The Mail I Get

by

MarchauthorsmallFacebook is quickly becoming over-run by people promoting their books…or at least it seems that way from my mailbox. Every day I get cringe-worthy new examples of how not to promote your book. Here's one that I got today from a self-published author:

I just wanted to send greetings from New Orleans and to thank you for adding me as your friend on Facebook. I am an author with a new suspense thriller,
Time Couriers, recent recipient of AmazonClicks Author's Choice Award for March 2009!

Touting yourself as an "AmazonClicks" award-winner is like screaming "I am pathetic!!" as loudly as you possibly can. 

AmazonClicks is an utterly meaningless and honorless non-accolade that has nothing whatsoever to do with Amazon.com.  It's basically a popularity contest among nobodies set-up by a fledgling e-book publisher:

These are the only awards, voted for by ordinary readers and peer authors, where world beating best sellers compete against brand new and often unknown titles from talented writers sometimes struggling to gain recognition for their work.

We also list the winners of all the major literary awards so you can choose from the very best books available. […]
A wide range of thought provoking, amusing, thrilling and heart wrenching works are always nominated. The list shows these initially in the order they are received and then they are rank ordered by votes cast. 

[…]From the hundreds of nominations that can be received each month, only the top titles, most voted for, are listed – an award in itself! 

Participation in the voting and nominations for the AmazonClicks Authors Choice Award is open only to people with an ISBN number of their own. 

The Author's Choice Award is to give peer recognition and so we need to establish the votes for this award are coming from other authors, that is why we ask for an ISBN number of one of your works.

[…]Each person has one vote except authors who can vote once in each category so they get two. A vote will continue to be counted to support a book until that book wins an award in one of the categories (Reader's or Author's Choice) after which is will be removed from that category but may remain in the other if it has also been nominated there.

Well, those were the rules. The response from readers and authors this month has been so low, that AmazonClicks is combining the two "awards" into one. 

After much deliberation, we have decided to merge the Readers and Authors Choice Awards to one monthly 'AmazonClicks Award' for the most popular book. Due to the low votes in April, this will be effective immediately. The good news is that the competition goes on.

That's a relief.  What any of this idoicy has to do with Amazon is beyond me, except that they want to imply a connection where one doesn't exist. 

While this awards hokum isn't a scam in the classic sense — nobody is conning people out of their money — it still preys on the insecurity, naivete and desperation of aspiring authors. 

These self-published authors are so hungry for validation, for acknowledgment of any kind, that they'll jump at anything, no matter how insipid, that offers even the illusion of acclaim and recognition.

Instead, by touting this inane "award," the aspiring authors are humiliating themselves and creating new obstacles to overcome in their quest for publishing success and professional recognition. No reputable agent, editor, or reviewer will ever take an author seriously who considers an AmazonClicks "award" an honor worth touting. 

I feel sorry for this guy.

UPDATE 5-5-09: Pete, the guy behind the AmazonClicks "awards," isn't too pleased about my comments. He says, in part:

basically he accuses us of trading off Amazon's name and running meaningless awards. I'm guessing he's never won an award and is envious of those of you who have attracted hundreds of votes for your titles. If you come across this sort of vitriol, I suggest you just ignore it because his is only one tiny, unknown voice against the many that have praised your achievements.

What's interesting is that now he's going to change the site's name (to scrap the implied connection to Amazon) and is dropping his plans to start an e-book business.

rather than give fuel to the mindless ramblings of people like the aforementioned, I intend to change the name in the near future. […]After long consideration and polling onions around the Internet, I've decided not to pursue the eBook or any other type of selling on line. The new awards site will be just that, exclusively awards.

This is a sharp detour from just a week ago, when he had very different "onions" to report:

A number of surveys, polls and requests for feedback have been conducted to evaluate the eBook proposition and I'm pleased to report overwhelming support in favour. So wheels are now in motion to set this up

Gee, I wonder what changed. I'm sure that his new awards (WalmartClicks? BarnesandNobleClicks? PetCoClicks?) will be just as meaningful, coveted, respected, and renowned as AmazonClicks was.

The Price isn’t Right

by

Lots of scripted shows in recent years have moved their production from Los Angeles to New Mexico, North Carolina, New York, Toronto, Vancouver and even Bogota, Colombia . But you know things are really getting bad when even the cheap, non-scripted shows are fleeing the state. The LA Times reports today that the gameshow "Deal or No Deal" is saying "no deal" to California and high-tailing it to Connecticut.

The syndicated game show, hosted by comedian Howie Mandel, has been based out of the Culver Studios in Culver City for the last 3 1/2 years. But the show, which is produced by Endemol USA and distributed by NBC Universal, will shift production this summer to a studio in Waterford, Conn., to take advantage of that state's film and TV production tax breaks. Most of the 250 people who now work on "Deal or No Deal" will lose their jobs.

