# How Much Does Your Name Matter?



## A. E. Lowan (Mar 9, 2016)

Today's post from Rachel Aaron talks about writing names.  Good stuff.

Pretentious Title: Writing Wednesday: How Much Does Your Name Matter?


----------



## Russ (Mar 9, 2016)

Very good article.  There was a great deal of discussion between my wife, myself, her agent, her editors and some of our writing friends about choosing the name my wife would publish under.  Branding is a very big deal indeed.

She is quite right about positioning on book shelves. Even Lee Child adopted his pen name partially for that reason.


----------



## Ireth (Mar 9, 2016)

Now I feel lucky my last name starts with B.


----------



## Chessie (Mar 9, 2016)

I love her blog posts. They're so helpful and pen names are a good thing to think about. After marinating on this very subject for some time, I finally decided to publish with a pen name because my real one is long, complicated, hard to fit on covers, and one you'll probably hear once in your life. I'm a private person and hardly anyone I know even knows that I have work up. However, I think in this digital age changing pen names with genres is less important. Readers will gravitate towards what they want to read anyway. So I'm keeping the same pen name for my fantasy and western romance books. I also don't want to run 2 different sites and social media accounts for the names, so one it is. I was reading the other day about Ella Casey and how she writes in several different genres with her same name.


----------



## AndrewLowe (Mar 9, 2016)

This is something I never, would have thought of.  Thanks!


----------



## psychotick (Mar 9, 2016)

Hi,

I agree with her, your name is your brand. You need to protect and preserve it. I disagree with her that you should use multiple brands for different genres. I understand where she's coming from, but even she admits she doesn't know how many readers she lost by not having them realise that one Rachael was also the other. And she acknowledges that it's a lot of work keeping two brands going. 

But more important than that, both brands are being diluted. Because if she writes two books a year one under brand A and one under brand B, then her readers only see one book as A and one by B. They forget her for six or nine months of the year between putting out the book they liked under brand A and the next one by Brand A.

My advice as always is that unless the genres are mutually exclusive and bad for one another (eg children's sci fi and gay porn where you really don't want one lot of readers knowing so much about the other), stick to one name whatever it is.

Positioning on shelves I hadn't considered, but in this day of ebooks your alphebtic order probably matters a lot less than before.

One other thing I will suggest. Actually consider turning your name into a brand. There are issues with it relating to cover design etc. But if you can get readers to recognise your name at fifty feet without even being able to read it, that's a win. And you can trademark it as a word mark! That matters if there are other authors out there with similar names.

Cheers, Greg.


----------



## Russ (Mar 10, 2016)

psychotick said:


> Positioning on shelves I hadn't considered, but in this day of ebooks your alphebtic order probably matters a lot less than before.



While it is true that book positioning may be less important that it used to be, the number one way that a reader discovers a book they are going to buy for both branded and unbranded authors is "Discovered in Store."


----------



## Mythopoet (Mar 10, 2016)

I think the absolute most important thing is that your name is easy to remember and easy to say/spell. Because word of mouth is everything and you don't want to make it hard for your fans to spread the word.


----------



## Mythopoet (Mar 10, 2016)

Russ said:


> While it is true that book positioning may be less important that it used to be, the number one way that a reader discovers a book they are going to buy for both branded and unbranded authors is "Discovered in Store."



Source, please?


----------



## Chessie (Mar 10, 2016)

^ I think Russ means that the bookstore environment is still where the majority of folks go to get books. Last I saw the statistic was at 85% but this was about a year ago.


----------



## Russ (Mar 10, 2016)

> Source, please?



A Codex study of 2300 genre fiction readers conducted in January of 2014 is the one I have sitting beside me.

Other studies have reached similar conclusions.

And to be as clear as I can, I am talking about *book discovery*, the first step in the current model of book sales.


----------



## Mythopoet (Mar 10, 2016)

Russ said:


> A Codex study of 2300 genre fiction readers conducted in January of 2014 is the one I have sitting beside me.
> 
> Other studies have reached similar conclusions.
> 
> And to be as clear as I can, I am talking about *book discovery*, the first step in the current model of book sales.



