Branding: Does the publisher matter to you?

[Yapyap]

I don't really make my reading decisions based on publishers, but I've noticed that more often than not, HarperCollins seems to be putting out reliably good books in the genres I prefer, most noticeably in YA (and they don't seem to be afraid to sign up first-time authors either) - reliable as in not awful plot-wise, competent editing, and in my experience, good ebooks (with active table of contents and chapter marks, and occasionally even keeping the print book illuminated letters or drop caps intact).

So if I look at a book and notice it's a HC ebook, I may well take a second look at the description even if it didn't capture me instantly. If I still don't find it interesting, I move on, but sometimes I've given it a go anyway just based on prior experience with the publisher.

On the other hand, I've seen small formatting issues in some Simon & Schuster ebooks from a few years ago. Not enough to put me off from S&S, but enough to prepare me mentally to deal with minor issues whenever I start a new book and notice it's S&S.

I don't think I've really had either notably positive or negative experiences with other big publishers or their imprints.

[K. Molen]

I answered "Some."

I would never buy a specific book just because it's published by one publisher or another, but I definitely stay away from certain books because of the publisher. Harlequin comes to mind. They have very specific brand, and I'm just not interested in the kind of stories their brand promises.

[ATDrake]

Sometimes. I buy artbooks, mini-reference, and genre fiction, and those tend to be subject to a certain consistency in certain imprints.

I know that X series of books from Y non-fiction line, even if they all have different authors, will be at roughly the same standard of quality and style (those Oxford Very Short Introductions, for example). And for fiction, sometimes a particular imprint will have a particular style (e.g. Baen is basically your go-to publisher for a certain kind of milSF).

Whoever handled the comedic fantasy/sf acquisitions for Ace in the late 80s and early 90s seems to have had almost exactly my taste in comedic fantasy/sf most of the time, and I do look for that spine logo when I'm in the used bookstore, because there's a really good chance that I'll enjoy a comedic fantasy/sf from them if it was published during that period.

Similarly, when looking for e-books to buy, I find that certain publishers tend to have a fairly good selection of stuff I'm more likely to like in particular niches (e-Reads seems pretty good for reprinting backlist fantasy authors I end up enjoying, though their sf selections are a lot more hit-and-miss), so I look for their imprint/"brand" when browsing the store to see if they've added more items/new authors that I can potentially try.

But it only works to a certain extent, as I've picked up some duds from my trusted "brands" and some very good things from previously-unknowns. But in many cases it does provide a fairly reliable bare minimum assurance of a certain level of production quality and potential enjoyability.

[rhadin]

Originally Posted by Rob Lister

So, without being overtly told, you know. On a mass-market scale, do you think being overtly told have an impact on the bottom line? Not, 'would it influence you' but rather 'would it influence most?'.

I think most people who buy books do not consciously associate with a publisher but I do think they tend to look for recognized publishers of the types of books they are interested in. For example, I do not think anyone would buy a fantasy book simply because it is published by Tor but I do think they would look at a fantasy book published by Tor before they would look at a fantasy book published by Joe Schmoe. They might end up buying Schmoes book rather than Tor's book, but if it is published by Tor they will look at it, if it is published by Schmoe they may or may not even look at it.

We are not yet far enough away from traditional and pbook publishing for most readers to not be unconsciously influenced by a known publishers name at least to the extent of looking at the book.

[DrNefario]

I think there are some publisher brands that are particularly associated with some kind o product, like Baen and military SF, or Mills & Boon and romance, so that if you buy something from them, you kind of know what you are getting.

[stonetools]

THe publishers till now have a B2B business and have marketed accordingly. Those in business know the difference between Knopf and Little, Brown, but the rest of us don't, even if we have heard of those names. Going forward, the BPHs will be experimenting with direct to consumer, so expect more marketing along those lines. Bookmark Bookish.com-that ill feature the BPHs biggest efforts at B2C.

