[ SECRET POST #2931 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2931 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.


__________________________________________________



11.


__________________________________________________



12.















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 03 pages, 064 secrets from Secret Submission Post #419.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[xenomantid]

I agree. Photographs of actual people on the cover give the impression that the book is a tie-in edition to a movie adaptation. Do you suppose that's intentional?

[(Anonymous)]

That's a good point. Although TV/movie tie-in covers put me off, they're always so ugly, I suppose they must be successful as there seem to be more and more of them.

"If it was made into TV/a movie, it must be good" kind of thinking?

[cushlamochree]

Way more people watch TV and movies than read books. So even if you're only able to convert a fraction of those viewers, it's still a huge potential readership to tap into.

They are ugly as heck, though.

[(Anonymous)]

This always seems so weird to me, although I know it must be true. I spend so much more time reading than watching TV/movies, and I always felt like I was a heavy TV viewer, like 5-10 hours a week. That's a lot of time.

According to statistics, Americans watch TV nearly 5 hrs daily on average, which seems unreal.
http://www.statista.com/statistics/276748/average-daily-tv-viewing-time-per-person-in-selected-countries/

Sorry for derailing the subject. Yes, I think the covers that look like tie-ins must be deliberate. Like you said, it's a massive audience to convert.

[xenomantid]

Indeed. The idea is probably to capture audiences who are only interested in books that are adapted for film or television or who saw the movie or television series first and want more of it.

[sarillia]

I hate movie tie-in covers too. For a while I seemed to have a knack for discovering something right before it was announced that there was going to be a movie, so I'd pick it up at the library, decide I want my own copy after reading it, and then have to wade through a bunch of new movie book covers to find the cover I liked.

[lb_lee]

Nah, the photos thing has become more popular because I think it's CHEAPER.

I mean, paying an artist to paint a cover that references the book properly costs more than people are willing to pay these days. (Not that I can blame them, publishing is a rough game.) With the booming popularity of digital media, photomanipulation is probably cheaper, and often faster.

(This is actually why I design and draw my illustrations and covers; I get more creative control and hey, I don't have to pay me a dime!)