Is there a link you can point to where I can look at the methodology and conclusions of the study? No offense, but believing something someone says just because they cited some study is naive. There are thousands of studies done all the time and most of them are crap. I find it very hard to believe that even in 2014 the primary way to discovery books was finding them on a store bookshelf. I've almost never in my life found a book that way.


----------



## psychotick (Mar 10, 2016)

Hi,

Just to weigh in, ten years ago that was the only way to find a book - or anything else - and there were thousands of studies made about shelf position etc. The big ones were usually about supermarket shelves and where you wanted to have your products placed on them to sell. Eye level was highly prized. And in fact there were entire court battles about which products could be displayed where on supermarket shelves. But the internet changes things a lot, and shelf position is far less important to both books and supermarket goods when everything is on a virtual shelf.

Now we face a different "eye level". The one that will work will probably be the product placement adds where you go to search say a mystery and a convenient add about a mystery book by a publisher determined to sell it, appears on your screen by the list of books found. They have to pay for it of course, but they do. It's all about putting the book in front of people's faces and getting them to click it.

And of course we face a different type of selection bias. Now when you push a search button what comes back first are the most popular books. So those are what viewers will see first,and there's plenty of anecdotal evidence (note no research available since marketing isn't my thing) that people will only scan through the first few pages / trieves of search results. Which means if you can get a book up there in the top ranks, it's got a better chance of selling and hence staying there, than one that hasn't. It's a victim of its own success.

Cheers Greg.


----------



## Russ (Mar 11, 2016)

Mythopoet said:


> Is there a link you can point to where I can look at the methodology and conclusions of the study? No offense, but believing something someone says just because they cited some study is naive. There are thousands of studies done all the time and most of them are crap. I find it very hard to believe that even in 2014 the primary way to discovery books was finding them on a store bookshelf. I've almost never in my life found a book that way.



You really need to keep  your arguments consistent.  Here you are choosing to say that your personal experience actually means something where you also recently said:



> But quite honestly the personal experience of any of us here amounts to nothing.



Whether or not you choose to accept studies (from the top company in the field which you didn't even know existed until I told you) is your business.  But it can be impossible to rationally communicate with someone who simply chooses to say "most studies are crap."

If I thought you might read it and assess it honestly I normally would be happy to send you a copy of the study directly.  But in this case I don't believe that.

And more importantly it says across the bottom:

Codex-Group Â© 2015 Proprietary and Confidential


----------



## Russ (Mar 11, 2016)

psychotick said:


> Hi,
> 
> Just to weigh in, ten years ago that was the only way to find a book - or anything else - and there were thousands of studies made about shelf position etc. The big ones were usually about supermarket shelves and where you wanted to have your products placed on them to sell. Eye level was highly prized. And in fact there were entire court battles about which products could be displayed where on supermarket shelves. But the internet changes things a lot, and shelf position is far less important to both books and supermarket goods when everything is on a virtual shelf.
> 
> ...



I agree with you that shelf position in a bookstore is *less* important that it used to be.

But according to the data it is still the most common way for a book to be discovered for purchase for both branded and unbranded authors.


----------



## Devor (Mar 11, 2016)

@Russ, I don't think you're being fair to pull an argument Mytho made in another thread on a completely different subject. Context matters.

I've also long ago soured on the use of studies in these conversations.  They get bandied about as authorities without any reference for the nuance of what they're actually saying.  Then when people do get into it, there's so many details and unknown that it derails the discussion.

For instance, "Discovered in Stores" doesn't mean "Discovered in Bookstores."  It includes for instance thrillers and romance novels sold at Walmart and Costco.  I would also be interested to know whether the study includes Children's Books.

That is, frankly, the results may not be very relevant to self-published fantasy authors.


----------



## Russ (Mar 11, 2016)

> @Russ, I don't think you're being fair to pull an argument Mytho made in another thread on a completely different subject. Context matters.



I disagree completely, but it is not worth wasting the time to go through the analysis to explain why.



> I've also long ago soured on the use of studies in these conversations.  They get bandied about as authorities without any reference for the nuance of what they're actually saying.  Then when people do get into it, there's so many details and unknown that it derails the discussion.



I am sorry to hear you have soured on studies.  That really leaves us nowhere then doesn't it?  Data, even when imperfect is better than no data.  If there is no data, you are left with arguments from authority, or, quite often on this site, people who have no experience or knowledge of the publishing industry making opinionated comments based on nothing more than bias.  That does not sound like a formula for useful discussion to me.  Does it to  you?

