MUMSNET CHRISTMAS CARD DISCOUNT SALE NOW ON! We've got, ahem, one or two packs of these wonderful cards ("very pleased with the quality" is one glowing testimonial) still available, so we're offering them to you for the bargain price of 40 cards for a tenner. Go on, buy a few - the money's going to KidsCo and think how smug you'll feel come next December.
Hello all, As you probably know we've got a series of Mumsnet books coming out from next spring based on your collective wisdom. It's fair to say that there is a certain amount of disagreement amongst those involved as to which cover colours look best.
So we thought we'd ask you which you'd prefer, given that Mumsnetters are squarely in the target audience and all that. (We've promised not to tell you what we at HQ like by the way but suffice to say we're very much keener on one of sets than the other so you better get it right )
Basically there are 2 options for each of the four book covers - a more subtle and muted version, and a more vibrant and bolder version. You can see them here.
We'd be very grateful if you would let us know on this thread which of the options - subtle or bold - you'd prefer on your coffee table/ would be more likely to fork out for. If there's no clear consensus then we'll have a poll. Oh the excitement.
any chance we could see them alongside each other as they will look when we all rush out and buy them <crawler>? ie all bright together, all muted together?
Brights - fall into the convention of all the other baby books, although they are least not ghastly pastel/primary colours. Makes them look energetic and dynamic - probably interesting reads. More in keeping with the tone/personality of MN - i.e. characterful and strong.
Subtle - tasteful and classic, serious and therefore probably in tune with the more intellectual/literary pretentions of MN. But also could look like boring text books.
Overall, though, graphically and visually I think the design is great. Not fluffy or cuddly and not a hun in sight.
although i am not keen on the shades of plum and green.
if it were me I would stick with blues actually as it would be more in keeping with the web presence.
also- you should show them on that page as a group of subtle spines and a group of bright ones so that we can see them as a 'collection'. Not interspersed like that.
I know you've focus-grouped this etc, but I don't like the "Mums" and "Net" being in different colours - I can see that it's supposed to be "The Mums' Guide!" as well as the Mumsnet Guide, but I don't think it pushes the brand particularly. I would have expected to see the mumsnet font as in the logo etc, and the MN colours as well.
I prefer subtle, but have no real objection to the vibrant. Your eye would certainly be drawn to the vibrant ones on the shelf of Waterstones or whatever, and I can't imagine the slight gaudiness would stop you buying the book.
It's a subtle hook to get NetMums people to buy the book. And no, not vibrant - the colours of this site are very subtle, those of other parenting sites bright. QED. And besides, I have neversetatrendbefore - you really mustn't burst my bubble. I might cry.
prefer the subtle but not sure on that exact range of colours - also the pictures while fab are not all the same size. I like my book spines to match up exactly. It is veryvery important
Agree with lapin about the text - the word net and the title of the book in the same colour looks a bit odd.
oh and i quite like that it sort of reads 'the mums guide'... if you did want to make the 'mums' (and therefore the 'mumsnet' stand out a bit, then i would darken the 'mums' just a teeny little bit. but no more. imo.
hmmm, maybe lapin. or possibly make the letters of the website logo a bit, um, thinner for the book? the logo as is might look a bit clumsy on that layout.
subtle But actually the only one I'd buy would be the food one and the green is an unappetisingly sludgy shade of spinch soup. Can you tweak it for a nice fresh shade - <organic peapod> rather than <frozen pea>
)
Just care about nappies 
