Social Media and the Trials of Constant Networking
Social Media and the Trials of Constant Networking
Emily Cecchetto
Originally published in Bound Vol. 2
For authors, marketing themselves on social media can be a burden forced upon them by publishers or personal aspirations
Communication is one of the most important parts of publishing, where connecting with community and readership is vital for the success of any project. In the digital age, social media has become the ultimate tool for creating and maintaining that connection, allowing publishers and authors to reach out directly to their readership and spread information quickly (Kubala-Chuchnowska, 2018). This marketing format has seen the relationship between publishers, authors and readers change drastically; no longer just about sales but also about cultivating ‘mutually beneficial conversation and debate’ (Criswell & Canty 2014, p. 352).
Social media is such a useful asset because it allows publishers to target information towards specific audiences. There are countless online communities which have joined together through their own means and shared interests, a publisher only needs to find them. Social media platforms allow publishers to ‘tap into or begin conversations for commercial benefit’ (Criswell & Canty 2014, p.253)—they can identify who is the right person to mention a product to in order to reach a wider demographic. In fact, when analysing the moment when products go ‘viral’, Malcolm Gladwell identifies three rules which cause the occurrence: a product must be used by socially equipped individuals, be memorable and be released into the right environment (Criswell & Canty 2014, p. 253). Social media is the prime platform for easily finding the ‘right environment’ and if the right people take notice, publishers can have everybody discussing a product everywhere online.
While social media is ideal in reaching a broader audience, negative aspects of marketing through those platforms naturally arise. For authors, marketing themselves on social media can be a burden forced upon them by publishers or personal aspirations. For publishers, it can be a very turbulent environment where caution must be exercised—online relationships and connections can be precarious and often require great care. As will be discussed in this report, social media has proven itself to be a very influential vehicle, both beneficially and detrimentally.
Authors
An excellent tool for emerging writers, social media can assist in building a noteworthy name and connecting with people in the industry, all while promoting their own work. For some of these emerging writers, as Brooke Duffy discusses in (Not) Getting Paid To Do What You Love: Gender, Social Media, and Aspirational Work, it is an ‘aspirational labour …a mode of (mostly) uncompensated, independent work that is propelled by the much venerated ideal of getting paid to do what you love’ (Duffy 2017, p. 4). Managing their social media becomes a job as they work to get noticed and build a readership but it is all in the hopes that efforts will eventually be rewarded—they’ll get that book deal and it will be compensation for all this extra labour.
For more established authors, promoting themselves and their work on social media can be a job thrust upon them by publishers. Audrey Laing’s Authors Using Social Media: Layers of Identity and the Online Author Community attests that some publishers expect authors to do this extra promotion (Laing 2017, p. 260), even though they aren’t necessarily getting paid for it, so that they can engage their already existing readership and garner more interest in the project. Even when looking at signing up new writers and projects, some publishers consider the size of the author’s social media following to be an important facet. If a writer already has a large fanbase, there is already a large audience to which the publisher can sell the new project.
However, blurring this line between their personal and professional lives online can be taxing for authors due to both the unpaid labour and the emotional burden. Laing further discusses the inadvertent pressure placed upon authors by audiences, asserting that despite the positive means in which social media has enhanced connectivity with others, ‘artists cannot choose their fans, cannot choose to terminate that relationship’ (Laing 2017, p. 257). Therefore, there is a constant feeling that authors are there to ‘perform’, to engage their audience and feed their curiosity, a pressure to sell their identity like a product itself. This can be especially true for authors from marginalised groups as publishers often use aspects of their identity as a selling point, as discussed in Eda Günaydin’s essay ‘Your Life’s Work’. This therefore inflicts an unsaid pressure onto the author with the expectation that they need to utilise this aspect of their identity and treat it like a commodity (Günaydin 2020).
Aside from the burdens of being one’s own brand and allowing the barriers between created work and personal life fall (Günaydin 2020), there is also the emotional tax of the public’s opinion on a writer and their work being constantly accessible. While being a great place to have interesting and broad conversations, social media is also a prime platform for having negative opinions spread far and wide. If a negative opinion or review is shared online, it can quickly become a talking point for entire communities on social media. Opinions can be shared—and taken onboard—very rapidly and easily, and if loud enough, the conversation can even have an impact on the projects and people being discussed.
Case study
In November 2019 Delacorte Press published Blood Heir by Amélie Wen Zhao, a YA fantasy novel which had sparked mass controversy and online discussions when advance copies were sent to reviewers. Social media had in fact played a huge part in the creation of Blood Heir. The novel was conceived from a Twitter pitching event for marginalised creators, an event that secured Zhao an agent and eventually a six-figure book deal. The novel was originally due for release in June however after some negative comments about the book—posted on Twitter and Goodreads—circulated online, Amélie Wen Zhao made an announcement that she had requested that the publication date be postponed.