And as I indicated above it was a study of genre fiction readers.  It did not include children's books.

But in this case the data dovetails nicely with the advice given in the article in the OP (argument from authority?):



> That last part is not to be underestimated! When you walk into any bookstore that carries SFF and you look at the books, I'm right there on the first shelf, often at eye level. That's the kind of placement publishers pay thousands for, and I get it for free because of my name! XD



So that means the the industry pays for top placement in the SFF section in bookstores. Reason might suggest publishers do that because they know that those placements have value.  So the study I cited is supported by the comments of the OP cited author.  Or vice versa.  Either way in this case the data and argument from authority match up quite nicely.  A good position to be in.



> That is, frankly, the results may not be very relevant to self-published fantasy authors.



I am sorry, I didn't know this site was restricted to discussion of self-published people or people who only wish to self publish.  Perhaps that should be made clear somewhere.  I was under the impression that many people here were interested in being traditionally published or knowing more about the traditional publishing industry.  If that is prohibited on this site, or irrelevant to its purpose you should let us know.


----------



## Devor (Mar 11, 2016)

Russ said:


> I am sorry to hear you have soured on studies.  That really leaves us nowhere then doesn't it?  Data, even when imperfect is better than no data.  If there is no data, you are left with arguments from authority, or, quite often on this site, people who have no experience or knowledge of the publishing industry making opinionated comments based on nothing more than bias.  That does not sound like a formula for useful discussion to me.  Does it to  you?



When I was in college I studied Economics and Marketing at a leading business school, including courses in Market Research and Data Mining.  When I say that I have soured on the use of studies, I say so after having looked at a great many good ones and from hearing people cite a large number of them incorrectly.

Data, as anybody will tell you, is no substitute for logic.  Data tells a story.  If all somebody does is cite the data, without explaining the narrative it supports, then it means nothing.  And if you can tell the logical narrative, you shouldn't really need the data.

The purpose of data is to inform your brain, not dictate your conclusions.  Using data correctly is itself a skill that requires education and experience, and I personally would refrain from using it than encourage others to use it poorly.


----------



## Russ (Mar 11, 2016)

Devor said:


> When I was in college I studied Economics and Marketing at a leading business school, including courses in Market Research and Data Mining.  When I say that I have soured on the use of studies, I say so after having looked at a great many good ones and from hearing people cite a large number of them incorrectly.
> 
> Data, as anybody will tell you, is no substitute for logic.  Data tells a story.  If all somebody does is cite the data, without explaining the narrative it supports, then it means nothing.  And if you can tell the logical narrative, you shouldn't really need the data.
> 
> The purpose of data is to inform your brain, not dictate your conclusions.  Using data correctly is itself a skill that requires education and experience, and I personally would refrain from using it than encourage others to use it poorly.



Logic is a great thing when applied properly, but it rarely is, and to do  logic well to solve a real world problem you need data or facts.

Let's say I run a law firm and I want to attract new clients.  It's kind of a hard problem to "logic" from first princples  my way through the problem without any data isn't it?  The logic will likely end up being "This is how I would like to be attracted to a law firm" or maybe I will ask a few friends about what they would like to see in a law firm ad to attract them to come.   Or maybe I would a) survey a thousand people with carefully worded questions asked by professionals to see what people want in a law firm or b) run a couple of different ads and see what the response rates were for each.

So should I "logic" my way through the problem, or should I data gather and then logically analyse the data?  

And let's apply the example to this thread.

I am writing thinking about marketing books and how to chose my pen name.  

I have advice from an expert that says "Don't underestimate the value of shelf placement in bookstores."

I have data from 2300 genre book buyers, surveyed by professionals who are trying to help construct a way for authors to sell books, that says the number one way book buyers discover new books is in a book store, which is correlated with other studies that place this method as #1 or #2.

And I have MP who says "I have almost never found a book that way."

With that data, which approach does logic tell you to take?  Do you ignore the voice of 2300 in favour of the one?

The problem with trying to use logic to solve a real world problem is that people are far too reliant on their own experience.  They make the error of believing that for some reason their experience represents the broader population or a larger trend, when quite often it doesn't.