Connecticut offers a 30% production tax credit for films and digital media productions. NBC Universal, whose corporate parent General Electric Co. is based in Fairfield, Conn., already has announced plans to move three of its talk shows into a new production facility in Stamford, Conn.: "The Jerry Springer Show," "The Steve Wilkos Show," both from Chicago, and "Maury," from New York.

What's next to go — "The Price is Right?" "Ellen?" "The Tonight Show?" This is very bad news for all sectors of the entertainment industry in Southern California.

Author Photos for the Dead

by

N1283367977_30270780_7984 Can you believe that picture? It's the author photo and profile picture for Judith Gilbert, a stranger who asked to be my friend on Facebook today.  That picture looks like something you might see at a funeral home. She looks like she died and went on to horse heaven (I'm surprised that she didn't work a few unicorns, doves, and cats in there, too).  

I have a hard time reconciling that author photo with the cover of BLOOD HUNT, her latest e-book (the guy is either having an orgasm or trying to pass a very large gall-stone).

I'm sure Judith is a very sweet lady (and I'm not just saying that because she's a kick-boxer who could break me in two if she got pissed) but she might want to rethink the image she's creating for herself. She might start with one that doesn't make her seem, well, dead.

3221_1151742395417_1283367977_30417157_2867356_n

People Don’t Watch Shows That Suck

by

You'd think that would be common sense but, apparently it's not. Case in point — today an Entertainment Weekly article questioned why so many science fiction shows this season are tanking while audiences are still flocking to science fiction movies:

Two weeks ago, Fox aired what was probably the final episode of Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles, a pretty solid sci-fi show which nevertheless suffered from guttery ratings. Two weeks from now, Terminator Salvation will premiere in theaters — where it will likely make somewhere in the vicinity of $90 million in its first weekend, regardless of how "good" it is. Two separate extentions of the same franchise: one will be labeled a failure, the other a ginormous hit. Why?
Why don't we want science fiction on television anymore?

I think that the EW article is based on a faulty premise. People do watch science fiction TV shows…when they don't suck (good stuff like THE X-FILES, STAR TREK: THE NEXT GENERATION, the first season of HEROES, etc). 

Unfortunately, most of them suck. 

People didn't reject TERMINATOR: THE SARAH CONNOR CHRONICLES because it was science fiction…they stopped watching because it was lousy (and I say that as a guy who, inexplicably, didn't miss an episode). People turned away from HEROES for the same reason. The bottom line for science fiction shows is the same as it is for all shows in any genre:  they gotta be good or they'll die. 

That said, science fiction is a niche genre that has always appealed to a limited number of viewers…perhaps enough eyeballs to make a movie a hit but not enough to sustain a weekly TV show (which is why the SciFi network is so eager to broaden their brand and shed the "scifi" label). 

The other reason that science fiction TV shows haven't worked is that they are inordinately expensive to produce…which means they need to quickly and consistently draw a large audience to justify the expense/continued production. Most shows, sci-fi or not, have a hard time drawing viewers. But the networks understandably don't have the same patience with an expensive show as they do with inexpensive one.
So no, it's not science fiction shows that audiences are rejecting…it's poor writing, or a lousy premise/franchise, or bad acting, or the promotion was so weak, nobody ever noticed the show was on the air…or it's a lethal combination of all those elements.

As far as movies go, there is also the event/spectacle factor. A 100-minute movie like TERMINATOR: SALVATION costs as much to produce as 44 episodes of TERMINATOR: THE SARAH CONNOR CHRONICLES. Of course the movie is going to be more awesome. Plus, you're only asking the viewer to make a two-hour committment rather than a 44-hour one.  It has nothing to do with science fiction as a genre and everything to do with a dozen other factors. 

In other words, EW was asking the wrong question. What they should have been asking is "Why is science fiction TV so bad lately?"

That would be a better question, but not a fair one, because I think science fiction is thriving on TV as never before. STARGATE  just ended it's eight (or was it nine?) year run. It's spin-off ATLANTIS is also ending a long run (five years?). BATTLESTAR GALACTICA, which only ended a few weeks ago, may have been one of the best, and most-acclaimed science fiction TV series ever on television…and it gave SciFi Channel the respect it has sought for so long (which is ironic, considering they are changing their name with the premiere of the BSG spin-off CAPRICA). FRINGE is doing great.  And if you throw fantasy/horror into the mix, it looks even better (SUPERNATURAL, MEDIUM, TRUE BLOOD, GHOST WHISPERER, etc). 

So no, this is not a bad time for science fiction. It's a bad time for shows that suck…or that were once good and have slipped…or ill-conceived shows that take too much time finding their creative footing.