Smart Bitches Trashy Books | All of the romance, none of the bullshit.

I think the Blue cover is much better- except I’d take out the stupid Chihuihui and put in a Silky Terrier. 
Unless there is a Chihui in the book, then keep it in. 

The font on the pink is just wretched.  Yuck Yuck Yuck.  If they used a normal font, I would much prefer the pink cover.  It looks fun and festive. 

But I’m sure they don’t want a critique, just a vote.  I vote Blue.

I agree with SB Sarah 100%. The pink cover was IT until that font at the bottom.

Change the font, and we have a winnah.

Blue Cover: Always a big fan of Tiffany blue. I also like the profile of the face. But a chihuahua? Um, not for me, thanks. How about a bigger dog, like a husky. Or wait, maybe no dog at all. But wait, it’s NYC, all women have itty bitty dogs, right? I can’t get off the dog tangent...help!

Pink cover: I gotta go with SB Sarah and Candy on this one. 1) what’s up with the fonts? Count them: 4. 4 different fonts. That’s too many. What am I supposed to be looking at? The title? The author? The sub-title? Which book Nadine wrote before? Ahhhh, my eyes, my eyes! And yes, why is her skirt um...flapping in the wind? Do women in NYC not wear underwear? Is it professional for a women to wear tiny pieces of cloth to work, in NYC? I’m confused.

If I had to pick I’d go with Blue, but without the kickable. I like the color (it’s very soothing and happy, and of course it’s Tiffany blue!); While there are still too many fonts, they are not as spastic as the Pink cover (my favorite is the font for Nadine Haobsh); and I like the the profile and it’s position on the page.

It looks like I could have designed the blue cover in Microsoft Paint with a little cut, paste, click, and drag. The dog is jarring and I found myself staring at its ugly face instead of reading the title and/or author.

Second won is the winner, stupid font not withstanding. (The heroine is a beauty editor and probably has fantastic handwriting, so whose handwriting is that supposed to be? Her 5-year-old neice? Maybe it’s a missing plot detail...)

I don’t like either, to be honest.  The first one creeps me right the heck out.  I mean who wants their face *that* close to a chihuahuas?  ICK! 

The second cover is simply a boring retread of almost every other women’s fiction novel out there. 

My advice?  Back to the drawing board.

Blue is the winnah for me.  It gets the witty vote - I’m going to be generous and assume the designer is deliberately mocking the penchant for tiny, overdressed purse-dogs.  It’s also clean and will-fonted.  I’d pick it up.

I would not pick up Pink.  Aside from the horrible mish-mash of styles between the cover image and the cutesy title font, the image is just too generic.  This I wouldn’t see as a witty dish, but just another generic chick lit clone.  Also, white cover background is rarely a good idea.

I’d have to agree with Candy and Sarah. The blue cover would get a second look from me. The second looks like something my 15 YO niece would doodle in her math class. I don’t like the comic book font at all.

I don’t mind the Chihuahua, but hey, I own a miniature dachshund, so I’m not offended by the toy dog thing, unless of course, there’s not Chihuahua in the book. Then it’s just ridiculous and stupid.

I’d definitely say #1 over #2.

Blue!!  I’m not a huge fan of the choice of dog, but in general I like the cover.

Can’t stand the 2nd cover.  I dislike all the pink and the so-short skirt and the so-long (and so-perfect legs) in their weird, artificial stance.  (Are we sure the book is not about Mac from Karen Marie Moning’s Fever series?) Plus the font it terrible.  The cover looks cheap and homemade and kind of predictable.

I’m voting back to the drawing board, too. I might stop to look at the blue cover, but the proximity of the dog and the face is a little off-putting. Plus I also have a rather vomitous reaction to blinged out purse dogs.  And the pink cover - my eyes, they bleed. What the hell is that font? There’s nothing sophisticated or beautiful about that at all.

Verdict: Try again.

Neither of those, pls.  Back to the art dept.  Like the Tiffany blue but smooching dogs?  No, thanks.  And all the pink and the font and the blown up skirt?  Also no.

I agree with ladypeyton—back to the drawing board. 

The text blurb sounds interesting, but neither cover brings to mind a “beauty addict”, and my initial reaction to the first cover was that my squick radar went off loud & screaming.  Especially in this era of paranormal heros, I just had an image of her banging the dog that I really didn’t want seared into my retina.

The pink cover, it just sucks for all the reasons mentioned above. 

Spamword “order45”.  I’d like to order an ARC of the book, sans either cover please.

Ugly dog not withstanding, the blue does it for me.  The pink is so standard chick/lit that I wouldn’t even take a second look.  Except for that gawdawful font which tells me it is supposed to be comic chick lit.

But I really don’t like the dog.

