Book Marketing Can Be Fun
Marketing was the last thing on my mind when I sat down to write my first book. Meticulous research, getting the right tone, maintaining the correct voice, and gauging the length were all greater priorities. Besides, there was always the chance I might find a mainstream publisher and they would do the promotion for me.
After two years my biography of my grandfather was complete. But I failed to grab the attention of a traditional publisher, so I was catapulted into the self-publishing arena. Which meant doing my own marketing. I approached the task with trepidation.
I searched websites to see if there was a realistic sales target for a first-time author. I compared my figures to those of J.K. Rowling. Every hour I checked the KDP/Amazon site to see if I’d sold another book. I fantasised about how my scintillating presentation would captivate booklovers in the elegant Edwardian surrounds of Daunts’ Marylebone premises and how I would sign numerous copies of my book with a kindly, maybe slightly patronising, smile as I asked the buyer to whom I should address the dedication. The books would fly off the shelves and the proceeds would cascade in like a tsunami.
Er. No. Marketing 2021 would prove to be an irksome business, focusing on the ins and outs of metadata, bibliographic detail, long synopses, short synopses, buzzwords, data optimisation, Facebook business pages, Twitter hashtags and Amazon reviews. I blundered in, not having a clue what I was doing, often breaking internet etiquette several times a day.
After six months in this darkened, digital labyrinth and adding IngramSpark to my Amazon presence – what the trade calls ‘going wide’ – I found I had sold 160 books by some means or other. Which quite a few people said was not bad. Heaven knows how I did it. And, even more surprising: I was beginning to enjoy it.
I had a sell sheet made – designed by Tony down the road – and everyone said it looked fantastic. It was something I could wave in the faces of indie bookshops and libraries, or else send as an attachment to book retailers all over the world. Its raison d’etre was to act as an inducement for them to order copies from the big distributors.
Because this period coincided with the easing of the Covid lockdown, I could joyfully walk away from my laptop and meet people face-to-face. Believe me, there are some snooty booksellers out there. One or two looked down their noses at my sell sheet and said imperiously: ‘Just leave it there.’ Others were as sweet as sweet could be. Like Denise Jones at the wonderful Brick Lane Bookshop in London. She stopped what she was doing and in 15 minutes I learned more about marketing for self-publishers than any number of online tutorials had taught me.
It was the unexpected avenues that opened up that began to make book marketing pleasant. Like Monty Dart, an authoress in Newport, south Wales, who having listened in on my talk to the local U3A group, helped me to do some promotion in her area and meet other local writers.
Next there were the animal photos. First author Ian Cutler gave me a great review and then took a shot of his cat Bronwyn taking a nap on my book. That just had to go on to Facebook. After that, my cousin Margie found her dog Honey ‘reading’ my biography and sent me a photo. That, too, was a marketing gift. My days as a subeditor on TV Times left me in no doubt that cute animal photos are loved by all.
Bookshops in Newton Abbot and worshippers at the Teignmouth church where Stanley, my grandfather, was a minister 120 years ago ordered copies on the strength of my eye-catching sell sheet.
And only yesterday Forest Gate author John Walker said I should persuade friends to go into libraries and ask for my book. That was a sure-fire way of shifting a few more copies because one thing libraries want to do is please their customers.
I’m still embroiled in metadata, social media and Zoom. But now I’ve added person-to-person marketing to the mix. My only hope is that for us downtrodden stay-at-homes it catches on.
Road to a Nightingale
I bet John Keats never had to negotiate the Brentwood by-pass ro get to hear his ‘light-winged Dryad of the trees’. His nightingale obligingly perched a few yards away in a nearby tree on Hampstead Heath before singing ‘in full-throated ease’. Our melancholy young Cockney medic probably didn’t even have to stir from the comfort of his leather armchair. All he had to do was sit back and listen as the bird’s ‘plaintive anthem’ poured in through the open French windows of his north London gaff.
