« Hull to finally see top-flight football | Home | Richardson fits the bill for vice-president »

The “Bookie Prize” and the Guardian’s surprise

By Matt | May 27, 2008

A blog for the Guardian newspaper has heralded the arrival of what it calls the “Bookie Prize” in response to the PR spin given to a literary publisher’s latest offering – and I find its surprise, well, surprising.

For a quality broadsheet used by millions to stay abreast of developments in publishing, the arts and related industries, the Grauniad seems a little bit put out that bookie William Hill is a) taking money on a book award and b) not offering longer odds.

According to Gaurdian blogger Guy Dammann, the press release for Child 44, which has been installed as the heavy favourite for the new Desmond Elliott prize, apparently trumpets William Hill’s price about the book scooping the literary award more than it does the quality of the book itself.

Child 44 has achieved the apparently remarkable feat of becoming the shortest-ever priced entry in book award betting – Hill’s is offering 1/2 on the book bagging the prize.

The money being bet on the outcome of literary awards is a shorthand way for a publisher to advertise their product for the market, says Dammann. He points out that, “when it comes to the promotion of literary awards these days, if William Hill haven’t opened a book on it, the chances are the [publisher’s] PR department isn’t doing its job properly.”

A book award for marketing people
He singles out the Desmond Elliott prize as being a pertinent example. The award is effectively designed to give a boost to the marketing of popular fiction, lending an air of artistic integrity to formulaic airport fiction and bodice rippers.

You can sense reading the article that Dammann wants to bemoan such a development, but – from the populist trench of a trendy lefty blog – daren’t stick his head above the parapet. Instead, he tries to damn literary betting with faint praise.

To be honest, I’m surprised he’s surprised, for several reasons:

Running a book on, erm, books, is a natural market for bookies. Punters are a literary bunch – either drawn to the printed word after years of studying form, or the other way round. And, generally, if there’s some worthwhile action going, we’ll have a dabble in it.
Marketing people would be fools not to use book awards, and the odds on them, to publicise books, generally speaking.
The money going on a particular book is a shorthand way to advertise its popularity in the marketplace. The chances are that a favourite chalked up at the first show of any set of book award odds will have a higher sales ranking on Amazon than its rivals.
A book – the kind that a bookmaker makes – is nothing more than a reflection of a bookie’s expected liabilities in any given market. If Child 44 is 2/1 on, then that is because Hill’s expects anywhere up to short of 50 per cent of their liability in the market to be with the Tom Rob Smith thriller – not necessarily because they think it’ll win, or even because they think it’s good.

Book awards and betting are symbiotic – which is perhaps why there’s so many of the things at the moment. In the same kind of circular way that drives Betfair to distraction with ‘unusual betting patterns’ during I’m a Celebrity and its ilk, contracting odds serve to feed publicity machines with their own agendas.T

Popularity contests
The more the media shout about a product, whether it be a tale of murderer-hunting in Stalinist Russia or Her From Catatonia, the more people lump on and the shorter the odds get. With popularity contests like the Desmond Elliott prize or a Big Brother eviction – where the people deciding the award, ie, the general public, are effectively the same people betting on it (by voting off a contestant or driving a book up the Amazon sales rankings) – the layers are always going to be offering up skinny prices, and in that context it’s hard to see why Child 44 opening at halves is a shock.

Nor, in the context of the Desmond’s mission statement, is it a surprise that the publishers are using the world’s original way of measuring popularity – bookmaking – to demonstrate just why people should buy their book.

Which is why, for serious betting purposes, I’m going to ignore the Desmond. It might be a chance to buy money, but I can’t see it ever being a decent contest, betting-wise. Few cunning punts involve 1/2 shots.

To be fair, I’m going to ignore Child 44 as well. But that’s another article.

Topics: Books and literature No Comments »