Ring, Ring – Little, Brown Calling

| Tasha

Thank you everyone for your perspective on what happened at ALA at the Little, Brown booth.  Your comments have been wonderful. 

I got a voicemail this morning from Miriam Parker at Little, Brown and we connected just now on the phone.  She did not ask me to post any of this.  She only apologized elegantly and profusely for what had happened.

What the woman at the booth told me is NOT Little, Brown’s policy with bloggers.

Miriam was blunt about that.  They have worked with online reviewing for 10 years.  They have no expectation of a positive review.  Whew! 

Matter resolved as far as I am concerned.  Thank you Miriam for contacting me so quickly and being so great about explaining and listening. 

Now back to talking books again!

9 thoughts on “Ring, Ring – Little, Brown Calling”

  1. I’m glad the matter had a good resolution, Tasha. But I’m also glad that you spoke out about it – discussions about incidents like this are an important part of the dialog as blogging/reviewing evolves.

    Like

  3. I’ve been reviewing LB’s YA titles for a while now, and I’ve always had a positive experience with them. I’m glad that you spoke out and that everything was worked out accordingly!

    Like

  4. In two instances, Miriam Parker left me hanging after I had done serious prep work for an author interview for my literary radio program, The Bat Segundo Show. She was good about sending the books, but refused to return my phone calls or emails when it came time to coordinate the details of the interview. I wasted time doing research for these interviews because of Parker’s failure to coordinate properly. And I never even received an apology from her. But Parker (and other Little Brown reps) will come out of the woodwork ONLY when Little Brown is being called out on their conduct in public — such as the tacky publicity retweets THE DAY AFTER Donald Westlake passed away.

    So while Parker may claim that there isn’t a quid pro quo, it is very clear to me that certain elements inside Little Brown feel differently. Particularly about those who write for online outlets.

    Like

  6. Dear Tasha,

    As publicity director at Flux–the new kid on the block–I would like to comment upon the conversation going on here and on Liz B’s site,
    A Chair, A Fireplace and A Tea Cozy, regarding ARCs and review copies.

    Firstly (and honestly), there is no publisher that I know who would ever press any reviewer for a good review by suggesting we won’t send you a review copy if we don’t get what we want. I am positive there was some misunderstanding in your conversation with Little, Brown. As publicists, we push the good we can for our books and then respect the professionalism of the reviewer to make all decision regarding whether or not they’ll review it, or what they choose to write.

    I think the emotion in this conversation rests with how publishers must discern and decide our media and reviewer lists internally, and yes, currently many of us have to decide to go with an established print review publication over a blog for several valid reasons: oftentimes, we just don’t have infinite resources (galleys and budgeted printing and shipping costs being part of this equation); by doing so, we KNOW what we are going to get, if we get it, e.g., we know circulation, the number of readers, etc. And yes, we are loyal to the established reviewers who have made it their career and whose profession has been an integral part of our industry over the decades.

    Finally, a few pointers to all bloggers out there: 1) Publishers expect professional communication from all potential reviewers. This means, approaching us with a formal letter of introduction, free from emoticons, typos, and casual language, that clearly tells us your history in the field, references your experience, and details the reach of your reviews; 2) We expect numbers that justify our time and money (afterall, we are business) and that means we want to see visitor numbers on your site, and a counter on your homepage to help us in making solid decisions. It has always been an important facet of our business that our publicity teams diligently track media exposure to monitor the effectiveness of our efforts; 3) As ARCs are considerably more costly than finished review copies, most publishers limit ARC distribution to longlead outlets–magazines and print publications that have deadlines far before the publication month. Please keep this in mind, as it is much more likely that we will send review copies to web-based media rather than galleys or ARCs; 4) It’s good to remember that we as publishers always love hearing from people who are excited about our books and appreciate your input greatly! And we also appreciate your understanding when we can’t get you that ARC or review copy, and respect our decisions regarding our final media lists–we are professionals, too, who have dedicated our careers to shaping and building our publicity campaigns, and who, at times, have to make difficult decisions re: who can and cannot be included in our lists. Our decisions are based on sound practice and criteria, not on personal judgments, and the reality is that it is impossible to accommodate all ARC and review copy requests (however much we would like to!).

    This is an exciting and challenging time for all of us in the bookworld, and many of us are still trying to figure out how to best incorporate the ever-expanding digital world into our publicity and marketing campaigns. It’s a fun and rocky road and the best we can all do is continue to focus on the important thing: finding books we love and sharing them with the rest of the world. Thanks all! SP, FLUX Publicity

    Like

  7. I also was surprised to read your previous post. My experiences with Little Brown have been nothing but positive and I’m not aware of any policies. Must have been a bad booth day. Miriam is wonderful, by the way!

    Like

  8. S.P., among the bloggers you are telling not to send letters with typos and emoticons are folks who have written for School Library Journal, the Los Angeles Times, the New Yorker, and other publications. I hate to say the advice is condescending, but, uh, it’s condescending. However, it does point to a problem: that some publishers must be hearing the word “blogger” and assuming the worst.

    Like

  9. SP,

    You are right that this is a challenging time for publishers and bloggers and navigating the changing media setting. I also understand that this is a business and you need numbers and results.

    In your comment, you mention that bloggers need to be professional in their approach. But this goes two ways. Publishers need to be professional in the way they approach bloggers too.

    I know it can be difficult to figure out what blogs should be on your list of people to receive ARCs or review copies. But counters are inconsistent especially with RSS feeds in the mix. And comments, which I hear some publishers mention, can be very misleading. Perhaps a dialogue would be best. And that was exactly what I was trying to have with Little, Brown.

    I was not upset that she did not offer me ARCs then and there. I was bothered by her attitude towards blogs and her insinuation that I would have to prove myself as worthy.

    This is a complicated new-media world we are all working in. But it does blogs a disservice to lump us together as separate from “established reviewers.”

    Like

Comments are closed.