Well, snog a dog Maybe if they cleaned up the whisker line and showed a little tongue (on the dog), there would be enough creep factor to interest me. The color and composition of #1 works . . . a cat would so work for me here. If there’s a dog like this in the story, I’d have to pass on the story.

Cover #2 is totally gagworthy. Fuschia fabric and funky fonts are bad enough, but I know on top of those Amazon legs Sarah Jessica Parker probably lurks. Sucks in the city . . . (I just tried standing in the model’s pose wearing Nikes, and fell over).

I wouldn’t buy either book, they don’t say funny, romantic, quirky—anything that might grab me. They do say creepy and vapid.

I would like the blue cover better if it was a different type of dog, as others have said. A chihuahua is just not something I would want so near my face. The rest of the cover is good, nice fonts, good color with the Tiffany blue, nice jewels, somewhat playful.

The pink cover I would like better if the skirt was longer (sorry I just don’t get how that ties in) and better fonts. I’m with everyone else who said there are way too many styles of font on that cover and its hard to decide what you are actually supposed to notice first.

*nitpick*

Isn’t it typeface, not font?

*/nitpick*

Yeah, so that pink doodle stuff is terrible, and the idea of kissing a chihuahua makes me ill. I declare a draw--a draw of awfulness.

Note: This is SO not my reading material (what’s Cavalli?). Maybe my opinion isn’t really what’s needed here.

If I had to choose one of these two, I’d choose the blue cover. It’s kinda cute.  And I agree with SB Sarah that the icky font on the pink cover is a real deal-breaker.  If you use a better font, I’d have a much harder time making the decision.

Blue, most def. I love chihuahuas, and the contrasting expressions (detached boredom of the dog, cloying adoration on the woman) give the book some personality and that what’s between the covers might have some substance.

The Pink one looks like an ad for a complete home waxing system. Or for a douche. Or just vapid chick lit twittery - breezy urban woman taking on the world, blah blah blah. Seen it. Read it. Hated it.

Oh, and the font doesn’t help either.

So I vote Blue.

The combination of the doodle font and the stupid-short skirt on the pink cover completely overwhelm the high-fashion concept—I look at that cover and assume it’s selling YA chick lit.

As for the blue, yes, the chihuahua is ugly, but I love the juxtaposition of the jewels and the purse dog. It speaks to a whole cultural thing about fashion and spoiled luxury and urban life and, yes, the Paris Hilton phenomenon… I like it.  It has far more personality, and it SAYS something.  The pink one doesn’t say anything other than “Hey, look, you can almost see my underpants.” Which, granted, is also a Paris Hilton thing… but… less attractive, yeah?

I love dogs in general, but - or because of that? - I found the blue cover intensely creepy. The fact it looks like she’s about to kiss it on the mouth (plus has already covered him with those ridiculous pearls)...ewww. That turned me off so strongly that it would stop me from picking up the book.

I thought the image of the woman on the pink cover was possibly too generic - and as everyone else said, the font was terrible - but at least it really did look *fun*, which the first one hadn’t. So my vote is for the pink one, with the font getting fixed.

The cover with the dog is considerably less ghastly than the other one, but that isn’t saying much.  Both are messy, but the dog one will at least stand out a bit in both colour and design from the 842 other tooth-rottingly pink chick-lit covers with shoes and fourteen ugly fonts each which will be crowding the shelves around this book.

However, I hate most genre fiction covers, so my opinion is probably irrelevant.  I find most of them vapid and silly, and the American ones, in particular, frequently have far too much text on them. 

If there is a dog, and specifically a Chihuahua, in the book, then the turquoise cover is just about passable.  If there isn’t, it’s false advertising…

(will go back and read comments in a second, but first...)

Is there anyway to put the pretty legs in a skirt in the blue cover?

‘cause that’d be a win-win for me.

The poor dog? That’s abuse, y’all.

I have to follow the crowd here and say I liked the pink cover until I scrolled down to that godawful typeface.  Now I like the blue better, but I too wouldn’t use that chihuahua unless there’s one in the story.

I’d use a dachshund, but that’s a personal preference.  In my house, it’s all about the wiener.

Neither of these covers do justice to the written blurb.  Of the two, however, I’d most likely pick up the pink in order to read the back cover.  Then, after reading, I’d probably put it down since I’ve reached my chick-lit book quota. 

I think the art department should play up more of a before/after.  You know how those makeover shows are—split screen so the audience can see just how awesome a woman looks with a nice haircut, monochromatic clothes and make-up!  This books seems like the opposite: Fashionista to How the Hell Did You Dye Your Hair Orange?

Back to the drawing board.

I too vote to go back to the drawing board - I dislike both covers.

