In Chicago, Melville House publisher (and on again/off again blogger) Dennis Loy Johnson and Bookslut Jessa Crispin met to discuss the future of literary criticism.
The overarching themes of the discussion were that mainstream publishing sucks, corporate megaconglomerates have sucked the lifeblood from the book and newspaper industries, and the average reader has been suckered into accepting substandard titles that have won flawed awards. The biggest revelation of the evening: positive reviews don’t guarantee increased sales. The success of a given title hinges on an ever-nebulous factor called “word of mouth.” But whose word? Whose mouth?
The fact that word of mouth moves books is a "revelation?" Publishers have known about and exploited it for years, which is one reason why you don't see a whole lot of publisher-paid advertising—except for the books and authors everyone has already heard about. Another reason would be that publishers are notoriously cheap. And, yes, positive reviews don't always translate into sales.
Although word of mouth advertising is not immediately measurable or apparent, it does have long-term and exponential impact on book sales. Think about the following simplified scenarios:
Alpha - Let's say Critic Alpha positively reviews Book Alpha and Reader Alpha buys it. If Reader Alpha hates it, Reader Alpha is not likely to recommend it to friends. As a result, Book Alpha could possibly be dead in the water soon after publication. Not all hope is lost yet, though.
Beta - But if Critic Beta positively reviews Book Beta and Reader Beta also loves it, Reader Beta will likely suggest it to friends. To borrow from a classic shampoo commercial, those friends will tell friends who will tell friends and so on and on. If this process happens quickly, Book Beta might be a blockbuster while it's on the frontlist and will surely continue to sell well when it hits the backlist. If it happens slowly, it will earn its keep over the long haul of the backlist.
Gamma - Then there's Reader Gamma, who, in my opinion, makes up the overwhelming majority of book buyers. Reader Gamma doesn't run out and buy books based on the latest reviews and is slow to pick up titles recommended by friends. One day, Reader Gamma stumbles across Book Alpha. The book is bought, read, and loved. Reader Gamma tells friends who tell friends and so on. As word of mouth spreads, Book Alpha becomes a sleeper and makes steady money from the backlist.
So, based on the above, who sold more books: critics or readers? Surprisingly, neither. The success of Books Alpha and Beta resulted from word of mouth advertising, which originated both with a critic and a reader.
Providing another take on the Chicago discussion, Jonathan Messinger makes three excellent points:
- "Literary blogs are okay." [What some critics don't seem to understand is that the vast majority of people blogging about books are readers making recommendations to their friends, be they real life or virtual. It's word of mouth on steroids, and is just as good for books and reading as serious criticism.]
- "Print lingers." [Print critics have both more and less influence than they think. Although reviews may not translate into quick sales or advertising dollars, a reader might remember good press from months earlier during a browse through a bookstore. However, such influence is on the decline and hanging onto the Ghost of Critics Past is not a viable way to move reviewing into the future.]
- "We're not dumb." [He's right; we aren't.]
