Jenna Moreci's video on rapid release

[guest78]

In case you haven't seen this, here ya go. Thoughts? The video starts around the 2 minute mark.

[diisha392]

It was interesting to hear her pros and cons even if I don't agree with all of them.

[RPatton]

That is absolutely not what Write to Market is.

Writing to Market is an established phrase from genre fiction, which is about meeting the market expectations of a genre and not even related to rapid release. What she is talking about is better described as writing to trend.

Agatha Christie wrote to market, Nora Roberts writes to market. Any top selling genre/commercial fiction author is writing to market. If you're actually interested in writing to market, listen to Shawn Coyne or read Save the Cat.

[Shoe]

Yikes! That voice! I had to run the video through Chrome's Ear Audio Toolkit to listen to it (great extension if your laptop has weak audio). I agree she's referring to write-to-trend. Rapid release shouldn't be in a writer's toolbox, but it's fine for marketers.

[PJ Post]

Pretty good overview.

That is absolutely not what Write to Market is.

I agree she's referring to write-to-trend.

Yep. As I was watching, I kept saying, no, that's not what it is.

Sorry, but yeah it is. It's a really old business concept covered in every Introduction to Marketing class. To Market and To Trend are the same thing - it' s math. What most writers really mean when they talk about WTM is writing to genre, which, at the end of the day, is just writing.

[idontknowyet]

Yikes! That voice! I had to run the video through Chrome's Ear Audio Toolkit to listen to it (great extension if your laptop has weak audio). I agree she's referring to write-to-trend. Rapid release shouldn't be in a writer's toolbox, but it's fine for marketers.

Why shouldn't writers use rapid release as a tool to get traction on a book?

[Bill Hiatt]

Yikes! That voice! I had to run the video through Chrome's Ear Audio Toolkit to listen to it (great extension if your laptop has weak audio). I agree she's referring to write-to-trend. Rapid release shouldn't be in a writer's toolbox, but it's fine for marketers.

Why shouldn't writers use rapid release as a tool to get traction on a book?

I don't think there's anything wrong with rapid release as long as someone can manage it without destroying the quality of their work. No everyone can work that fast, but if some can, more power to them!

[PJ Post]

I don't think there's anything wrong with rapid release as long as someone can manage it without destroying the quality of their work.

I really think this is the key (bolding mine). But the important caveat is knowing that 'quality' is goal (strategy) dependent, and therefore relative. Few writers can publish epically intricate mystery plots with deeply drawn characters rapidly, regardless of how one defines the strategy. They just take a ton of time to do well. On the other hand, narrowly focused Romances or adventure stories can be written pretty quickly, especially if the process uses a formula. The quality bar (market expectation) for these books is much lower.

[WasAnn]

Rapid release can be a strategy used even with slow writing...if you're patient.

For example, it took me 2 years to write Portals and another year to write Portals: Saving Earth. I waited to release the first until the second was done. 225K words in both books for the duology.

In effect, I wasted a year of sales for the first book to wait for the second, then released them 27 days apart.

Did that help or hurt? For me, I think it helps because that was almost my best release ever...since the second was already on pre-order so people knew they could finish the entire thing. I haven't promo'ed it since that time, so it's sunk now, but it was definitely worth it.

I'll do the same with the next series I do. I'll save them up in the tank until I have them ready to release or at the same time.

[Shoe]

Why shouldn't writers use rapid release as a tool to get traction on a book?

They can do whatever the hell they want. But if their success depends on rapid release, and not releasing rapidly means tanking ranks and income--well, that's a hell of a treadmill. I'd rather write a book that holds evergreen ranks between 40-100k for several years than pump out a new release every month for a quick ride down the Top 100 lists, then see it disappear in the rankings. That's not the case for some rapid-releasers, but for most, it seems like they bank all on the release and not building an evergreen shelf.

[Shoe]

Rapid release can be a strategy used even with slow writing...if you're patient.

The rapid release strategy I'm referring to is publishing every month, year in, year out.

[Denise]

That's not the case for some rapid-releasers, but for most, it seems like they bank all on the release and not building an evergreen shelf.

Yes. I've noticed it. I recently read a book by a writing coach, and I was shocked to see that in her mind, authors have to release every month or tank, with some few exceptions. She then explains that not everyone can release every month, of course, and advises writers to keep their day jobs. I don't know why I read that book.    Nothing against the author, of course, who is giving the best advice she can give based on her experience.

Anyway, she seems to know a lot of writers who absolutely have to release every month, and a lot of writers who suffer burnout because of doing that or trying to do that. Is it maybe a romance thing? Perhaps there's so much competition that readers only read new releases? I don't read romance, but I read romantic fantasy, and there are some evergreen books, books that keep a good ranking for a long time, and authors with good income and few books (based on author ranking on Amazon). So I don't know where that mentality comes from.

Ys, I guess holding a series to release it fast is a good idea, but releasing a book every month isn't healthy for most people.

[Shoe]

Is it maybe a romance thing? Perhaps there's so much competition that readers only read new releases?

The rapid release strategy is definitely advocated by many KBs romance authors and pursued by many writing teams elsewhere (the ones frequently mentioned in "banned authors" threads). My impression is they aim for the low-end of the market churning out cookie-cutter novellas using abbreviated and calcified "beat sheets" (often condensed versions of Jamie Gold's popular guidelines for hitting all of the necessary tropes).

