Originally posted on The Writers Vineyard

That was the title of an article in the Globe and Mail last week. The topic discussed was the marketing of books and the requirement to be online.

The author of the article doesn’t buy into the argument that an online presence is necessary, instead suggesting that old fashioned methods like posters on telephone polls is the way to go. He also states that getting chosen for Oprah’s book club, nominated for the Giller prize or “Canada Reads”, or getting prominently displayed in Costco or Indigo is the way to get on the bestseller lists.

I’m not discounting the impact of posters but I can’t help but think that there isn’t any one thing will result in more book sales but that it is a combination of efforts.

I also think that an online presence ties in very nicely with the concept of eBooks. The very medium lends itself to an online presence, from the posting of excerpts and snippets online to links where people can purchase the eBook. It’s a very effective and efficient medium but it’s not for everybody.

The other fallacy in the article is that the impact of an online presence is limited to people who are actually online. Most people tend to have friends and family both online and offline. If someone enjoys your book, word can spread to people who have never seen your Facebook or MySpace page (and who probably never will) but that won’t stop them from buying your book.

The only portion of the article that I found myself in agreement with were comments made by a colleague of the writer who states that

“As a reader, I’m not that interested in a writer’s life or personality…”

She likens it to the separation of Church and State, this distinction between an author talking about topics of interest versus talking about themselves. It’s an interesting concept and one that I personally adhere to.

I’d love to know what you think. Leave me a comment - if I don’t get back to you right away, I’m probably on hold for Oprah.