We, on the other hand, to hear our nightingale, left east London by car on a Friday afternoon. Within minutes we hit an end-of-the-week and end of Covid restrictions snarl-up on the A12, just beyond the Redbridge roundabout. We were heading for the Fingringhoe bird reserve on a raised area of wild land above the banks of the Colne Estuary.
The traffic jams continued for miles, and it was two and a half hours before we made our destination. A helpful couple out walking their dog directed us down the narrow lane and confirmed the reserve’s pledge that the birds were singing by assuring us they had stopped to listen to them just 30 minutes before.
The reserve had closed at 5pm, but we parked on a convenient patch of bare ground next to the padlocked gates, ate our sandwiches and sipped tea from our thermos flask. Here, all around us, were plenty of ‘melodious plots of beechen green and shadows numberless’ – just the kind of landscape that nightingales like.
We locked the car and ducked under the wooden fence. There was no one else about: we had 200 acres to ourselves. Essex, as we all know, gets a bad press. White stilettoes, fake tans, chavs. You know the kind of thing. The expectations of visitors to this much ridiculed county are consequently low. Long may it remain so because it means the area’s finest spots are largely untouched and are, for an otherwise densely populated region, unknown. That’s particularly true of its far-flung mud flats and creeks. Have you, for instance, ever heard of these unsung villages that we encountered on our route: Woodham Walter, Tolleshunt D’Arcy, Paternoster Heath, Layer-de-la-Haye?
Within minutes of our foray into the low-lying scrubland, pitted with disused quarries, we heard what we’d come for. Complex, creative, crazy warbling took our breath away. The nightingale’s song is an assault on the senses and keeps you tense as you wait for an unexpected modulation just as you do with a late Romantic symphony. A pause. Then a shrill explosion of notes thrown to the sky and a hopefully appreciative female mate.
We walked on and our movement caused it to fly off deeper into the undergrowth, where it commenced another recital, sotto voce this time. We spotted it, fleetingly. The nightingale is small and brown, unremarkable in every way except for its song.
As we walked further into the reserve, we heard others, perhaps three or four. It was impossible to tell, of course. Sue took out her phone and started recording, a memento of our evening which was beginning to turn into something wonderful. We had escaped the drone of traffic completely. The nightingales were accompanied by blackbirds, chaffinches, linnets and their singing increased as the light faded. Being held up on our journey was not such a misfortune after all.
We found a seat overlooking a glade – yes, it really was a glade – and sat still for half an hour. We were rewarded with a nightingale coming close and singing uninterrupted for ten minutes. Later we listened back to the recording during which, from time to time, we could hear our low mutterings: ‘Oh my god! Wow!’ We acknowledged that reliving our magical evening was only possible because of technology, something Keats had been without.
The journey back to east London was, of course, troublesome. Moments before we hit the A12, 48-hour repairs kicked off and we were diverted on to the A120 and a 30-mile detour via Stansted Airport.
We shrugged our shoulders and turned on the recording, luxuriating in the liquid sound of our lovely Essex nightingales. As we lay in bed later, we listened again. As Keats has it: ‘Was it a vision, or a waking dream? Fled is that music: Do I wake or sleep?’
Secret Love, Scandal and Deceit: When Research Tugs at the Heart Strings
Works of non-fiction are generally regarded as staider creations than their fictionalised counterparts. Run-of-the-mill how-to guides, countless self-help manuals and detailed records of obscure episodes in history have all helped to create that rather square reputation. Thrilling tales crammed with tortured souls, unrequited lovers and compelling murder mysteries leave those purveyors of fact trailing in their wake.
Think again, at least as far as biography and family research are concerned. Digging into the past, particularly that of one’s own family, needn’t be a dry and dusty pursuit. Far from it. We all know that fact can be stranger than fiction. But it can also, I would argue, be more emotional than fiction. It can stir the deepest of feelings.
