This was your statement. Mine is that most unfamiliar with the books aren’t paying attention to the marketing. You cited Fabio–and he’s not being marketed by Romance. The Mr. Romance thing? Maybe that sort of thing baffles me, but I don’t see it as an active trend of marketing the genre, generated from publishers or the majority of the writers. I don’t even know when this was broadcast. I honestly can’t remember anything about it.

Mostly, I don’t see how Fabio or Mr. Romance relate to branding–or even to the current marketing of the genre. I don’t see how either relate to making, or attempting to make a personal or close relationship between an author and the readers.

The fact that they stick in the non-Romance reader’s perception is another thing altogether. Though I can say while I often get Fabio tossed at me (ha) in an interview, I’ve never had a reporter ask me about Mr. Romance.

So I don’t get why marketing–active, current marketing generated by publishers and writers of Romance–is what forms the negative opinion of those unfamiliar with the genre.

I agree that those who don’t read the genre have these perceptions–we’re on the same page there. I said those who don’t aren’t paying any attention to how the books are marketed. Oral-B and the fake butter people aren’t writing or promoting or publishing Romance novels–they’re marketing their products.

Do many `outsiders’ see Fabio and link him to Romance novels? Yes. I participated in a piece just last year for CBS Good Morning, and they frigging launched it with Fabio. It’s annoying and it’s frustrating. And it goes right back to what I said earlier in this discussion. It illustrates that people who deride the genre, who don’t read it and elect to smirk at it aren’t paying attention, but have their perceptions stuck ten, twenty and thirty years behind the now. And that the media is often lazy and lacking creativity when they report on the genre or its authors.

I don’t object to naked guy covers either. There are covers, marketing techniques, personalized blogs and mbs and so on in every genre that push certain images. My objection was to singling Romance out.

Of course, i kind of like the nude male chest covers but not the clinch cover. I wonder why that is?

I’m not a big fan of clinch covers because they mostly look stupid to me — some chick with her dress hanging off of her and a barrechested duke of something or other holding her at a totaly unnatural angle. In the case of historicals (which seem to be the only cliches I see these days) they belittle the actual history part. Naked male chests, though, when done well, can be luscious looking to me, in part, I think, because I’m not worried about whether they’re accurate or whether the weather is right for a cape but no shirt (like that horrendous cover art for Kleypas’s Devil In Winter). The best of them don’t look awkward or cheesy to me — except for the cover of Chase’s Lord Perfect, though, in which the guy’s chest looked like it was cast from wet silly putty. I don’t mind naked; but I do better if I’m not actually associating the cover model with the details of the plot, the history, or the characters. And you’re right, Jane — those covers at Angie’s site are fiiiiiine.

What’s interesting to me about covers, though, is how I feel — as a reader — that they’re helping to brand sub-genres in Romance; when I walk through the aisles at Costco, where all the books are displayed on the tables, I can pick out a Romantic Suspense versus a historical, etc. And chick lit also stands out, but despite the insistence that it’s not Romance, when I see some of the covers, it sure looks to me like they’re hoping to attract readers who recognize contemporary Romance covers. Colors, patterns, fonts, illustrations — unless I’m actually looking for a specific book, I’ve gotten into the habit of picking up any book that isn’t instantly recognizable to me by genre, and often those books are my impulse buys. When I order online, I pay almost no attention to cover or book size, though.

I’ve come to appreciate authors who use pseudonyms for their various forays into different genres.

Jayne Krentz is one who comes to mind. I love her science fiction romance as Jayne Castle. Enjoy her romantic suspense (and older romances) as Jayne Krentz. But I’m not sure I’ve read more than one of her historicals. Maybe same voice, but historicals are something I just don’t “glom” on. Too much fuss about clothes and balls for my taste. *grin*

When I first started reading with abandon and experimenting with different genres and authors, I was frustrated with pseudonyms. Before the ‘net, it wasn’t always easy to know who was who (uh, whom?). But now, if I find a new author, I can check her website for pseudonyms to see if I like her other “lines.”

And I know myself enough to know that if I hadn’t been forwarned about Linda Howard’s “To Die For” (how it had a more light-hearted, comedic tone than her other works), I’d have been frustrated at the least. It would have pulled me out of the story. So in that, I guess, “branding” has its hooks in me.

But I know I wouldn’t want an author to feel in any way compelled to write in a format or genre that no longer interests her. Nor would I want her to feel she couldn’t or shouldn’t branch out and expand her writing horizons.

The current marketing trend for romances does include bare chested men to a great degree. They are not Fabio but they are nude men. I actually like some of the nude men covers. The ones over at Angie W’s site today are particularly delicious (minus the underwear guy).

I do think that the covers of the books can lead to generalizations about romances. I asked Ned tonight what he thought of when I said romance books and he replied “covers with naked men.” Of course, i kind of like the nude male chest covers but not the clinch cover. I wonder why that is?

