Who doesn’t want to publish a book? No one is the correct answer.
But, it’s hard out there for an author. Given changes in traditional book selling and shrinking marketing budgets authors are forced to engage in what may at first glance look like unseemly tactics but are really just solid book selling techniques. We are a capitalist society after all. What kind of person is against free enterprise? A Commie is the correct answer.
Take, Peter Singer, noted Princeton professor, and author of the recently released (April 7th to be exact) book– The Most Good You Can Do: How Effective Altruism Is Changing Ideas About Living Ethically.
This guy could teach a class in book release promotion. Just following him in the press I have been able to glean some useful strategies for how no-cost book promotion works.
These steps should be rolled out within the first few weeks of publication for optimal effect.
First, make a controversial statement preferably about a defenseless and vulnerable population.
For Singer it was arguing “it is reasonable for public and private insurance to deny treatment to severely disabled babies”—you know because they are so worthless and yet so expensive. The key here is relying on the press to use a term a bit punchier than “deny treatment”. Something like: “Princeton professor calls for killing disabled infants…”
“Killing” is chilling and Cha-ching! See how easy?
Second, tie your argument to an equally controversial subject.
Again, Singer nails it! His hot topic joiner: Obamacare. He “argued the health-care system under Obamacare should openly acknowledge health-care rationing and that the country should acknowledge the necessity of “intentionally ending the lives of severely disabled infants.”
Who doesn’t hate Obamacare and disabled babies? Is this guy a genius or what? He really is—not just my opinion.
Third, play the intellectualism card.
This one is essential. Now that I think about it maybe it should have been number one.
You must be a known intellectual. Sing it, Singer!
The intellectual argument acts as a protective shield for the ethics of most any argument. As example the Aryan Brotherhood says offensive and poisonous things all the time but they don’t have the same cred as Singer. They are not what you would call “thinkers”.
Intellectuals can get away with a raft of shit just because they are such smarty pants. Seriously, what’s better than being smart?
Third, completely objectify your opponent.
Singer goes for the one-two punch here. He eschews person-first-language: disabled infants vs. infants with disabilities. But he is suggesting killing them so that’s the trump card.
The real impact is that Singer “repeatedly referred to a disabled infant as “it”.” This one was likely for the parents and loved ones in the crowd. Singer was and is an almost daily subject on social media related to disability. Using a strategically picked word Singer was able to rally the troops. Like bees to the honey. Singer you are so money!
Fourth, be pro something that seems counter-intuitive to your argument.
Singer is a rabid animal activist! Is he one Sneaky Pete or what? Get it? He loves animals but not disabled babies. Oh, Singer, you slay me:)
Fifth, engage in public dialogue with another professor in The New York Times.
Singer knows nothing really happens unless it happens in The Times. If you are a professor your advocate choice is easy: it’s another professor. Singer was interviewed by George Yancy a professor of philosophy at Duquesne University. The Op-Ed piece was titled: Peter Singer: On Racism, Animal Rights and Human Rights and there was no mention of the controversial statement made almost a month before on denying infants with disabilities medical care.
Who better to play it safe with then another person who pontificates daily to audiences of neophytes that have to listen to you? There is zero chance of re-thinking sticky situations.
The Times is happy to provide unpaid-for-space to cage rattlers like Singer who have advanced degrees. In fact it might even read like an endorsement. Circling back: There has never been an op-ed piece in the paper by a member of the Aryan Brotherhood.
Lastly, the reader’s comment section is guaranteed to go THROUGH THE FUCKING ROOF!
Sixth, if you are not able to access any of these steps in your own book promotion engage in some meaningful way with a Kardashian.
If you don’t have the chops or the stomach to take on humanity like Rock Star Singer in order to sell books then you will have to make do some other way. With regard to the Kardashian’s– top trier only here for your purpose. That means all the one’s that start with “K”: Kim, Kourtney, Khloe, Kim, Kendall and Kylie. Never Rob. Even North West–clearly, no one in that family has ever flown commercial– has more clout that Rob.
Who doesn’t want to sell books and rule the world? No one is the correct answer.
Reprinted on The Good Men Project
Singer calls it Preference Utilitarianism. The Nazis called it eugenics. It’s all the same.
Ah Kari, you’ve been reading Jonathan Swift again, haven’t you?
Is that punishing with humor?
sorry I meant to respond to someone else with that post!
This is good. Next, please write a piece for The Onion satirizing the media infatuation with stories about people with Down syndrome and prom or something equally inane.
That’s a good idea:)