Not that I read romance, but think they’re cute. They’re probably perfect for the target demographic, which I imagine is women who grew up reading stuff like The Princess Diaries.
Something else that probably plays into this is that a lot of the trends for contemporary romance are heavily fan-fic driven. Ali Hazelwood got her start writing Reylo (Rey + Kylo Ren) fanfic. All the hockey romances that are becoming a thing? Hockey fanfic was a huge trend a couple of years ago. They’re wanting to highlight the bright, cutesy, wish-fulfillment aspect of it.
You gotta be kidding. I can't say I've ever read a romance novel, but I do remember the days of Fabio. I thought he was corny. But these are downright abominable. Do they have an audience of third graders? The cover is your first impression of a book. I am not impressed. But I like your post. As always.
Not familiar with the genre, so this was quite eye-opening to me. As someone who has read 19th-century novels with joy, and seen the world turn from Trollope to beach reads, I knew we were in an anti-intellectual period, but whoa, those covers! They look as if they are reaching out to people and saying ‘don’t be afraid of this book. See the bright, funny, comic-like covers?’
And of course they had marketing people tell them this would expand their markets.
This is just a small sampling too. If there are people on a romance cover and they’re not actual humans, they’re drawn in this style. I’ve also seen YA covers that look similar. It’s everywhere and it’s horrifying.
Maybe the contemporary covers are an attempt to hide the contents. Make the physical book more acceptable in public? I write with paranormal romance, but have always much preferred covers leaning into the fantasy side of the story. Chesty man or poor cartoons would never pass my beta reader's approval, so they are a no go. But if they sell books, I can't argue with the author who prefers not to starve. Still, I agree; it is an ugly trend.
As a reader of mostly historical, I miss the pretty landscape covers they had back in the late 90s early 00s. They were beautiful and focused more on setting and capturing that. But I might be in the minority. I always find the people to not match or be the same model so was never a big fan of those either. Now we’re in the illustrated era, but I don’t think it works for all subgenres. It likely works well when done well for romcoms and that as it’s not meant to be serious and illustrations can convey that. I’m not a designer though and struggle with that on my own lol
I bet a lot of these cutesy romances could have a landscape picture since so many of them take place at a certain location (beach, mountains, highlands, lake etc.) and then the art style could lean toward Impressionism so you can get the feeling that it isn’t too serious of a book. I’m not much of a designer either, but I know there’s more than one way to convey “fluffy romance.”
Yeah, these have been taking over more and more of the displays at my local library...
I suppose a good thing I can say about them is that they immediately telegraph the plot setup to a casual browser. They might not literally be subtitled "contemporary rivals to lovers nurse/athlete romance at a ski resort", but that's what you get from this level of cover illustration. My guess is it's very good at driving online/ebook sales on impulse, or getting a reader to look something up after spotting the cover, without requiring them to click through further and read the blurb. As a 100% digital writer right now, I get it and think it's clever (if that's really why it works). As somebody just there to pick up the kids' books, I wonder how you'd ever know if you had read that one already.
It’s kinda like those movie trailers that give the entire plot away. I don’t have a problem with knowing what the genre is by the cover, or near enough to what the genre is. But man, would it kill these artists to have a shred of individuality?
My husband can't stand this trend. I think it has a lot to do with romance being popularized among the Bookstagram and Booktok crowd. Publishers are keeping covers similar not only as a visual cue to define the genre, but so that the books can look aesthetically pleasing in everyone's social media book stack/bookshelf photos, because the people who are buying these books en masse are usually the folks taking pictures of them.
That sounds a bit scummy though, doesn’t it? Like, hey, we know you don’t care about good writing and characters, so look at this shiny object you can display on your shelf and then forget about ten seconds later. It’s like that phrase I’ve heard so often, “Consume product and get excited for next product.”
Agreed. In trying to make all these books look the same, they’re implying that all these books are the same. “Here’s your strong female protagonist (of color if you’re lucky!) winning at life, misunderstanding this guy who’s never harmed her personally, having sex with him by page 100, and then thinking she might be falling in love with him before a minor inconvenience breaks them up for a while. But don’t worry, they’re getting back together, I promise! Insert sport/holiday/trope here. And a dash of color for the ‘gram!” They’ve found the winning recipe and they’re going to stick with it, at the cost of anything even remotely different.
Romance really is the epitome of “If you’ve read one, you’ve read them all.” I’d add the “random subplot involving a murder/stalker/robbery/biker gang that is both shallow and annoying.”
I’m sure I’m not the target demographic, but I certainly agree these are all pretty awful.
It seems to be received wisdom that the first job of a cover is to signal what the genre is, but taken too far this seems to suggest that all books within a genre are basically interchangeable—which I am sure they aren’t. The other side of the coin is that genres are often seen as being completely detached from each other, rather than the permeable and overlapping categories they really are—or should be.