Please point out an instance in the last five years in which a Romance writer or publisher hyped Fabio or an author wearing a toga as the voice of Romance. Or even as an element typical of the genre.

http://www.romantictimes.com/resources_covermodels.php?article=175

Oral B is also marketing Fabio these days, and here’s an article from USA Today talking about it as part of branding for female consumers: http://www.usatoday.com/tech/products/2006-03-19-webwomen_x.htm

Mr. Romance? Who in the mainstream paid attention?

Women who watch Oprah’s Oxygen network? The series actually got quite a bit of coverage from what I could tell.

And no offense to Ms. Novak—seriously—but I don’t even know who that is, and I bet most people who shoot arrows at Romance don’t either.

http://www.brendanovak.com/index2.php
I haven’t read Novak, either, but I know I’m not the average Romance reader. Apparently, she’s very popular, but the genre is so large, there seem to be many different types of readers.

Fabio is so beyond over for anyone who’s remotely savvy about Romance.

But isn’t the point that people outside the genre aren’t savvy about Romance? And why should we expect them to be? Frankly, I think that there are more Romance readers out there who think Fabio is just fab than there are like me who are critical of some aspects of the genre. There are tons of Romance novels AAR will never review, but are nonetheless great sellers. Look at the Precious Gem series Romances Wal Mart does (did?) sell exclusively (this Kensington-owned line is where Shannon McKenna started): http://www.crescentblues.com/2_4issue/precious.shtml.

Please point out an instance in the last five years in which a Romance writer or publisher hyped Fabio or an author wearing a toga as the voice of Romance. Or even as an element typical of the genre.

On my very first pass on Google, I found this:

http://www.romantictimes.com/resources_covermodels.php?article=175

You may not have caught “Mr. Romance,” but lots of people did (it was on Oprah’s Oxygen network), and it was hosted by . . . Fabio, who, by the way, is also being marketed these days by Oral B. Here’s an article from USA Today on branding and female consumers featuring the Fabio-Oral B relationship: http://www.usatoday.com/tech/products/2006-03-19-webwomen_x.htm.

And no offense to Ms. Novak—seriously—but I don’t even know who that is, and I bet most people who shoot arrows at Romance don’t either.

http://www.brendanovak.com/index2.php

I don’t read Novak, either, but, as has been pointed out by you, I don’t exactly constitute the “average” Romance reader. I think, actually, Novak is closer to that core Romance reading audience.

That many, many, many people — normal, average, not in the press but intelligent and educated nonetheless people — have skewed images of Romance obviously means they are outsiders to the genre. No argument there. I wouldn’t expect them to be “savvy” about Romance marketing, because they have no experience in the genre. And, as you’ve pointed out on several occasions, the average reader of Dear Author of Smart Bitches isn’t the “average Romance reader,” either, so how many Romance readers are even savvy about marketing the genre? Personally, I don’t think most of them give a flying fig that Fabio is still considered the Romance cover boy, or that clinch covers are considered tacky by some of us or that Brenda Novak wore a toga on national television. In fact, I think the so-called “average” Romance reader, who’s buying Romance novels that AAR won’t review, is the target market for television shows like “Mr. Romance” and series like the Kensington-owned “Precious Gem” line of Romances sold exclusively at Wal Mart (the line where Shannon McKenna got her start — although I understand they aren’t sold anymore).

And what does Fabio have to do with Dear Reader letters or a personal relationship between writer and reader? He was a face, lots of hair and a shaved chest.

Mr. Romance? Who in the mainstream paid attention? I’m in the genre and I didn’t pay attention. These are silly, even ridiculous cliches perpetuated by those who have no true understanding or respect for the genre, and sink to its lowest level. Like the kid in his parents basement writing blogs in Klingon being touted as the yardstick for SF.

And no offense to Ms. Novak–seriously–but I don’t even know who that is, and I bet most people who shoot arrows at Romance don’t either.

Clinch cover certainly perpetuate the negative views–if they’re the type that get snarked on SB. No escaping that. But there are embarrassing and derivitive covers in EVERY genre. Why is Romance singled out?

The fact that Fabio and bodice rippers are tossed around, long, long after these elements are so completly over as far as the genre goes, doesn’t mean the genre, its readers, its writers, its publishers are to blame for it. It means the people who have no clue fall back on the least common demoninator–which are decades done–to denigrate an entire area of fiction because they just don’t get it.

That has nothing to do with branding, with reader expectation, with marketing–because nobody but I Can’t Believe It’s Not Butter is marketing Fabio these days. It has to do with abject laziness on the part of the media.

Please point out an instance in the last five years in which a Romance writer or publisher hyped Fabio or an author wearing a toga as the voice of Romance. Or even as an element typical of the genre.

Even then, the SF reader or writer costumed as an alien, or the reader or writer at a Mystery convention dressed as Sherlock Holmes wouldn’t generate as much smirking.

So, yes, I absolutely believe what I said in my previous comment.