Better to write 4th book in series or start anew?

[alhawke]

What do you think? Chronologically, I'm working on a fourth book, but I could start it as an entirely new series ?? OR I could add it first as a fourth book and separate it out later with subsequent books to follow. What's the best strategy? I've never written a fourth book, only prequels and connected short stories.

Advertising would be easier and cheaper just using book I, but I see a trend towards less and less sales the further books go from the original book. My books are wide not KU.

[writeway]

I'd make it book four. It's much easier to get readers to stick to an existing series they are already reading than for them to jump to a new one. Even spinoffs can be hard to gain crossover. Especially, if the series is selling I would keep with it.

[idontknowyet]

I'd do book 4.
It's easier to get people to read one series than it is to get them to jump to the next one.

[Hopscotch]

Not sure about the advice to carry on w/the series via a book #4.  My own experience is that 3-book series work but longer doesn't.  The tail-off after book #3 in a longer series is sufficiently dramatic to suggest a bunch of (related) trilogies can get more attention. 

[TimothyEllis]

Not sure about the advice to carry on w/the series via a book #4.  My own experience is that 3-book series work but longer doesn't.  The tail-off after book #3 in a longer series is sufficiently dramatic to suggest a bunch of (related) trilogies can get more attention.

With me, that tail off begins at book 9.

If 4, 5, and 6 are a second trilogy to the series, you'll usually hold them.

A book 4 on it's own may not work though.

Out of 10 series, I've only got 1 trilogy, and 2 2's. The next up are a 5 and 2 6's. Then a 9,  2 12's, and a 14.

The worst drop off happened after 9 in the 14. But that was series 1, and no-one cares now.

[alhawke]

Not sure about the advice to carry on w/the series via a book #4.  My own experience is that 3-book series work but longer doesn't.  The tail-off after book #3 in a longer series is sufficiently dramatic to suggest a bunch of (related) trilogies can get more attention.

This is what I'm afraid of with attaching as book 4,5,6 to the original. And even if I break it off later into its own series, if it takes off weak, it will hurt sales later. So... I'm not sure. Thanks for all the above advice!^^

I tend to write standalones so, if they stay standalone, it really will be completely a marketing presentation decision.

[Post-Crisis D]

Three books is a series now?   

[TimothyEllis]

Three books is a series now?   

A trilogy is a series.

2 books is a series.

And since Amazon put in the Author definition of series, there is no longer any length specification either. So I have a series of 2 books, where the combination is still less than 10k words.

[Post-Crisis D]

Three books is a series now?   

A trilogy is a series.

2 books is a series.

And since Amazon put in the Author definition of series, there is no longer any length specification either. So I have a series of 2 books, where the combination is still less than 10k words.

That may be technically true but in common usage, a book series refers to a continuing series of books.

If you have two or three books in a "series" with no intention of writing more, don't tell me you have a series.  If you do, I will hold you in the same high regard as an Internet marketer that wrote an 800-word essay interspersed with screenshots and calls it a "book" because it's more than three pages long.

[TimothyEllis]

That may be technically true but in common usage, a book series refers to a continuing series of books.

If you have two or three books in a "series" with no intention of writing more, don't tell me you have a series.  If you do, I will hold you in the same high regard as an Internet marketer that wrote an 800-word essay interspersed with screenshots and calls it a "book" because it's more than three pages long.

Well, I write in a single universe where 2 of those books slot in as prequels, and the other 2 are parody with a non-distinct time setting.

Both may get a book 3 at some point, but there are no plans right now. Both were originally going to be standalones.

The trilogy is a prequel, and the main characters turn up 80 years later in another series for 2 books, and the MC has a 4th PoV book in a later series. So technically for that MC and the main characters, there's 6 books. And that MC is now a recurring cameo.

Edit: I forgot another couple of chapters in another book, which was more than a cameo.

[Lynn]

One of my series had a big peak at books 5 and 6 (sales from book 4 to 5 almost doubled). I wasn't expecting the spikes (they weren't from ads because I don't do them). It tailed off afterward with new books, but I had more than a year between releases after that so who knows what would have happened if I'd been able to get the next books out sooner. I wouldn't stop a series too early. You might miss the momentum you can gain from a longer series. It can be difficult to judge when it's time to stop, but I see a lot of authors stopping too soon, just as often as they stop too late.

[Post-Crisis D]

Then do I have a series of books?   

My books are standalones but they all take place in the same multiverse.

The first book takes place in a universe where they intertangle with a parallel universe.  The second book takes place in a different time period of that parallel universe.  The third book takes place almost concurrently with the second book but in a different city.  The fourth book takes place several hundred years later and the fifth book takes place a few hundred years after that.  And there is a supporting character that is in four of those five books.

[TimothyEllis]

Then do I have a series of books?   

My books are standalones but they all take place in the same multiverse.

The first book takes place in a universe where they intertangle with a parallel universe.  The second book takes place in a different time period of that parallel universe.  The third book takes place almost concurrently with the second book but in a different city.  The fourth book takes place several hundred years later and the fifth book takes place a few hundred years after that.  And there is a supporting character that is in four of those five books.

Definitely a series.

The Imager Portfolio starts with a trilogy, then goes back 700 years for 5 books, and then forward twice without catching up again. That's a series.

The fact yours is more complicated doesn't change that it is a series.

I've got a series where all 12 books have a different MC, and it's the timeline that is advancing with background common to all of them evolving as they go. Lots of characters from past series do cameos.

If there is a common thread, no matter what it is, you've got a series.

[Lynn]

Then do I have a series of books?   

My books are standalones but they all take place in the same multiverse.

