Ah, the dreaded "a" word. I could probably ask ten people and get ten opinions vastly different from one another about whether ads do, indeed sell books, so it seems fitting to tie together a few comments made online by various folks.

Let's start with Observer literary editor Robert McCrum, opining on the Guardian blog about the TV ad campaign for Guatam Malkani's ridiculously hyped debut LONDONSTANI. Something tells me that McCrum may have erred in saying "my bet is that TV trailers for books will be a passing fad - like tube advertising." If only because, er, tube advertising has been around several years now and the visibility and exposure sure seem to help people remember books...

Bestselling thriller writer Tess Gerritsen is more systematic, going through step-by-step what a "major marketing campaign" as promised by publishers actually entails. Though she doesn't think ads are that successful at selling books, they have caused a temporary bump in her own sales and, along with everything else a publisher might try, "they get your name out there. Even if consumers aren’t actively paying attention, your name will become embedded in their subconscious," Gerritsen concludes.

Of course, and there's no reason to argue. But the "ads don't sell books" always seemed ridiculous because of course they would, if applied effectively. If there can be a correlation between the Joe Camel ads and teens buying cigarettes, if watching sexy, scantily-clad babes correlates to buying a crappy brand of beer and if the presence of a swoosh boosts sales of Nike's sneakers, then why can't ads sell books? Or maybe the point is to make books seem forbidden and cool...and that's a whole other set of problems right there.