I have to agree that the titles are big problem. They don’t reflect the stories within, and as long as they continue to focus on the so-called hooks (which, for me, are the antithesis of my world — knowing that I’m an exception to most rules!), they’re going to alienate younger readers. And as I keep saying, romance readers read broadly. If they’re not buying HQ books, they’re not buying other books. I’d even go so far as to say for some readers, these books serve as gateway fiction. People who don’t read, necessarily, start with something they think is quick and easy, and before they know it, they’re hooked on books.

And I agree that’s not a good move. I think the Bombshell line seems to be doing well – and frankly, *I* thought that one was a risk. A big risk. But it’s working, paying off for them from what I can gather. Only time will tell, I suppose.

I was interested in the part of the article where they said that Harlequins aren’t books, they’re “packaged products” and as such need “direct marketing support.” Ummm…well, most books AND products need marketing support. They don’t sell themselves except for those rare books that catch fire and spread by word of mouth – and you can’t create that no matter how hard the marketing department tries to.

I’d also suggest easing up on the hooky titles as a way to catch more readers – the new ones that we want to lure in. I recently ran into someone who had read my second book, and she flat out told me that if she had gone only by the title, and hadn’t taken the time to read the back cover blurb, she wouldn’t have bought the book.

I hear a lot of complaints about the titles even from the faithful.

Susan G.