9 replies to this topic

[doublenoughtspy]

Now that Deaver's stab at Bond has been released, I wanted to look back at the pros and cons of Glidrose/IFPs marketing efforts throughout the years.

Ian Fleming. Pros: dust jackets by Chopping, lots of serializations, 1 special edition.

Kingsley Amis. I guess the dust jacket was a pro, I know it doesn't speak to everybody, but at least it is artistic. Cons: The whole Robert Markham shenanigans. Amis was announced as working on the next book in 65 - years before the book was released. Everybody knew it was Amis. I'm sure it was a contractual thing, but still it seems pretty pointless.

John Pearson. Pros: 1 serialization. Cons: Incredibly boring dust jacket.

John Gardner. Pros: A few serializations (with the first couple books), good dust jackets (for the first few books) then it kind of fell apart. Cons: US dust jackets were uniform and boring.

Raymond Benson. Pros: a couple serializations, a few decent book jackets.

Charlie Higson. Pros: Good dust jackets, lots of promotion, special editions, etc.

Samantha Weinberg. Pros: A couple serializations/short stories - but the whole pseudonym thing, and pretending it was "real" in the beginning and feigning ignorance when questioned about it just struck me as amateur.

Sebastian Faulks. Pros: Great dust jacket, special editions, lots of promotions. Cons: Writing as Ian Fleming? Really. I think not.

Jeffery Deaver. Pros: Lots of promotion, various special editions. Cons: I know a lot of people like the UK rising smoke dust jacket artistically, but after reading the book it doesn't fit anywhere in the story that I can tell. The big con for me with this marketing effort was the whole "Project X" thing. How did that sell the book? Sure it raised awareness, but I seriously doubt anyone bought the book because of the Project X thing.

I guess what this boils down to is that I'm not a big fan of "stunt" marketing. I'm not talking about Faulks and the model bringing the book in via Royal Marines - that generates news coverage. But the whole Markham/Westbrook/Writing as Ian Fleming/Project X stuff turns me off. Am I the only one?

I realize it is a challenge to get people interested in a 60 year old literary property.

And by the same token, to get a writer of quality, by definition they have their own literary properties, which generates much more income for them than IFP would give them, plus they have complete control over it.

If I had to point to a recent success I think they should model with the next one, I'd say how they handled Higson.

[Dustin]

Well, I suppose they just feel their way along with a blindman's stick. Back in Amis's day thing weren't that complicated and everybody knew what was expected. IIRC it was Amis's regular publisher who mentioned his concern about Amis's name on a Bond novel, so that Markham-thingy got a go. It was not so extraordinary as it may seem to us today, many series had their pseudonym at the time or even still do.



Since then not only the marketing approach has changed but also the product. The series has tried to find its way into niche markets with Young Bond and Moneypenny and the result wasn't bad at all, of perhaps not all the sales of the Moneypenny books. But both attempts aren't pursued any more at the moment and I suspect both haven't been as successful as IFP may have hoped initially. Particularly Young Bond had to face heavy competition by Potter, Fowl and that Alex Rider type. Which may have lead IFP to give it a break until those series are finished themselves.

That x-thingy finally I almost have entirely forgotten. It was maybe never intended as anything but a code until the title of Carte Blanche was revealed.

[Jim]

Are brilliant and retarded opposites?

Assuming - and I think it's a safe assumption - that in this context "retarded" means not terribly good, why not ask "good or bad"?

Sorry if this looks prissy or pious, but I really don't like the word and especially its derogatory usage.

[marktmurphy]

The big con for me with this marketing effort was the whole "Project X" thing. How did that sell the book? Sure it raised awareness, but I seriously doubt anyone bought the book because of the Project X thing.

I don't understand that. If it raised awareness, it helped to sell the book. Build anticipation, get pre-orders rolling, build up your audience into wanting the thing, counting down to see it... building anticipation is a valid marketing tool; otherwise teaser trailers wouldn't exist.
Project X was very much fanbase-oriented; not for the general public, but that intimates that IFP cares for the fanbase and wants to excite them, in itself building positive associations with the project and the publisher. And it's absolutely on-brand anyway, what with Bond being about secrets and all that. 007 fans love that stuff.

If, as you say, it's a con; the proof would have to be rather in the answer to the question of 'did it stop you buying the book?'.

If I had to point to a recent success I think they should model with the next one, I'd say how they handled Higson.

