? My biggest audience are people who want the truth without filters. My biggest audience is people who can handle an author having strong views that differ from their own. My biggest audience LIKES controversy.

If my followers shouldn't like my because I post political and religious views, they haven't gotten the memo. Feel free to contact them all and tell them they are wrong. Currently, there's nearly 40,000 of them. I guess I haven't been offensive enough yet. It gets heated, but we enjoy it  and they still by my book.

In short, you can be you as a reader. Just keep in mind that there are all kinds of people in this world. Not every avid reader supporting indies will feel the same. Some will agree with you. Some will say BRING ON THE CHAOS! As writers, being ourselves will likely often attract the right readers. But if that doesn't work, we have to consider who are readers would be and keep that in mind. The answer won't always be to "play it safe". For some people, playing it safe might expand their potential audience, but could at the same time hurt sales. A large _potential _audience isn't always better than a small-to-medium sized _REAL _audience.


----------



## Kent Kelly (Feb 12, 2011)

Perhaps I'm alone and/or unprofessional in this, but there are certain subsets of readers that I do not want.  And if I need to choose between being proper and being true to myself, I'm going to choose the latter every time.

It's best not to get into a writer-reader relationship built upon a tactful pre-selection of elements of the truth, when the whole truth is just going to come out later regardless.

So hey, let's just be friends.  At a distance.  And not really friends, but, you know, not talk to each other.  Yeah


----------



## WHDean (Nov 2, 2011)

Reddy is confusing PR with professionalism. It’s not unprofessional for, say, a doctor to write on op-ed about health care policy. It is unprofessional of him to lecture his patients during medical examinations. 

Now, a doctor who wants to hock self-help books might want to keep quiet about his political views so as not to alienate his audience. But this falls under prudent PR, not professionalism. 

I can’t help but complain about how common it is for people to equate professionalism with “image management,” as if professionalism was not an ethos but a set of self-promotion tactics.


----------



## StephenEngland (Nov 2, 2011)

I don't ever see being rude and insulting as acceptable. But since I write political thrillers, I don't have a problem with sharing political views on Twitter. If people are offended by my views, they're probably going to be offended by my book. . .and run off to write a negative review. Better to head them off at the pass.


----------



## KirbyTails (Jan 4, 2012)

I don't agree with this 100%.

Sure, most of the time, this can be dangerous, especially if your views can be seen as "extreme".

But what about with things like SOPA?


----------



## ThomasSandman (Aug 10, 2011)

ImmortalInk said:


> I hear you. But there are avid readers who support many indies who DO write about controversial things. Obviously if you are a "safe" writer (like I said before) then talking about controversial things probably isn't a great idea. but if you're an edgy writer who isn't afraid to write the truth even if it might offend some people, then I'd say it's safe to have the same kind of presence in social media. Your readers will then know what to expect. I'd say by being myself, without filters, I've attracted more readers to my books than I would have if I was trying to "play it safe". The reason? My biggest audience are people who want the truth without filters. My biggest audience is people who can handle an author having strong views that differ from their own. My biggest audience LIKES controversy.
> 
> If my followers shouldn't like my because I post political and religious views, they haven't gotten the memo. Feel free to contact them all and tell them they are wrong. Currently, there's nearly 40,000 of them. I guess I haven't been offensive enough yet. It gets heated, but we enjoy it  and they still by my book.
> 
> In short, you can be you as a reader. Just keep in mind that there are all kinds of people in this world. Not every avid reader supporting indies will feel the same. Some will agree with you. Some will say BRING ON THE CHAOS! As writers, being ourselves will likely often attract the right readers. But if that doesn't work, we have to consider who are readers would be and keep that in mind. The answer won't always be to "play it safe". For some people, playing it safe might expand their potential audience, but could at the same time hurt sales. A large _potential _audience isn't always better than a small-to-medium sized _REAL _audience.


I suppose I don't understand discussing controversial issues with non controversial books, but that's just me as a reader and with a marketing background. I've declined reading books from indies a few times simply because i was bombarded by their political beliefs on their social media. i suppose that's just me and sure many readers might enjoy it. I still dont' think this article was about playing it safe, though. its been nice discussing this with you and im glad this thread finally became a debate and not a bashing fest


----------



## ThomasSandman (Aug 10, 2011)

StephenEngland said:


> I don't ever see being rude and insulting as acceptable. But since I write political thrillers, I don't have a problem with sharing political views on Twitter. If people are offended by my views, they're probably going to be offended by my book. . .and run off to write a negative review. Better to head them off at the pass.