I’m thinking I need to do something about my own (defiantly non-generic) covers for my next post.
I don’t know how romance readers keep track of the books they’ve read, or if they even care about each one being noticeably different. I’d think that at the very least, each publishing company might have its own style, because I assume they all have their own artists. Unless AI covers are a lot more prevalent than I thought.
It's not a trend I'm fond of, but, sadly, it's a pretty major cover trend right now (and has been for some time). That type of cover is specifically a genre cue for contemporary romance, rom com, and cozy romance. The other romance sub-genres each have different cover trends and many of them imply the 'heat' level of the books. That particularly one, is generally for the low heat, fluffier romances. How in the world that cover trend came to take off, I've no idea.
Sometimes I’ll look at the giveaways on Goodreads and try to guess what genre the book is just by looking at the cover. It’s way too easy for romances and thrillers, because they all have the most uninspired, copy/paste look. What happened to artists expressing themselves with their own unique style? That’s what I’ve always thought was the point of being an artist.
I do freelance as an illustrator/cover designer and the problem is, book covers aren't just about the art. As they're one of your biggest marketing tools having a cover that clearly indicates the genre is important to ensure it attracts the right audience. This is even more critical for indieauthors as most of the time potential readers are going to just be seeing a thumbnail so hitting those genre cues is super important. However, there are still ways to have a cover 'on point' for your genre and yet still take a more creative risk with the style. It can be a real struggle though to find the right balance between 'unique, artsy cover' and 'functional, on point marketing.' At the end of the day though, the cover has a job to do and sometimes for it to do it well, you have to compromise on the fun side of it.
That sounds like a really interesting job, and kinda frustrating.
If I saw a wall of all these types of romance covers, and among them one cover with a random filigree design, I’m looking at the random design because it stands out, and perhaps the writing will set itself apart from the usual style too. I suppose that’s why I’m not a cover artist: I’d want to go off script too much :)
It would stand out, yes, but would it tell you want it needed to tell you about what type of book it is? Filigree on a romance cover in most cases is likely to indicate historical romance or (depending on the font) even fantasy romance (this is especially true if it covers the whole cover and isn't just a small element of it), but what if it's a contemporary romance? Now, it could be made to work, but it would have to be done extremely carefully and combined with more recognizable cues for that subset of romance. Sending mixed or wrong genre cues can lead not just to poor sales, but to bad reviews if the wrong reader buys it expecting a different kind of story. That said, there are ways to buck the trends and still make it work or to take just enough of the right genre cues and then do your own thing with them. Honestly though, I'm not sure I could ever take a commission for a contemporary romance cover. I really, really don't like their cover styles either 😂. I've niched down to the same genres I read/write. I think they have a lot more wiggle room for creativity while still hitting the right genre cues so there's less need for that disappointing compromise.
A few years ago, these were the covers for women's lit. You know, the kind where she dumps her man and lives her best life among her girl friends. Or it was for romantic comedy. What are these now? The same old tropey dirty romances? They look like children's books.
Women’s lit, romcoms, tropey dirt…they’re all interchangeable at this point, as shown by these covers.
I don’t seek out children’s books, but when I happen to see a newly published one, it also has this “art” style and that’s unfortunate because kids should see creative art to help them appreciate true art.
Yeah, I don't understand that cover trend. I've read romance, but usually fantasy or supernatural romance like Sherrilyn Kenyon so they definitely don't follow this trend. Two of my books (1 of them unpublished) are fantasy romance and have covers nothing like this. None of mine have people on the covers though, just imagery. These covers look like they were made in five minutes by a beginner artist.
Ooo, yes! Imagery over soulless cartoons is the way to go.
Maybe these covers aren’t easy to draw…? With all the debate around AI and human artists, you’d think humans would try harder to prove that they’re the right/better choice.
That's a good question, but it's the same question that I've asked about most Modern Art. Why does it look like we've gone back in time to '32? Artists should be able to create vibrant covers.
But then, I grew up when Fabio was on almost every book cover in the romance section, and artists like Bell, Vallejo, and others.
Not that I read romance, but think they’re cute. They’re probably perfect for the target demographic, which I imagine is women who grew up reading stuff like The Princess Diaries.
Something else that probably plays into this is that a lot of the trends for contemporary romance are heavily fan-fic driven. Ali Hazelwood got her start writing Reylo (Rey + Kylo Ren) fanfic. All the hockey romances that are becoming a thing? Hockey fanfic was a huge trend a couple of years ago. They’re wanting to highlight the bright, cutesy, wish-fulfillment aspect of it.
Maybe that’s part of why I struggle to like these covers: I don’t read/participate in any fanfic stuff.
But I do like the occasional bright, cutesy book; I just think there’s gotta be a better way to draw it.
