This is Part 5 of a multiple-part live-blog of Jane Friedman’s The Business of Being a Writer. Parts 1-4 can be found here.
Writer and editor Jane Friedman believes writing can be a career, and her latest book, The Business of Being a Writer, lays out just what components go into writing as a business. It should resonate with everyone out there who writes or would like to write for a living. It’s my hope that teachers of writing, especially at the MFA level, will also take up this refrain.
I’m working through Friedman’s book right now, and I am finding places where my own experience either bolsters or informs Friedman’s neat summation and gentle advice. For the duration of my time through this first read of The Business of Being a Writer, I will be posting these experiences for you. I invite you to share widely, and add your own experiences to the comments. Each post will begin with a quote from Friedman’s book, and end with some actionable tips that you can put to work in your own writing career.
—
“A successful brand isn’t a sign of pandering to readers; rather, it evokes and emphasizes the why, or what the publication or publisher stands for.” (The Business of Being a Writer, page 74)
—
I think a lot about branding. It’s part of my day job as a copywriter, after all. But this week, it’s been thrown into full light with Kate Spade’s death.***
I was so moved by the stories people told about their first Kate Spade bags or purchases, in part because Kate Spade has not been a part of the company she founded for over a decade: She sold off a significant portion of it as early as 1999, just six years after it was founded, and stopped designing for them ages ago.
And yet, so many people wrote about how “Kate” made them feel “quick and curious and playful and strong,” and there is a definite sense that, with that passing of Spade herself, that iconography of a “quick, curious, playful and strong” woman–a quote often attributed to Spade herself but which I think actually was born in the brand’s copywriting department–has lost its originator. And this, this wonderful tie between what people feel and what is, even if it’s not exactly right–is the beauty of a strong narrative.
There are very few companies who have been able to pull off this kind of branding. Nike, maybe. Cheerios, or Mr. Clean, or maybe, better yet, Cap’n Crunch. But even those don’t have the immense personality that Kate Spade did. That’s because there’s no person behind those brands. And it’s the reason brands have to hire brand ambassadors.
Kate Spade was her brand. Even more, she memorialized a certain moment in time, I think, a certain New York minute, even as it stretched into two impressive decades. Her brand was hitting her stride the same time I moved to New York, the mid-nineties. Even I, not a fan of bows and ruffles and personal slogans, associate Kate Spade with my New York life, with buildings and walking tall because I was earning a liveable paycheck and going to parties in lofts and establishing my own brand of wit, trying it out on cocktail conversation and failing a lot, at least three times a week. Say “Kate Spade” to me and the words evoke a rush of memories attached to all my senses: pavement under my feet; the wind from Fifty-first Street rushing up Sixth Avenue as I rounded the corner to meet friends in that subway bar; the damp Manhattan summer night; the chatter of a restaurant at lunchtime.
In the end, Kate Spade’s brand succeeded because it knew exactly who it was talking to. It placed aspiration within reach of so many women, whereas other aspirational brands keep their wares just squarely and deliberately out of reach. With a Kate Spade bag, and later, in Kate Spade shoes and dresses and displaying a quirky quote on your notebook, you could be everything you thought Kate Spade hoped for you.**
—
When I bought a literary magazine with some friends last year, it was one of the best things I could do with my literary life. I had a lot of thoughts already on art, and what role it might play in these fraught times we live in, and being co-owner of a literary magazine that we could use to execute our (thankfully) aligning missions was really, really attractive.
In the light of the quote from Friedman’s book above, and with Kate Spade in mind, I’m thinking about the people behind why we do what we do.
For years, Tahoma Literary Review had been operating on a solid, three-legged platform. Those three legs were:
Transparency. The magazine tells you exactly what it does with every dollar.
Sustainability. We paid our writers first, so as to helps writers to continue their creative lives.
Community. TLR strives to promote, to our best capacity, the work of those who have published in our magazine.