Id suggest that the op would agree with you considering the topic of your books


----------



## ThomasSandman (Aug 10, 2011)

KirbyTails said:


> I don't agree with this 100%.
> 
> Sure, most of the time, this can be dangerous, especially if your views can be seen as "extreme".
> 
> But what about with things like SOPA?


id say sopa and things of the sort are more social issues that affect us all. id say this isn't exactly what the op is discussing though it could be clearer. i think it was good advice for budding indie authors who rely on social media to sell books


----------



## Guest (Feb 17, 2012)

To me the bigger question is: Do sales ever justify being a hypocrit or being untrue to my core beliefs? Or, even to keep my mouth shut?

My answer is NO.


----------



## Susanne O (Feb 8, 2010)

MikeAngel said:


> To me the bigger question is: Do sales every justify being a hypocrit or being untrue to my core beliefs? Or, even to keep my mouth shut?
> 
> My answer is NO.


You are so noble.


----------



## jayreddy publisher (Jun 13, 2011)

I am a huge fan of indie authors and have posted many interviews and articles aimed at trying to give some advice or info about the industry. Maybe I didn't correctly portray my thoughts in this blog. I am talking about being professional. You can have an opinion and state it on social media. I have no problem with that. I do however see blatantly insulting comments and opinions that will definitely insult a reader base. You can say the publishing industry isn't the same as Coca-Cola but I disagree. Maybe because I am coming from a publishers view. I was not intending to say not to have or state your opinion, but do it tactfully. Everyone is different, and has different beliefs, and there is nothing wrong with stating opinions while being tactful about it. I was referring to the many untasteful and untactful comments I see on social media every day. I never meant for Vincent Hobbes to be attacked like he was, and for that I will apologize to him. This was intended to be helpful, like the interviews I have done with literary agents and movie agents in the past. I have always enjoyed and supported indie authors since the inception of my company and have always tried to help out as much as I can. Whether that be blogs, interviews or making indie authors as my ebook of day on my website. If you disagree with my blog, then so be it, but again you can be tactful about your approach. I am always up for a debate but I won't get involved in name calling or mudslinging.


----------



## ThomasSandman (Aug 10, 2011)

jayreddy publisher said:


> I am a huge fan of indie authors and have posted many interviews and articles aimed at trying to give some advice or info about the industry. Maybe I didn't correctly portray my thoughts in this blog. I am talking about being professional. You can have an opinion and state it on social media. I have no problem with that. I do however see blatantly insulting comments and opinions that will definitely insult a reader base. You can say the publishing industry isn't the same as Coca-Cola but I disagree. Maybe because I am coming from a publishers view. I was not intending to say not to have or state your opinion, but do it tactfully. Everyone is different, and has different beliefs, and there is nothing wrong with stating opinions while being tactful about it. I was referring to the many untasteful and untactful comments I see on social media every day. I never meant for Vincent Hobbes to be attacked like he was, and for that I will apologize to him. This was intended to be helpful, like the interviews I have done with literary agents and movie agents in the past. I have always enjoyed and supported indie authors since the inception of my company and have always tried to help out as much as I can. Whether that be blogs, interviews or making indie authors as my ebook of day on my website. If you disagree with my blog, then so be it, but again you can be tactful about your approach. I am always up for a debate but I won't get involved in name calling or mudslinging.


well said and thanks for clarifying. i suppose next time maybe give better examples. ps i always enjoy your interviews


----------



## Guest (Feb 17, 2012)

Susanne OLeary said:


> You are so noble.


And you are quite erudite, my dear.


----------



## Guest (Feb 17, 2012)

ThomasSandman said:


> I suppose I don't understand discussing controversial issues with non controversial books, but that's just me as a reader and with a marketing background. I've declined reading books from indies a few times simply because i was bombarded by their political beliefs on their social media. i suppose that's just me and sure many readers might enjoy it. I still dont' think this article was about playing it safe, though. its been nice discussing this with you and im glad this thread finally became a debate and not a bashing fest


I suppose I don't understand why you are saying this when I never said to discuss controversial issues with non-controversial books  If you could respond to what I'm saying, or clarify where it is that you aren't following what I'm saying, that might make for better communication and understanding. At this time, I can't see how to explain what I'm saying any clearer. Not that it's not possible, but I need to understand where I'm failing, and for that to happen, it would help best if you were trying to understand what I'm understanding. And who knows-maybe you already are.

the article seemed to say not to talk about controversial issues, which to me, does mean playing it safe. As I said before, if you're a safe writer, that's probably a good idea. If you're not, then it probably won't apply to you and might do more damage than good.

