Five magic words to sell more books

[Jan Hurst-Nicholson]

Interesting info for non-fiction writers. 

https://inventingrealityediting.com/2023/04/30/five-magic-words-that-sell-more-books/

When writing a blurb for a nonfiction book, there are certain words that can be used to increase the odds of purchase. In fact, five words ? you, free, instantly, because and new ? have more sway than others, if used in the right context, according to a recent article in Copyblogger.

[elleoco]

In spite of proponents in the indie community, IMO "free" and "sell" are opposing concepts.

[writeway]

The blogger says, "Most who get your books free don't go on to buy the author's other books." WRONG. That's what makes free so effective. No, everyone who gets your freebie might not buy your other books but more will than won't if your freebie is good. I see authors all the time saying "free doesn't work." No, it didn't work for YOU (general author). If your freebie doesn't get people to dig into their pockets and pay for your other books then your freebie just wasn't that good. Or not good enough for someone to pay money for your other books. Free is a wonderful money maker for many of us.  Free is one of the best promotional strategies there is but you gotta have a plan and you gotta have a freebie that is good enough to make people wanna get your work.

The truth is, many readers don't take chances on authors who are new to them, so having a freebie can break that barrier. Freebies are also a wonderful way to keep your work visible.

Free is doing wonderfully for me. And it wasn't until I started using freebies that I started making serious income.

While I do agree with the author that "free" is powerful for selling books, I just don't agree with the "Most of them won't buy your books" argument.

[TimothyEllis]

Isn't mentioning the price on a blurb forbidden?

Amazon technically doesn't support free books. It doesn't want blurbs saying they are.

That probably needs to be checked before using.

[Jeff Tanyard]

The blogger says, "Most who get your books free don't go on to buy the author's other books." WRONG. That's what makes free so effective. No, everyone who gets your freebie might not buy your other books but more will than won't if your freebie is good. I see authors all the time saying "free doesn't work." No, it didn't work for YOU (general author). If your freebie doesn't get people to dig into their pockets and pay for your other books then your freebie just wasn't that good. Or not good enough for someone to pay money for your other books. Free is a wonderful money maker for many of us.  Free is one of the best promotional strategies there is but you gotta have a plan and you gotta have a freebie that is good enough to make people wanna get your work.

The part in bold type is the salient point.  What I often see is authors making the wrong stuff free.  They don't want to give away their best book or the book that took the most time and effort to write.  They prefer to give away the stuff they don't value as much, things like prequels and short stories and previews and books that the author thinks aren't selling because of quality issues.  As you said, writeway, this is completely the wrong approach.  They should be giving away their best books, the stuff that is most likely to hook the reader and knock his socks off, because that's what is most likely to get him to come back and shell out money for the non-free stuff.

[Bill Hiatt]

Authors give away books that aren't selling because of quality issues? Yeah, that certainly wouldn't work well.

[Jeff Tanyard]

Authors give away books that aren't selling because of quality issues? Yeah, that certainly wouldn't work well.

Just to be clear, by "quality issues" I meant things like story and plot and characters and whatnot, not typos or formatting or some other technical issue.  What I've seen from time to time is an author deciding that since a book didn't connect with readers for whatever reason, then there's no reason not to just make it free since it wasn't selling anyway.  It's easy to see how one can reach that conclusion, and it definitely seems logical on its face, but like writeway and I said, it's the wrong way to go and is ultimately counterproductive. 

For most readers, the free stuff is going to be the first impression they get of an authors work.  It should be as good a first impression as possible.

[Lorri Moulton]

IF they read the free ebook.  With all the huge giveaways lately, there seems to be some concern that readers have huge TBR piles and aren't able to read as fast as they collect.

[Bill Hiatt]

I was thinking the same thing, but we really don't know one way or the others. I've always thought it was strange for someone to download tons of books and never read any of them, though I'm sure there are a few people like that. I don't ever download something, free or otherwise, if I don't have some interest in it.

That said, I've been known to buy books and not get around to reading them right away. That stems from the old days of publishing, when if you didn't grab something when it came out, it might go out of print before you could buy it. I had that experience a couple of times. After that, I tended to buy more than I could reasonably read quickly, just to make sure I got them. I'm positive there have been a few titles lurking on my shelves for decades that I haven't yet gotten read, though hopefully, not too many!

[Post-Crisis D]

That said, I've been known to buy books and not get around to reading them right away. That stems from the old days of publishing, when if you didn't grab something when it came out, it might go out of print before you could buy it. I had that experience a couple of times. After that, I tended to buy more than I could reasonably read quickly, just to make sure I got them. I'm positive there have been a few titles lurking on my shelves for decades that I haven't yet gotten read, though hopefully, not too many!

Or . . . you found books in the dollar bin and grabbed those while they were available.

I probably need a decade-long vacation to read all the books I have that I haven't read yet.