Rumours and comments about Blood Heir and Zhao began to spread online as reviewers made their way through advance copies. Early reviewers claimed that the book contained racially insensitive content with references made to oppression and slavery, and readers were displeased with Zhao’s handling of the topics. These first bad reviews and claims of racism were substantial enough to have other reviewers making online statements that they would be refusing to read the book. There was also a suggestion of plagiarism by some readers, with the book featuring similar phrasing, scenes and tropes found in other young adult novels, such as The Hunger Games and Lord of the Rings books (Hoggatt, 2019). A rumour was then spread that Zhao was gathering screenshots of the people who had given her novel bad reviews, her motivations unclear.
While the plagiarism and gathering of screenshots were unproven, this uproar further prompted Zhao to ask Delacorte Press to postpone the publication date. She issued an apologetic statement saying that she respected people’s voices and was listening to their criticisms, and subsequently proceeded to announce the aforementioned postponement. After that, Zhao spent months looking over her manuscript and sent it to sensitivity readers, whose comments aren’t publicly known, but which prompted Zhao to make changes and add new material to the manuscript (Alter, 2019). However, after a few slight revisions Zhao decided that she disagreed with the critics and gave Delacorte Press her permission to publish the novel (Alter 2019).
Both Zhao and Delacorte Press were eager to have more readers read the book. In this instance, the power of social media was that the comments from those first few reviewers were spread widely and quickly but the hope was that new readers would be able to make their own mind up. Conversations on social media can grow so big and loud that one opinion can overtake the whole conversation. Blood Heir’s journey to publication started with social media but perhaps if Zhao didn’t have such a supportive publisher, it could have also been the novel’s downfall.
Publishers
Social media is a great platform for getting information about a new title to a large audience, but opinions travel just as quickly
Social media is a slightly less taxing platform for publishers, serving as a great avenue to market new products, refresh sales of old products and stay in contact with their community. There used to be very transparent distinctions between the role of the publisher, author and reader. The introduction of social media has changed that, however; ‘Over the past decade or so, the industry has been forced to …draw readers directly into the field of literary production’ (Nolan & Dane 2018, p. 154). With the emergence of influencers, celebrity book clubs and ‘bookstagrammers’, readers are voluntarily sharing and promoting books they've enjoyed reading, and publishers are enjoying the insights as well the extra promotion (Boog, 2017). In saying that, social media has not only impacted how publishers handle their marketing but also what projects they undertake.
The public’s perception of an organisation can shift easily so publishers need to handle communications with care. Social media is a great platform for getting information about a new title to a large audience, but opinions travel just as quickly. Online discussions can taint and instill preconceived ideas about a project which are hard for readers to move past. There’s also the factor of managing the content being posted—there isn’t much room for error online. With limited characters and restrictions on the length of content, messages can be easily misinterpreted or misjudged. No matter the good intentions, if one person doesn’t approve of something, soon a whole online community could disapprove as well. The public’s voice is a loud one and it can have a significant impact on the decisions of a publisher.
Case study
Earlier this year, the Hachette Book Group announced its plan to publish world-renowned Hollywood director Woody Allen’s new autobiography. One week later, its publication was cancelled. Allen is an alleged sex offender, so the announcement of his new book sparked outrage amongst Hachette staff. The decision to abandon the book’s publication was prompted by a staff walkout which was followed by a huge display of outrage—and support for staff—across social media. The sentiment from staff appeared to be that while everyone deserves to be able to tell their story, they felt Allen didn’t deserve this particular platform and that by publishing his book Hachette would in some way be validating his story (Pengelly 2020).
The social media backlash about the announcement of the publication was swift and loud, permeating across the various online writing and book communities. The anger was too loud to ignore and so Hachette promptly cancelled the project. The public was overall contented with the cancellation and the staff had achieved the desired outcome through their demonstration (Pengelly 2020). However, this situation prompts questions about the responsibilities of publishers and the decisions being made about what projects go to market (Homonoff 2020).
Conclusion
The definitive impact of social media on the publishing industry is indisputable. It’s a simple and cheap way for publishers to promote their products and find an audience for various projects. It has also demonstrated its effectiveness for allowing emerging writers to gain recognition, build connections and find new opportunities. For established authors, social media is a successful means in which to promote their new project and be an important part of various literary communities. It’s a platform where people are offered opportunities that may have been otherwise inaccessible, and an invaluable asset for an interwoven industry such as publishing. However, like anything where the personal meets the professional, it can be precarious.
