Friday, October 31, 2008

Sweets to the Sweet--veinglory

I have been resisting increasing the scope of EREC. But I have recently been thinking that it would not be too difficult to include non-erotic romance ebooks from the publishers listed here, and other similar epublishers.

I could use some opinions on a key point. That is:

1) Should all books from a publisher be counted together, that is I would simply add the relatively small number of non-erotic romance publishers to the PLIST or to a separate "sweet-P" list, but count all books from the same press in together producing a single sales-figure score.

Or, 2) should non-erotic romance books be counted separately--so if a press does both the books in each category would be kept separate and it would have two sales figure, one for hot and one for not-hot releases.

Frankly it would be considerably easier to keep all the books from a publisher together and it would be easier to reach the 5 book threshold for reporting sales figures. However it must be admitted that erotic fiction is likely to sell better, and so summed figures would probably under-esitimate the performance of presses that cover both sub-genres. But then again, many books are a little hard to designate erotic or not but are in the steamy but not-explicit middle ground and would be hard to put one way or the other.

In any case, I need some input. And if any of you have ebooks sales data for non-erotic stories 20,000 words and over--I will start collecting it now and figure out exactly how to handle it once I get some responses here. (First month and total sales, first year sales if you have it to veinglory [at] gmail.com)

6 comments:

Fae Sutherland said...

I'd have to say seperate, despite the extra work it'd be for you. Non-erotic notoriously sells less than erotic so the sales figures given would be both an under-estimate for an erotic writer, and over-estimate for a sweet writer. Either way, no one would get a real idea what they could expect to sell, since the two sell so differently from what I've heard.

Mary Winter said...

I'd also say to keep them seperate. It would be nice to know which houses accept both, for those authors who write both, but I agree with Fae that it would give a far more accurate accounting of sales figures.

EM Lynley said...

I'd like to see you keep them separate as well. I have no interest in non-erotic data and I don't want it skewing the data I am interested in.

You might have another section that includes the aggregate number if people are interested in how publishers rank overall against each other and you should be able to work out a spreadsheet that offers ways to provide all the info.

How much interest are people showing in having the non-erotic data in the first place?

Jules Jones said...

I think it needs to be separate given the difference in sales figures, although given how much work that would involve I think it might be simpler not to collect the data.

manloveebooks said...

I'll be the lone voice of dissent and say that I'd be interested in seeing combined figures (or at least having that additional option). As much as sweet romance might drag the averages down, I think that a publisher's ability to push non-erotic product says something about their overall marketing/sales ability.

Anonymous said...

I'd say to keep them separate. According to my publisher, who offers every genre from Horror to Contemporary Romance to Young Adult, and also hetero erotica and gay erotica, the current "sales trends and popularity" breaks down as something like 70-75% gay, 24-30% hetero erotica, and 1% or less non-erotica, EVERY genre combined. That's a vast difference, and hetero erotica has even dropped significantly this past year in favor of "anything gay."