You gotta be kidding. I can't say I've ever read a romance novel, but I do remember the days of Fabio. I thought he was corny. But these are downright abominable. Do they have an audience of third graders? The cover is your first impression of a book. I am not impressed. But I like your post. As always.
At least Fabio makes me smile because of his corniness. This trend is just sad.
Not familiar with the genre, so this was quite eye-opening to me. As someone who has read 19th-century novels with joy, and seen the world turn from Trollope to beach reads, I knew we were in an anti-intellectual period, but whoa, those covers! They look as if they are reaching out to people and saying ‘don’t be afraid of this book. See the bright, funny, comic-like covers?’
And of course they had marketing people tell them this would expand their markets.
And of course they were probably proven right.
I’m going to crawl back under the covers now…
This is just a small sampling too. If there are people on a romance cover and they’re not actual humans, they’re drawn in this style. I’ve also seen YA covers that look similar. It’s everywhere and it’s horrifying.
Maybe the contemporary covers are an attempt to hide the contents. Make the physical book more acceptable in public? I write with paranormal romance, but have always much preferred covers leaning into the fantasy side of the story. Chesty man or poor cartoons would never pass my beta reader's approval, so they are a no go. But if they sell books, I can't argue with the author who prefers not to starve. Still, I agree; it is an ugly trend.
I’m not sure I would ever unabashedly read a “chesty man” book in public, but at least they’re honest about what the story contains.
As a reader of mostly historical, I miss the pretty landscape covers they had back in the late 90s early 00s. They were beautiful and focused more on setting and capturing that. But I might be in the minority. I always find the people to not match or be the same model so was never a big fan of those either. Now we’re in the illustrated era, but I don’t think it works for all subgenres. It likely works well when done well for romcoms and that as it’s not meant to be serious and illustrations can convey that. I’m not a designer though and struggle with that on my own lol
I bet a lot of these cutesy romances could have a landscape picture since so many of them take place at a certain location (beach, mountains, highlands, lake etc.) and then the art style could lean toward Impressionism so you can get the feeling that it isn’t too serious of a book. I’m not much of a designer either, but I know there’s more than one way to convey “fluffy romance.”
Kailani, you often introduce me to something I have never thought of or noticed before! And nice discussion going on! :) Aunt Susan
Thanks! I like hearing everyone’s thoughts.
Yeah, these have been taking over more and more of the displays at my local library...
I suppose a good thing I can say about them is that they immediately telegraph the plot setup to a casual browser. They might not literally be subtitled "contemporary rivals to lovers nurse/athlete romance at a ski resort", but that's what you get from this level of cover illustration. My guess is it's very good at driving online/ebook sales on impulse, or getting a reader to look something up after spotting the cover, without requiring them to click through further and read the blurb. As a 100% digital writer right now, I get it and think it's clever (if that's really why it works). As somebody just there to pick up the kids' books, I wonder how you'd ever know if you had read that one already.
It’s kinda like those movie trailers that give the entire plot away. I don’t have a problem with knowing what the genre is by the cover, or near enough to what the genre is. But man, would it kill these artists to have a shred of individuality?
My husband can't stand this trend. I think it has a lot to do with romance being popularized among the Bookstagram and Booktok crowd. Publishers are keeping covers similar not only as a visual cue to define the genre, but so that the books can look aesthetically pleasing in everyone's social media book stack/bookshelf photos, because the people who are buying these books en masse are usually the folks taking pictures of them.
That sounds a bit scummy though, doesn’t it? Like, hey, we know you don’t care about good writing and characters, so look at this shiny object you can display on your shelf and then forget about ten seconds later. It’s like that phrase I’ve heard so often, “Consume product and get excited for next product.”
Agreed. In trying to make all these books look the same, they’re implying that all these books are the same. “Here’s your strong female protagonist (of color if you’re lucky!) winning at life, misunderstanding this guy who’s never harmed her personally, having sex with him by page 100, and then thinking she might be falling in love with him before a minor inconvenience breaks them up for a while. But don’t worry, they’re getting back together, I promise! Insert sport/holiday/trope here. And a dash of color for the ‘gram!” They’ve found the winning recipe and they’re going to stick with it, at the cost of anything even remotely different.
Romance really is the epitome of “If you’ve read one, you’ve read them all.” I’d add the “random subplot involving a murder/stalker/robbery/biker gang that is both shallow and annoying.”
I’m sure I’m not the target demographic, but I certainly agree these are all pretty awful.
It seems to be received wisdom that the first job of a cover is to signal what the genre is, but taken too far this seems to suggest that all books within a genre are basically interchangeable—which I am sure they aren’t. The other side of the coin is that genres are often seen as being completely detached from each other, rather than the permeable and overlapping categories they really are—or should be.
I’m thinking I need to do something about my own (defiantly non-generic) covers for my next post.
