How is a series a series to readers?

[alhawke]

So I'm working on a contemporary mythology urban fantasy book that pairs well with my book Cora, but it's a loose connection where characters from Cora are more like guest appearances (including Cora, Persephone, herself).

So my question is: how connected does a series have to be to be considered a "series" on Amazon? Does book 2 and book 3 have to be connected in time or can book 2 and 3 simply be a part of the same universe with the same "family" of characters (same genre, time, and place as other stories)??

The POV will be different and it will follow a different mythological character. Book 2 will technically take place after book 1, but will be very loosely connected and will be a firm standalone.

Why am I asking? Marketing is more effective when connecting books--as long as it doesn't mess with expectations (which is the question for this post). So I need to know whether to carry on with similar covers and whether I can link books as book 2,3 etc...

[TimothyEllis]

Definitely a series.

All it needs is something common.

[alhawke]

Definitely a series.

But here's a another question. If the new book is "book 2" it could be passed off at launch as a 2nd book by readers who wait for a third in trilogies. Could I release a new book as book 1 and the older 2019 book as book 2?? Do they have to be chronologically in order?

And a third question. I'm wide. Could the new book be launched for the initial 3 months on KU only? OR for all writers out there, can a book that's a standalone but still in series be released in KU if the writer is wide?

Basically, I'm framing the marketing around my new book. My new book is after two failed manuscripts from writer's block. Now that I'm excited over a new project, I'm seeing how it fits in my repertoire of titles for marketing.

[angela]

KDP has made series pages completely self-serve now, and you can do anything you want, from changing book orders in series to moving books around to different series.

So, whatever you decide to do, you can actually change it later if you want.

As for what readers want and expect, the default is that they want book 2 to be focused on the same characters as book 1, and set in the time after the events of book 1, and for it to be *the same but different.*

You can give them other characters, other settings, other themes... anything you want.

For book 6 of my flagship series, I changed the main character and also jumped back in time. In hindsight, it was a bad move, but... it's hard to say for sure, as many series have a drop-off at the book 5-6 bridge (or so I hear). I get a lot of reviews from people who say they were surprised and confused but ended up liking it. Always a risk.

I think what you're asking about is.... you have a new book, and can it be a fresh start as a stand-alone, but also be folded into a series later for ongoing predictable sales. Answer: yes.

Will you get some cranky people complaining about whatever you do, whether it's have one thing in KU but not another thing, or something that happens in chapter 3? Answer: yes. Of course.

[Cephus]

There's a difference between a series and books written in the same universe. If it doesn't have a story in common, then it's just happening in the same universe. If it's a different story with different characters then it's a separate book (or series). Brandon Sanderson has recurring characters that show up in different books but that doesn't make them the same series, they all just take place in the overarching world of the Cosmere.

[Lorri Moulton]

I think you can do anything you want, but I would let readers know there is NO cliffhanger. That seems to be a big plus for some readers with series.

Also, as to wide...you can have part in KU/part wide, but you might get more returns of the wide books in the series.  That seems to be a problem lately in some genres.  However, I've also seen KU authors say they've had returns.
Best of luck with whatever you decide!  And congrats on being excited again. 

[Cephus]

I think you can do anything you want, but I would let readers know there is NO cliffhanger. That seems to be a big plus for some readers with series.

Also, as to wide...you can have part in KU/part wide, but you might get more returns of the wide books in the series.  That seems to be a problem lately in some genres.  However, I've also seen KU authors say they've had returns.
Best of luck with whatever you decide!  And congrats on being excited again. 

Virtually every successful author has returns. Big deal. It's part of the game. You don't actually lose anything, someone who buys your book, reads it and returns it is identical to nobody buying it at all. You haven't actually lost anything.

[alhawke]

And congrats on being excited again. 

That's what's really important, isn't it? I tell you, my greatest slumps are when I'm not working on a project. The  can be maddening.

