Publisher B

BOOKS AND READING

Ex. 1

You are going to read an article about books. For questions 1-11, choose from the publishers (A-E). The publishers may be chosen more than once.

Which publisher(s)

1) say(s) that some books succeed whether they are reviewed or not?

2) mention(s) reviewers taking the opportunity to display their own expertise?

3) describe(s) how good reviews can contribute to the commercial failure of a book?

4) say(s) that writers and publishers do not react to negative reviews in the same way?

5) feel(s) that certain books are frequently overlooked by reviewers?

6) talk(s) about the sales of some books being stimulated by mixed reviews?

7) suggest(s) that the length of a review may be more important to publishers than what it actually says?

8) refer(s) to the influence of reviews written by well-known people?

9) say(s) the effect of reviews on sales does not have a regular pattern?

10) mention(s) reviews being a crucial form of promotion?

11) believe(s) there has been an improvement in the standard of book reviews?

DO REVIEWS SELL BOOKS?

We asked five leading British publishers about the effect of the reviews of a book on its commercial success. Here is what they said.

Publisher A

Reviews are absolutely key for publishers - the first part of the newspaper we turn to. The Book Marketing Council found some years ago that when questioned on why they had bought a particular book, more people cited reviews than any other prompting influence (advertisements, word of mouth, bookshop display, etc.).

Authors' responses to reviews are slightly different from publishers'. Both are devastated by no reviews, but pub­lishers are usually more equable about the bad reviews, judging that column inches are what matter and that a com­bination of denunciation and ecstatic praise can actually create sales as readers decide to judge for themselves.

Publishers probably get the most pleasure from a review which precisely echoes their own response to a book - they are often the first 'reader'.

Publisher B

While publishers and the press fairly obviously have a common interest in the nature of book review pages, one also needs to remember that their requirements substantially differ: a newspaper or magazine needs to provide its readers with appropriately entertaining material; a publishing house wants to see books, preferably its own, reviewed, preferably favourably.

Without any question, book reviewing is 'better' - more diverse, less elitist - than 40 years ago, when I began reading review pages. That said, there is still a long-grumbled-about tendency to neglect the book medium read by a majority - namely paperbacks. The weekly roundups aren't really adequate even if conscientiously done. And even original paperbacks only rarely receive serious coverage.

But publishers shouldn't complain too much. Reviews are an economical way of getting a book and an author known. There is no question that a lively account of a new book by a trusted name can generate sales - even more if there are several of them.