By Edward Nawotka
In today’s lead story we look at the digital marketing strategies of two Spanish publishers, Maeva and Random House Mondadori. In the article, Carmen Ospina, digital manager for RHM, discussed the launch of the publisher’s consumer portal, entitled, Me Gusta Leer ["I Like to Read"].
“We decided that [the publisher] brand really is not important for us,” she said. “For a few imprints it is, like Lumen for instance, that’s when we develop specific pages on Facebook. But our strategy online has been to develop a community around Me Gusta Leer and Me Gusta Escribir rather than Random House Mondadori because we think people would never know who we are and will never care.”
This defies conventional marketing wisdom. Of course, some publishers have iconic brand identity — Penguin, Taschen, Knopf — while others are all but anonymous. Some smaller, specialist publishers have also managed to achieve a brand of their own and been able to capitalize on it in the form of customer subscriptions.
Online, branding can mean even less, considering just how few customers buy direct from publishers. Then, in other instances — such as the case of Tor.com — the publisher has used the brand to promote not only their SF books, but reading in general.
So, the question is: Do readers care about publishers brands? Is it a waste of money to pour money into online branding that will go unnoticed, and rather, develop a new consumer friendly online identity?
Tell us what you think in the comments below or via Twitter using #ppdiscuss.
11 Comments
I don’t think the question is relevant. In the case of RHM is a clear choice because it is a large publishing group that includes several sub-brands.
In the case of independent publishers, small and medium, many times the publisher’s brand is a guarantee to meet good authors otherwise unkonown. Therefore, we should not generalize.
I can opine on this in great depth. People care about brands. But, few publishers do any real branding of themselves. A few brands, such as Harlequin, Scholastic, DC Comics, Penguin Classics, do some real branding of themselves in package, promotion, and reaching out to their audience. But, publishers have to do something beyond simply putting their colophon on the spine of a book in order to get reader loyalty.
Publishers have made the assumption that readers don’t care about their branding a self-fulfilling prophecy. Obviously they don’t care if publishers make no efforts in this regard. But the ones who make even a little—be they genre publishers like Del Rey or serious literary publishers like FSG—do achieve a recognizable brand identity.
Of course, the question is a generalization, but question is, at it’s core, whether or not branding leads to sales. Whether or not a publisher has achieved brand recognition in the wider marketplace is largely moot if it doesn’t offer a return on investment. If you look at cell phones, I think this is true. Aside from the iPhone and Blackberry, which cater to specific niches, most cell phone companies have recognizable brands — Motorola, Nokia, LG, Samsung — though the products themselves are largely anonymous, despite multimillion dollar advertising campaigns for products like the Droid. Can you name an HTC phone that Verizon has? (I can, but it’s only because I’m looking for a new phone — I will forget that the Eris is at Verizon as soon as I pick one out). Like books, new phones come out every few month and the old “branding” of the phones themselves if forgotten. Brands only work long term, which is why I don’t think it matters as much for publishers as it does, very much, for authors. Generally speaking.
I have to say I really agree with RHM’s strategy – I grew up in Colorado, far from publishing central, and I really don’t think most readers care much about the publisher of the books they read. I’ve been an avid reader all my life, and before I started working in publishing I would have recognized Penguin (not necessarily in a good way, the quality of their paperbacks has improved since I had to buy them in high school), Vintage, and possibly Tor and Del Rey from my fantasy fan reading days. One of the challenging things about the book business is that each product, each book, is so different and unique unto itself, I don’t see how a centralized branding strategy makes any sense the way it might for a company that sells cereals or detergents and has only 10 closely related products to keep track of. Henry has a point (thanks for commenting, Tokland!), there are some smaller publishers or focused imprints where building a community around the brand makes more sense because they have a cohesive list, but otherwise I feel like a focus on publisher branding runs contrary to what I wish publishers did more of, which is actively finding and interacting with the readers where *they* spend their time and energy.
NO!