The first book takes place in a universe where they intertangle with a parallel universe.  The second book takes place in a different time period of that parallel universe.  The third book takes place almost concurrently with the second book but in a different city.  The fourth book takes place several hundred years later and the fifth book takes place a few hundred years after that.  And there is a supporting character that is in four of those five books.

Yes.

[Bill Hiatt]

Part of the problem here is that Amazon gives us only one labeling choice for related books: series.

While I see the distinction between finished trilogy and continuing series, there's no trilogy label to select when we publish books. And a series need not be continuing indefinitely to be a series. Some reach a natural end. Some may end because an author sees no commercial value in continuing. Does that retroactively make the former series no longer a series? And does that also mean we need labels for quadrilogy, quintilogy, etc.?

To go back to the original question, in my limited experience, I had a six-book series. I wanted to continue the story, picking up the characters' lives some years later (just as some years had passed in the real world). But even though I reintroduced the characters in what I thought was a satisfactory way, I got a lot of pushback from reviewers who felt as if something was missing. Sales were also mediocre at best. As a new series opener, the book was dying. Before writing more, I made the intended first book in a new series the seventh book in the old one. Presto! Reviews got better. Sales got better.

The moral of the story is that if a proposed new book is closely related to the preceding ones, it will probably work better as a fourth book in the old series than as the starter of a new series. As far as where a series peaks or reaches a dropoff point is concerned, I think that varies. My six-book series is now a nine-book series. The button to buy the whole series gets clicked just as often now as it did before. The earliest books still get read more often, but the 7-9 aren't doing any worse than 4-6, at least for me.

I'm aware of authors with long series (30 books and up). I have to think that if later books didn't sell, they would never have gotten to thirty in the first place.

[TimothyEllis]

To go back to the original question, in my limited experience, I had a six-book series. I wanted to continue the story, picking up the characters' lives some years later (just as some years had passed in the real world). But even though I reintroduced the characters in what I thought was a satisfactory way, I got a lot of pushback from reviewers who felt as if something was missing. Sales were also mediocre at best. As a new series opener, the book was dying. Before writing more, I made the intended first book in a new series the seventh book in the old one. Presto! Reviews got better. Sales got better.

I did that too.

I wrote 2 books in a trilogy. Then got sick. With a co-author we wrote 3 more which were basically a spin off, but didn't work as a new trilogy. So I re-badged them as books 3, 4 and 5, and finally wrote book 3 as book 6. A while later I completely redid the covers, and gave them an edit.

They work better as a series of 6 with some major POV shifts, but that works because it's the only series done in 3rd person. But it's basically a trilogy embedded within another trilogy. And the final book worked much better having the previous 3 done before hand. I was able to set something up I otherwise would never have been able to do properly.

It's my worst performing series though, but it does still sell 6 years later. It also helps that I did the last trilogy of a later series following on from the last in that series of 6.

[Hopscotch]

By contrast, when bitter experience taught me series sell better than standalones, I bundled 5 similarly themed and universed standalones into a "Collection" and they altogether outsell my other stuff, w/the exception of one nonfic.  "Series," "Collection," whatever word you use, a bunch boosts sales.

[Crystal]

Is the book a continuation of the series or a new series? It's hard to imagine a book equally suited to a position as book 4 or book 1 in a new series.

From a marketing POV, I don't think either choice is better. They each have pros and cons. Book one is a good way to reach new readers, but it will take a lot more work to get current readers from book 3 to book 1 than from book 3 to book 4.

Would you rather reach new readers or sell more books to readers of the series now and in the future? Do you advertise the book 1 of this series a lot? How is your sellthrough?

I can only speak for myself, but I often buy (or borrow) every book in a series, even if I'm so-so on it, if it's entertaining enough for pre-bed reading. But once I hit the end of the series (or catch up with the author), I often move on to my next series. I've read anything from 2 to 14 books this way.

Of course, I sometimes move onto a new series from the same author, if they have another free series starter (and especially if they introduced the new MC in the current series).

[alhawke]

The moral of the story is that if a proposed new book is closely related to the preceding ones, it will probably work better as a fourth book in the old series than as the starter of a new series.

This is what I'm thinking. I'm leaning towards a Book 4.

Would you rather reach new readers or sell more books to readers of the series now and in the future? Do you advertise the book 1 of this series a lot? How is your sellthrough?

I'd love new readers while keeping the old.   But I see your marketing point here.

This will be book four in my highest selling witch series. I advertise Book I more than anything else. sell-through is good but no where near sales of the 1st book. The way I see it, if I made this new series separate, I'd have to advertise Book 4 separate. This could work but it also could cost more money and less revenue.

I'm not sure yet, as I'm still in drafting phases and I've only drafted book I, whether these new books can be understood without the preceding series. I'm pretty sure I can make it clear enough and get book one, or "four", to be understandable without reading the preceding books. I'd like to achieve that. If I do, and I write three as planned, I should be able to re-title it a "new series" later if I so choose. I can also create a new boxed set.

The series was written two years ago. There will be a problem with connecting past readers^^, but fans will like it and book 4 will be definitely connected by vibe and with the same characters (Incidentally, in the past, I'd take a break with a book series. I'd write a book in one series then switch to another. This one I'm going to work straight through for the purpose of close launches).

If book 4 fails to sell well, I could move it away from the original series and work on marketing it separate later. But optimally, I lay my cards down right at the start with its launch.

[Bill Hiatt]

It depends a lot on the readers the book attracts. I really thought I'd made the characters and the situation clear enough for people to be able to start my book as book 1 of another series. I was wrong.

But it is true that it's better to start out with the book placed the way it should be from the beginning. Relaunching a book with a semi-different identity can work, but probably not as well as getting it right to begin with.