 |
|
The Gabbers  Amanda"I read anything that holds my attention past the first 100 pages, primarily genre fiction of all types, ’serious’ literature, classics and travelogues." read more...
|
In Search of the “Average” Reader
« Mooching Around | Home | Monopoly - it’s not just a game »  In the handful of years that I’ve been part of the online Romance community, I’ve been told – directly and by implication – that I’m not an “average Romance reader.” Initially I more or less accepted this assessment because I didn’t know any better. Now, unsure of whether I know any more than I did then, nevertheless, I’ve grown suspicious of the “average reader,” suspecting that this reader is more marketing myth than reality. Now I understand that any consumer marketing strategy involves the invention of a model consumer; any woman who has tried on clothes from multiple manufacturers knows this well (note to garment designers: vanity sizing works!). And if particular books or trends are selling, what incentive is there to second-guess the wisdom of publishing patterns – not the publishers, to be sure. Then there’s the help that comes by way of the Romance Writers of America and their pressroom materials, which include all sorts of statistics about Romance readers, like 50% of Romance readers are married and 29% of the Southern US population reads Romance. In the RWA-compiled data, we are told that 42% of Romance readers (I’m assuming that all the statistics relate only to US readers) hold at least a bachelor’s degree, and that “Mystery, Thriller, Action” are ranked as the “most enjoyable” genre “settings” or plot elements,” with “Futuristic” ranked lowest, and the “American West” right smack in the middle. In a descriptive move I cannot decipher at all, “romantic covers” are contrasted to sedate and abstract covers,” with only 12% enjoying the “romantic covers,” 35% the “abstract” covers, and 53% fine with both. Are “romantic covers” those that feature mantitty (and womantitty) o’ plenty? How can that be when I keep hearing that it’s those covers that sell the most? Now I’m starting to get confused. And what happened to the data featured in the 2004 statistics package indicating that Romance readers ranked “muscles” as the most liked “character trait” in a hero (as opposed to “intelligence” in a heroine)? For that matter, how is it that in both the 2004 and 2005 brochure (it’s the 2005 that’s currently featured on the RWA website) that paranormals are ranked last or next to last? And in the same eleven categories, how is it that Romances in colonial America ranked 4th and 5th, respectively, while Scottish historicals held fast at 8th? How many colonial American historicals have you read lately, especially as compared with paranormals? While I’m not statistician, I do have more than a passing familiarity with spin production, and one thing I do know is that survey results depend as much on who is asked as on what questions (and more specifically how they are worded and what is included and excluded) are asked. In fact, you can ask the exact same group of people the exact same question on two different days and get two divergent sets of data. The RWA statistics, based on the organization’s own disclosure, are a combination of bookseller data and commissioned market research surveying (via telephone and “in-person focus groups”). So are these the elusive “average Romance readers”? The ones who prefer colonial and western American historicals to paranormal Romance? Abstract covers to romantic ones? And are these the same readers as those who ranked “muscles” as the number one desirable “character trait” in heroes? I fit those last two categories, so why am I not the “average Romance reader”? I don’t buy most of my Romances at Target or Wal-Mart, but I do have at least a bachelor’s degree. When I think about it, most of the times I remember the “average Romance reader” label enter conversation the discussion related to either the current state of historical Romance, covers, the condition of copyediting, or declining page counts. I think any of us could pore over the RWA-provided data on Romance and its readers – from both the 2004 and 2005 press materials – and find ourselves more confused than enlightened. I mean, colonial American historicals are ranked higher than paranormals for goodness sakes! And if it’s so gosh darn clear that the “average Romance reader” doesn’t care all that much about copyediting, where are those questions in the survey? Are publishers canvassing bookstores to find out? Wouldn’t 42% of the Romance reading audience be able to discern grammatical errors in their books and – perhaps – prefer those books to be better copyedited? I suspect that the “average Romance reader” is a character as fictional as any Romance hero or heroine, its characteristics compiled from sales figures more than anything else. And if that’s the case, then as far as I’m concerned we’re back to the question of who’s setting the trends, publishers or readers. And to the fear I have that the loyalty of genre readers works against actual reader preferences and interests. I buy a ton of books (and you know, looking around at my bookshelves, that might not be such an exaggeration) I discover I don’t love so much, or that I like but wish had stronger editorial direction, character development, historical detail, or more thematic consistency. Is that “average” or not? Does it only become “not average” when I go online and articulate my opinions? Or could it be that readers who don’t have any inclination to go online have actual opinions about the books they read, and don’t like every book they buy, even if they refrain from making that fact known in any public forum (or by note to the author or publisher). I realize that publishers are businesses, but sometimes I have to wonder if the current model of publishing is really the best for all involved (authors, editors, publishers, readers, other genres fed by Romance sales, etc.). I know we’re told it works – and moreover that it’s geared toward readers – but how often is that wisdom actually tested? And how much does it depend on the existence of a phantom reader, who doesn’t exist but is shaping the market, nonetheless. It’s a mystery, to me, and, well, you know how much Romance readers love mystery (a whopping 58% worth). This entry was posted by Robin on Monday, August 20th, 2007 at 6:00 am. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site. 8 Responses to “In Search of the “Average” Reader”Leave a Comment |
Copyright  This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License. |
_sm.gif)
August 20th, 2007 at 1:13 pm
I think the “average Romance reader” is one of the ubiquitous “they”s. And I equate any publisher statement about using what the ARR really wants as a guiding force to their author/book selections to the generic “They say that the moon is made of green cheese.” Who says? Who is “they”? A nameless, formless being or group of beings who can be blamed for whatever foolishness or poor choices publishers may make.