And for many questions, once you have good data I am not what narrative you need.  If I test market a new T shirt and it turns out that 90% of the people who look at it like colour A best, do I really  need to know why they like colour A?  What is the narrative I need on that data?

If I know a significant number of buyers first find out about the book they buy in a bookstore, what more narrative do I need then that when making my marketing decisions?  The only thing I can think of is "whether or not that trend will continue", which can be very hard to determine.

And since you bring logic to the question, do you think some logic suggests that shelf placement in bookstores is not a material factor in selling books?  Because if you do it then begs a very important question does it not?


----------



## Devor (Mar 11, 2016)

Russ said:


> Logic is a great thing when applied properly, but it rarely is, and to do  logic well to solve a real world problem you need data or facts.



I have a family member who works as an economist on one of the presidential campaigns, and according to him this methodology difference between the reliance on data and logic is one of the big unsolvable political divides.  As people age, and learn first hand how unreliable and misleading the facts and data often are, that's one of the ways people shift from liberal to conservative as they age.  It's kind of fascinating.




> Let's say I run a law firm and I want to attract new clients.  It's kind of a hard problem to "logic" from first princples  my way through the problem without any data isn't it?  The logic will likely end up being "This is how I would like to be attracted to a law firm" or maybe I will ask a few friends about what they would like to see in a law firm ad to attract them to come.   Or maybe I would a) survey a thousand people with carefully worded questions asked by professionals to see what people want in a law firm or b) run a couple of different ads and see what the response rates were for each.
> 
> So should I "logic" my way through the problem, or should I data gather and then logically analyse the data?



In all seriousness, if somebody needs to run polls and gather data on how to open a law firm, then they don't understand the business well enough to open one.

If they don't understand the logic behind consumer analysis and audience segmentation, the data will be impossible to understand. And response rates on a marketing campaign?  That's, like, notoriously the most unreliable and misleading data there is.  Marketing is all about generating synergies with your brand and "prepping" customers for the point of sale.  Looking at response rates doesn't give you any kind of clarity towards the effectiveness of the campaign.  Low response rates could mean any of the following, or more:

 - Your ad was ineffective for your audience.
 - Your ad didn't reach the right market.
 - You're not advertising enough to generate awareness.
 - You have problems in your sales channels, making you hard to reach.

It would be very difficult to figure out the problem based on a survey of the data.




> And let's apply the example to this thread.
> 
> I am writing thinking about marketing books and how to chose my pen name.
> 
> ...



Let me ask you this.  _When_ would you ignore the voice of 2300 in favor of the one?

. . . . . .

When the _one_ matches your target audience, and the 2300 does not.

Which brings me back to the narrative that the data tells.  You still haven't presented that.  You've thrown in a few facts.  "Branded and unbranded."  Sometimes you've said stores, sometimes you've said book stores, but I still don't know if "Walmart" counts as a bookstore here (very few authors get into those kinds of stores).  You did say genre earlier, and I missed it because you were slinging your study around like a weapon instead of telling the narrative behind it.  You've said it matters for "discovery," which is the first step of a model, but you haven't explained what that model is or what role discovery plays.  You haven't talked about whether this applies for books across the board or if you can narrow down differences between subgenres or audience types.  Does "number one" mean a majority or a plurality?

_For whom_ does book store placement matter most in discovery?

Without that narrative, the data means nothing for anyone making an actual decision.  Without that narrative, you're throwing around the data like it makes you right, and everyone else wrong, but without any practical or tangible relevance whatsoever.  You've got the data without the logic.




> The problem with trying to use logic to solve a real world problem is that people are far too reliant on their own experience.  They make the error of believing that for some reason their experience represents the broader population or a larger trend, when quite often it doesn't.
> 
> And for many questions, once you have good data I am not what narrative you need.  If I test market a new T shirt and it turns out that 90% of the people who look at it like colour A best, do I really  need to know why they like colour A?  What is the narrative I need on that data?



Mountain Dew did this.  They surveyed tons of people and asked them what they thought of different drinks they were trying out.  The majority of people preferred Drink A and did not like Drink B.  Mountain Dew went with Drink B - Mountain Dew Code Red - and it was a huge success.