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by rhadin

I think most people who buy books do not consciously associate with a publisher but I do think they tend to look for recognized publishers of the types of books they are interested in. For example, I do not think anyone would buy a fantasy book simply because it is published by Tor but I do think they would look at a fantasy book published by Tor before they would look at a fantasy book published by Joe Schmoe. They might end up buying Schmoes book rather than Tor's book, but if it is published by Tor they will look at it, if it is published by Schmoe they may or may not even look at it.

It works the other way, too. If I'm reading a description of a book that mentions fantasy elements, I will be more likely to pass on it if it's from a fantasy/SF publisher, rather than a mainstream publisher, because I don't generally like fantasy/SF. Same thing with romantic suspense--if it's from Harlequin, I'll decide it's probably too much romance and not enough suspense, so I'll pass.

[leebase]

Baen comes to mind for me. I'm much more likely to try an author or book I find from Baen. I just seem to really like the books Baen puts out. But that's more of an exception than the rule.

I couldn't tell you who publishes the vast majority of the books/authors I read.

Lee

[Kumabjorn]

Nope, the book and its content is what makes me decide.
Having said that, should I discover that books from a certain publisher is generally edited in a sloppy manner I would probably start to avoid their products. Generally though, I don't pay any attention to the publisher nor to the author's Acknowledgement rants.

[BeccaPrice]

I buy strictly by author. I couldn't tell you who publishes Nora Roberts or Jayne Ann Krentz. I know Baen publishes Lois Bujold's Vorkosigan books (because I'm breathlessly waiting the eARC of Captain Vorpatril's Alliance), but couldn't tell you who publishes her fantasies, except that it isn't Baen.

I do tend to avoid Harlequin, because they publish category books which (except when one is highly praised at Dear Author) I don't buy because they usually don't have enough plot for me. There was a time when I'd look at a historical romance that sounded interesting and realize it was published by Avon, but I didn't go looking for Avon books.

[GA Russell]

I voted No.

Black Lizard has for the past decade or more obtained the rights to publish old hard-boiled things that I would like to read, but they were best sellers before Black Lizard came into the picture. Still, if these stories were good enough for Black Lizard to purchase, that's something of a credible endorsement.

And Black Lizard is an imprint of a larger company. Who that company is I would have to look up.

[SteveEisenberg]

I gave the same answer as most people. I doesn't matter to me. However, one of the main ways I find out about books and authors is looking at public library new book shelves. And the acquisitions librarian may be influenced by publisher reputation. Or the reviewers that the acquisitions librarian follows may be influenced by publisher reputation.

About half the books I read are professionally edited, heavily researched, non-fiction requiring extensive and expensive author travel. In a few cases, like the book I finished ten minutes ago, a lot of that support comes from a major newspaper. But when it comes to topics like 9/11 and its aftermath, few good books are going to appear without the backing of a major publisher. And researched books not ripped from headlines, such as the one I am about to start, are even less likely to happen without the backing of a strong publisher.

Indie is mostly for books that are works of pure imagination or memory. Yes, such books are important.

[emellaich]

Baen, is one of the few who have tried to brand. Baen means a specific type (military/action science fiction). Furthermore, Baen means a specific attitude towards books and specifically electronic books.

Outside of Baen, I couldn't tell you what the other publishers stand for. I do agree that there appear to be some romance imprints that try to set their own brands, but I don't follow that genre.

[The Terminator]

I don't pay much attention, I do like some publishers better but only because they allow promo codes.

[jsmack65]

The publisher absolutely matters, particularly if it's a publisher or imprint that specializes in a certain genre. A publisher is essentially a curator, and their track record of aquisitions can tell the reader a lot. Almost everything the old Grove Press published was worth reading. Black Lizard had impecable taste when it came to crime fiction, as do Hard Case and Melville House. If it's an author I'm not already familiar with, the fact that a publisher I've come to trust chose to aquire the book can tip the balance.