August 20th, 2007 at 1:20 pm
Hey JMC, are you referring to a particular AAR conversation or a specific publisher reference? I haven’t been over there in a while — is somebody else talking about this?
And yeah, the “ubiquitous they” is a great way to put it. What frustrates me the most is an undercurrent I sometimes think seeps through that the “average reader” is less discerning, shall we say, than the so-called non-average reader.
August 20th, 2007 at 1:26 pm
I agree that sales figures are unreliable proxies for reader preferences in romance. Many romance readers are so into the genre that we’ll buy books even when we hate the covers, the editing, the typos, the themes. If that behavior is widespread, then the sales feedback loop is broken and “who’s setting the trends” isn’t the reader.
OTOH, I’m not sure how we assess whether that combination of loyalty+dissatisfaction is common. I’m sure there is an “average reader”, but I’m not sure that either RWA’s surveys or online communities are a good gauge of who that is. Online (and in real life), it’s easy to get a false sense that “everyone” agrees on some points, or that “everyone” even has an opinion. But it’s impossible to tell whether that represents the “average reader”.
It may be that RWA’s surveys are perfectly well planned and statistically accurate, but their presentation of the data is inconsistent in a number of ways. That’s either spin or lack of the right quantitative skills to interpret their data.
For one thing, I suspect RWA’s methods/categories shifted a lot between their surveys. How else to explain that men went from 7% of romance readers to 22% in 2 years? That’s weird. Even given changes in marketing, etc, my guess is that the biggest change is in what’s called “romance”.
Another statistic bothers me, not because I doubt the number itself but because there’s insufficient context to interpret it. RWA says 42% of romance readers have a college degree. RWA also says that as of 2004, there were 64.6 million romance readers, and the Census enumerates how many people have college degrees, so that math is pretty easy. I calculate that RWA is saying 56% of people with college degrees read romance. That means something like 100% of women with college degrees, or most women and a bunch of men. The National Endowment for the Arts survey found that 63% of college graduates read fiction, so RWA’s figures say that almost all of those people read romance.
Like you, I sort of suspect RWA may have surveyed not the public but a selected group. If that’s not the case, then I wonder if they’re playing with their definition of the “romance reader”. In other words, they may be classifying a much broader array of books as “romance” for the purposes of the survey.
That may not be the case, but I’m not simply being cynical for the fun of it. The reason I’m asking these questions is, the figures seem to contradict each other. It’s especially obvious where poor wording inflates some of the figures. For example, RWA’s “education level” percentages add up to more than 100% because some of the figures they give are cumulative; it makes it difficult to know exactly what it all means. (Dicussed in the comments here).
August 20th, 2007 at 2:55 pm
I don’t think this conversation is going on anywhere else currently. When I commented earlier, fresh in my mind was the thought that everytime there is a complaint in the online romance community about Secret Baby Virgin Cowboy SEAL books, someone always points out that the “average Romance reader”, ARR, must like them because they sell well. Hence publishers continue publishing them.
I agree. When I read that Jane Average in Middle America loves Hqn virgin heroines who marry Greek tycoons, the subtext that I catch is that smarter romance readers disdain those stories for the “better” romances (whatever they may be). How that any different, at heart, than the non-romance reader’s disdain for romance readers?
August 20th, 2007 at 6:23 pm
I’m always fascinated by the I Heart Presents blog. Judging by the posts alone, I don’t seem to share a lot of reading tastes (or maybe life experiences either) with the bloggers/posters. I appreciate that they revel in their reading.
an undercurrent I sometimes think seeps through that the “average reader” is less discerning, shall we say, than the so-called non-average reader.
Sometimes that phrase is used contemptuously, as are other broad-brush categories like “The average reader of women’s fiction”. But just in case part of the issue is about labeling, I should clarify: I sometimes use that terminology in a neutral sense. Being “average” is neither good nor bad; “average” simply means “not extreme”.
the “average Romance reader” is… fictional…. we’re back to the question of who’s setting the trends, publishers or readers.
