Accidentally calling out your fans
I was recently enjoying my nightly scroll through TikTok when I stumbled upon a user who was starting a fresh account with only one goal in mind: to read all of the books on the brand-new 100 Best Books of The 21st Century from The New York Times. She’d already read book 100 and not enjoyed it, but was so far having a better time with book 99, Bel Canto by Ann Patchett (no surprise there, who doesn’t love her writing). It got me thinking—while the furor around the list seems to have come and gone, it was still rubbing me the wrong way, and this account exemplified some of my feelings.
On the face of it, I think the NYT editors did a lot of things right with this article: 1) they rolled it out in an exciting way with groups of entries released every day of the week, 2) created an interactive and social element to check off which books you’ve read or want to read with a fun shareable graphic (see above), 3) shared lists of who voted for what, and 4) employed a transparent voting system. Plus, the author representation on the list is diverse, so you may be unsure why I feel the Times fell on its face with this one.
Well, a cardinal rule of marketing is that you always want to keep and reward your loyalists. With this list, the Times quickly made thousands of readers feel like fools. Instead of people posting how amazing the list was, we all found ourselves sharing something to the tune of, “I’m not embarrassed; I’ve only read a few of these and I’m an avid reader!”
In creating the list, the Times, intentionally or not, reinforced some nasty stereotypes that the literary community is working to throw off: that children’s literature (notably absent, despite my feeling on the author, is the Harry Potter books) is not as important, that romance isn’t literature at all (not a single romance book was listed), that most popular books are not as “good” as others.
To compound this, they put the nail in their own coffin by subsequently releasing the Reader Picked version of the list. Books that had been in the 80s and 90s suddenly shot up to the 20s and beyond (think: Tomorrow, and Tomorrow, and Tomorrow and Demon Copperhead). Some saw this as an olive branch to readers, a concession, while I and many others felt like this was the true list, and not the one they’d shared, which altogether felt snobby despite the diverse panel they claim to have brought together to create it. Many books appeared on both, but much of the list was turned on its head. Beyond that, other publications responded, including Time Magazine who released a 50 Best Romance Novels list, so take that!
So, what happened?
Reading, like so many other pleasurable activities, is completely subjective. I honestly question whether or not they ever could’ve released this list and gotten a positive response in the first place. Did they even expect one? Or was this just a ploy to get clicks? If so, they were successful. And let’s be clear, in all the metrics in terms of clicks, buzz, and social shares, it was definitely a win for the Times. It generated a buzz they certainly were hoping for—whether positive or negative, it got people talking.
Beyond that, when people who pride themselves on reading and loving books look at this list bewildered, you have to wonder how in touch they are with the population at large. I know this has been a question for a few years now about the New York Times, but this time it alienated readers in a whole new way. People felt judged, whether or not they were. Some people started sharing what they’d read with captions proudly proclaiming how out of touch the publication was, that they had barely read any of the books, while others took it as proof positive that they were superior readers, creating a divide in the audience.
To me, the biggest problem lies in this: reading is good for you and your brain. Why bother creating a list that makes others feel judged based on what they are reading? The fact that they are reading is all that matters, not what they are reading. If you love romance novels, you should be proud! Literary fiction? Good for you! Sci-fi? Enjoy!
Many gripe about “BookTok” and how it’s dumbing down readers, but it’s singlehandedly raising book sales, which had been on a scary decline for years, and saving bookstores, so I don’t think we should really complain!
What I like about BookTok is that instead of creating a culture that alienates and calls people out, it does what we should all be striving to do: call people in instead. It’s creating a place where your loyalists and die-hards are gathering, even if they aren’t reading the “great literature” of the time. The key to any successful brand is community, and remembering that you should always be building yours is the key to avoiding slip-ups like these.
Lesson Learned: Your community isn’t only for your brand loyalists. If you don’t invite new members in, you’ll wither on the vine. Don’t alienate people on the way to doing so.
