Mind you, that definition of "regency" is a bit broad (I've seen everything from 1780s to 1850 or so sold as "Regency"), but it's still a bit monotonous.
I'm seeing a whole lot of steampunk/clockwork books from all the publishers (18th century Victorian and American Wild West eras).
I kinda burnt out on the older category romance from Harlequin growing up with aunts and neighbors that did the monthly subscriptions to various imprints -- but still get a wild hair and read some so long as not back to back and don't have tycoon/billionaire or mistress/virgin in title.
I'm not sure it's completely Harper Collins fault (well, their policies on library ebooks is HC's fault); I'm sure they don't do as well with monthly subscriptions like pre-Internet and large bookstore chains making the books so readily available.
I was happy to see monthly ebook bundle deals and blacklists (particularly backlist titles for still ongoing miniseries) -- thought that might breathe some new life into their finances. And it may have in a way if the recent decision was based on ebook versus print book sales, closing neighborhood bookstores, etc. I thought the newer MIRA, Nocturne, LUNA, Deseo, etc. lines might have helped -- but, obviously not enough since Harper was able to gobble them up.
I hope they don't sell ebooks exclusively through Amazon or their own site. I didn't think Harper was exactly thrilled with Amazon...?
I don't read much in the way of romance, so Harlequin is barely a blip on my reading radar, but it seems to me they'd be better served by choosing quality over quantity, rather than digital over print. It looks like they churn out a ton of titles and from the reviews I see, a lot of it is dreck.
Penguin started doing this in recent years with cozies - churning out title after title - and cozies started becoming asinine. Recent announcements have Penguin/RH dropping most of the underperforming series, and personally I think it's a welcome change. Hopefully we'll get better written books as a result.
Of course, my perspective could be totally wrong. Still, it's disappointing to see them reduce format options instead of taking a different tack.
Plus making even the print formats only available online hardly seems the brightest way to counteract shrinking brick-and-mortar bookstores. I'm not sure if just a local thing but Barnes and Noble and other bookstores + grocery chains + drugstores always had a rack, display or section for them. Maybe they're seeing too many brick-and-mortars returning mass unsold books because only want to display each month's new releases; I have no idea (presumably they do) how well their monthly subscriptions are doing, Back in the day (pre-Internet) not a lot of competition -- particularly in rural areas -- but seemed like their racks were pretty busy.
Always a toss up between tried-and-true formula versus tired-old-formula of some of the lines despite some standout, talented authors. I remember a marketing project comparing sales of books formerly "category romance" under Harlequin imprint versus the reissue under MIRA or other logos -- reissue minus the H. logo did better.
MbD - I think your right in that the decision should have been based on quality and not quantity. If you look at the new releases Harlequin puts out in the beginning of each month, it is way too much of the same thing (the market does not need 4 new medical romances for example). I also think Harlequin should look at spacing out their new releases over the entire month rather than the first week of the month.
Dear Author has a post quoting the ending of Harlequin Blaze: "...Harlequin is thrilled to announce the launch of a new sexy, contemporary series in July 2017. After carefully studying the market and monitoring reader feedback to our books and to competitive books, we are developing a series with a fresh new approach to the passion positioning..." -- http://dearauthor.com/features/industry-news/update-closing-harlequin-blaze-harlequin-historical/
Hmm, fresh new approach to passion positioning ... ummm ... will there be illustrations?
Debbie - call it the 50 Shades of Gray affect. Blaze was Harlequin's steamiest line, but had a set standard/quota that was practically quaint in this era of erotica-romance mash ups. Harlequin wants a piece of that 50SoG market. So the new line will have updated standards to compete with the light BDSM and more explicit sext talk found in contemporary romances already on the market.
Yet, why couldn't they just upgraded/updated Blaze's set of standards rather than start a new line? Doesn't make much (financial sense) to me.
I kinda burnt out on the older category romance from Harlequin growing up with aunts and neighbors that did the monthly subscriptions to various imprints -- but still get a wild hair and read some so long as not back to back and don't have tycoon/billionaire or mistress/virgin in title.
I'm not sure it's completely Harper Collins fault (well, their policies on library ebooks is HC's fault); I'm sure they don't do as well with monthly subscriptions like pre-Internet and large bookstore chains making the books so readily available.
I was happy to see monthly ebook bundle deals and blacklists (particularly backlist titles for still ongoing miniseries) -- thought that might breathe some new life into their finances. And it may have in a way if the recent decision was based on ebook versus print book sales, closing neighborhood bookstores, etc. I thought the newer MIRA, Nocturne, LUNA, Deseo, etc. lines might have helped -- but, obviously not enough since Harper was able to gobble them up.
I hope they don't sell ebooks exclusively through Amazon or their own site. I didn't think Harper was exactly thrilled with Amazon...?
The Harlequin lines are MIRA, Avon, HQN, LUNA, and the ones listed at http://www.harlequin.com/store.html?cid=233
Penguin started doing this in recent years with cozies - churning out title after title - and cozies started becoming asinine. Recent announcements have Penguin/RH dropping most of the underperforming series, and personally I think it's a welcome change. Hopefully we'll get better written books as a result.
Of course, my perspective could be totally wrong. Still, it's disappointing to see them reduce format options instead of taking a different tack.
Always a toss up between tried-and-true formula versus tired-old-formula of some of the lines despite some standout, talented authors. I remember a marketing project comparing sales of books formerly "category romance" under Harlequin imprint versus the reissue under MIRA or other logos -- reissue minus the H. logo did better.
Hmm, fresh new approach to passion positioning ... ummm ... will there be illustrations?
Yet, why couldn't they just upgraded/updated Blaze's set of standards rather than start a new line? Doesn't make much (financial sense) to me.