While the ARR (I think JMC meant “avg. romance reader”, not AAR) is a myth created in the interests of marketing, it could be useful and interesting–in a more nuanced form than the statistics we’re discussing. Maybe RWA has more detailed data that they haven’t displayed on their PR site. But the fact is, publishers have no motivation to collect or study those detailed data, as long as readers send the signal that everything’s great (by buying books we know won’t satisfy us). However… again, I have to point out that we don’t know how many readers have these concerns. Maybe the “average reader” is perfectly happy with the level of copyediting, etc. I know what my expectations are (and mine are partly set by other genres than romance); I have no idea if most other romance readers feel as I do. There are lots of uncritical readers who simply enjoy the book, and lots of people with different tastes and priorities from mine.
The topic of who’s setting the trends has a lot of legs. I read an article last year about the film industry–very similar issues; the gist was: film critics hate blockbusters; the film industry claims it makes blockbusters to pander to the public’s taste; the public is staying away in droves… so where did the film industry get this idea of what “the public” wants?
A little closer to home, Laura Vivanco touched on this subject last week, in discussing the extent to which genre conventions create or emerge from (national) stereotypes.
August 22nd, 2007 at 2:44 am
JMC: LOL, how’s about a little dyslexia on my part?! I think what really frustrates me is the idea that if billionaire sheik’s secret baby books are selling like crazy that long historicals set outside Regency or Victorian England *won’t* sell. Tossing a book or two out into the book buying stratosphere does not diversity make, IMO, nor does saying, ‘hey, we tried,’ after said book fails to set sales records. I am anxious to see how Sherry Thomas’s book does, because there seems to be a great deal of buzz around that book, and her publisher, Bantam, is clearly throwing its weight behind the book. And from what I understand, Bantam really stands behind its authors and doesn’t publish tons and tons of Romance novels a month. And Thomas’s book is said to be very, very good, so I’m keeping my fingers crossed that it will open the doors for more ambitious historicals. I’m grateful that authors like Jo Goodman and Jo Beverly and others are still writing meatier historicals, but I’d like as many of those as there are paranormals, for example.
RfP: I don’t think RWA is trying to dupe anyone or that they are doing shady researching; just that, as you suggested, there’s some spin, and more naturally, the kind of limitation that comes from certain types of survey methods and purposes. So for me, the question becomes, why is this information relevant, or what’s it being presented to show. In some cases, like the education level, I think it’s obvious that there’s an agenda to blast the myth that Romance readers aren’t literate or educated. Although, as you point out, that part of the data is a little screwy beyond a superficial scan. But in terms of the likes and dislikes of readers, what’s that about? I get the sense that the press package is supposed to be for people beyond the genre, but what will some of those stats mean to them? I’m OH SO GLAD that the whole “muscles” questions have been removed, but I’m still puzzled as to whether those statistics are meant to help aspiring writers gauge their writing trajectory, or for other purposes. I think I’d feel better about that data if the RWA provided a more detailed discussion of its source and methodology.
Love the analogy to the film industry.
As to the Harlequin Presents blog, I do think you can see a real divide between readers and authors who post regularly there and those who post at, say, SB’s (not that there aren’t crossover posters and readers), in that I’ve seen a definite and explicit defense of some of the genre tropes that are insistently interrogated on the SBs or Dear Author, for example (or any number of other reader blogs). I once read a comment by one of the authors (Penny Jordan?) questioning why readers enjoy assertive heroines, which on the one hand makes sense to me given the Presents line, but on another seems, I don’t know, naive, or something. I certainly understand why some readers prefer heroines who are more demure, more traditionally feminine, with the heroes more overtly protective or dominating or whatever. So can’t someone who values those character types above all recognize how a reader might like other types? I don’t know; I think it’s great that the Presents line has such a strong identity and loyal readership, but I’d like to think that readers can and DO enjoy different types of Romances at the same time.
I heard somewhere that overall Romance sales are declining. I suspect that nothing short of endangered profits will result in a glance back at how the Romance reader is being characterized by publishers and, perhaps even more importantly, editors. In fact, I’d really really like to understand the role and influence of editors more — how are THEY helping to set the trends?
August 24th, 2007 at 8:52 am
On some level I think you can base what qualifies as an “average Romance reader” through statistics and sales figures. They pick up a handful of books each month, they’re attracted to specific authors, cover styles and impulse buys.
Those of us involved with the on-line Romance community probably will never qualify as “average Romance readers.” We’re a tad too obsessive, we read, we talk, we analyze, we question motivation and behavior, we voice opinions about covers and can debate each of these topics until the horse is dead and buried.
And when we’re not debating, we’re checking release dates, sequels, author web sites/blogs, reader blogs, reviews.
So, it’s probably hard to define “average” when there’s nothing average about those of us obsessive enough to be on-line
November 12th, 2008 at 9:01 pm
03u45cwdlb4xc0v2