How-To Discussion of Promoting and Marketing Novels and Written Works

[Hobbit]

is that good communication or shameless self promotion?

Fairly simple, Fresh Pen: look at how many other people don't do it here at SFFWorld.... we usually ask for people to quote here or precis, so that that doesn't happen.

The fairly new Promotion Zone may solve that issue a little - was meant to - but you'll find (as if the comments in this thread haven't shown you by already by now) that people here purely to self-promote are not well-regarded by members. Strange, but true.

[TheFreshPenOfTO]

Fairly simple, Fresh Pen: look at how many other people don't do it here at SFFWorld.... we usually ask for people to quote here or precis, so that that doesn't happen.

The fairly new Promotion Zone may solve that issue a little - was meant to - but you'll find (as if the comments in this thread haven't shown you by already by now) that people here purely to self-promote are not well-regarded by members. Strange, but true.

Thanks so much for the quick reply. I appreciate it. Now I know.

[Fung Koo]

I looked through the last couple of pages to see if this had been shared, but thought it fairly apropos in light of Mark's last comment:

Waterstones bookseller found trolling self-published author

The title of this article is interesting, given that it's somewhat incomplete. The article takes a sympathetic view of the self-published author's situation, giving no mention of how the article's writer discovered there was a story here to be told -- yet does repeatedly mention the title of the book, and even links to it on Amazon. There is no legal action involved, so no real public record to draw from. In order for this article to exist at all, someone had to bring it to the attention of the article's writer.

The self-published author in question happens to have a day job in PR. Though the article doesn't say, given the nature of self-promotion, I'd wager it's a fair bet that the self-published author contacted a Guardian blogger with a penchant for the self-publisher eBook world. The result is that he has given himself a platform by having her write his story, and has created name recognition. And, by having your name mentioned and paired with blog tags, he has ensured that his name will appear in news aggregator sites all across the web, thereby driving up his hits. (This is the modern face of internet self-promotion -- gaining tags, creating backlinks and crosslinks, and keyword dropping.)

The comments on the article are interesting to browse through. The author gets involved. The views expressed by commentators represent the various attitudes toward self-publishing and self-promotion, I think.

Which brings me back to the interesting title of the Guardian article. Personally, I think self-promotion often is a form of trolling. Certainly one might discover they are in a conversation started by a self-promoter for the purpose of self-promotion -- the entire conversation having become a ruse, simply a ploy to generate web hits, tags, and for name/title dropping. Isn't that trolling? My question about this article: is the article's writer complicit in the author's self-promotion scheme?

So the whole situation is pretty intriguing. I post this NOT to promote the author in question, but as a question about this whole thing as a promotion technique. What's going on here? Is it as sneaky as it might seem?

[Window Bar]

So the whole situation is pretty intriguing. I post this NOT to promote the author in question, but as a question about this whole thing as a promotion technique. What's going on here? Is it as sneaky as it might seem?

Hiya Fung Koo -- Yup, it looks as if there's a fair chance the writer had a connection with the Guardian blogger. And I must agree with Waterstone's that the act of placing one's advertising lit in their store--especially as it promoted a competitor--was childish. In certain jurisdictions, it might be considered a form of trespass. Of course, it almost goes without saying that the angry employee at Waterstone's responded in an equally childish fashion.

That much said, I do NOT believe that all self promotion is trolling or is necessarily dishonorable. On the contrary, self promotion exists in every endeavor, from commerce to academia to religion to politics. In the situation that you cite, however, it was a fairly slimy move.

Thanks for the post. It's certainly fascinating to learn what goes on in this industry.

[Hobbit]

Thanks Fung: I missed this article when it was first published.

The issue there, as I read it, is that the author's been into the property of another and self-publicised your book without their permission. Not only that, but they've encouraged those who might be interested in buying the book from another seller - not even the one they've tried to promote their work in!

So: wrong on both counts, though admittedly what the Waterstones employee allegedly did in return was just as bad!

As WB's said though, trolling implies (to a degree) that such actions are done with malice, and in that respect the Waterstones response was that, at least based on what I've read here. Although the Waterstones employee was not acting on behalf of the book chain, it is rather immature from my point of view.

Not all self promotion is dishonourable - far from it, and I think at SFFWorld we have the fortune to have members who pretty much play by the rules. In fact, I know of some members who go out of their way NOT to put posts that could even be remotely thought of as self-promotion!

But there is this feeling 'out there' that you must, must, MUST promote, all the time, in every post, and not just contribute to debate for the sake of just being involved. I'm so pleased that that is not what we do.

[Fung Koo]

I was referring most specifically to the Guardian article/blog as being of dubious intent., but self-promotion in general is a slippery subject.

Blogging for a publication with a decent journalistic reputation should, theoretically, bind the blogger to a certain level of professional conduct. There's nothing factually suspect about the content of the article, really -- but it's mere existence, coupled with the link to the item that is for sale that's in question, and its biased presentation of the situation, all suggest to me that the reader isn't exactly being treated honourably. Especially if the blogger is writing this after being contacted by the self-publishing author.

I'm not so naive as to believe that professionally published authors with agents and the like are dealing with the media any differently. Obviously the whole game is to create the appearance that people are talking about it without it being apparent that someone is paying/making people talk about. If Viacom makes a movie and then has their Viacom-employed movie reviewer give it high praise in the Viacom-owned paper, it's basically the same thing (the reason why NBCs affiliate news entities all say NBCs new fall tv lineup is super awesome, and ABC and CBS, etc., likewise...). But in those cases, the ownership and intent is a matter of public record, and so the credibility of the reviewer rests on their own reputation and that of the organization that employs them. The reader can draw whatever conclusions they like.

This situation doesn't have that available clarity. The relationship between the blogger and her subject is not made clear, but the conclusion about that relationship, though seemingly self-evident, can be denied as no more than reader opinion/enmity. In this case, I think probably the blogger is tricking us -- I think there's some intentional deception involved here. And the author, presumably, is the source of the deception. A story is being spun about a self-published author being victimized, yet the nugget of truth in the story is there if we're paying attention and we know the victim story is rubbish. If we're paying attention.

And that's the troll -- in this case, the trolled individuals are anyone read the article and discussed it as if it's an issue of a poor independent self-published author being the victim of Big Corporate's bully underling. What's his book called again? I should check it out and support him...

I wonder if it worked.

[tmso]

I wonder if it worked.

Yes, it did. At least, I checked out his book. Didn't buy it, but I checked it out. I didn't check it out because I thought I should support him, but rather to see what the hubbub was about.

What he did was wrong. What he and the blogger did was wrong. And we all just have to hope that there is some karma in the world and he'll get his due.

Mind you, when I saw the name, I did recognize it. My recollection was shrouded in some other dubious circumstances, so I fear this guy has been developing a reputation - and not necessarily a good one. You reap what you sow.