Apr 11 2011 1:00am

For The Love Of . . . Inappropriate Romance Novel Marketing?

From the FAIL blog:












Oh, sigh. As though our genre doesn't have enough branding and reputation issues, some marketing chucklehead decides to be absolutely crystal clear as to what a certain book might offer, inadvertently causing mayhem when the title is definitely at odds with the book's promise.

At least nobody—yet—has put Bodice-Ripper as a heading.

Subscribe to this conversation (must be logged in):
Amelia James
1. Amelia James
I read the comments on Fail blog. Not good for the romance genre. Sigh.
aniko nagy
2. anieva
I can't believe I just posted a comment on the Fail blog. Seems like nitwitville. But, really, it's worth saying: if this were a female character holding a baby, no one would say anything. Doesn't it speak badly of society that a man holding a baby would make people jump to such horrible conclusions.
Charli Mac
3. CharliMac
Honestly, the title does more harm than the cover pic. But that's just me.
Susan Padgette
4. Susan in AZ
I noticed this several times during 2010: Harelequin gems hampered by idiotic titles. Really, if the book is as good as you advertise it to be, PLEASE give the author some veto-power over titles that only establish your publishing house as one-to-avoid if an author actually expects to earn a living wage through her writing.
Amelia James
5. BrooklynShoeBabe
Maybe I'm wearing my rose colored shades today but I don't see how this cover/branding is an epic fail except I just don't like kids in my romance. That's just my personal thing though. Not only don't I like kids, I don't like HEA that include pregnancies and toddlers. *Blech* Let's just awesome it is going down that route without saying it. (Oh, I guess the title is a little weird too.)
Post a comment