The composition of the first cover is fine, but I think the Chihuahua is ugly and would not buy a book where a beauty addict thinks that dog is the epitome of beauty.  Now if they replace the chihuahua with Paul Tholme or Gerard Butler—then I’d like it.

The second book cover looks like it was printed by a princess-loving 2nd grader and I don’t like the slutty picture.

I wouldn’t buy the book if it had either of these covers —so I’d recommend a redo.

Having read all the comments so far… if going back to the drawing board is at all possible, I beg the marketing people to do it. Please.

(is there any way to skip the dog? poor creature)

The blue cover certainly catches your eye first.  But I don’t like how it looks as if she is going to kiss the dog. 

The pink cover is cute, with the great legs and the skirt.  But that awful font-typeface.  Hate that.

So, out of the two, I’d go with the Blue as being the one to catch a consumer’s eye first.

If I saw both on a shelf, side by side, I would grab the Blue one first, flip it over and read the back cover blurb.

I get to play art director again! The bitches hit on all the high notes.  Since my snark gene is in denial, I’ll merely bore you. 

The Blue: Tiffany blue is great for fashion connection, but jarring it is the dog, the ugly rat dog who 1)looks bored and 2)is lit straight on, hiding the eyes.  The appeal of dogs and cats are in the eyes, as opposed to the soulless pits on your mutt.  Also: Note the washout of the last name of the author on the model.  Centering the author’s name is good, but not at the expense of hiding it.  I’d wager you can’t see “Haobsh” from three feet away, especially when you use a glossy paper. 
To sum: Dogs are attention grabbers, but ugly dogs with soulless eyes is a minus.  Bonus: Remove dog and replace with python wearing necklace for comic effect. 

Pink Happy Legs: The action shot of a pair of well toned legs is great, but the hint of right butt cheek with the skirt flying up makes this cover essentially an upskirt porno shot, thus the “waxing regimen” snark from the bitches.  Note the difference here between the fonts of the two covers: The Blue has “Confessions of a” in block font, and the Pink has the “Beauty Addict” in the block font.  Again hiding the author name with the slashy font. Quick, look at the author’s last name on the pink cover.  What’s the third letter?  The “Author of” line is too compressed, break it into two lines, even if you keep the compressed font. Keep the “Beauty Confidential” in a different color.

Now the horrid choice for font on the pink. You can fix this when you reshoot the model from a slightly higher angle.
You can A) Shoot her running in front of a fashion store window, with the title of the book as the text written on the store front window B) Add the mutt to the pink handbag, head sticking out, tiny pink scarf around mutt’s neck, blowing in the breeze C) All of the above (The answer is always (C) Which font to choose to put on the store front window is up to you, but the color might be a contrasty Gold, to clash with her Pink.

Blue

But to be honest, I’m not really in love with either of them. I don’t like the choice of dog on the blue one, or the choice of jewelery (chihuahuas don’t go with pearls), and the pink one is a mix of blah and ugly.

I’m in the “back to the drawing board” camp. But that’s my opinion.

Hm. I’m not going to say “Back to the drawing board,” but I could be persuaded to.

I agree that the pink cover is pretty offensive for all the reasons above: there are too many fonts, the legs-and-purse photo is too chick-lit generic, the heinous Young Adult cartoon font of the title hurts my eyes and overpowers the teeny “Confessions of a . . .” that comes before. I would also add that there are too many shades of pink for the cover to feel pulled together for me: the letters don’t match the shoes!

But I wasn’t drawn to the pink cover even before hitting the awful title font. It really does seem like every other chick lit/modern romance cover already on the shelf. I’d walk by without a second glance. And how does this cover relate to the plot? Can we get a couple of cosmetics spilling from her purse?

I’d say if you want to fix the pink cover, fix the fonts, especially the title, and give the photo a unique tweak, like a lipstick mid-air, or a spilled nail polish bottle on the ground behind her. Or both!

Moving on to the blue cover: it definitely appeals to me much more: the white letters on the lovely shade of blue, the composition in general. I’d look at this twice in a bookstore. Like Candy, I also like that we see (part of) a woman’s face rather than face-less legs. HOWEVER - it does not prepare me to read cover copy about a cosmetics/magazine writer. It makes me think of a pampered and privileged heiress rather than a career-girl heroine. The dog doesn’t gross me out (cute!), but maybe a powder-puff or a make-up mirror would better suit the book’s plot?

Given these two choices, I’d say blue. But they could both be improved on.

