# Identical Covers for Books in a Series-- question



## KindleKandy (Apr 9, 2012)

My blog group is in a dispute.

One of the other girls recommended a book series for us to look at and the third refused to even read it because all of the books had identical cover images (the title was changed, but nothing else).

She claimed it "screams cheap, unprofessional, and amateur." 

I'll admit it says "indie" and implies "trying to keep costs down" to me. Unfortunately, after she indicated her opinions the other reviewer changed her mind, too, and didn't want to read it.

I don't mind, but it made me curious. Do any other readers feel this way? How DO you feel?


----------



## MariaESchneider (Aug 1, 2009)

Well, I've seen similar things happen in "crowds" or on forums.  I've even had a review disappear completely (along with every other review the poor lady did) because of discussions about admitting one reads indies, etc.  

As for the covers...I wouldn't be inclined to read such a series unless it was recommended to me by someone I trusted.  I'd find it confusing and...I guess I'd be concerned about WHY someone would use the same cover.  It wouldn't be the cost that would stand out, but the possible laziness factor that would bother me.  I'd wonder if they were too lazy to copyedit in addition to slapping up the same cover for each book.  I'd actually wonder if it was somehow a mistake.  

There are a lot of things being tried and some of them have good reasons behind them.  Some of the things being tried are arbitrary, some are good ideas, some are weird.  Some are going to bother readers whether it should bother them or not.  But I will say that cost is not a good reason to have all 3 books have the same cover.  I get that series should be tied together, but each story has to be its own story so I'd want to see different covers.

That said a number of library books I have checked out have had their covers replaced.  The new covers are nothing but a vinyl blue, black or green cover.  I still check them out, but I do feel a little cheated that I don't get the cover.  I *like* covers.  Even if they don't fit the book, they are part of the experience.


----------



## KindleKandy (Apr 9, 2012)

The funny thing is, we JUST did a big feature because I'd discovered one of my all-time favorite authors had a ton of her stuff free. Andre Norton!

The titles that are now considered public-- no idea what the term is at the moment, I am getting old. They all have the generic cover like the rest of the old classics. No pretty Norton original covers.

Thanks for chiming in.


----------



## Simon Haynes (Mar 14, 2011)

There's public domain (author has been dead 75/90/mickey mouse's age years), and there's out of print. Out of print doesn't mean they're free to share, it just means the publisher has decided not to print any more copies. In the old days that meant the rights reverted to the author, but these days it's a bit of a minefield because ebooks never go out of print.

Re the covers question, I think it's okay if the font takes up 2/3 of the cover and it's presented in different colours. If the cover art doesn't show humans then it may be possible to play with colours there, too.

Bear in mind a decent cover can cost a lot, and if you're releasing ten or twenty 99c short stories there's no way you're going to put a $500-$1500 cover on each one.


----------



## MariaESchneider (Aug 1, 2009)

KindleKandy said:


> The funny thing is, we JUST did a big feature because I'd discovered one of my all-time favorite authors had a ton of her stuff free. Andre Norton!
> 
> The titles that are now considered public-- no idea what the term is at the moment, I am getting old. They all have the generic cover like the rest of the old classics. No pretty Norton original covers.
> 
> Thanks for chiming in.


Sure, but people KNOW the name Andre Norton. Even the librarian is going to be able to provide info on them even if she hasn't read them personally. Just like when I'm in the library getting one of those "no picture recovered" books. I'm generally getting something I already know--plus it's the library. My taxes already paid for any books I check out.

I'm not saying it can't be done. I'm not saying it isn't cost effective. I'm saying that I'd be wondering what the deal was and I might pass it by because of it. If I see it done with an Andre Norton, I know why it's done that way--it's public domain. Same with other authors whose work is public domain. If I see it done on a series I've never heard of, at the very least, I'm probably going to do more research before buying.


----------



## Carol (was Dara) (Feb 19, 2011)

I'm not really a fan of using the same cover for several books in a series but I don't think it always means the author is being cheap. I know of several authors who use the same covers (but in different colors) across several books because book #1 had such awesome sales they hope to build on that cover recognition across the rest of the series. They want to be sure all the readers eagerly waiting for the next books will recognize them at a glance, even viewed in thumbnail size. 

Another reason I see occasionally is that the author or their cover designer wasn't thinking ahead when designing the cover for book #1. It didn't occur to them to make sure the model they were buying an image of had other, similar style pictures available. So when they decided to write more books about the same character, they realized they were stuck with a model who only has one good image available. Naturally, they don't want the heroine on cover #2 to look totally different than she did on cover #1, so they can't switch models at this late date.


----------



## Klip (Mar 7, 2011)

On a gut response level, I find it off-putting.  It's confusing and I do tend to associate it with "cheap and nasty".
Whether that is fair or not, I dont know, but that is my first reaction.  