[writeway]

A series is when all of the books are connected either by an arc that carries on from book to book, characters that carry on from book to book, or even just the setting. For example, if you write a standalone series where the books only connect because they all take place in a small beach town. As long as there is some kind of connection.

So a series can be closely connected where you have to read all of them to understand the project or it can be loosely connected by only a few characters or one character or the setting that connects the books.

Another type of series is one where the setting nor the characters connect but the books are grouped together due to their tropes. For example, I have a billionaire series with the instalove trope. All of the books feature a different billionaire and love interests but the trope is instalove. So the series is connected in that way.

Also, some readers don't know what a series is anyway so I wouldn't worry about it. Many of them think a serial is a series and visa versa but they are different things. Just go with some kind of connection, brand the books to where folks know they connect with similar covers, titles and you'll be okay. Also, number the books and they shouldn't be confused unless their just idiots. 

[writeway]

So I'm working on a contemporary mythology urban fantasy book that pairs well with my book Cora, but it's a loose connection where characters from Cora are more like guest appearances (including Cora, Persephone, herself).

So my question is: how connected does a series have to be to be considered a "series" on Amazon? Does book 2 and book 3 have to be connected in time or can book 2 and 3 simply be a part of the same universe with the same "family" of characters (same genre, time, and place as other stories)??

The POV will be different and it will follow a different mythological character. Book 2 will technically take place after book 1, but will be very loosely connected and will be a firm standalone.

Why am I asking? Marketing is more effective when connecting books--as long as it doesn't mess with expectations (which is the question for this post). So I need to know whether to carry on with similar covers and whether I can link books as book 2,3 etc...

When you say POV is going to be different I hope you don't mean you are switching from say 1st person to 3rd. I think that's a big mistake. Most readers only like one POV and if you start book one with one POV then it will be jarring and disappointing to some readers to switch. Also you will lose readers because again, most readers have a favoritre POV. For me, I love third. I hate 1st person and avoid it. If I read book 1 in a series and it was 3rd  person POV and the author switched to 1st for the second book, I'd be livid and would not finish reading the series and probably never buy from the author again because I couldn't trust them.

Changing POV from series to series is fine but not in the same series. I'm just warning you that many readers will find that confusing and annoying. You set expectations in the first book so that's what readers will expect throughout the series.

[alhawke]

If I read book 1 in a series and it was 3rd  person POV and the author switched to 1st for the second book, I'd be livid and would not finish reading the series and probably never buy from the author again because I couldn't trust them.

I did mean changing POV. In my case, it'd be 3rd to 1st. For the structure of this new book, it has to be 1st person POV to work. So you gave me another warning to consider. Thank you. I'm still brainstorming and I haven't committed either way yet.

[TimothyEllis]

I did mean changing POV. In my case, it'd be 3rd to 1st. For the structure of this new book, it has to be 1st person POV to work. So you gave me another warning to consider. Thank you. I'm still brainstorming and I haven't committed either way yet.

I don't think that matters on a series which is basically stand alones in a shared setting.

Especially if on the series description and the first book description you make it clear the series is a set of stand alone books in a shared setting.

The other thing you can do is pre-order the first 3 books all at the same time. Then make each description very clear they have different MC's. You could even do the blurbs in the POV of the MC. So the blurb for the 1st person is in 1st person.

Anyone who wants to check out the series progression will very quickly pick up this isn't a serial story.

[Lynn]

One of my favorite series is The Saga of Recluce by LE Modesitt Jr.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Saga_of_Recluce

Books are not in chronological order. The tenses are not the same in every book. The POV is third in some and first in others.

It works just fine and I tolerate even my less favorite POVs and tenses because the series is good.

Basically, if you write well and create a compelling universe, you can do what you want.

[alhawke]

From a marketing standpoint, do you think it's better to release a 2nd standalone book in series or as an independent book? I can do this either way.

