Skip to main content

Tremble - it's sales conference time

Many newbie authors think that once they've got a contract with a real publisher, they can just sit back and wait for their book to become a bestseller. Only it's not quite as simple as that.

Leaving aside all the contributions the author still has to make, there will be an event on the horizon where arguably the success of your book is dependent on the presentation skills of your editor. You might imagine that once a publisher takes on a book, they simply instruct the sales force to SELL, SELL, SELL. However, the sales people don't know anything about your book. Enter the sales conference.

As an outsider I have always seen this as a bizarre process. The in-house sales staff sit in a room and along troop the editors, yours included. Each editor has to pitch their books to the sales people. Depending on how those few minutes (seconds?) go, the sales staff will decide if this is a book they are going to get wholeheartedly behind or give the sink-or-swim treatment to.

I have never been to sales conference, but speaking to editors, some find them quite intimidating. I have known editors plan dramatic stunts, like switching off all the lights, leaving the room in darkness and silence for as long as they dared, to demonstrate how dependent we are on electricity. Others have requested powerful images, soundbites and factoids - anything to grab the attention of those butterfly-brained sales people.  (I'm sure they're not really butterfly brained. It's just the concept of the sales conference is so alien to me.) A great book cover design helps a lot, too.

So next time you are moaning to friends that your editor never seems to do anything, give them a thought as they line up like lambs to the salesforce slaughter.

If my subtle subliminal sales tool has got you wanting to buy a copy of The God Effect, pop over to its web page.
Labels:

Comments

  1. Viktor S. Poór7 September 2010 at 12:12

    Last week I visited London (Science Online conference), and I tried to buy Ecologic. But I couldn't find it in any bookstore (most of the visited ones were Waterstones).

    ReplyDelete
  2. Brian Clegg7 September 2010 at 13:19

    Sorry to hear that Victor - it's not in the shops too much now as it has been out over a year, but you can find it at www.brianclegg.net/ecologic.html

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's 2010 gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some exp...
118 comments
Read more

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor...
25 comments
Read more

Why backgammon is a better game than chess

I freely admit that chess, for those who enjoy it, is a wonderful game, but I honestly believe that as a game , backgammon is better (and this isn't just because I'm a lot better at playing backgammon than chess). Having relatively recently written a book on game theory, I have given quite a lot of thought to the nature of games, and from that I'd say that chess has two significant weaknesses compared with backgammon. One is the lack of randomness. Because backgammon includes the roll of the dice, it introduces a random factor into the play. Of course, a game that is totally random provides very little enjoyment. Tossing a coin isn't at all entertaining. But the clever thing about backgammon is that the randomness is contributory without dominating - there is still plenty of room for skill (apart from very flukey dice throws, I can always be beaten by a really good backgammon player), but the introduction of a random factor makes it more life-like, with more of a sense...
6 comments
Read more