/my $.02

I wouldn’t pick up the book based on either of these covers.  Cover #1-I hate that shade of blue!  It’s wishy-washy.  Is it blue?  Is it green?  It’s blah, either way.  Add to that the kitschy pocket pup, draped in bling (like the other dogs didn’t give the poor thing a hard enough time), and the daddy’s money fashionista (well, the fashionista’s lips) and I’m so not interested.  As for the pink cover, are they really trying to sell us that the truly fashionable beauty editors all head off to work wearing a skirt that wouldn’t make a belt on most women and no underwear?  I’m not sure where this woman could wear this outfit (too daytime for a nightclub, too skimpy for a picnic) but any supervisor I know would turn her around at the door as she would be a sexual harassment lawsuit waiting to happen.  And when did women become just a collection of random body parts, anyway?  Lips here, legs there.  Does it cost more to put an entire woman on the cover?  (I think it’d be cheaper since you’re buying in bulk, but anyway.) It’s not really a deal-breaking issue for me, but I’m curious what marketing genius decided that we’d rather buy books with just a representative piece of a woman and why that would be.

If I absolutely had to pick one, though, I guess the pink with the puke-tastic font.  That’s only because the blue one seems to have absolutely nothing to do with the blurb. 

soon43...soon enough, I guess, but not this year.

As a bookseller and buyer, if I were to see either cover in a catlog, I would probably skip right over them.

The Tiffany-blue cover with the Chihuahua is the type of cover that makes me immediately think “Oh, another book about a fashion-conscious dame in New York City.”

The “pink” cover is equally as generic, *except* for the font. The juxtaposition of the chick-lit-esque image and the comic/folksy font is rather jarring, but may be more in keeping with what I perceive to be the theme of the novel, at least from the brief (catalog-copy) description provided.

Although I prefer the aesthetics of the blue cover, generic though I may find it, I think the “pink” cover is a better choice, as it seems to be more in keeping with the contents of the novel itself.

But, again, I would probably skip right over both covers in a publisher’s catalog, looking for something new and unique and not a retread of what has gone before. Neither of these covers really work 100% and I don’t think either of them are really enough to get a customer to pick up the book and find out what it’s all about.

I’m all about the blue cover. The dog is a major pull-point and makes me want to make kissy-faces at it, too.  That said: I hope there’s a purse pooch in the story, or I’d be cranky after buying it.  It’s not too overdone; understated but eye-catching with a nice flow.

The other cover. Oy. Is this YA? Because if it is, then it works.  If not, NO. Pinkand Purple girl. Pinkandpurple bag with a pinkandpurple scarf. Pinkandpurple font. Fonts. 5 freakin’ fonts? One of which looks like it was drawn by my niece?  Actually, you know if you make those shoes about 4 sizes bigger, then it actually does look like my niece playing dress up.  I bet that cover girl is wearing fake pearls and mondo amounts of makeup.  Verdict: I would pass by this on the shelf and think that I wouldn’t want to be seen at the same party with it.

Ooo, Walt - I love your idea of redoing the Legs McGee cover! Having her running past a store window (a cosmetics store, like Sephora, natch) and putting the title on the store window - brilliant!

Blue = winnah winnah chicken dinnah, but only because it creeps me out the least. By the way, what is up with the typeface on #2 pinky? It looks like the crap I used to doodle all over my brown paper bag book covers.

However, if at all possible back to the drawing board please.

The dog creeps me out.  I’m half expecting the woman to start snogging it at any moment, and that’s just...well...icky.  Ewwww, dog germs.

I happen to like the pink, but that gawd-awful typeface has to go.

I’m going to fall in the camp of neither one does it for me as a reader.  The blue has too much open space in each corner and the pink one is the epitome of everything the chick lit genre has been mocked for.

Honest to God, I’d find the blue better if it had only the Chihuahua on it, draped in the jewels and sitting on a vanity table surrounded by makeup and accessories with perhaps a closet in the background with the vaguest image of a woman trying to get ready.

Something like that would appeal to my sense of the absurd and prompt me to pick up the book.

But that’s just me

I love Tiffany blue it always catches my eye.  Lose the dog...or find a cuter dog...But my mind goes one step further and sees her kissing the dog...EEEWWWW

Pink...too boring and the font too ugly. 

I vote BLUE

While I don’t much care for either cover, I’d have to vote for the blue one.

I’m sick and tired of novels (chick lit or otherwise) displaying disembodied female body parts. While I actually like the second cover somewhat, I feel like it’s the kind of cover I’ve been cultured to like--women’s legs/butts are used for so much advertising anymore, and it just makes me feel uncomfortable, no matter how pretty the cover winds up being. 

The fact that her skirt is blowing up and we’re essentially getting a “crotch shot” here does not endear me to the cover, either. It seems to me that the second cover reduces femininity to a woman’s nether regions...even if that’s not what the cover artists/marketers are going for.