I don’t know how romance readers keep track of the books they’ve read, or if they even care about each one being noticeably different. I’d think that at the very least, each publishing company might have its own style, because I assume they all have their own artists. Unless AI covers are a lot more prevalent than I thought.
Good luck with your covers!
It's not a trend I'm fond of, but, sadly, it's a pretty major cover trend right now (and has been for some time). That type of cover is specifically a genre cue for contemporary romance, rom com, and cozy romance. The other romance sub-genres each have different cover trends and many of them imply the 'heat' level of the books. That particularly one, is generally for the low heat, fluffier romances. How in the world that cover trend came to take off, I've no idea.
Sometimes I’ll look at the giveaways on Goodreads and try to guess what genre the book is just by looking at the cover. It’s way too easy for romances and thrillers, because they all have the most uninspired, copy/paste look. What happened to artists expressing themselves with their own unique style? That’s what I’ve always thought was the point of being an artist.
I do freelance as an illustrator/cover designer and the problem is, book covers aren't just about the art. As they're one of your biggest marketing tools having a cover that clearly indicates the genre is important to ensure it attracts the right audience. This is even more critical for indieauthors as most of the time potential readers are going to just be seeing a thumbnail so hitting those genre cues is super important. However, there are still ways to have a cover 'on point' for your genre and yet still take a more creative risk with the style. It can be a real struggle though to find the right balance between 'unique, artsy cover' and 'functional, on point marketing.' At the end of the day though, the cover has a job to do and sometimes for it to do it well, you have to compromise on the fun side of it.
That sounds like a really interesting job, and kinda frustrating.
If I saw a wall of all these types of romance covers, and among them one cover with a random filigree design, I’m looking at the random design because it stands out, and perhaps the writing will set itself apart from the usual style too. I suppose that’s why I’m not a cover artist: I’d want to go off script too much :)
Yes on both 😂.
It would stand out, yes, but would it tell you want it needed to tell you about what type of book it is? Filigree on a romance cover in most cases is likely to indicate historical romance or (depending on the font) even fantasy romance (this is especially true if it covers the whole cover and isn't just a small element of it), but what if it's a contemporary romance? Now, it could be made to work, but it would have to be done extremely carefully and combined with more recognizable cues for that subset of romance. Sending mixed or wrong genre cues can lead not just to poor sales, but to bad reviews if the wrong reader buys it expecting a different kind of story. That said, there are ways to buck the trends and still make it work or to take just enough of the right genre cues and then do your own thing with them. Honestly though, I'm not sure I could ever take a commission for a contemporary romance cover. I really, really don't like their cover styles either 😂. I've niched down to the same genres I read/write. I think they have a lot more wiggle room for creativity while still hitting the right genre cues so there's less need for that disappointing compromise.
A few years ago, these were the covers for women's lit. You know, the kind where she dumps her man and lives her best life among her girl friends. Or it was for romantic comedy. What are these now? The same old tropey dirty romances? They look like children's books.
Women’s lit, romcoms, tropey dirt…they’re all interchangeable at this point, as shown by these covers.
I don’t seek out children’s books, but when I happen to see a newly published one, it also has this “art” style and that’s unfortunate because kids should see creative art to help them appreciate true art.
Yeah, I don't understand that cover trend. I've read romance, but usually fantasy or supernatural romance like Sherrilyn Kenyon so they definitely don't follow this trend. Two of my books (1 of them unpublished) are fantasy romance and have covers nothing like this. None of mine have people on the covers though, just imagery. These covers look like they were made in five minutes by a beginner artist.
Ooo, yes! Imagery over soulless cartoons is the way to go.
Maybe these covers aren’t easy to draw…? With all the debate around AI and human artists, you’d think humans would try harder to prove that they’re the right/better choice.
That's a good question, but it's the same question that I've asked about most Modern Art. Why does it look like we've gone back in time to '32? Artists should be able to create vibrant covers.
But then, I grew up when Fabio was on almost every book cover in the romance section, and artists like Bell, Vallejo, and others.
https://www.ebay.com/itm/276595934268?chn=ps&_trkparms=ispr%3D1&amdata=enc%3A1FyaYieNmQTShyUCvYvc9Pw11&norover=1&mkevt=1&mkrid=711-117182-37290-0&mkcid=2&mkscid=101&itemid=276595934268&targetid=2321110924741&device=c&mktype=pla&googleloc=9028540&poi=&campaignid=21415040041&mkgroupid=173029508348&rlsatarget=pla-2321110924741&abcId=9450166&merchantid=100507118&gad_source=1&gclid=Cj0KCQjw0Oq2BhCCARIsAA5hubXRdzD38IBVjvUkvAORTe3EdOJtjp6q7fHve3erYpJNthOSU6gNICUaAoeBEALw_wcB
AI art + whatever passes for style these days = aaahh, my eyes!