Comments on: In Which We Offer Our Unsolicited Opinion

By: Laurie

Laurie — Tue, 24 Aug 2004 01:41:53 +0000

Thanks for your great rebuttal! I agree that category themes need an overhall, and editors need to stretch the envelope. My bet is they’d find readers far more accepting of new ideas and plotlines than they think they’d be. Happy endings are here to stay in romance, but they can be there in the shadows, not as someone else said “hammered home”. Let the authors loose to tell stories in a new way in category! And change those covers! We need some flash, symbolism, mystery, and enchantment….not just a man, woman, and baby on a swing. Category could be so much more – variety should be the main catchword.

By: Vikki

Vikki — Mon, 23 Aug 2004 00:19:47 +0000

I like the spirit of your rebuttal. However, I recently read some Romance Writers of America data which indicates some HQ romance lines are showing lower sales numbers than others. In my humble analysis of the numbers the “traditional’ lines with the cowboy-baby-bride books are doing pretty well.

By: anon

anon — Sun, 22 Aug 2004 13:31:08 +0000

I find it unusual that nobody has really mentioned one issue that is certainly cutting into Harlequin sales… there are thousands of readers who have dsicovered the vast variety of reading material available in eBook format.

While some people may never want to read an ebook, there are many, many readers who prefer ebooks over paper, for simple reason… an ebook can be stored on a pocket pc…up to 15 or 20, easy and be carried in the purse. Ebook book publishers are also well known for NOT following the formulaic romance pattern. There will always been critics of ebooks…but fewer and fewer of those critics are readers. I could point any number of online groups with not just hundreds but thousands of members who hardly ever pick up a series romance. And this is understandable, once you’ve read ebooks from quality epublishers. The variety in ebooks is astounding and you can find books hot enough to scorch your hand, along with a plot that is beyond the normal, well written and very intriguing. And hardly a baby in the bunch.

By: Sidonie

Sidonie — Fri, 20 Aug 2004 23:59:59 +0000

Publishers are playing it safe by listening to their marketing team and their focus groups–who aren’t even a genuine tally of romance readers around the globe–and it’s hurting them. Harlequin is the first publisher to address the fact that they’ve made some mistakes, but it is a bit late. Most readers that have cut back on their catagory purchases because of the staleness of the genre aren’t going to be very eager to leap back into it after being burned for so long.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 19 Aug 2004 00:51:58 +0000

You are absolutely right on every point.
Claire

By: booksquare

booksquare — Wed, 18 Aug 2004 21:13:20 +0000

Though I didn’t expand upon it, one of the keys to Harlequin’s profitability (besides the sheer number of books they move — romance makes up approximately 51% of the fiction market) is the fact that they pay lower advances. I was very struck by a comment made by Kosmos Kalliarekos about how publishers tend to eat advances in the $250,000 to one million range. Just as low advances affect author morale, overpaying advances affects the bottom line. Especially when you consider that the cash outlay of an advance creates a negative balance for an extended period.

If you pay a lot of large advances without commensurate income, it affects profitability. Harlequin generally exercises fiscal conservatism when it comes to advances. This is both good and bad, as noted, but they don’t find themselves upside-down on too many titles.

Now market dominance — it’s a stated goal, and Harlequin’s recent changes are pre-emptive moves to maintain that dominance. I can’t fault that, though I think a diverse market is far more interesting.

By: David Thayer

David Thayer — Wed, 18 Aug 2004 20:36:57 +0000

What caught my eye about the article was Harlequin’s profit margin and dominance in their market. Other publishers don’t even come close.

By: Kim

Kim — Wed, 18 Aug 2004 15:50:02 +0000

As a former graphic designer, I have to say that one of the reasons HQ books may not be selling as well is their cover designs. While I understand wanting to keep a uniform look for each line, what ends up happening is all the books seem the same. Not only that, but the covers for their lines are, frankly, boring. I have to admit that their art department is coming through with more exciting up-to-date covers for their newer lines, like RDI, but they need to follow through in their series romance. Even when they come out with a new line, like Blaze, the covers look monotonous with almost nothing to distinguish one Blaze from another.

Perhaps if, as Booksquare suggested, they extended the shelf life to two months, that would give their art department more time to create covers that look like they were for books for this millennium, were more individual, yet still held to that line’s identity. If they’re one of the most profitable romance publishers, then they can afford a bigger, more innovative art department.

By: booksquare

booksquare — Wed, 18 Aug 2004 15:48:55 +0000

Susan’s right — I did forget to mention that Superromance hits meatier issues. Part of the reason is the distribution issue I mentioned above — it’s rare that I even see the line on the shelves.

I stand (or rather sit as it’s early for me) corrected.

By: Larissa Ione

Larissa Ione — Wed, 18 Aug 2004 15:24:33 +0000

Brilliant rebuttal! I hope that with the changes going on at H/S, category romance will see new life. “Safe” is just not working anymore. Yes, there is still a market for babies and cowboys and brides, as well as virginal heroines and ultra-alpha heroes to “teach” them, but newer readers also want something that is representative of TODAY’s women and today’s issues.

So thanks for the excellent post! Maybe it’ll open some eyes!