I don’t necessarily care for the juxtaposition of the chihuahua and the woman’s face in the first (blue) cover, but, as Sarah & Candy said, at least she *has* a face. And that makes a big difference to me. It also has a sort of “kissing a toad” vibe--which gives that fairy-tale feel that I think a lot of chick lit goes for.

Finally, the blue cover says “beauty addict” to me in a more adult/competent way than the second cover, which to me suggests the kind of flighty, incompetent heroine that plagues far too much chick lit today.

I’m wondering if we’re being tested here. Does the first person to point out that the blue cover features a Smart Bitch win extra points?

And I notice that while diamonds may be the girl’s best friend, the smart bitch prefers pearls.

Go with the puppy… ALWAYS GO WITH THE PUPPY!

This is like picking which one is LESS offensive. I think Walt (lack of female gene not withstanding) nailed it the best for me.

I absolutely hate the dog cover. My first thought was the “Legally Blonde” movies. The dog totally overwhelms the woman’s face, plus puckering up toward such an ugly dog...yuck. I would pass over this book. In fact, I doubt I would read the cover blurb.

Second cover - The legs didn’t bother me as much as they did others, but the font for the title is so juvenile. A daisy as the dot over the “i”? So junior high. If I just saw the title, I would think YA and move on. The author’s name and her byline “author of” is hard to read. And I love Anita Shreve, but I can’t see this book appealing to her readers. In fact, I think they would feel cheated. This book comes off as “fluff” and Anita Shreve never writes fluff.

So, of the two covers, I like the colors of blue cover, the font on the title on the blue cover, but ditch the dog. I don’t care if the book has a dog or not. It grossed me out.

If the book if YA, go with the pink cover. No one over the age of 22 would want to be seen reading a book with this cover. (At least I wouldn’t and I’m over 22)

I don’t love either one, but then I am not the target audience for this book.

Blue: Unless this is a paranormal where the heroine is in love with a shape-shifting chihuahua, this inter-species kiss is right out. Yuck.  I do like that color and the rest of the layout though. 

Pink: I am 100% in agreement with everyone else that the typeface on “Beauty Addict” is awful.  The rest of the cover is so clearly striving to be grownup, upscale, classy and glamorous, and then you have that slightly clunky, doodle-y, un-glamorous typeface.  Why?  I’d just continue with the clean lines of what you’ve used for “Confessions of a” and up the size (as you already have) for “Beauty Addict.”

As for the image, it would be much better if only her skirt was not being blown up to her navel by that well-placed wind machine, or else was about 6 inches longer.  I am reminded of those skeevy guys who follow women around in the subway during the summer trying to get upskirt shots as they walk up the stairs to post to their websites.  ICK.

I don’t like small yappy dogs but if these are the only two choices available--go with the dog. The pink cover reminds me a little too much of a photo some mainstream magazine (Time? Newsweek?) had on its cover a while back of some woman’s naked lower half with one leg bent and tampon string exposed. Um, yeah! Classy. The minute I saw the pink cover I looked for a string and that’s definitely NOT good.

I agree that neither is a winner, but blue is much, much better for me. The font is classy and the color vibrant without looking trashy. And the pink cover just screams trashy to me. HATE. Even if it were the best book in the world, I’d probably whip up a book cover (like the ones I covered textbooks with in high school) if I were going anywhere in public with it. Plus the legs and heels seem like every other bad chick lit book out there.

But is tres cool for Avon to consult with the Bitchery.

“Posted by Barb Ferrer Honest to God, I’d find the blue better if it had only the Chihuahua on it, draped in the jewels and sitting on a vanity table surrounded by makeup and accessories with perhaps a closet in the background with the vaguest image of a woman trying to get ready.”

Hey Barb, that would be a cute cover!

I agree with a lot of what has already been said - if forced to pick, I would say the first one, simply because it has much more character than the second one. For one thing, I don’t want to see up her skirt. For another, yeesh, the font.

It might look different printed, but I feel like the blue on the second cover almost needs a bit of pattern to break it up - something subtle, but there. I do some graphics work and that’s what I’d do. As far as the dog is concerned, I’m not highly fond of chihuahuas, but if it has to be a chihuahua then at least pick a cuter one, it looks scary in that picture. I’d rather it was a fluffy puppy of some description, or maybe a cat.

Ok, the dog snogging on the blue cover absolutely repulses me.  A book with that cover would see me running far, far away.

The pink cover is better, but not much.  As aforementioned, the font is terrible, and the image is fairly generic for chick lit/romance.  It doesn’t actively repulse me, though, so I suppose it’s the lesser of the two evils.

Best bet?  Back to the drawing board altogether.

The blue stood out to me right away. I think what’s interesting about it is it’s different. It would make me pause just because of the dog. I found it unique and not like anything I’ve seen. I’d wonder what the dog had to do with a beauty addict.

