We are all familiar with the cover for Taking a Shot by Jaci Burton, right? Gorgeous hockey player with sweat trailing down spectacular abs? Hit the best seller lists? Let’s take another look since it’s never painful to stare at this one.
I’m not just posting that for the drool-factor. Really. Mad was on Facebook today and discovered a new cover that left us both speechless.
Huh. Taking Shots vs Taking a Shot. Shirtless, ripped model with skates tossed carelessly over his shoulder. Similar backgrounds. Even the font is similar. I think we are pushing coincidence a little too far here.
Oh, Loveswept. I am so disappointed and a little angry that you would underestimate the intelligence of romance readers. Is making an attempt at originality that painful and scary?
We’re calling total WTFery on this one.
Updated:
As I was looking at Amazon, I found the original cover for Taking Shots. And then I was sent another cover for it.
This title was originally self published by Toni Aleo with these covers then purchased by Random House/Loveswept. And that is where what appears to be a blatant bait and switch is occurring.
Honorary Mention of Book Sluts 'R' Us Blogger Awards by 
All I can say is WOW- If you didn’t show it I wouldn’t have believed it.
Anyone try to contact Jaci? Just curious
Shameful….just shameful! I too have been noticing a lot of similar covers lately and I’m really getting kinda ticked about it – I have to keep track of what I buy now just because of the darn covers!
I have seen more of the same covers in e-books than PB but it drives me insane. I would go bat -**** crazy.
Z
You know, the shirtless model with skates thing doesn’t so much bother me–but combined with the fonts and the title, it’s bad.
It looks like they are trying to mislead the readers! I mean come on, show some originality!!!
Copycat covers are not cool!
Pat C.
YUM!!
Yes, you are totally right. That second cover can’t hold a candle to the original one.
I believe this is reflective of the same issues in the music industry. Instead of releasing an original song, they remix an oldie. It is a shame that publishers do not put more emphases on originality and creativity instead of remixing old covers.
Not being snarky, but what exactly is the difference between this and the 50 Shades of Grey knockoffs?
I’m not a big fan of the 50 Shades knockoffs either but I haven’t seen any of those that are quite this blatant. If I saw a book with a dark gray background, a tie positioned differently and it was titled Fifty Shaded Grey, I would call that a bait and switch, too.
Personally, I don’t see the difference–and the people at the Smart B!tches have often highlighted how, when one book is very, very successful and seems to start a trend, publishers jump on the wagon so fast you’re afraid they’ll get whiplash.
Yes, it’s absolutely bait and switch, blatant as all get out–but as long as it works (for the publisher) it won’t stop.
I do feel for Jaci Burton, though. Nothing she can do about it but seethe.
I agree with everyone else here, it is downright disgusting and the copying alone will keep me from reading this book. What is even more irritating is when they copy the EXACT SAME TITLE…I have asked a couple of authors about that and they said there is nothing to be done about using the title…so always remember the author’s name when buying an old favorite or you might just get the wrong book~
Wow, that ought to be some kind of infringement law against that. Peeps coming in and looking for Jaci’s book could easily get the wrong one.
Linda J. Birmingham, Al.
________________________________