It can lead to cries of shock from one’s library seat, to open-mouthed disbelief as one reads an ancient, yellowed letter, or to hysterical doubling up after the discovery of some rib-tickling nugget from the past. Because it concerns one’s nearest and dearest it has an extra frisson that fiction cannot match. ‘I couldn’t put it down’ can refer as much to non-fiction as it can to invented narrative.
BBC TV’s Who Do You Think You Are? and magazines such as Family Tree command massive audiences, testifying to the fascination that delving into the lives of ancestors has. The Ancestry and Find My Past websites have never been so busy.
The emotional power of finding out about one’s ancestors came home to me in no uncertain terms when I started researching the life of my grandfather. He came down the decades trailing clouds of glory, thanks to glowing testimonials from his family, my mother included. He was a man of the cloth in his early years – a nonconformist minister – and later one of the most celebrated Catholic writers of his generation. G.K. Chesterton was his friend, and he was appointed deputy editor of the Catholic Herald in his seventies. Stanley James’s reputation was watertight and unsullied. True, he was a tad egocentric and did little to get involved with the education of his seven children, but he was essentially a ‘good man’. At least, that’s what I thought.
One day, taking a rest from hours of rummaging in the archives, I sat back and idly did a Google search for my supposedly squeaky-clean relative. The fifth entry about him led me to two pages of a long history book about revolutionary Christians in the early years of the 20th century. It recounted how my Stanley, along with other do-gooders, donated sums of money into a pool earmarked for poor families in the Bow district of London’s East End. So far, so predictable. Then came the thunderbolt. It went on to say how three women recorded in their diaries and letters how ‘James preached from his pulpit the religion of love which must unite all, while using a small private room in the church to have sex with some of them’. My jaw dropped open. And stayed open. My research – and therefore my book – would never be the same again.
The American writer’s source was another book, which I ordered there and then. This was the edited diaries and letters of the same three young, working-class East End women, all of whom attended my grandfather’s church in Walthamstow. The book had been published in the 1980s by a feminist writer and it recorded in detail the lives of these extraordinary women who were early feminists in all but name.
But alongside their heartfelt debates about women’s emancipation and suffragism were frequent references to Stanley. One of the women – Eva – recorded the content of his sermons as well as the day-to-day goings-on in the church. Then, out of the blue, she spoke of her love for him and described how he always paid her special attention. She longed for him and ‘spent the night in a state of ecstasy’ after an evening with him. There was clearly a strong attraction between the two. Tragically, Eva died of undetected diabetes in 1916.
This whetted my appetite to find out more. I needed to track down the original documents. Luckily, that proved easy as the collection – all ten boxes of it – had just been placed in the Women’s Library of the London School of Economics. I joined the library and spent the next two weeks reading every letter, diary entry and scrap of paper there was in the collection.
It was Ruth who was the hoarder – thank goodness! She kept all her correspondence and Eva’s diaries, as well as her tickets to countless political meetings. In her box of personal effects there were her brooches, rings and a locket of hair.
One small entry in Eva’s diary took me back. Apparently, my grandfather had given her the task of overseeing a young girl’s league which met in the church hall on Wednesday evenings. Eva records: ‘I enjoyed the league this evening. Mr James looked in upon me, and his daughters (including little Kitty) were with us. The girls were darlings. I told them an Indian story and they seemed just spell-bound… Winnie, Kitty and Chrissie recited and sang well.’ Kitty is my mother, aged six. It was then that I choked up and let out a cry in the otherwise hushed confines of the library. Tears welled up. So unexpected a source – from the writings of a woman who loved my mother’s father and my grandfather. The evidence is that he loved her, too. My favourite novel, Anna Karenina, for all its heart-felt emotion, never had quite the same effect on me.
There was more. I discovered clipped together nine passionate letters from Stanley to Ruth, written after Eva’s death. In them he suggests that the two of them should become closer. He employs the Christian language of fellowship as a lever towards achieving the heightened intimacy he desires. The hypocrisy and manipulation left me flabbergasted. It still does. There is every indication that Ruth rejected his advances.