The pink--haven’t we seen some version of that on about 100 books?

If it’s a choice between those two covers, I’m going to have to go with the obvious third choice… “Anything Else On The Store Shelves.” I’m sorry and I certainly don’t want to hurt any arty type person’s feelings, but ye gawds and fishes!  That right there is some serious fug.  Do they even try anymore?  I’ve seen some bad cover art over the years, but this just leaves me near speechless.

The blue cover… It’s a nice enough blue and you’ve got a nicely rendered partial face going.  But that’s all it’s got going.  It would help if the blue background weren’t so flat.  Maybe a slight pattern or something would help.  The font choice on this one looks suspiciously like one of those preset choices on the MS Works stationary wizard.  I could swear that’s the same font combo as the letterhead on my yearly holiday newsletter.  But the kicker is the dog… Not only is the focus on that dog’s image slightly “off” somehow, but it’s got freakin’ turkeyneck syndrome going.  I look at that dog’s floppy neckskin and I can’t help but think it’s in serious need of a neck lift. 

And then there’s the pink one… Yeah… I got to the legs and kept staring with morbid fascination.  I had some serious Where’s Waldo scenarios running through my mind.  Only less Waldo finding and more cellulite spotting.  Not to mention that skirt’s a fraction of a centimeter from becoming an expose rather than a mere confession.  Then I finished scrolling down and saw the font… As hideous as that font choice was, it’s not even the thing that bothers me most.  My eyes keep darting to the pinky purply shoe then back to the salmony pink light pink in the font and my brain wants to implode at the serious color mismatching going. 

My conclusion?  “Anything Else On The Store Shelves.” A total redesign is in order because I gotta say that either one of those covers is enough for me to pass completely on the book.

I like both Walt’s suggestions for the pink cover, and Barb Ferrer’s suggestions for the blue cover.

Either way, it seems that going back to the drawing board is winning by a landslide.

Whomever said, “least offensive of the two” really nailed it, I think.

BLUE BLUE BLUE BLUE - it’s funny and pretty and luxe and sort of classy/trashy, while the pink looks like the girl got dressed in the dark and forgot how to walk.

Can’t just put Paul Tolme on the blue cover & call it a day?

I was with the 2nd cover right up until I saw the font for “Beauty Addict”. The rest of the font is good but the font for those 2 words looks like something you’d find at Limited Too and as this book is supposedly for adults I don’t think you want to use a font that would appeal to tweens. But I do like the colors. I would maybe lengthen the skirt, but that might be the spirit of my grandma speaking through me.

Over all I prefer the blue cover. The color and the font as well as the model combine to make me think it’s more grown-up than the 2nd cover with its pink and purple Limited Too font. I’d be much more likely to pick up the blue cover.

That said, lose the dog. Or get a different dog. Unless a chihuahua plays a part in the book or the main character has a chihuahua it doesn’t really tell you anything. If you must have a puppy then use a cute beagle puppy or maybe a lab mix. I see chihuahuas and I think the evil dog my grandma’s neighbor had when I was a child. Or the Taco Bell dog and I don’t think you want people to think Taco Bell when looking at this book.

Back to the drawing board.

As a reader of a “certain age”, I hated the font on the pink, trying way to hard for cute and perky and as a reader of similar magazines to what the character has been reduced to working at, rat dogs don’t appeal, Labs, Collies, Elkhounds would catch my eye before Buster from Legally Blonde.

I like the pink cover. I’ve seen that shade of blue and the soft focus Vaseline shot on a bunch of chicklit things lately and to me, it doesn’t stick out.

Oh, and if there’s a dog on the cover, there had better be a dog in the story. Otherwise, WTF? And what’s up with all this dog love anyway? I got an elegant but funny Russian Blue mixie who’d love to be your cover cat and a gorgeous gray tabby stray who comes with her own eyeliner markings. Now that’s a beauty.

The font on the pink is awful, but that’s the point. The girl with the legs and the shoes screams “shallow beauty addict trendsetter wannabe” to me and the font reinforces the fact that it’s a growth story where the heroine starts off immature and smartens up.

Oh, wow, I didn’t even realize at first that the cover blurb for the pink cover is by Anita Shreve.  Either this book cover and description are waaaaay different from what the content is, or you need to use a quote from a different author.  I would definitely expect an author quote on a cover to be from an author in at least close to the same genre of writing as the book the quote is on.

As others have said with the pink cover, gorgeous though her legs may be, I don’t need to see that much of them.  And is that skirt terry cloth?  The whole outfit seems ridiculous, but not to the point of deliberate absurdity intended to be humorous.  The title font also make me think I’ll be reading about a 15 year old girl who’s all, like, omigod, into boys and make-up, and stuff, you know?  Except she’d never wear that jewelry, carry that purse, or drape a scarf over her purse, because she’s not 37 years old yet.  Bottom line, nothing matches.

