Just for comparison

[bladespark]

So here's the cover art my publisher provided, made according to their "brand" rules:




Here's an image I commissioned for Patreon, during the year when I was using chapters of this story as a monthly reward:




Different worlds. Different worlds. I could go into why the differences, but they boil down to "small presses, small budgets, specific style requirements expected." It frustrates me when I get serious about it, so I laugh at them instead, usually.

Comments

[alexseanchai]

one of these tells me a lot more about the story than the other one

[zeeth_kyrah]

Oh yeah. Whole different worlds of meaning in these pictures.

[the_siobhan]

That was my first thought. I'd be really interested in those characters.

[duskpeterson]

Style differences aside, I'm sorry to say that your publisher's contribution is a really, really bad cover. Small budgets have nothing to do with it. I could buy much better romance cover art than that for $11 at the stock photo site I use - and $11 is on the higher end for stock photo prices.

. . . I just looked at your website. You have some decent-looking romance covers there - I especially like "Stallion Assassin" - so that proves my point, I think. "Bare-chested guy with a bit of background" does *not* have to equal bad design.

This is probably not making you feel better. My commiserations. At least this didn't happen to you?

I love the commissioned art!

[cornerofmadness]

I'd buy the commissioned art as a cover much faster than their brand art. (And I know this pain, some of the 'art' they've slapped on my stories...)

[adafrog]

I like yours better.

[silveradept]

The second cover actually says something about the story inside, so it's a much more effective marketing tool than the rather generic one provided by the publisher. It seems like they believe that all romances are interchangeable.