Higson was good but hard to replicate. Its success was built mainly on Higson being famous in other ways (so he's actually an attractive person for Jonathan Ross to interview in a way Faulks ain't); the whole new original concept of the actual books, the target audience, and the high quality of the things building word of mouth.

The Faulks book was a brilliant bit of promotion. Quite expensive possibly, but seemed to work fantastically well.

[doublenoughtspy]

If, as you say, it's a con; the proof would have to be rather in the answer to the question of 'did it stop you buying the book?'.

True. And I'm not suggesting that it cost sales.

I guess I just felt slightly burned, maybe that is too strong a word, let down might be more accurate. They touted Project X as if it were something more than a continuation novel, when that is all it turned out to be.

I agree that the Faulks marketing was superb, but like you pointing out that Higson was a unique case, I think they pulled out all the stops for Faulks because it was the centenary.

But on to the next continuation author. Project Y? Project Z? I hope not. What's wrong with announcing the author as soon as you sign them? Too pedestrian I suppose.

[Dustin]

Suppose that's what will happen next time, a name and a date, followed by a title a bit later. I've never heard about 'Project X' after CB as a title was announced, not sure they will use it again.

[marktmurphy]

If, as you say, it's a con; the proof would have to be rather in the answer to the question of 'did it stop you buying the book?'.

True. And I'm not suggesting that it cost sales.

I guess I just felt slightly burned, maybe that is too strong a word, let down might be more accurate. They touted Project X as if it were something more than a continuation novel, when that is all it turned out to be.

I don't think they did, no. In a way; what more could you ask of the people who print Bond books than a new Bond book? It could have been something less; look at Pottermore.

If it builds awareness it sells more books; because people don't buy something they're not aware of.

I agree that the Faulks marketing was superb, but like you pointing out that Higson was a unique case, I think they pulled out all the stops for Faulks because it was the centenary.

They probably did, but there's nothing about that which stops them doing it again (apart from how much money they're willing to spend). Higson is trickier to replicate because of the nature of it; the Faulks book was a Bond novel marketed with all the stops pulled out. They can pull out the stops any time they like.

But on to the next continuation author. Project Y? Project Z? I hope not. What's wrong with announcing the author as soon as you sign them? Too pedestrian I suppose.

Who said they signed Deaver before Project X? Maybe they did announce him as soon as they could have.

[glidrose]

Well, I suppose they just feel their way along with a blindman's stick. Back in Amis's day thing weren't that complicated and everybody knew what was expected. IIRC it was Amis's regular publisher who mentioned his concern about Amis's name on a Bond novel, so that Markham-thingy got a go.

Don't think so. Cape was Amis's regular publisher. They'd already done The JB Dossier, The Egyptologists, The Book of Bond, A Look Round the Estate: Poems, 1957–1967 . In 1968 they also did I Want it Now. Amis had already cut ties to Victor Gollancz whose namesake died February 1967. Gollancz only got The Anti-Death League because of contractual obligations.

Never believed the fanboy line that "Robert Markham" was to become the official Bond pseudonym. That was Amis's own decision. Notice he used the "William Tanner" pseudonym on his other non-fiction Bond book?

[SecretAgentFan]

Are brilliant and retarded opposites?

Assuming - and I think it's a safe assumption - that in this context "retarded" means not terribly good, why not ask "good or bad"?

Sorry if this looks prissy or pious, but I really don't like the word and especially its derogatory usage.

I absolutely agree. And this is not about being politically correct. I expected more of doublenoughtspy.

[Dustin]

Well, I suppose they just feel their way along with a blindman's stick. Back in Amis's day thing weren't that complicated and everybody knew what was expected. IIRC it was Amis's regular publisher who mentioned his concern about Amis's name on a Bond novel, so that Markham-thingy got a go.

Don't think so. Cape was Amis's regular publisher. They'd already done The JB Dossier, The Egyptologists, The Book of Bond, A Look Round the Estate: Poems, 1957–1967 . In 1968 they also did I Want it Now. Amis had already cut ties to Victor Gollancz whose namesake died February 1967. Gollancz only got The Anti-Death League because of contractual obligations.

Never believed the fanboy line that "Robert Markham" was to become the official Bond pseudonym. That was Amis's own decision. Notice he used the "William Tanner" pseudonym on his other non-fiction Bond book?

Good call on the Tanner parallel. I just remember having read somewhere it supposedly was a concern of the publisher. I'll try to find the actual reference. Of course the pseudonym was pointless with regard to such concerns (if they had been the reason) because by then the cat was out of the bag already, wasn't it?