The blue cover - color is great, but I’d like it better if it were a couple shades lighter, and maybe slightly more toward the blue side of the blue-green spectrum.  The dog made me think of “Legally Blonde” immediately also, but that was a good thing.  I guess it puts me in the mindset of a heroine who is very girly, maybe slightly ditzy, but knows she’s a smart woman and doesn’t take her girly side too, too seriously.  If that’s not the heroine of this book, though, then this cover doesn’t work as well.  This cover has considerably cleaner lines than the pink, which I like.  And dogs will always catch my eye.  Plus, the title is front and center, and the author’s name is reasonably large.

The blue cover would make me probably pick it up if I were browsing the book store.  The pink probably wouldn’t.  It’s just weird.

If you aren’t going to revise the covers then please, please, go with the blue one. That said, please, please revise the design. This current cover screams Hollywood.

The Blue version is classier and I think could appeal to the appropriate readership, but that dog. Ugh! It’s passe. Ditch the pup.

The pink version seems like “Confessions of a Shopaholic” gone horribly wrong--and it’s mimicking the movie poster for “Catch Me If You Can”; the cartoon font is AWFUL. None of these elements convey the story or tone that I got from reading the copy and as a reader I’d feel kind of misled if I picked this book up based on the cover (if the copy holds true to what this book is). Also, the font and image seem to be at war with whether the book is a teen read or more classic chick lit.  (it’s so much easier to say what’s wrong that what’s right!)

Elements that work:
--The tiffany blue color.
--The woman with her diamond earing, in profile is classy, striking, and eye-catching. (more so, IMO, that the running-woman in pink).
--The Anita Shreve blurb is great (PLEASE DON’T LOSE THIS)
--The combo of sans serif and script font for the title on the blue cover is great. Very nice.

What’s missing:
--how about element that conveys her war on bad makeovers?
--A visual reference to her transformation;give us a hint?
--the “warmth and humanity” that Shreve references)

Anyway I can get an ARC??

Good luck! I don’t envy you.

oo, oo, I also vote for Paul Tolme on the cover! OR....how about replacing the dog with a ferret?

I don’t like either cover and would walk by both of them.  I totally agree with SB Sarah about the blue cover--my first thought was, Which one is the beauty addict?  My second thought was, “Yuck,” and my third thought was, “Please tell me she’s not going to tongue that chihuahua.” Overall it was a very unpleasant experience.

The second cover is one we’ve seen a gazillion million times, so there’s not much to say about it.  My eyes kinda glazed over.  If I had to guess what the book was about just based on the cover, I’d say it’s a follow-up to Legally Blonde:  Pink, Pink, and Pink!  But the figure doesn’t look very fashionable, I have to say, unless by “fashion” you mean 18-year-old Valley girls circa 1998. 

So, yeah, I’d say back to the drawing board.  But if I had to choose one I’d pick the blue one--at least it’s not boring (I apologize to any graphic designers I may have offended).  But if I can just take a moment for a personal rant here:  with a title like Confessions of a Beauty Addict, I’d think you could do A LOT with the cover.  Does she discover beauty is only skin deep, fleeting, or comes at great expense?  Is this some sort of beauty-and-the-beast retelling?  These are all things I’d like to know about this book before I commit to buying it, and I would think they would be able to imply some of this in the cover art in a way that would be more evocative and interesting than the presented images.  The fact that they haven’t done so leads me to conclude one of two things:  the heroine doesn’t discover anything of import and I’m in for a long haul where Sam’s best friend from Samantha Who? is the heroine; or they don’t really care.  Either way, I’m still not very interested in reading the book.

I would definately pick up this book based on the blurb but to be truly honest, I don’t think I’d pick up the book by simply scanning the cover. The Tiffany blue would catch my eye for sure but the doggie kiss would turn me off. The Pink cover to me is sleeker until you hit the title font that is way to hokey. My suggestion. Switch the blue background to the pink model (making it a different saturation so it doesn’t clash of course) and use the font from the blue on the pink. Voila, best of both worlds. =)

Wow, I’m really torn. I hate the whole dog as an accessory thing. But I have a friend that reads this kind of thing that will by anything with a blue cover. As for the pink, the whole body with no head is a big trend in cover art and I dig it but I completely agree about the font I’d never buy a book with that font. So ..BLUE and I’ll think of the dog in more of an Elle Woods context instead of Paris Hilton.

Aaagh! No more headless waxed high-heeled shoed legs, puhlease.