So, I would go with yes, the reasoning matters.

In this case, Drink A was a lot like everything else on the market, and the preference for it was weak.  Drink B had a lot of people who kind of didn't like it, and a handful who said it was the absolute best thing ever.  Among other things, it was an acquired taste, preferred by the types of adventurous people who already liked Mountain Dew, which made it the perfect fit for their branding.

Does your data tell you that kind of detail?

For what it's worth, I heard this anecdote in a presentation offered directly by the marketing team at Pepsi, which owns Mountain Dew.  Which leads me to another point.  You need a heavy dose of logic in _designing_ good data.  Most of the data that's widely available and that people use for any kind of marketing discussion happens to in fact be crap because good market research is typically proprietary material.




> If I know a significant number of buyers first find out about the book they buy in a bookstore, what more narrative do I need then that when making my marketing decisions?  The only thing I can think of is "whether or not that trend will continue", which can be very hard to determine.
> 
> And since you bring logic to the question, do you think some logic suggests that shelf placement in bookstores is not a material factor in selling books? Because if you do it then begs a very important question does it not?



This, right here, is why so many authors do a terrible job at marketing. I listed some of the questions I had about this particular narrative above in this post.  I'm not going to repeat them here.  But, there's a reason that marketing is a profession, and the rest use the logic of arm-chair professionals.  The data told us nothing but generalities.  The data informs a narrative, but without that narrative we know absolutely nothing.

Just one more for instance, is the rate of discovery high enough to warrant the reduced royalties or other costs associated with working with somebody (say, a publisher, or a publicist) that will get you in a book store?  How does that apply to any particular genre or target audience?

Look, I'm not even saying that you're wrong.  I'm saying that you have used your data instead of your logic, and by doing so you haven't provided enough information to work with.


----------



## Mythopoet (Mar 11, 2016)

The thing is Russ, you didn't present any data. You summarized a conclusion of a study that none of us can look at. That isn't data.


----------



## Mythopoet (Mar 11, 2016)

Russ said:


> You really need to keep  your arguments consistent.  Here you are choosing to say that your personal experience actually means something where you also recently said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



My statement about my experience wasn't intended as an argument either way. It was just one reason why I can't trust your assertion about this particular study without seeing more about it. I'm of the opinion that it's not a good idea to trust the assertions of random internet denizens or to take references to studies without any actual data as gospel. One should always question sources of information, don't you think? You're free to read more into it than that though if you want.


----------



## Russ (Mar 11, 2016)

Mythopoet said:


> The thing is Russ, you didn't present any data. You summarized a conclusion of a study that none of us can look at. That isn't data.



Actually I gave out plenty of data on the subject.

In a study conducted by a professional organization in January 2014 of 2300 genre fiction readers (adults) when asked about by which method they discovered the last book they bought, the largest answer for both branded and unbranded writers was "in store."  As you probably know Codex is considered a gold standard source in the industry and is quoted by PW, DBW and even Forbes when they take on publishing issues.

It is unfortunately true that I cannot simply send you a copy of the report.  You can choose to question if it even exists if you like.

You asked for my source and I gave it to  you in as much detail as I can.

For some unknown reason you seem to want to attribute malicious motives to me.  As a member of this community when things are being discussed that I have knowledge on I comment on them as best I can.  I run a law firm, not a publishing company.  Whether you believe me or not on any issue is not going to change my life one iota.

But as a member of a community that I feel has given a lot to me, I find it difficult to sit by and say nothing when I have factual information that I think might be useful to that community.  I could just take what I can from the site and not offer anything back.  In fact I could just chuckle when people get things wrong or make statements that are off the mark, but I don't think that is the right thing to do.  I simply try to add value where I can, usually based on facts I know to be true.

I happen to be lucky to know a great deal about the traditional publishing industry and spend a lot of time within it and with key people within it.  

The reason I talk about it a fair bit is because I know it well, and I try not to talk about things I really don't know well or don't really understand.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Mar 11, 2016)

Something to consider: 

Around any issue ever witnessed in argument, you can find reasonable, intelligent, & well-informed opinions, opinions largely formed from individual experience. 

It's perfectly acceptable to state that you disagree, while still respecting the other person's opinion, and move on.