The last of the trio, Minna, did not, however, put up any resistance to his pleading. She writes to Ruth how he seduced her after they’d been to an evening meeting together in which the theme had been women’s emancipation. ‘We went into the front room alone,’ she records, ‘and he kissed me, opened my dress and kissed my breasts too, and he said how he felt I was his. He was just going away when he came back and pleaded with me, dear, to give him everything a woman can give a man… Well, dear, I did. The tears I have shed have quite washed away any wrong I did.’
I almost expected to see signs that the ink had run from Minna’s tears as she wrote her letter of confession, which had, of course, only ever been for Ruth’s eyes. But here was I, 102 years later, reading this most private of confessions. I was prying into a drama that I had no right to. I was an intruder.
But I was also learning an ugly truth about my grandfather: he was an adulterer, while acting as pastor to a 300-strong congregation. And it was overwhelming me, not because I had moral scruples about what had happened but because it had changed utterly the narrative of his life and turned my book on its head. These findings had turned it from quiet family memoir into a story of illicit sex.
On the other hand, this kind of research event is gold-dust for the writer of family history. Stanley had passed away and so had his wife. So, too, had my mother and all her siblings. I had no idea how much anyone had known, but the way ahead was clear for me. I also unashamedly hoped these revelations might give my book a more universal appeal.
I once attended a writer’s course run by the celebrated author Nell Dunn. One expression she used over and over again has stayed with me: ‘A writer must be a savage individual’. Now was the time to be just that in pursuit of the facts. The truth, with all its contradictory emotions, must out. Besides, the journalist in me told me I was on to a ‘good story’. For all its greatness, this time Anna Karenina didn’t quite cut the mustard for me.
A photograph caught my eye the other day. It showed a young man in London’s Covent Garden brandishing a pint of beer while dancing provocatively in the face of another man wearing a mask. The dancer is not wearing one and he seems to be cajoling the supposedly responsible citizen following Covid-19 safety regulations.
For me, this image encapsulated the divide between those who flout the pandemic restrictions and those who abide by them. It got me thinking about the mindset that allows such maskless revellers to act like this. I wanted to get to the bottom of it.
Rather than lazily express the unchallenged prejudices of a 69-year-old, I sought the views of others – via a simple questionnaire sent by email – across a wide range of ages and occupations. I bent over backwards to catch the views of young people by writing to acquaintances under 30 years of age. In all, I asked about 40 people for their views.
The survey was sent out just as Tier 4 lockdown measures were being implemented. The replies I received were exclusively from people over 60. I didn’t receive one reply from anyone younger, let alone those in their twenties, which is the group largely being accused of these actions. And the questions were not couched in judgemental terms. For example, I made sure I didn’t use the word ‘behaviour’. I did what I could to garner views from a wide demographic range. I failed abysmally.
My cohort of respondents, being fair-minded and intelligent folk on the whole, attempted to analyse the actions of these Covid-19 mockers in a dispassionate way. But they overwhelmingly concluded that the maskless ones had a deep-seated reluctance to obey the rules in the same way that they would occasionally flout parking or speeding rules: they understand that it’s important but if they can get away with it, they will. One respondent suggested that as young children they had never been told they have to do – or can’t do something – so as adults they’re not going to heed to what is required of them, either.
It was also mooted that, allied to this, there is the notion among non-compliers that they see such unquestioningly loyal behaviour as revealing a lack of individuality. The image of the mocking man in Covent Garden even hints that he thinks his rule-abiding counterpart is somehow soppy. The mask shunners are mostly men and, in my experience. mostly white men. Is there, then, a macho element to this? Some thought so.
At bottom, of course, this is a health issue. One might have hoped that the realisation that others’ lives – particularly those within the same family – could be put at risk would put paid to such rule flaunting. Are these people saying in effect: ‘I’m all right, Jack. I won’t die from Covid-19. And if I do contract it, I’ll only get minor symptoms, or none at all’? Everyone thought this was the case. One respondent wondered whether some people think: “Why should I compromise my lifestyle so a bunch of people can live to the age of 83 rather than 82?”