I'm not talking about public domain books that are clearly classics though - that's quite different.


----------



## Martin OHearn (Feb 9, 2012)

Andre Norton and identical covers on ebooks in a series? Gregg Press was way ahead of the curve on that in 1977.

http://andre-norton-books.com/Cover%20Art_GP/Witch%20World%20Set.jpg

Why wait for ebook technology?


----------



## KateEllison (Jul 9, 2011)

I'm not a fan of it personally...as far as branding/recognition goes, I think it's better to have a very similar image, layout, color scheme, or font that ties the books together so they are obviously from the same series. For example:

  

or...

  

or...

   

or...

 

and so on and so forth.

They are all obviously series because of the design repetition, the use of the same fonts, and often a similarity in the titles (Harry Potter and... or The Iron ____). But the books are also clearly differentiated, which is both more aesthetically pleasing and easier to tell what is what.


----------



## KateEllison (Jul 9, 2011)

Dara's books are a great example of similar-yet-different covers as well.


----------



## ruecole (Jun 13, 2012)

I'm not a fan of the identical cover trend either. It does look cheap, whether or not it is. I'm also not a big fan of the "change only one aspect of the cover" trend either. I think each cover should look unique, while still looking similar to the other covers in the series. The Hunger Games covers Kate posted are a great example, I think. Also, Dara's historical mystery series (love those covers!).

Hope that helps!

Rue


----------



## cheriereich (Feb 12, 2011)

Covers in a series should look similar, but identical? Probably not. But if I enjoyed the first book in a series, I would keep reading, despite what the covers looked like. I can't imagine not trying a book I might like based on the cover.


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

I'm with Kate. . .they need to be different enough that it's dead obvious to a purchaser that it's a DIFFERENT book. . . .but they need to be similar enough in style that someone looking for more of a series will recognize them on a shelf/computer store page.  Using exactly the same picture and changing the title wouldn't work well for me, most likely*.  Using a picture that's similar in style with a different color of printing, say, probably would.

My pet peeve is when they release the same book later with a different title and cover and dupe me into buying it again when I already read it once. 

*If it's a reference series, I'd be o.k. with it. . . . .


----------



## gina1230 (Nov 29, 2009)

I don't like the same-cover trend either.  I've probably overlooked books not realizing it was a different story.


----------



## Katie Salidas (Mar 21, 2010)

I'm not really bothered by the same-looking cover for a series issue. I like to know that the books belong together. Now that you mention it though, it does say "cost conscious" to me. Not necessarily "cheap" though. I think that's a bit mean. I think that if done well, they can be quite striking!


----------



## history_lover (Aug 9, 2010)

KindleKandy said:


> My blog group is in a dispute.
> 
> One of the other girls recommended a book series for us to look at and the third refused to even read it because all of the books had identical cover images (the title was changed, but nothing else).
> 
> She claimed it "screams cheap, unprofessional, and amateur."


I agree with this. The books could be very well written for all I know but you'd never see this with a professional publisher (and I don't mean just the big 6, indie publishers can be professional too). Covers are an extremely important marketing tool and anyone who doesn't take full advantage of that screams "cheap and unprofessional" to me. In my experience, unprofessional covers can be an indication of the writing quality - not always, of course... but generally, someone who isn't willing to put the money and effort into getting a unique, professional cover (for each of their books) may not have gotten a professional editor either, or any professional writing skills. If an author expects their work to be taken seriously, they need to convey professionalism, in all regards. So yes, to an extent, you CAN judge a book by it's cover. I admit it's not a fool proof system but I'm never going to read all the good books out there anyway so I'm okay with missing some because of the cover. There's just so much self published crap on Kindle, I need some kind of vetting system and unprofessional covers (and titles) are the first thing I come into contact with so they are the first level of vetting.


----------



## Nancy Fulda (Apr 24, 2011)

I'm not a fan of identical covers, nor of covers that are differently-hued variations of an identical image, but they aren't an automatic turnoff for me.

It's worth considering that while many series are obviously unified by their covers, that unity is only apparent when the covers are neatly lined up next to each other. A random browser on Amazon might not instinctively recognize that _Outside In_ is the sequel to _Inside Out_, for example, especially if it's been a while since she read the first book. For that reason, I can understand why indie authors who earn their money off of Amazon also-bought links might prefer nearly-identical covers.


----------



## MariaESchneider (Aug 1, 2009)

Nancy Fulda said:


> I'm not a fan of identical covers, nor of covers that are differently-hued variations of an identical image, but they aren't an automatic turnoff for me.
> 
> It's worth considering that while many series are obviously unified by their covers, that unity is only apparent when the covers are neatly lined up next to each other. A random browser on Amazon might not instinctively recognize that _Outside In_ is the sequel to _Inside Out_, for example, especially if it's been a while since she read the first book. For that reason, I can understand why indie authors who earn their money off of Amazon also-bought links might prefer nearly-identical covers.