I'm resurrecting this thread because I haven't decided what I'm going to do. My book is done. It has lots of connections with my first book, CORA; the main character is best friends with her. And there is a modicum of continuation of plot from the first. But there's no reason for me to connect the two books at all. My upcoming book can be enjoyed and read without even knowing I released CORA. And I've read about how many people don't buy 2nd books in series because they're expecting a third. At this stage, I don't intend on creating a 3rd novel.

So... I don't know. My feeling, marketing-wise, is to launch the book as a new book. I've even considered selling it in KU for the first 3 months (obviously, I won't do this if I connect it in series). What method sells better, in your opinion?

I could even, if I don't merge them in series, connect the books later on if it drops off in sales. ??

[Lorri Moulton]

Isn't Cora already sort of connected to some of your other books?

I'm purposely connecting as many of my books in the same genre as possible.  Stand alones do not have great sell through in my limited (and very little ad spend) experience.
However, your results might be different. 

ETA:  And there's always same world rather than same series.  That might be a good compromise.

[alhawke]

Isn't Cora already sort of connected to some of your other books?

Sort of. She's the same Persephone with links to her past, but my epic fantasy trilogy is four thousand years earlier, written very differently, and for a general 12+ audience. CORA is for an adult audience and is contemporary urban fantasy taking place now. My upcoming book will be another mature modern urban fantasy taking place within years of CORA. Market confusion? Yeah. I know. I'm working on ways to differentiate better and, in some ways, I hope advertising my new book with it should group the two urban fantasy away from my epic fantasies. Also, as you can see, the cover art is completely different.

I'm purposely connecting as many of my books in the same genre as possible.  Stand alones do not have great sell through in my limited (and very little ad spend) experience.
However, your results might be different. 

Thanks for your input. With your results, I'd be linking for sure. But I've had better results with some fresh new releases--my best release ever was a brand new story, but it was at the height of covid and staying home. I released it in KU. But its success might be timing??
{edit for clarity

[Lorri Moulton]

Have you had any issues with reviews...having the same character in stories with such different heat levels?  I've never seen that before, but it is an interesting approach.  You know the character so well, it would be fun to keep writing about them in a different setting and/or genre.

[alhawke]

Have you had any issues with reviews...having the same character in stories with such different heat levels? 

Not yet...  I put warnings in bold for Cora after the blurb. I'm most concerned there. The stories were set in my mind and I went with them, risk and all, I suppose.

It's always possible there've been readers who are disappointed going in the opposite direction, with my epic fantasy trilogy not having enough steam. I don't warn them about that. I also make the direction of steam/profanity/maturity apparent in the initial pages of my books. And I think the covers are pretty clearly general audience (artwork) and not (Martini glass).

I suppose I do things the hard way with everything.  Anyway, yes, it definitely is a lot of fun carrying on a character in different settings and extremes.
{edit for clarity

[PJ Post]

Some thoughts:

The potential problem here is that your brand isn't well defined (MG, Adult, 1st person, 3rd person, historical, present day), and apart from creating nightmare marketing issues it also leads to reader confusion because they don't know what to expect from book to book - the look inside of the next book doesn't match up with the book they just finished. Confusion generally pushes people to buy other books.

A series is either 1) one long connected story/arc (however you get there), or 2) the same characters doing the same stuff from book to book. A shared setting (shared universe) isn't the same thing. Batman and Superman live in the same universe but they are not part of the same series. But...you can still brand a shared setting. The trick is to let people know it's 'more of the same' but with different characters. The key here is 'more of the same' - same tense, same pov, same vibe.

A narrowly defined brand is always going to be the easiest to market, and the most likely to garner fans.

The best marketing advice, regardless of industry, is pick a lane and stay in it - a lot.

___

As for strategy, I would rethink all of the same universe books (past, present and future), figure out how they fit together and then rebrand them around that concept, including the new book. Think of them as a product line rather than a book series. One way to do it is to come up with a name for the universe/collection, like a 'A Star Wars Story', which tells us it's Star Wars, but not part of the primary story arc with Luke and Vader. Do the covers so they all look the same at a glance, like with borders or whatever.