----------



## Russ (Mar 11, 2016)

Devor said:


> I have a family member who works as an economist on one of the presidential campaigns, and according to him this methodology difference between the reliance on data and logic is one of the big unsolvable political divides.  As people age, and learn first hand how unreliable and misleading the facts and data often are, that's one of the ways people shift from liberal to conservative as they age.  It's kind of fascinating.



That is actually a very interesting area.  Oddly enough I am going in the reverse direction.  I am relying more on hard facts and data as I get older than I did when I was younger and it seems to be working for me.



> In all seriousness, if somebody needs to run polls and gather data on how to open a law firm, then they don't understand the business well enough to open one.



The question is not opening a law firm, it is attracting more clients to them.  I work in a legal field that is saturated with marketing, and the marketing is very expensive.  Getting through the noise and differentiating oneself from competitors and having a good call to action doesn't happen by accident.  Every large law firm in my field does similar surveys and we go beyond that and do focus groups and theme testing for trials as well. You are not suggesting they should all close shop now are you?

We do that because we realize that the people we want to communicate with are not us.  We are a bunch of older white well off uninjured males.   Our potential clients are not like us, so for us to think we know what they want and how they think would be most unwise.  I don't invest my money that way, nor does anyone else in our field.

Your overstate my position on response rates.  Response rates are useful data when used correctly and understood correctly. I don't claim they stand alone, but you cannot even start to talk about whether or not marketing is effective until you have some idea of how people have responded to it.  




> Which brings me back to the narrative that the data tells.  You still haven't presented that.  You've thrown in a few facts.  "Branded and unbranded."  Sometimes you've said stores, sometimes you've said book stores, but I still don't know if "Walmart" counts as a bookstore here (very few authors get into those kinds of stores).  You did say genre earlier, and I missed it because you were slinging your study around like a weapon instead of telling the narrative behind it.  You've said it matters for "discovery," which is the first step of a model, but you haven't explained what that model is or what role discovery plays.  You haven't talked about whether this applies for books across the board or if you can narrow down differences between subgenres or audience types.  Does "number one" mean a majority or a plurality?



Firstly I have not slung data around like a weapon at all, although some people seem to find data offensive for some reason.  What happened was a poster said "shelf placement not that important anymore because of e books" and I said "Yes it is less important than it used to be, but it is still important because...".  If you think that is slinging a study like a weapon you might have just created a new category called "nano-aggressions".

As I indicated I am not in a position to simply send you the study.  However if you had simply asked instead of joining the "studies are crap" crowd I would have answered your questions as best I can.  It is indeed a plurality, not a majority.  While you have been souring on studies I have actually been asking around to see if a specific study of this nature is available for Fantasy, SciFi or Spec Fic broadly and I have not found anyone who knows of one that is available.  So we work with what we have.



> Without that narrative, the data means nothing for anyone making an actual decision.  Without that narrative, you're throwing around the data like it makes you right, and everyone else wrong, but without any practical or tangible relevance whatsoever.  You've got the data without the logic.



Dead wrong.  It means the data is imperfect or incomplete, not that it means nothing.  Almost every decision that is made is made on imperfect or incomplete data.  If you have better data, or additional data, or more specific data, you should feel free to share it.  

If I give people as much data as I can, they are in a better position to make a decision than if they didn't have it.  Or are you arguing that people are better off making decisions with less data rather than more?



> Does your data tell you that kind of detail?



It is actually a huge report with a ton of really useful information.  But, I alas, am making posts on a community website, not writing a thesis so I cannot cover it all for you.  Do you hold yourself to that level of disclosure for every post on this site?  



> Most of the data that's widely available and that people use for any kind of marketing discussion happens to in fact be crap because good market research is typically *proprietary material*.



You mean like the report I am referencing?



> Just one more for instance, is the rate of discovery high enough to warrant the reduced royalties or other costs associated with working with somebody (say, a publisher, or a publicist) that will get you in a book store?  How does that apply to any particular genre or target audience?



You don't seriously expect me to be doing that kind of custom analysis for each poster on a writing website where we talk about writing do you?  Do you offer that level of detail and customization on each of your posts?  I don't make decisions for people that take into account every factor relevant to their goals, nor do I claim to, all I did was suggest that shelf positioning should not be ignored or overly discounted.  Some people will only e-pub so shelf position will be completely irrelevant to them.  I believe people around here are bright enough to know that for themselves and I don't  have to tell them that.