The handling and utilisation of social media by the publishing industry is not perfect. There is an opportunity here to take a stand against a small part of the extra, free labour rife across the industry. As discussed by this report, emerging artists are spending hours building up their online presence as a means to obtain prominence, trawling through pages of tweets and Facebook posts looking for opportunities to get experience. While it is terrific to have so many opportunities so easily accessible, the expectation of requiring a strong online following in order to have a chance is detrimental and unrealistic—not everyone can be internet famous. In turn, for established writers there is the expectation that they have to compensate for being given a publishing deal. Of course, reiterating Günaydin’s contention, it’s understandable that it will be beneficial to promote one’s own work but it’s done so as if they have to constantly be selling themselves. The personal lives of creatives have become commodities, but they shouldn’t have to be used and exposed in order to move a product.
While social media is a useful tool for work and the more personal, it should prompt further discussion about how professional and personal lives can be managed. Does there need to be a more distinct barrier? Is it fine that one can expect to be allowed to be a voyeur in other people’s lives? In this time of digital connection, it is imperative that the publishing industry examines its relationship with the public. If publishers are going to be speaking directly to the community, do they have a responsibility to listen to their feedback? As with the cases of Zhao and Allen—while with varying outcomes—public feedback prompted a moment of deeper thinking and an assessment of the outward implications of publishing. Where is the balance between considering profit and the long-term public perception of a brand? Being connected is invaluable in the publishing industry but it also means there is an infinite quantity of differing opinions to consider and be held accountable to. Seeking the attention of the public comes at a price.
Reference List
Alter, A 2019, ‘She Pulled Her Debut Book When Critics Found It Racist. Now She Plans To Publish’, The New York Times, 29 April, viewed 15 April 2020, <https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/29/books/amelie-wen-zhao-blood-heir.html>.
Boog, J 2017, ‘Bookstagrammers Gain Influence in a Diffuse Marketplace’, Publishers Weekly, 15 September, viewed 10 September 2020, < https://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/industry-news/bookselling/article/74795-bookstagrammers-gain-influence-in-a-diffuse-marketplace.html>.
Corstjens, M & Umblijs, A 2012, ‘The Power of Evil: The Damage of Negative Social Media Strongly Outweigh Positive Contributions’, Journal of Advertising Research, vol. 52, pp. 433–449.
Criswell, J & Canty, N 2014, ‘Deconstructing Social Media: An Analysis of Twitter and Facebook Use in the Publishing Industry’, Publishing Research Quarterly, vol. 30, pp. 352–376.
Duffy, B 2017, (Not) Getting Paid To Do What You Love: Gender, Social Media, and Aspirational Work, Yale University Press, New Haven, USA.
Gao, Q & Feng, C 2016, ‘Branding with Social Media: User Gratifications, Usage Patterns, and Brand Message Content Strategies’, Computers in Human Behaviour, vol. 63, pp. 868–890.
Günaydin, E 2020, ‘Your Life’s Work’, The Lifted Brow, n.d., viewed 1 April 2020, <https://www.theliftedbrow.com/liftedbrow/2020/2/21/your-lifes-work-by-eda-gnaydn>.
Hoggatt, A 2019, ‘An Author Canceled Her Own YA Novel Over Accusations of Racism. But Is It Really Anti-Black?’, Slate, n.d., viewed 10 September 2020, <https://slate.com/culture/2019/01/blood-heir-ya-book-twitter-controversy.html>.
Homonoff, H 2020, ‘Hachette Drops Woody Allen: How (Not) To Navigate “Cancel” Culture In Media Biz’, Forbes, 9 March, viewed 1 May 2020, <https://www.forbes.com/sites/howardhomonoff/2020/03/09/hachette-drops-woody-allen-how-not-to-navigate-cancel-culture-in-media-biz/#55dbf0c913ff>.
Kubala-Chuchnowska, P 2018, ‘The Role of Social Media in the Publishing Industry’, Social Media Impact, 1 November, viewed 10 September 2020, < http://www.socialmediaimpact.com/the-role-of-social-media-in-the-publishing-industry/#>.
Laing, A 2017, ‘Authors Using Social Media: Layers of Identity and the Online Author Community’, Publishing Research Quarterly, vol. 33, pp. 254–267.
Laroche, M, Habibi, M.R. & Richard, M.O. 2013, ‘To Be or Not to Be in Social Media: How Brand Loyalty is Affected by Social Media?’, International Journal of Information Management, vol. 33, pp. 76–82.
Nolan, S & Dane, A 2018, ‘A Sharper Conversation: Book Publishers’ Use of Social Media Marketing in the Age of the Algorithm’, Media International Australia, vol. 168, pp. 153–166.
Pengelly, M 2020, ‘Hachette Cancels Plan to Publish Woody Allen Memoir’, The Guardian, 7 March, viewed 1 May 2020 <https://www.theguardian.com/books/2020/mar/06/woody-allen-memoir-hachette-books>.
Thoring, A 2011, ‘Corporate Tweeting: Analysing the Use of Twitter as a Marketing Tool by UK Trade Publishers’, Publishing Research Quarterly, vol. 27, pp. 141–158.