You know what I hate more than the badly photoshopped romance cover? The new vector art trend.
They almost all look the same. They remind me of how kids board games looked back in 2007
Like why is this a thing? I almost prefer the random woman in the front thing.
They do provide flexibility because there’s no need to rely on stock photos or pay for photo shoots, which makes them ideal to represent the characters in the book properly, as stock photos have a huge and glaring lack of diversity. That’s a big point in their favor.
I like them myself because they remind me of the chick lit era and that was a fun time in reading for me. But I also think of these as being marketed as “Romance novels it’s okay to like” and it kinda irritates me on behalf of all the other romance novels that don’t get this cover treatment, shelf placement and higher selling price.
@thebibliosphere & @caitlynlynch
Wasn’t there a kerfuffle on twitter a few months ago (A month? What is time?) regarding this? Like someone wrote an article complaining about the vector/illustrated novel trend. And wasn’t the consensus that the article was just chock-full privilege. Like a lot of different privilege.
Like:
- 1. Classism -- As @respectingromance pointed out. Stock photo sites are massively lacking. Which means that unless you (the author) or your publisher pay for the photoshoot, you’re kind of out of luck. Photoshoots are expensive and generally run a minimum of $1500-3000 to shoot. And that’s just for the couple. If you need a background that’s an additional cost. Then there’s the cost of a cover designer... in most trad pub cases that’s also in the $500-$2000 range.
- As a point of reference -- stock photos/vectors are substantially cheaper with some of them being in the creative commons.
- Illustrated covers like the ones above are cheaper to have made probably costing the publisher/author $500 - $1000 for the cover as a whole.
- Stock photos are themselves not cheap. Most “Free” stock photo sites you have to seriously watch out for if there are people in the shot. (In most cases, the uploader may not have gotten the model’s release.) Paid sites can run between $100 for 100 photos to $100 for 1 photo depending on what is needed. For an indie, small press author this is a limiter.
- Racism in stock photography - Good luck finding people of color. While there are more Black (both men and women) and East Asian (mostly women) contemporary photo shoots now up on stock photo sites good luck finding with couples. Particularly if you write interracial or historical couples. Or historical interracial couples.
- Homophobia in stock photography - If you think that finding people of color is bad, it hell to find LBGT couples. Most of the time cover designers have to do a Frankenstein job or do a floating head cover and most people don’t like those. Again it’s particularly bad in historical. Or if you want an interracial LBGT cover... or, heaven forbid (/sarcasm), an lbgt interracial historical cover.
- Ableism in stock photography. Just like there’s a fuckton of ableism in society itself there’s a lot in the stock photo business. You can SOMETIMES find someone in a wheelchair. Sometimes. Most of the time, though, the photo isn’t usable or portrays the disabled person as somehow lesser. But what if you have an amputee hero/heroine? One who is blind? Deaf? Scarred? Burned? Female with Alopecia? Vitiligo? In a wheelchair but missing a limb/limbs? Good luck. Again, don’t get me started on the lack of LBGT or PoC options. And in this case, good luck finding models. You aren’t going to be able to hire off of the street in most town, you’ll need to put out a call or fly someone in and that also costs money. Oh, you want historical? Excuse me while I point to the giant expanse of nothing.
- Fatophobia in stock photography. Again... fuckton of body-negativity in stock photos. Also let’s be frank... we can accept an illustrated fat person easier than a real one. (Again don’t get me started on the Ableism, homophobia, and racism when it comes to fat models)
From what I remember of the conclusion, authors like KJ Charles, Mia Sosa, and a whole slew of others basically went “Fuck you” to the article.
Is there anything else I’m forgetting?
I know that these covers tend to sell better in stores where people don’t have to deal with the stigma that the “clinch” cover has. They’re somehow seen as more literary or more YA and appeal to a wider demographic.
Basically if you want to see fewer illustrated covers in romance there’s a lot of back end work that needs to be done. Particularly on the publisher side and stock photo side. Because speaking as an author who wrote a novel featuring interracial couple where one of them has a major disability (Biracial Latina Heroine, White Amputee Hero) finding any kind of representation was hard. We ended up going 90s old school with an “object” cover because we couldn’t find our leads represented everywhere and their heritage and disabilities mattered.
Then there’s the other problem of readers aren’t willing to pay much for books. So why drop $$$ on a cover for a book that’s going to be priced at free or $0.99? Even books that cost $4.99 (Which is the most most readers are willing to pay for an e-book) will take a long time to recoup costs. And when you factor other publishing costs in like editing, formatting, and marketing. You can see why saving any money on anything matters.
So there’s a lot of reasons for the vector cover trend.
Personally, I don’t mind it. I prefer the old school clinch cover, but that’s because I’m old. LOL
You absolutely did not miss anything @christinaroseandrews
Personally, I really like the vector cover trend. They allow for affordable diversity in an industry where diversity is severely lacking and financial constraints are often an issue for marginalized authors trying to get their work out there and past the barriers of mainstream publishing.
We all have our preferences of course, but these covers have gained popularity for a reason. Does it annoy me when I see mainstream publishers who can afford to pay artists and photographers to bring about change and diversity to the industry making these covers? Yes, absolutely. Am I going to criticize small publishers and indie authors (myself included) for using them? Absolutely not.
I guarantee you when the time comes for some of my novels to have covers, there won’t be any stock photos available. Vector covers will be my only option, unless I somehow win the lottery and can afford to pay for models and photographers. As it is, I can barely afford the cost of some vector cover art.