Also as I said before, I think each author will need to do what's best for them. I don't agree with one side fits all ideas.


----------



## Guest (Feb 17, 2012)

ThomasSandman said:


> id say sopa and things of the sort are more social issues that affect us all. id say this isn't exactly what the op is discussing though it could be clearer. i think it was good advice for budding indie authors who rely on social media to sell books


I can't think of many social issues that don't effect us all. It's all about how we perceive they will affect us and whether or not it's something we want to be affected by and in that way. I'm sure there are people out there who DO support SOPA.

And this just brings up another angle.

Where should a writer draw the line between acceptable contraversy to discuss and unacceptable? I'm sure you have an answer for that, but my only response can be that that is where YOU would draw the line. someone may be more strict that you or more lenient than you in where they would draw it. The best thing to do is to consider that none of us may be the be all end all with the perfect opinion. We can all only do what we think is best for us. Saying something is best for EVERYONE just comes across as close-minded and ignorant, which is why I'm sure no one here would intentionally say there way is THE right way.

My thoughts? (and they are just mine to reflect how I will act and treat others) Everyone should do what they believe is best for them and stop worrying about what other people are doing with their social media (unless that person is asking for advice).


----------



## Guest (Feb 17, 2012)

jayreddy publisher said:


> I am a huge fan of indie authors and have posted many interviews and articles aimed at trying to give some advice or info about the industry. Maybe I didn't correctly portray my thoughts in this blog. I am talking about being professional. You can have an opinion and state it on social media. I have no problem with that. I do however see blatantly insulting comments and opinions that will definitely insult a reader base. You can say the publishing industry isn't the same as Coca-Cola but I disagree. Maybe because I am coming from a publishers view. I was not intending to say not to have or state your opinion, but do it tactfully. Everyone is different, and has different beliefs, and there is nothing wrong with stating opinions while being tactful about it. I was referring to the many untasteful and untactful comments I see on social media every day. I never meant for Vincent Hobbes to be attacked like he was, and for that I will apologize to him. This was intended to be helpful, like the interviews I have done with literary agents and movie agents in the past. I have always enjoyed and supported indie authors since the inception of my company and have always tried to help out as much as I can. Whether that be blogs, interviews or making indie authors as my ebook of day on my website. If you disagree with my blog, then so be it, but again you can be tactful about your approach. I am always up for a debate but I won't get involved in name calling or mudslinging.


Thanks for clarifying. Of course, name-calling and mudslinging don't always go hand-in-hand with personal beliefs. So perhaps an article that talks more about being abusive toward others instead of discussing personal beliefs might be more appropriate. That said, it's good this thread helped you to refine your feelings and stance on this issue.

Additionally, opinions will differ on what constitutes of professionalism and what does not.


----------



## Susanne O (Feb 8, 2010)

MikeAngel said:


> And you are quite erudite, my dear.


Of course I am. I live in Europe-duh.


----------



## JumpingShip (Jun 3, 2010)

jayreddy publisher said:


> Here is an excerpt from a blog I wrote yesterday about what I see as an abuse on social media sites. All too often, I see authors alienate a potential demographic by posting religious, political, etc. opinions.
> 
> Excerpt:
> I have noticed a trend lately on social media sites, where authors and other professionals are posting their opinions on politics, religion and other delicate subjects. THIS IS DANGEROUS. I understand we live in a country where we have the right to free speech, but isolating a demographic based on your personal opinions is not only unprofessional, but it WILL affect your book sales. And not in a positive way.
> ...


I rarely post religious or political statements anywhere--other than supporting Ellen Degeneres and JC Penney's for their support of Ellen too. Does that count? 

Anyway, it doesn't matter because at least half of the negative reviews I have on my books are because the person thinks I put a political statement in one, or the other book was either too Christian/Satan worship. The strange thing is my political beliefs are actually more to the right of what they assume they are, and I'm barely religious at all. (lapsed Catholic who not only ate meat Ash Wednesday, but did it again today!) *sigh*


----------