[Jeff Tanyard]

IF they read the free ebook.  With all the huge giveaways lately, there seems to be some concern that readers have huge TBR piles and aren't able to read as fast as they collect.

Yep, and I'm one of those readers with a big stack of books I downloaded but haven't read yet.  But there are plenty I have read, so it's not like I never get around to them, because I do.

Or . . . you found books in the dollar bin and grabbed those while they were available.

I actually picked up The Complete Works of Shakespeare and The Gulag Archipelago from my local library's dollar bin* one time.   

*actually a wheeled cart, not a bin, but same thing

[Bill Hiatt]

I wonder if the discount tables in bookstores were originally a relic of an age before they could return unsold copies as easily. When I was young, every large store had a fairly significant pile of books marked down. But that doesn't seem to be very common any more (to the extent that I can even find a brick-and-mortar store). What I have seen is bookstores bringing in publishers' overstock titles they got some kind of bargain on and selling those at a reduced price. I don't know if Barnes and Noble still does this, but its publishing arm used to print books specifically for bargain distribution. For a long time, that was all that was on the those BN bargain tables.

[LilyBLily]

Most bookstores will not stock anything that is nonreturnable. Returns started as a desperation sales deal during the Depression, and publishers have never been able to back away from them successfully since.

Yes, one source of bargain books has been books printed solely to be bargains. When I worked at a chain bookstore, I bought some of those titles that typically cost a dollar or two, no more. Some fascinating finds about obscure things, probably from preexisting files from the UK or the like, so in essence a cheap reprint that they didn't think would get any play any other way.
 
You can occasionally see big dumps of similar books in grocery stores; those tend to be paperbacks I'd give a B or C grade as to content.

The other major source was the remainder companies, which routinely returned hardcover bestsellers to us to sell at bargain prices. Those tended to be (back then) about 33-50% of the discounted price of the book when it first came out. Not the cover price.

[Post-Crisis D]

I actually picked up The Complete Works of Shakespeare

But you won't be able to fully appreciate Shakespeare until you've read the works in the original Klingon.

[Lorri Moulton]

I actually picked up The Complete Works of Shakespeare

But you won't be able to fully appreciate Shakespeare until you've read the works in the original Klingon.

Since you mentioned it...

[Jeff Tanyard]

I actually picked up The Complete Works of Shakespeare

But you won't be able to fully appreciate Shakespeare until you've read the works in the original Klingon.

Since you mentioned it...

That was the first Star Trek movie I saw in the theater.  The cgi blood floating in zero-g, though obviously dated now, was new and really cool at the time.

[Post-Crisis D]

The cgi blood floating in zero-g, though obviously dated now, was new and really cool at the time.

And the only time Klingons had purple blood, which was to avoid a stricter rating.

[Jeff Tanyard]

The cgi blood floating in zero-g, though obviously dated now, was new and really cool at the time.

And the only time Klingons had purple blood, which was to avoid a stricter rating.

Seriously?  Man, that's lame.   

[Post-Crisis D]

The cgi blood floating in zero-g, though obviously dated now, was new and really cool at the time.

And the only time Klingons had purple blood, which was to avoid a stricter rating.

Seriously?  Man, that's lame.   

They were concerned that red blood would get the film an R-rating.  Their first choice was green until someone remembered that Vulcans have green blood.  So they went with purple for the Klingons.

[Bill Hiatt]

Green blood is supposedly a result of the fact that Vulcans have less iron in their blood and more copper. But what element would make the blood purple? I wonder if they ever bothered to work that out.

[Post-Crisis D]

Green blood is supposedly a result of the fact that Vulcans have less iron in their blood and more copper. But what element would make the blood purple? I wonder if they ever bothered to work that out.

I would guess no but I don't know if anyone has come up with an in-canon explanation.  I am pretty sure it was the only time Klingon blood was shown to be purple.  In every other occurrence that I know of, Klingon blood is red.

[Jeff Tanyard]

Green blood is supposedly a result of the fact that Vulcans have less iron in their blood and more copper. But what element would make the blood purple? I wonder if they ever bothered to work that out.

Potassium, perhaps.  It burns with a purple flame.

Also, the Klingon blood in that movie looked pink to me, not purple.  Am I color-blind or something?   

FYI, lithium burns with a pink flame.  So if I'm writing the lore, I'd give the Klingons lithium-based pink blood or potassium-based purple blood.

[Post-Crisis D]

Also, the Klingon blood in that movie looked pink to me, not purple.  Am I color-blind or something?   

It looks like it was considered violet, not purple, blood.  But, reports say that, though purple/violet/lavender was the intended color of the blood, it looked pink on-screen.

Also, apparently, on Star Trek: Discovery and Star Trek: Lower Decks, Klingons had pink blood again.  And, apparently, there's been no explanation why some Klingons have red blood and others have pink.

Cardassians have brown blood and Ferengi have yellow blood.  And, Andorians have blue blood.