> Look, I'm not even saying that you're wrong.  I'm saying that you have used your data instead of your logic, and by doing so you haven't provided enough information to work with.



My point was, and is, that one should not completely discount shelf positioning and store discovery when considering  your author name.  I think the data I referred to supports that conclusion, logically.   No more, no less.


----------



## Mythopoet (Mar 11, 2016)

Russ said:


> Actually I gave out plenty of data on the subject.
> 
> In a study conducted by a professional organization in January 2014 of 2300 genre fiction readers (adults) when asked about by which method they discovered the last book they bought, the largest answer for both branded and unbranded writers was "in store."  As you probably know Codex is considered a gold standard source in the industry and is quoted by PW, DBW and even Forbes when they take on publishing issues.
> 
> ...



Russ, do you not understand that you posting on an internet forum and saying a thing does not make it data? It's just an anonymous person making an assertion. I'm not attributing malicious motives to you. (That's another of your assumptions.) I'm saying that I don't know you and I don't know your motives and your word does not constitute data. It just doesn't. 

Furthermore, your summation of the study in question is full of missing information. How did they collect this data? How did they survey the people? What specific questions did they ask? How were the answers given? All of these things matter. All of these things are data. What you are giving us is the conclusion or at least a summary of it. A conclusion is not data. 

So basically I'm just saying that there's no reason for me to believe your assertion based on the information I have. I don't really want to argue about it anymore. But I think my response to your assertion is perfectly logical.


----------



## Devor (Mar 11, 2016)

Russ said:


> You don't seriously expect me to be doing that kind of custom analysis for each poster on a writing website where we talk about writing do you? Do you offer that level of detail and customization on each of your posts?



No.  Hence, as I said, I've soured on the use of studies in these conversations.  All the study does is provide a false sense of authority.

It would be really informative to look at a study like that.  It's not so informative to hear other people make vague and unexplored citations to it.




> While you have been souring on studies I have actually been asking around to see if a specific study of this nature is available for Fantasy, SciFi or Spec Fic broadly and I have not found anyone who knows of one that is available.  So we work with what we have.



As I understand it, the publishing industries don't do as much research as some other industries.  I think it's because authors come to the publishers in large numbers and absorb all the development risks.  Internal sales tracking is probably enough for a publisher to base their decisions on.

I'll be surprised if you find much on spec fic.




> My point was, and is, that one should not completely discount shelf positioning and store discovery when considering  your author name.  I think the data I referred to supports that conclusion, logically.   No more, no less.



My point is, I think you would've developed your thought a lot better if you didn't try to rely on data to make the case for you.


----------



## Russ (Mar 11, 2016)

Mythopoet said:


> Russ, do you not understand that you posting on an internet forum and saying a thing does not make it data? It's just an anonymous person making an assertion. I'm not attributing malicious motives to you. (That's another of your assumptions.) I'm saying that I don't know you and I don't know your motives and your word does not constitute data. It just doesn't.



Oh come now MP you have been making your dislike for me clear for quite some time:



> I'm sure you would disagree, because we really do seem to see things in completely opposite ways. So I just don't think I'm going to respond to your comments anymore. Honestly, when I saw your comment in this thread I had forgotten you were that very myopic person I had argued with before. If I ever forget again and say something to you, just mention Lee Child or something so I remember to stop getting involved in futile discussions I don't have time for.





> Furthermore, your summation of the study in question is full of missing information. How did they collect this data? How did they survey the people? What specific questions did they ask? How were the answers given? All of these things matter. All of these things are data. What you are giving us is the conclusion or at least a summary of it. A conclusion is not data.



Do you hold yourself to that level of detail when you post on this site?  The information I gave you is data, it is data that has been collected and collated.  It is not "raw data", and I did not go into a long methodology discussion when I suggested that rack placement is still important as did the author in the link in the OP.  You read that right?  I honestly don't think that level of level is detail is necessary for a casual online conversation.  Do you?