I don't know the audience for those books, but the books themselves are not very demanding of the author or reader. For the former, gaining traction in a crowded field is tough. A lot of their readers gobble up a book a day ("book" is a stretch). Unless the author has gained a following (or until an author has gained a following), their best bet is to continually ride the new release charts.

I know a few romance authors who at least attempt a frequent release schedule. Using heavy ad budgets, giveaways, swaps, and mailing lists, they reliably achieve new release rankings of #1000-1500. To do any better they'd need to double their budgets. Yeah, they're selling a lot of books at $0.99, but it means they seldom break-even. A month later, their "new release" has typically fallen to #50k on the way to #500k and beyond several months later to join the rest of their back catalog. When they fall off the rapid-release pace, their entire shelf falls into near oblivion in the rankings.

It's a tough way to make a living. Judging one's career success by their latest release can be deceptive. It doesn't mean much if the book they released a year ago is sitting in the millions.

[Bill Hiatt]

That's not the case for some rapid-releasers, but for most, it seems like they bank all on the release and not building an evergreen shelf.

Yes. I've noticed it. I recently read a book by a writing coach, and I was shocked to see that in her mind, authors have to release every month or tank, with some few exceptions. She then explains that not everyone can release every month, of course, and advises writers to keep their day jobs. I don't know why I read that book.    Nothing against the author, of course, who is giving the best advice she can give based on her experience.

Anyway, she seems to know a lot of writers who absolutely have to release every month, and a lot of writers who suffer burnout because of doing that or trying to do that. Is it maybe a romance thing? Perhaps there's so much competition that readers only read new releases? I don't read romance, but I read romantic fantasy, and there are some evergreen books, books that keep a good ranking for a long time, and authors with good income and few books (based on author ranking on Amazon). So I don't know where that mentality comes from.

Ys, I guess holding a series to release it fast is a good idea, but releasing a book every month isn't healthy for most people.

The interesting thing about rapid release is that trad authors seem to be able to maintain sales without doing it. I know that's apples and oranges to some extent--publishers won't typically let them publish more than about once a year, and they have the publisher's marketing muscle behind them, at least some of the time. But it's more than just that. JK Rowling's books weren't expected to be as successful as they were. Her editor even advised her to get a day job, because she couldn't expect to make a living on that kind of book. This suggests to me that the publisher probably wasn't investing huge amounts in promoting a book that was expected to be a moderate seller at best.  She released a book about once a year, and her releases since the end of the series have been far less frequent than that. Yet she continues to sell in enormous quantities. With the exception of Stephen King, it's hard to think of too many contemporary authors who've released more than a book a year, and there are some who've released far less than that. Ernest Cline published Ready Player One in 2011 and is only now getting ready to write a sequel, having written only one book in the meantime.

I also know some indie authors who seem to be able to make a living without having a new book every month.

My concern is similar to yours. Most people, even producing at minimal quality, and going to find that constant treadmill burdensome. Burnout would be a real concern.

[idontknowyet]

Is it maybe a romance thing? Perhaps there's so much competition that readers only read new releases?

The rapid release strategy is definitely advocated by many KBs romance authors and pursued by many writing teams elsewhere (the ones frequently mentioned in "banned authors" threads). My impression is they aim for the low-end of the market churning out cookie-cutter novellas using abbreviated and calcified "beat sheets" (often condensed versions of Jamie Gold's popular guidelines for hitting all of the necessary tropes).

I don't know the audience for those books, but the books themselves are not very demanding of the author or reader. For the former, gaining traction in a crowded field is tough. A lot of their readers gobble up a book a day ("book" is a stretch). Unless the author has gained a following (or until an author has gained a following), their best bet is to continually ride the new release charts.

I know a few romance authors who at least attempt a frequent release schedule. Using heavy ad budgets, giveaways, swaps, and mailing lists, they reliably achieve new release rankings of #1000-1500. To do any better they'd need to double their budgets. Yeah, they're selling a lot of books at $0.99, but it means they seldom break-even. A month later, their "new release" has typically fallen to #50k on the way to #500k and beyond several months later to join the rest of their back catalog. When they fall off the rapid-release pace, their entire shelf falls into near oblivion in the rankings.

It's a tough way to make a living. Judging one's career success by their latest release can be deceptive. It doesn't mean much if the book they released a year ago is sitting in the millions.

How many romance books don't drop into the millions without active investment from authors of time or money. Without a huge following that is the way of it. There are even authors with a good following that have their books drop pretty quickly. There are several authors I know of that hit the top 100 stay there for a week or three and then the book drops, by the 3rd book released after that its in oblivion. I am sure this author is advertising and doing swaps and stuff. Competition is hard in romance. There are only a few authors that I have seen that will consistently stay up there.

Even a few trad pubs with massive followings have books in amazing series that are sitting in phone number range.
The ones I see working on evergreen go wide. The develop a following outside amazon algos.

[Shoe]

There are several authors I know of that hit the top 100 stay there for a week or three and then the book drops, by the 3rd book released after that its in oblivion.

Ideally, none of the author's books would drop into oblivion, ever (600,000 or worse), because their new releases or promotions would keep bringing new eyeballs to their shelf to read through their back catalogs. If a new release, in a series or not, doesn't bring life to the entire shelf, it's a bust, even if it was a great launch. From this perspective, genre doesn't really matter.