   

[alhawke]

The potential problem here is that your brand isn't well defined (MG, Adult, 1st person, 3rd person, historical, present day), and apart from creating nightmare marketing issues it also leads to reader confusion because they don't know what to expect from book to book - the look inside of the next book doesn't match up with the book they just finished. Confusion generally pushes people to buy other books.

Just to be clear, these books mentioned aren't connected in the same series. I never market them together--though I get author branding. You're right with regard to author brand. Looking at that, you can expand your same argument to authors writing in multiple genres as well.

The post was related to possibly forming a separate new series, which I think would actually help further push my books away from each other and help with any creative artistic marketing confusion. Anyway, always respect your push for marketing (not intended to be flippant)

The best marketing advice, regardless of industry, is pick a lane and stay in it - a lot.

No. I'll write and sell whatever I want.
Of course, you're right. That is the best marketing advice.

[TimothyEllis]

The best marketing advice, regardless of industry, is pick a lane and stay in it - a lot.

Of course, staying in a lane can be difficult. 

[Hopscotch]

The best marketing advice, regardless of industry, is pick a lane and stay in it - a lot.

Of course, staying in a lane can be difficult.

And also very boring for the writer.  One of my faves is Donald E. Westlake who laned himself only in the broadest sense, writing 100+ novels in various genre, and some crossovers and others genre-less.  Perhaps the better mktg advice should be, Do whatever you want but do a lot of it.

[PJ Post]

The best marketing advice, regardless of industry, is pick a lane and stay in it - a lot.

Of course, staying in a lane can be difficult.

And also very boring for the writer.  One of my faves is Donald E. Westlake who laned himself only in the broadest sense, writing 100+ novels in various genre, and some crossovers and others genre-less.  Perhaps the better mktg advice should be, Do whatever you want but do a lot of it.

There are always exceptions, but most traditional writers have always stayed in their lane. The problem with writing all over the place is it fragments your brand, which is confusing for your audience. The retail example is boutique couture or discount shoes, never both. Books work the same way. Nora Roberts is a great example. We all know she's JD Robb, but the branding is still separate and distinct.

Perhaps I should have said: write whatever you want, but when it comes to publishing, pick an appropriate lane for each work.

[TimothyEllis]

but most traditional writers have always stayed in their lane.

I wouldn't have said so.

They'd just publish the other lanes using pen names.

King and Bachman for example.

[Hopscotch]

Tim's got it - Westlake had a dozen pennames.  But a better eg may be Thomas Berger (Little Big Man, Neighbors, Arthur Rex, Crazy in Berlin) - whose lane was no lane or any lane, and no pennames.  But each of his books is worth a read and, better, a re-read.  Which is what we all want, right?

[idontknowyet]

Tim's got it - Westlake had a dozen pennames.  But a better eg may be Thomas Berger (Little Big Man, Neighbors, Arthur Rex, Crazy in Berlin) - whose lane was no lane or any lane, and no pennames.  But each of his books is worth a read and, better, a re-read.  Which is what we all want, right?

As a reader i HATE it when an author has a million pen names, I understand why they do it as an author, but as a reader it drives me out of my mind. When you find an author you enjoy reading, you want to read everything they write, or at least i do. It's like they're hiding all these books I'd love from me.

[idontknowyet]

The best marketing advice, regardless of industry, is pick a lane and stay in it - a lot.

Of course, staying in a lane can be difficult.

And also very boring for the writer.  One of my faves is Donald E. Westlake who laned himself only in the broadest sense, writing 100+ novels in various genre, and some crossovers and others genre-less.  Perhaps the better mktg advice should be, Do whatever you want but do a lot of it.

There are always exceptions, but most traditional writers have always stayed in their lane. The problem with writing all over the place is it fragments your brand, which is confusing for your audience. The retail example is boutique couture or discount shoes, never both. Books work the same way. Nora Roberts is a great example. We all know she's JD Robb, but the branding is still separate and distinct.

Perhaps I should have said: write whatever you want, but when it comes to publishing, pick an appropriate lane for each work.

See i'll disagree here. Super fans might know and other authors know, but i doubt the average reader knows roberts and robb are the same person. I read both her pens for decades not knowing.

[LilyBLily]

<snip>

See I'll disagree here. Super fans might know and other authors know, but i doubt the average reader knows roberts and robb are the same person. I read both her pens for decades not knowing.

I'm always surprised when someone says that, since Nora's publisher gave away copies of the first J. D. Robb book at an RWA conference and thus it was no secret to the romance world at all. I'm quite sure someone would have commented on it in Romantic Times, and I always assumed it was an open pen name.

[Post-Doctorate D]

As a reader i HATE it when an author has a million pen names, I understand why they do it as an author, but as a reader it drives me out of my mind. When you find an author you enjoy reading, you want to read everything they write, or at least i do. It's like they're hiding all these books I'd love from me.

As a reader, I don't like it because it's like they think I'm too stupid to be able to pick and choose what I want to read.

[PJ Post]

As a reader i HATE it when an author has a million pen names, I understand why they do it as an author, but as a reader it drives me out of my mind. When you find an author you enjoy reading, you want to read everything they write, or at least i do. It's like they're hiding all these books I'd love from me.

As a reader, I don't like it because it's like they think I'm too stupid to be able to pick and choose what I want to read.

One, it's a branding/marketing thing.

And two, (again, while there are always exceptions), most writers don't have lots of pseudonyms. Bachman was an experiment - those books were literally the same exact genre/style. And while some traditional authors may push the envelope of their genre, few of them stray very far for fear of diluting their income stream. Indies have proven this over and over, cross-over fans are rare - not unheard of, just rare - too rare to bank a marketing strategy on. And for the Indies that do have multiple pen names, while they may or may not keep them secret, they do tend to run them as separate businesses/publishing ventures - different genres means different reader expectations.

[LilyBLily]

Even authors whose writing style I like very much have not lured me to cross over to read them in genres I don't care for.

As a reader of mysteries I have sometimes read the books by multiple pseudonym authors and found that I preferred one slant over another and therefore was not going to read all of both names. I read a handful of Ed McBain novels but maybe only one or two under his more mainstream psuedonym, Evan Hunter.

[Crystal]

At this point, JD Robb books say "Nora Roberts writing as..." so people know.

I think it's best to stick to one coherent theme. I don't know Nora Roberts books to say how they differ from JD. I have never read her and after her temper tantrum against indies in 2019 (I think it was 2019) I don't wish to read her.

[elleoco]

Even authors whose writing style I like very much have not lured me to cross over to read them in genres I don't care for.

Same here. I've read all of Hillerman's Leaphorn and Chee books but not his autobiographical book or one non-L&C book. Read all of C.J. Box's Joe Pickett books but none of his other stuff. It's not even different genres. Usually a second series or other books feature settings and/or characters less appealing to me.

[LilyBLily]

At this point, JD Robb books say "Nora Roberts writing as..." so people know.

I think it's best to stick to one coherent theme. I don't know Nora Roberts books to say how they differ from JD. I have never read her and after her temper tantrum against indies in 2019 (I think it was 2019) I don't wish to read her.

I have other, more personal reasons for disliking her as a person, but she was much sinned against as she was coming up--plagiarized by a big name, at a time when she probably had to weigh carefully whether she should fight or whether doing so would destroy her.

The one JD Robb book I read seemed to have the same kind of hunky intelligent hero as in many of her romances. The female lead had a bit more agency in that world, and the story was more hard-edged. Then again, in a romance when a heroine is attacked by an abusive ex-husband, you've got the hard edge there, anyway, if sometimes only briefly and then of course the hero rescues her. The JD Robb books are mysteries, so there are more bad people in them, I guess.

I've forgiven her for the romance about the lion tamer whose lover convinced her to stop being one because it made him nervous--I'm fairly sure that was Harlequin's edict. But although I initially was quite enthusiastic about her books, their perfection eventually grated on me. I tend to prefer stories with more emotional jagged edges, if that makes sense.

[angela]

As a reader i HATE it when an author has a million pen names, I understand why they do it as an author, but as a reader it drives me out of my mind. When you find an author you enjoy reading, you want to read everything they write, or at least i do. It's like they're hiding all these books I'd love from me.

As a reader, I don't like it because it's like they think I'm too stupid to be able to pick and choose what I want to read.

I have different pen names because it means sometimes I have 3 Bookbub promotions running at the same time. Also, very few readers cross between series, let alone between series in slightly different genres, so it's really easy to sacrifice a couple possible lost crossovers for more BB / other advertiser opportunities. It's not a secret, and I list them all together in my backmatter. Maybe readers like it? If they're superfans, and they read your other names, they're getting 3 for 1. It's also making them work a tiny bit to get all the books... and people value experiences higher if they require effort.

[Crystal]

At this point, JD Robb books say "Nora Roberts writing as..." so people know.

I think it's best to stick to one coherent theme. I don't know Nora Roberts books to say how they differ from JD. I have never read her and after her temper tantrum against indies in 2019 (I think it was 2019) I don't wish to read her.

I have other, more personal reasons for disliking her as a person, but she was much sinned against as she was coming up--plagiarized by a big name, at a time when she probably had to weigh carefully whether she should fight or whether doing so would destroy her.

The one JD Robb book I read seemed to have the same kind of hunky intelligent hero as in many of her romances. The female lead had a bit more agency in that world, and the story was more hard-edged. Then again, in a romance when a heroine is attacked by an abusive ex-husband, you've got the hard edge there, anyway, if sometimes only briefly and then of course the hero rescues her. The JD Robb books are mysteries, so there are more bad people in them, I guess.

I've forgiven her for the romance about the lion tamer whose lover convinced her to stop being one because it made him nervous--I'm fairly sure that was Harlequin's edict. But although I initially was quite enthusiastic about her books, their perfection eventually grated on me. I tend to prefer stories with more emotional jagged edges, if that makes sense.

I had a personal relationship blow up in small part because of a disagreement about Nora Roberts' tirade against indies (she started reasonably, but then...), so I'll always have a negative association with her. But then I have no interest in her books. They don't appeal to me. I haven't read them, so I may be wrong, but they do look like the kinds of books where everyone is much more selfless and positive than is realistic. I thought the same thing when I read Bella Andre. There was nothing wrong with the books. The writing was solid. I simply did not believe the characters were real people. They were too good

Yes, I prefer books where people are flawed and their feelings don't always make sense. I don't like a tidy ending. This is a controversial choice in romance, but I've had a good enough career, so I can't complain. I think there is a large audience for more "real" romance, with real meaning more in-depth, emotionally messy, nuanced. Naturalistic, I guess? Even if the setting is more outlandish.

Billionaires, celebrities, shifters, whatever.

Unfortunately, sharp edges and edgy and similar words tend to mean "dark romance," which has the full range of over the top to nuanced character portrayals. And raw tends to mean overwrought emotionally. There isn't really a good word for more... realistic portrayals of humans. But what is realistic to me may not be realistic to someone else.

I always write men who appreciate their partner's intellect and ambition. It's not even a conscious decision I made. I just can't find anything else attractive.

I respect that some women really want to be full time moms and make that choice in books, but no one will ever make that choice in my books. (It's an over-represented path as is). Similarly, I will write a doctor heroine over a nurse heroine, not because doctors are better than nurses, but because there are many more fictional nurse heroines than doctor heroines. (Well, a med student, likely, as I tend to write younger characters). Etc, etc. I'm in my early 30s and I'm no longer the youngest person in most romance author or reader groups, but I am still in the bottom quarter. I don't know that we're really adding younger people to the genre, even with TikTok virality and whatnot.