I have actually noticed that you have not even commented on the premise being discussed.  You asked me for a source, I gave it to you.  Then you responded with "most studies are crap."  You may have a hate on for me, or for those evil studies, which you are perfectly entitled to do, but it sure doesn't enhance the community or the discussion now does it?



> So basically I'm just saying that there's no reason for me to believe your assertion based on the information I have. I don't really want to argue about it anymore. But I think my response to your assertion is perfectly logical.



You are perfectly welcome to ignore all the indicia that rack placement has some value given by me and Ms. Aaron.  I wonder if it even is a real concern for you.


----------



## Russ (Mar 11, 2016)

Devor said:


> No.  Hence, as I said, I've soured on the use of studies in these conversations.  All the study does is provide a false sense of authority.
> 
> It would be really informative to look at a study like that.  It's not so informative to hear other people make vague and unexplored citations to it.



Let me tell you why I so like studies and data, particularly for conversations in places like this.  The solid majority of people on a site like this don't work in the industry and likely have not had the opportunity to discuss these issues with people who work in the industry or study it.  That means that often what is offered is a near blind opinion with almost nothing to base it on except "it is what I believe."  I don't think me adding another "this is what I believe" to a conversation is much value.  I try to give the reason I believe something either by referring to an expert or a fact.  My opinion, without those factors, really doesn't offer anything extra.



> As I understand it, the publishing industries don't do as much research as some other industries.  I think it's because authors come to the publishers in large numbers and absorb all the development risks.  Internal sales tracking is probably enough for a publisher to base their decisions on.
> 
> I'll be surprised if you find much on spec fic.



Here is the weird part.  Some parts of the publishing industry does a ton of studies and data gathering.  I have a boatload of studies on the Thriller industry and the romance publishing fields and those two fields spend a lot of money on it.  Like a lot.  Companies do studies, organizations commission studies, individual authors do studies, surveys, market information gathering, focus group covers etc.  There is lots of it in certain segments of fiction publishing.

But in Spec Fic I can find almost nothing.  You would think those Sci Fi guys would be all about data gathering etc but so far I can source almost nothing.  Anyways I have dinner coming up with a top Sci Fi author who will know if it is out there and I will ask him.



> My point is, I think you would've developed your thought a lot better if you didn't try to rely on data to make the case for you.



This is true, but I was just  making a fairly off hand comment on a thread supporting the OP link.  I was not planning on making a long argument.


----------



## Mythopoet (Mar 11, 2016)

I did actually post on the topic. You must have missed it. 

Russ, I admit that your posts frustrate me often. Mostly it's because you've always seemed so intent on misinterpreting and misrepresenting what other people, including me, have to say in disagreement with you. Personally, I don't mind being disagreed with. I'm more than happy to agree to disagree when it comes to it. But I despise being misrepresented. 

And yes, in my experience most studies people bring up in discussions like this are crap. I really don't know why you seem to take personal offense to that idea. Studies are only as good as their methodology. If more people actually looked critically at more studies this would be a more well informed world. I was not suggesting that you are purposely trying to sway the argument by posting the conclusion of a bogus study, though you seem to think that is my motive. It is simply my policy to apply critical thinking to all such assertions. 

I certainly do not deny that placement due to author name has some value. What value is very, very questionable, in my opinion.


----------



## Devor (Mar 11, 2016)

Russ said:


> Here is the weird part.  Some parts of the publishing industry does a ton of studies and data gathering.  I have a boatload of studies on the Thriller industry and the romance publishing fields and those two fields spend a lot of money on it.  Like a lot.  Companies do studies, organizations commission studies, individual authors do studies, surveys, market information gathering, focus group covers etc.  There is lots of it in certain segments of fiction publishing.
> 
> But in Spec Fic I can find almost nothing.  You would think those Sci Fi guys would be all about data gathering etc but so far I can source almost nothing.  Anyways I have dinner coming up with a top Sci Fi author who will know if it is out there and I will ask him.



I wonder if that's because Thrillers and Romance sell so well on impulse in stores like Walmart and Costco.  That alone changes the whole business model for those books.

- - - -

However, I'm locking this thread.  This thing between you two, Russ and Mytho, is something that just needs to be resolved already.  Both of you should expect a PM from myself or another moderator before the day is out.  In the meantime, I suggest you keep clear of one another.  Go sit in time out or something.


----------