I’m a dog lover, but that chichi chihuahua is a little gross. I still like the this cover a lot more than the pink one.

Okay, now that initial gut reaction is out of the way --

BLUE COVER
Like the cover on the whole. Like the clean, classy font. Like that the title is the first thing I read on the page, unlike the pink cover. I’m not sure what relevance the dog has but I don’t find it repulsive; perhaps a little puzzling but that wouldn’t prevent me from looking at the book. Although, I agree that the dog isn’t making eye contact with the reader OR the model, so it looks like it’s just kind of blankly staring off at nothing. It lacks an emotional connection.

The white font of the author’s last name is a bit hard to read against the model’s pale face, so perhaps something should be reworked there. But the author’s name is otherwise nicely sized and fairly prominent. The “also author of” line is readable but doesn’t take precedence (again something that the pink doesn’t manage to do). For being a book about beauty, the model’s face features nicely—lovely skin, so the connection is clear enough in my mind. The purse-accessory dog and the jewelry may not be beauty-related but they create an overall image of a pampered, luxury-seeking young woman, and the ambiance as a whole works for me. I’d pick up this book in a store to read the back.

PINK COVER
Juvenile on multiple levels, not least the much-mentioned title typeface. I don’t like the plain white background; it washes out the cover. The pink is just too much and it borders on garish. The upskirt shot of the legs (and butt cheek) looks trashy, not flirty. And I’ve never thought pink and black make a particularly pretty color combination.

The author’s name is hard to read on the cover, and rather small. And strangely enough, although the title of the previous book is in small font, because my eye glazes right over the hard-to-read author font and the awful block-lettered title, “Beauty Confidential” are actually the words I read first. I think this pink cover lacks cohesion.

Furthermore, even without my distaste for the presentation of the model, I don’t see how this has to do with beauty. Perhaps I’m being overly literal in thinking of the beauty industry, but when someone says “beauty addict” I think of skincare, makeup, spa treatments, etc. The pink cover is much more fashion- and clothing-related, i.e. Shopaholic or brand-name fetishists. Nothing works for me in the pink cover and I would not only pass by it on the shelf, I’d wonder how a book like that got published—looks almost (and I hope I don’t offend) self-published.

I’d giggle at the blue cover and wonder who gave the dog a “pearl necklace” lmao..

that said, between the two I’d pick the blue.. simply because the other one looks like a thousand other overly cutsie chick lit book that I pass up every time I’m at the bookstore.

I’m a Graphic Designer in real life and also a dog person; I show dogs in conformation, agility, and Rally and have Dobermans and Min Pins. I’ve also designed books, and covers, for Clean Run (an agility/dog training publishing house).

For me the blue cover is far more pleasing than the white/pink cover. I like the simplicity and the use of white space. And I don’t mind chihuahua’s, but this is not the best choice here plus I think most of us are sick of the whole “cutesy purse dog” fashion statement.

I think you could remove the dog all together, make the typfaces of the title a bit larger and move them up just a hair, and the cover would look great, like the model is kissing the title. I don’t have a problem with the author name over the model’s neck, I think it’s quite readable.

Even aside from the atrocious type used for the title of cover 2 that jars against the sleek style of the rest of it, it’s too busy and not at all attention-getting.

Oh, and a typeface consists of a family of fonts. So a typeface might be, say, Adobe Garamond, and a font would be Adobe Garamond Light Italic or Adobe Garamond Black.

Look, I know this isn’t helpful, but yuck.  The dog looks like he’s going to drool in the woman’s mouth, and I’ve never been gaga about kissing dogs anyway.  The pink one shows the way to Chicago sans map - why do you have to be excessively bare when talking beauty?  Bottom line, take out the dog, replace it with a mirror, have her holding a mascara wand or lipstick, and voila!  Oh, no pink.

I vote for doggie.

The pink cover is made immeasurably worse by an action shot that looks 100% faked.  Her muscles look like she’s standing in place, and while the skirt ripples, the scarf on the bag is completely motionless.

Nothing to add about the art. I don’t like the pink font but it wouldn’t stop me from buying the book. The dog would stop me. When they say babies and dogs help sell any product, they mean cute babies and golden retrievers.

But for the back cover...can we get an apostrophe somewhere in “wits”? Who has access to the OED online? I would look it up myself but I’m using The Chicago Manual of Style as a doorstop.

The idea of reading a book about some fashionista twit bemoaning and beautifying the “normal” world around her doesn’t appeal to me at all. Don’t we have enough books about the Sex and the City life?  Just once, I’d like to read about some size 14 ethnic chick who likes to shop at Old Navy and still gets the hot guy.

But putting that aside, I wouldn’t pick up either cover for the many, MANY reasons already articulated above.