I bet if you stop 10 people on the street (not in NYC) and ask them to name a book publishing company, about 8 or 9 of them will not be able to come up with one. Book publishers are more like appliance makers than car makers. People care about who makes their car (hello Toyota, are you listening?) People may know the name of some appliance makers (Maytag) but care less about the maker than the features. The features of a book are the content.
I think the answer, right now, is a pretty easy “no.” But, I think it’s a better idea for publishers to actively try to brand than it is for publishers to try and convince readers to pay a higher price for product.
It’s not going to be easy for publishers, as there’s obviously a lot of brand confusion, and the process would require directly interacting with end users (rather than the current intermediate customers), but yes, smart publishers will start to do this.
This is one area where indie, niche, and small presses have a distinct advantage – as their focus allows them to more easily brand. For a major publisher to actually brand, they’re going to have to do so on an imprint-by-imprint basis. A pretty good example is what MacMillan’s allowed Tor to do.
As a self-published author who publishes under the imprint Antellus, I am trying to create a brand for my publishing arm because I must market and sell my books myself online to a growing readership in a niche market. By branding the books, I am promoting them as professionally as I can, which means I must sacrifice branding myself. I never cared for the spotlight; I want readers to find my books, not me as a celebrity author, so it does not matter to me if they don’t remember the imprint. I just want them to know where my books are, and in order to do that I have to establish a brand presence as a publisher. As I am also in competition with other publishers means that I must demonstrate brand integrity as well, otherwise there would be no point in establishing an online store. I could just as well social network until my brains fall out, but readers are less apt to notice my books among the thousands who are fully hosted. I could not present them with options for buying, a shopping cart, and all the niggling little other details that a large retailer like Amazon employs to attract readers. I also have more control over how my books are presented. These are the things which the big houses are already consummate at.
There are a few notable exceptions where publishers have entered and dominate a niche or genre, and therefore have brand awareness among many or most of their customers. Harlequin is a great example, and so is O’Reilly. As has been said, these publishers dominate “the vertical.” Most publishers, however, probably think their brand is uber important when in reality most customers don’t know or care–Carmen is absolutely right–most of their readers identify with the AUTHOR as the brand, they couldn’t care less if it’s a Random House Mondadori book or a Planeta book or a Santillana book. But Paulo Coelho or Arturo Perez Reverte, now those are brands.
My experience has been that the consumer doesn’t really care that much about a publisher’s imprint/brand – unless the branding is downright awful (no names) or marketed heavily as part of the offering, viz Penguin, Mills & Boon).
However, the publisher’s imprint is vital when communicating to booksellers and librarians — those key gatekeepers between publishers and consumers. For these professionals, the publisher’s brand is a sign not only of publishing and marketing/PR quality, but it also helps gives them a clear idea of a book’s intended readership. I’ve always thought of publishers’ imprints primarily as business-to-business branding, therefore, rather than consumer branding.
Many publishers believe the author’s name is a more persuasive brand with which to target consumers and I’d go along with that. If your list is large and varied enough, a catch-all name like “I Like To read” or “Mad About Books” (Hachette) might work too. Mind you, so does “Dirt Cheap Books”. Go figure.
I have completed a Christian book and would like a traditional publisher to evaluate it and determine if it is readable and saleable. If so, to publish it. However, I’m certain that it needs editing and the kicker is, I’m 82 years of age and can not afford contributing toward something that may not sell. Secondly, my health would likely not permit me to be much of a hawker of my own material – however good it is. Am I dead in the water? WM
2 Trackbacks
[...] Case Study: Publishers’ Online Marketing in Spain,” Editor-in-Chief Ed Nawotka posed a discussion question asking if readers cared about publisher branding. This sparked a flurry of debate among readers on [...]
[...] sólo dos años de transición digital. De hecho, puesto que los lectores digitales no hacen distinciones entre editoriales: Carmen Ospina, manager digital para Random House Mondadori, comentó [...]