FilthyLucre

by Candy Saturday, May 14, 2005 at 11:12 AM

Some slightly stale rantage:

On Monday, Kate Rothwell mentioned how much she hates it when authors obsess too much over designer shoes. Then PBW mused on Tuesday about the possibility of product placement in novels. Reading over those two items, the first thing I thought was “Shit, Manolo Blahnnik and Prada should pay MaryJanice Davidson a mint for all the shilling she’s done for them.”

And my second thought was “UGH.”

More,more,more!>
Picture of {name}
7 commentsTrackback Bookmark to del.icio.us Add to Technorati favorites Digg this post on digg.com RSS
Categories: Ranty McRant

Tags: This entry has not been tagged yet.

Comments

Picture of beejay beejay said on...
05.14.05 at 01:24 PM |

I’m with you on the characterization thing.  The Kate post just annoyed me because she seems to be missing the point.  Brands don’t matter to her, I guess, so she doesn’t have any patience for protags to whom they do matter.  But there’s a world out there where people live by the brands on their backs (or feet), and they do buy books.
I think that was a big part of the massive jump on the chick lit bandwagon - it pulled in a whole bunch of new readers because it spoke to a whole new segment of the populace.
Also, I remember one author mentioning that when her books were translated into Italian, the publisher okayed adding product placement to them.  Outrageous, you say?  Well, the company whose product was added paid big bucks for the privelege, which went into marketing in that country, and she even got a nice junket to Italy out of the deal. 
I’m sure that’s not unique, either.  At first, I was appalled, then I figured if it didn’t change the story, then why the heck not, if it sells books???

Picture of Lisa Lisa said on...
05.14.05 at 05:33 PM |

As far as my feelings on brands, I am semi-obsessed with fashion and thus I *can* picture what is being described, even though at some times I wonder at heroines’ boundless ability to afford high fashion and to carry it off with no hesitation...BUT, that being said, Manolo makes great heels, but everything from classics to wild sandals to couture boots, and if brands are being cited, I’d like it to serve more of a purpose than “Ooh look the heroine is cool and spends lots of money on shoes”. Granted, when given a choice between the ultra-high-waist jeans-and-blouses, or sweaters and “leggings” described in many seemingly stuck-in-the-80s contemporaries published in the ‘00s and the Manolo slides, I’ll take the Manolos, but there is a too-much-is-too-much component for even fashion admirers, IMO. And that point is reached when the heroine starts to seem like a walking commercial, brand-obsessed ultra-commodified icon of the corporate era. It also makes books seem current, but disposable - the repeated and annoying reference to Brands, Brands, Brands as a shorthand for “cool” or “chic” buy a little *too* much into brand-marketing for my taste.

BTW, when the heroine obsesses overmuch about her brands, I always kind of picture her buying merchandise at outlet stores that doesn’t fit, is uncomfortable, and is unflattering, “BUT IT’S A VERA WANG GOWN! BUT THEY’RE CHOOS! BUT IT’S A GALLIANO JACKET!” And if she *admitted* it, it might be kind of endearing, but instead it seems more like a misguided scramble to have the Latest New Thing.

Basically, as much as marketers want to create a brand identity that is so overwhelming that identity=brand, I like my heroes and heroines to be more than nearly-satirical icons of commercialism.

Picture of Maili Maili said on...
05.14.05 at 06:14 PM |

Too much name-brand dropping can also become a distraction, and it assumes that the reader will get the reference. That’s not necessarily the worst part; a skilled author should be able to work the references in without making it too clunky.

Definitely! That is what makes Susan Elizabeth Philip’s THIS HEART OF MINE *so* irritating. And hypocritical because the heroine gave her entire trust fund away because she didn’t want to feel guilty for being rich, yet the author has her brand-dropping here, there and everywhere.

On the other hand, sticking with just one brand can be equally irritating. Whenever I think of Laurell K. Hamilton’s Anita Blake, I think of Nike. Nike is mentioned every other page throughout first two or three books before I swore to myself that if I picked up another, I’m obliged to throw myself off the roof on the Nike building.

Less is more, people! :)

Picture of Irysangel Irysangel said on...
05.15.05 at 06:45 AM |

No no, the absolute WORST product placement is Sherrilyn Kenyon pimping out her Kinley Macgregor books.

Every single flippin’ heroine in her SK books is always reading the ‘latest hot Kinley Macgregor book’ complete with title and discussion about how great she is.

Barf.  Make that double-barf.

Picture of beejay beejay said on...
05.15.05 at 10:08 AM |

Reminds me of this guy who writes under several different names and blurbs books under one name using one of his other names!  And all the names are right there on his site, so the whole freakin’ world can figure it out.  LOL!

Picture of Sarah Sarah said on...
05.15.05 at 06:36 PM |

I think author-self-pimping, or author-title product placement, is so bizarre. Like how Clive Cussler writes himself into his Dirk Pitt novels as a character named “Clive Cussler” who saves the day in some obscure, MacGuyver manner.

Product placement, however, doesn’t bother me, unless it’s reptitive to the point of egregious. Speaking (or writing) as someone who works in the upper east side of Manhattan, near the Bulgari, Cartier, Hermes, and Barney’s stores - labels do matter, and the difference between a chick who wears Manolos, Choo, and Cole Haan, and the chick who wears Liz Claiborne, DKNY, and Josef is a wide gulf of differentiation. All labels, but they mean different things.

However, the quality of the label itself should have some bearing on its reptition. It’s like carring a bag that you can’t tell from inches away is a real Hermes, vs. carring a bag that has the big Fendi F stamped all over it in 72-point font. Beating the name brand mention into the ground, particularly if it is a super-high-end brand, makes it more about how the character can afford the brand, and therefore lowers the class & value factors, than if the character/author mentions it once and allows you to infer the real, and expensive, meaning.

Picture of Candy Candy said on...
05.16.05 at 11:10 AM |

Y’know, I’ve never encountered authors pimping their own books pseudonymously. Thank Gawd. I do remember Jude Deveraux briefly pimping a Judith McNaught novel in Sweet Liar, which I thought was funny and kind of sweet, since they’re buddies ‘n all.

Name:

Email:

Location:

URL:

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Please enter the word you see in the image below: