Is there a perfect frequency for publishing books?

[Andrew]

I've been writing for over a decade now, but most of my work hasn't been submitted to an agent or publisher. This is largely because my fourth novel, Erasmus Hobart and the Golden Arrow has been through a tortuously long saga since its first acceptance in 2004, during which time I continued to write other novels, but simply sat on them as I awaited developments.

The one exception to this was Erasmus' immediate precursor, Bandwagon, which was issued through a POD publisher just before Erasmus' acceptance, but was somewhat neglected as events overtook it. Last month, I issued the edited "Digital Remaster" edition for free through Smashwords, partially to redress this neglect, partially because I hope it might help build an audience for Erasmus. Now I'm considering putting some time into editing and releasing the other books, not for free this time (or at least not all for free), but with the hope they will all rise together and help me become a success.

Taking as read that there's some percentage in building a brand as an author, do people think there's an optimum speed to issue a back catalogue? Does too quickly give the impression of rushing it? Does too slowly mean you fade in the memory? Or does it make a difference at all?

[Laurel]

I do not understand what you mean by back catalogue, especially with PoD.

That said, I would attend to QUALITY of your work over quantity or how often you publish.

The social media rule of thumb is that it takes a full year to build your audience and generate sales.

[Andrew]

Back catalogue just means all the unpublished work. POD is print on demand - Amazon's Createspace would be a modern version of this.

I take the point about quality over quantity, but these books weren't rushed at the time, it's simply that they accumulated over a period of more than a decade when I had a lot of time to write. To issue them now would involve a spot of editing to bring them up to my current standards, but that would still allow me to release them fairly quickly if there was a benefit in doing so.

[Vardan]

One thing I learned is that perfect and publishing are direct opposites for there is no one rule that works for all. What happens is that as you move forward through the treaterous waters of self-expression you work out your own template of work and you learn to navigate the shallow waters and evade the occasional call of the siren. Overall, I think every separate work deserves a breathing room and needs not be overshadowed by another one before it can stand on its own.

[Steph]

'Back catalogue' refers to previously-published works, which may or may not be currently available. You'd be publishing previously-unpublished books, which isn't quite the same (we've all got those!). As for the timing of releases, it's entirely up to you: the important thing is to develop a marketing strategy for each release. Once you've decided how you're going to market them (and how much marketing to do), then a suitable timescale will probably suggest itself. Vardan's point about giving each book some 'breathing room' is part of this.

[Andrew]

I suppose I should refer to them as a 'front catalogue' then, but I didn't really start a thread to quibble about semantics.

Something that always struck me when you look at the success of the Beatles was that in their early days they released albums at the rate of one every six months. This must in some way have contributed to their success, because it allowed a publicity juggernaut that always had something new to sell. I appreciate literature isn't quite the same as music, but it's still the case that people are less open to publicity for books that have been out for some time.

Consider the case of Barbara Cartland. Whilst she was alive she published huge numbers of books, giving people an impression that she was just churning them out and releasing everything she wrote. Now it transpires that she had 160 books unreleased at the time of her death, which is phenomenal. Had she released those during her lifetime, the increase in output would have been dramatic. Perhaps it would have reinforced the view she was rushing them out and damaged her sales, which might be why she didn't release them.

If you look at the extremes, it seems obvious to me that publishing a book every four or five years would mean not so much that people would forget you but that they'd stop checking your website to see if there was anything new forthcoming and could easily miss a new release. The exception to this are those authors who are masters at generating press attention - the Dan Browns and Salman Rushdies of this world. At the other end of the scale, a Barbara Cartland creates the impression of someone just churning stuff out without anything new or original to say. Sure, some people will buy everything she writes, but a lot of people will be put off by the sausage machine. Somewhere in between the two must be a sort of 'Beatles zone' where you keep your existing readers alert to new content without looking like you're flogging the same dead horse all the time.

[Andy]

If you're James Patterson, once a week seems to be the optimal rate (judging by the number of posters I see of his work on my daily commute).

[Andrew]

I've only put out the one title myself, and am desperately trying to get a second into publishable shape, but from what I've observed I think 3-6 months between books is about optimum.

[Jade]

Andy wrote: "If you're James Patterson, once a week seems to be the optimal rate (judging by the number of posters I see of his work on my daily commute)."

haha totally.

[Penny]

...I've actually found my own rhythm at 1 every 6 months ...I can't say if that's optimum but it is just long enough to keep readers waiting and just a little long as they become edgy...

[Andrew]

My gut feeling was 6 months as well, but I don't know if that's just a human liking for exact fractions or if there's some logic to it.

[Laurel]

I released book two Ghosts of the Past roughly nine months after book one The Great Succession Crisis. Ghosts is twice as long as GSC and was started, restarted a dozen times. GSC took me over a year to write. So in truth, I wrote a much longer book in less time than the first one.

I feel pretty good about that.


We also should be factoring in that once a book comes out, we no longer have time to JUST WRITE. We have to divide our time between writing and promotion/building social media audience. This takes a long time! Even with a twitter scheduling program like Hootsuite, it can take HOURS out of an individual day for me to schedule my tweets.

Most days I do not have any time left to even figure out what comes next in book three, let alone write it. As a research-heavy writer by habit, I spend a lot of time working out the science and social science underscoring everything.

So while Ghosts came out in March, I am not deluding myself into thinking Princess Anyu Returns will come out this winter. I've set a deadline for Christmas, 2014 -- a much more realistic goal.

[G.P.]

If your books are part of a series, and you're satisfied their quality meets reader expectations, from a purely marketing stand-point I would advise getting them all out in one go (or in rapid succession, taking time with each to ensure proper editing): many readers will be encouraged to buy books that belong to a fully published series, since they won't have to wait for the next release. Also, the more books you have to your name the more seriously you'll be taken by book buyers, as you have demonstrated your commitment to writing. This seems to be the consensus view amongst the members of Writers Discussion Group (a Google+ community I've found to be an excellent resource - check us out, if you haven't done so already).

[Mellie]

For me its probably about every 6 months or longer, since I am a slow writer. But, with series it pays to have more out there to take advantage of "binge buyers". When people read one book and really like it, they often go looking what else you have written that they can purchase.

[Andrew]

Interesting that people are largely thinking in terms of snagging more sales from new readers. It seems there might be separate strategies for securing and maintaining a reader base - new readers may, as has been observed, wish to devour several books on discovering a new writer, so a fast pace to build up a critical mass of work would seem to be a good way to start. However it's easy to imagine that if, to take an extreme, you managed to keep releasing a book a month, your slower readers would get frustrated, feeling they either had to read your books exclusively or fall behind, which suggests you should slow down once you have a reasonable number of books out there.

G.P. mentions series, and I wonder if these don't provide a middle way. If an author writes multiple series, interleaving the releases, perhaps this will satisfy both faster and slower readers: the faster reader can consume everything and still find time for other authors; the slower reader can choose to follow a particular series without feeling left behind. It's a nice idea, particularly since I like to have multiple series on the boil at once to keep things fresh.