I think this post belongs in the 'publishing' sub forum. No worries, and welcome to the community. First seems to match better for YA sci fi. The art is inviting. The second would be nice for a biography, general fiction, or more hardcore sci fi; it seems old-fashioned in a good way. Speaking of biographies, the "how x..." tagline made me think the book was nonfiction for a solid five seconds. I worked very early this morning, though, so it could be my head fog to blame. Just thought you'd want to hear that first impression.
frankly I don't like either of them - but that's mostly a reflection of the title being a non fiction style and not suitable for a novel that asid A is miles better than B, but I'd strongly suggest looking at premades instead of either of them - and maybe changing the title
Hello Kyle I know you have posted the same question elsewhere. My guess is you will get the same answer.
The one on the right has something of a retro feel to it - reminds me of the afternoon school science programs we used to get back in the 70s - so I prefer that one by a long way. When I saw it I immediately thought of this type of music - which depending on your age and nationality may mean nothing to you. But I agree with @big soft moose - the appearance and wording make it look and sound more like a factual text book.
If it takes place in the nineties or earlier, when computers looked that way, probably B. If it's future tech sci-fi (or retro cyber punk,) A. Either way, the title does sound non-fiction. It's the first thing I thought. Is it done in the style of nf? If so, it makes sense but will still confuse potential readers. Blue Screen is fine on its own. It's the subtitle that does it. I see that and assume this is a book about a major, but forgotten player behind the scenes in the early days of Silicon Valley or something. If you're going to keep it, add "a Novel" to it either with a colon after "World" or in the by line: "A Novel by..." That could work, but I would seriously consider scrapping the subtitle instead.
A looks like something I'd pickup while browsing the local bookstore. Looks nice. B looks like something to gift the family Pointdexter.
A is just like any other science fiction YA novel cover. If you want your book to blend in, choose that. If you want it to stick out and be more unique, choose B. It may seem more simple, but that's what's good about it. Everything is so complex today that we've come to a point where simplicity stands out.
Neither one. Now it depends on what genre you're shooting for, but you need to go and look at the covers for successful novels in that genre as a guide on what to do. It is the job of the cover to draw the eye of the reader. Neither one of those would make me pause for a second.
except that for effective marketing you want to fit in - the subconcious message given to readers by a cover that fits in is that the book will be like other books in the genre... which is a good thing since the target audience is fans of that genre... covers that are unique don't communicate this message and generally achieve lower sales (unless you are very lucky and achieve a breakout status like say 'one day' at which point the design becomes the new standard). the idea of uniqueness and standout marketting comes from big products which are one off purchases, not small items that are regular purchases The corollary to that is that anything that looks amateur communicates that the book too will be amateur, and kills all known sales, dead
One of my favourite SP covers is for this book of poetry. It's like a big two-finger salute to the kind of covers you see on the Best Sellers shelf in bookshops.
No, perhaps not. But I doubt a SP book of poetry would be a best seller even if you paid a cover designer £1500 for the privilege. What's more, were I perusing the scant poetry shelf in a bookshop, this would catch my eye far quicker than anything else. And there are times when one shouldn't compromise. I think the cover perfectly reflects the tone and style of the contents. Anything else would have been wrong.
tbh poetry and best seller is a bit of an oxymoron at the best of times... its a very different market from YA Sci Fi
I don't know, man. If you blend in, how do you stand out? In order to catch someone's eye, you can't be like everything else they see. Traditional marketing and all that crap isn't my style. Think about this, how many books are there that follow the traditional cover rules or whatever? The majority. But very few of those are ever best sellers or even decent sellers.
and yet https://www.amazon.co.uk/Best-Sellers-Books-Crime-Thrillers-Mystery/zgbs/books/72 that book that's number one best seller couldn't be any more stereotypical thriller cover if it tried in fact nearly every best selling novel has a cover that fits in with the genre in which its selling... because that's how you achieve big sales. You don't want to stand out , you want the reader of other books to get the impression that they want to read yours too...you then persuade them to buy it through your blurb, and to a lesser extent your reviews
I checked out the fantasy top sellers list on amazon. I just don't like the typical modern trend of figure(s) on a surreal background drowning in special effects. Seriously, do you need glowing fog, a lightning bolt, and bits of fire confetti? The template seems cheap and makes me assume the writing will be too. Like these: Spoiler These beauties, however, invite me to blurb-scan and whip out the credit card: Spoiler
I agree. The cover has massive implications about the writing quality to me. If the cover looks amateurish, I assume that the book will be too. Those covers are beautiful, by the way. Almost makes me want to read the books That said, OP, I think option A looks ok. Not great, but ok.
What hits me is : Tron Knockoff. Not saying that is what it is, since I don't know the story, but that is what the title and graphic suggests. Though I agree with the consensus that A is far better than B. B would be something I could see finding it's way to : https://lousybookcovers.com/ So I would say keep A, or if there is enough call for it to be changed, then go that route. Otherwise, good luck.
I'm not crazy about either of these designs. The first one is way too busy. Not enough space between the title and subtitle, so the eye tends to skip the subtitle and then try to make sense of the picture underneath. The computer screen is fairly obvious, and the netty-looking background is okay, but what is that thing rising out of the silver puddle underneath? The 'computery' font is also a bit too unreadable. And the author's name is really just 'not there' in terms of visual impact. The second one is clear as a bell, but looks very amateurish and out of balance. (The whole thing should be moved up the page, allowing more space between the title, the subtitle, and the author's name.) And is the computer in the story meant to be old-fashioned? I mean, I haven't had a computer that looks like that since the late 1990s. Questions arise....
Honestly the one on the right looks like it would be on something that had been xeroxed. And I agree that the subtitle (on either cover) makes it look like some historical event that very few people outside the computer world know about, something like when Stanislov Petrov (I had to look it up again) saved the world from nuclear Armageddon.
I think you're missing a trick. I'l like to see the title and author in DOS typeface on the blue screen
If you could see my sock-pants combo right now you wouldn't listen to a word I say about what looks stylish, but I like the idea of B. I think it needs a little tweaking, but it has potential.