All along, I’ve believed that the UK government has failed to make it clear that many people carrying the virus may not display any symptoms. That, surely, should be one of the decisive factors in dealing with this dreadful disease. Yet it has been largely forgotten in the public consciousness. This amounts to a massive PR failure.
Ignorance is rife, too. A teacher revealed that a colleague had said to him that he was reluctant to receive the vaccine. His rationale was: ‘I’m not ill now, so I don’t need it – and if I end up in hospital, it’s too late anyway.’ He didn’t realise that vaccines are not a cure but a preventative measure. Another commented ruefully: ‘We live in an ignorant and often callous world.’
Does social media encourage these unscrupulous acts? Opinion was divided. But I would argue that the sloppy thinking engendered by rumour and conspiracy theories prevalent on wild west websites and forums foster online anarchy which can lead to anarchic behaviour. People who never leave their echo chambers do not have their blinkered views challenged.
Such articles as this often finish with a platitude such as ‘Nevertheless, most people are obeying the rules’. Well, I bloody well hope they are. Instead, I’m going to hold my hand up and admit that this survey is horribly one-sided. But, given the minimum feedback I got from younger people, it can be nothing else. If I’d received some comments, I’d have read them, considered them and included them here. But I didn’t.
A Lot Of Hot Air
I was listening to the weather forecast on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme one morning when the expression ‘rattle the windows’ stopped me short. Seconds later I heard ‘wet and windy fare’. And, before the broadcast was over, the announcer had come up with: ‘How do I break this to you gently?’
The three minutes to eight slot now sees me nervously awaiting yet more ridiculous expressions masquerading as accessible language. In the all-singing, all-dancing BBC lurch towards universal accessibility, straightforward predictions about whether it’s going to be sunny or rainy are a thing of the past.
Within days of hearing that tsunami of nonsense, I’d added more to my list of overblown (I told you it was windy), supposed informality: ‘plume of cloud’, ‘get out and about after tea’, and even this one: ’13 to 14 degrees? No way, Jose! More like three or four’.
The culprit, more often than not, was weatherman Phil Avery. I know just what you’re trying to do, Avery, but you’ve got it wrong. Your evangelical drive towards colloquialism has nothing to do with trying to make the weather more intelligible. I suspect it has everything to do with you, as a fact-filled meteorologist, using the airwaves to self-indulgently bend our ears with your own brand of repressed lyricism. How dare you foist this obfuscating drivel – or should that be drizzle? – on us!
Then I heard younger forecasters tarting up the fact that there were going to be intermittent spells of wet weather with turns of phrase such as ‘pulses of rain’ and ‘showery regime’. And, worst of all, my temperature positively soared, threatening to reach the highest reading since records began, when the forecaster slipped in unnecessary, oleaginous, get-down-with-the-people snippets such as ‘that’s the scene for someone on the school run’.
It was at this juncture that I began to suspect that deep in the bowels of the Met Office, the authorities hold seminars on how to soften the impact of unpleasant weather predictions by aping the style of the proverbial, mealy-mouthed vicar – a kind of curate-climatologist.
Nor is this phenomenon just an occasional intrusion. It is incessant. I’ve also heard: ‘The wee small hours of Monday’, ‘Lovely day – wish I’d seen some of it’, and ‘Let me get you out of the door first’. This is more than a case of popularising the science of weather forecasting. This is nanny state encroachment. This weather-lite school of approachability clearly feels the need to take us by the hand and lead us gently down the path towards some kind of comfortable, warm front of comprehension.
Leave us alone! We’re British and we’re used to hearing about nasty weather. And we’re quite capable of putting up with a bitter wind thank you very much rather than be told that ‘cold air will slump down and whistle through the rigs on Friday’ or that ‘five to eight should just about cover it’. Put your woke, snowflake language on that slush pile of soggy faux-creativity and tell us what the weather is going to do.