When we took over, nothing really changed, except we made it a priority to even out the pay schematic, so all genres got paid the same, and started paying production crew and editors as well. But it wasn’t until I read Friedman’s words above that I was able to gain a deeper understanding of our mission. (TLR has a mission statement, but I think most mission statements can be made stronger with a firm grip on the why of a thing.)*
This is a slippery thing, see. And it can be uncomfortable. Some explorations of the why you’re driven to do a certain thing end up leaving you cold, because they’ve exposed you to be heartless. Or insecure, or selfish. For instance, how many of us start a literary magazine because we want to boost our own profiles, or volunteer someplace because we want to build our own skillset or meet people who are interested in similar things?
I think, at the end of the day, while we don’t have a specific end user in mind like Kate Spade does, we are similar to her brand narrative in one regard: Ultimately, we are about the reader. We are about the reader-as-consumer-of-words and the reader-as-writer-of-words, and yes, I do mean all those hyphens exactly where they are. We are about making the reading experience great by way of making the writing experience great.
We are about giving writers a leg up towards producing their very best work, and ensuring a great reading experience. We are about paying everyone involved in the production of our magazine, and ensuring sustainability of that great reading experience for years to come. We are about the new-to-short-stories or new-to-poetry or new-to-creative-nonfiction reader, and helping them to understand just what goes into making this reading experience for them.
Readers, in all their variations, are the why of Tahoma Literary Review. I am so grateful to have had this opportunity to say so.
Takeaways:
- Consider your origins when you look at sussing out your whys.
- Look broadly at the things you admire, the things with great narratives. Don’t think of just literature. Think of the things you have loyalty to.
- Conversely, look at the things that drive you in your life outside of reading and writing. What are those things?
What’s your“Why?” Do you have an end user in mind? Tell me below.
*These statements are independent from what our founding editors, Joe Ponepinto and Kelly Davio, may have said. Second, while I’ve talked to my co-editors and co-owners (Ann Beman, Jim Gearhart, and Mare Heron Hake) about this, these statements are largely my own thoughts.
**As I was editing this this morning, the news came through about Anthony Bourdain. He was another whose personality built his brand, and although I only saw his show “No Reservations” once, I have so many friends who admired him, and it’s for their loss of a personal guiding star and point of aspiration that I’m sad, as well.
***Racked.com has a wonderful, thorough discussion of Kate Spade’s brand.
My “why?” has almost always been to draw out our secrets – the things we don’t say, don’t admit, but probably universally feel – in a way that’s meant to either encourage empathy overall as well as compassion for oneself, or to start a conversation I think is important. (Latest book falls under “start a conversation I think is important.”) End user in mind: people interested in what a writer I interviewed once called “psychological fiction.”
When it comes to being one’s own brand, I think I am–but I also think that’s a problem, because I haven’t chosen a genre, a specific cause, a clearly defined audience, or even a concrete “persona.” But if I could choose one, I’d choose Dorothy Parker. If only I had her quick, snarky, hilarious, wit that undoubtedly would rule Twitter were she tweeting today…
Shoot – I have to add a revision to my original comment. It was only my first novel that could be called “psychological” (inside the head of a woman whose soul mate is deployed, what else could it be?). The second was general fiction, and the third was speculative. Still – not great (worse, possibly?) for branding purposes.
This is a hard thing for me to figure out. Yes, my brand is my Self, I’m sure of that. What it is about me that is my brand I’m not sure. Like Kristen, I don’t write just one thing.
I think it all comes down to voice. My author’s voice, which is…brisk? Self-deprecating? Witty sometimes, serious at other times, but hopefully never snooty, always down-to-earth.
And because writing isn’t the only thing I do, voice is my day job – in voice acting and narration.
Voice.
And what is my why? Probably two-fold: the desire to entertain, and the yearning to be heard.
Audience: mostly women over 35.
Thanks for helping me think this through.