Except in the case of also bought--I'm going to assume I've read it if the cover is the same. I very much remember covers, just like I tend to remember people's icons on the left here on these board. Names? Not so much. Change your icon and I have to think twice. In the also boughts the titles aren't going to be as readable and even if they are, when I scan, I'm going to assume I've read the book.

Again, there's nothing terribly wrong with it, but if there's a question in the mind of enough readers, it makes sense to avoid the practice, IMO. Covers are a Pain to do and I've read some DARN good books with awful covers, but it is never a good idea to start out with one hand tied behind your back so to speak.


----------



## Alpha72 (May 9, 2012)

For me, it doesn't matter. I really don't care about book covers. Granted, they'll sometimes catch my attention, but if I'm already interested because I know the author or because they contacted me about a review, then I don't think it should count. I mean, how many people sit around staring at the cover anyway?

I think my biggest concern would be whether or not it might confuse the audience. If I'm scanning through a lot of search results, seeing a similar cover might make me think they were different editions, but even then I'd have to be going pretty fast.


----------



## telracs (Jul 12, 2009)

I don't look at covers at all.  As long as the name is different enough that I can tell it's a different book, I don't really care what the cover looks like.  But I don't what kind of assumption I'd make about an author who uses identical covers on their books.


----------



## KindleKandy (Apr 9, 2012)

Appreciate all the input.

I do recall re-buying books in paperback that had the cover changed, and boy did that make me mad. I suppose it might be easy to have cover recognition and not title or author instant recall.


----------



## Monique (Jul 31, 2010)

I didn't realize so many people had such strong feelings about this.


----------



## history_lover (Aug 9, 2010)

Nancy Fulda said:


> It's worth considering that while many series are obviously unified by their covers, that unity is only apparent when the covers are neatly lined up next to each other. A random browser on Amazon might not instinctively recognize that _Outside In_ is the sequel to _Inside Out_, for example, especially if it's been a while since she read the first book. For that reason, I can understand why indie authors who earn their money off of Amazon also-bought links might prefer nearly-identical covers.


If I liked a book enough to be willing to read the rest of the series, I will go looking for the series/look out for the next release/remember the author's name. Of course Amazon's recommendations and Goodreads' new releases email (which tells you when new books by an author on your shelves is released) help with that. But the covers don't need to be immediately identifiable as a series for me to notice or find the rest of the series.


----------



## MariaESchneider (Aug 1, 2009)

Monique said:


> I didn't realize so many people had such strong feelings about this.


FWIW, your covers are vague enough in the background that with the distinct color change, they are not obviously the same covers. The color change is not subtle so with them right next to each other I didn't really notice it. That said, I think when the second? one came out (could have been the third. My memory is...lacking.) Anyway, my first thought was, 'oh she changed the cover color for some reason." I did NOT realize it was a different book. I saw it outside of this forum somewhere or other and it wasn't next to the other book. I remembered thinking, "I really liked the original color better." It wasn't until you did a giveaway? or something that I realized the book was a different one. That was a long time between when I first saw it and realized it.


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

MariaESchneider said:


> FWIW, your covers are vague enough in the background that with the distinct color change, they are not obviously the same covers. The color change is not subtle so with them right next to each other I didn't really notice it. That said, I think when the second? one came out (could have been the third. My memory is...lacking.) Anyway, my first thought was, 'oh she changed the cover color for some reason." I did NOT realize it was a different book. I saw it outside of this forum somewhere or other and it wasn't next to the other book. I remembered thinking, "I really liked the original color better." It wasn't until you did a giveaway? or something that I realized the book was a different one. That was a long time between when I first saw it and realized it.


And see, for me, with Monique's covers, (sorry Monique  ) the emphasis is on the titles. . . . it's always been obvious to me that they were 3 different books. I had to look closely just now to realize that, yes, in fact, it's the same background image. For me it works in 'branding' the books.

Bottom line. . . I don't think there's a hard and fast rule. It all depends on the book and author.

There's 'branding' where you* develop a style and stick with it. The risk with that is in getting it right the first time, because if it doesn't work and you change it, then there's confusion. Branding happens all the time. . . .all of James Patterson's books look exactly the same except for color and title, for instance. 

And there's just doing the same thing over and over because you haven't the time/energy/money/interest in doing anything else. That's completely different and I think it's clear to most readers who care about covers when that's going on.

There is, possibly, some truth to the theory that you see this more often with books that are not published by major houses.  I feel like some indie authors start over each time; many of the covers may look somewhat amateurish as a result and it's not immediately obvious that the books are all by the same person. Others are extremely professional, but may or may not indicate a brand. And some indicate a clear brand, but are still kind of amateurish. I don't see any of those problems as often with covers on books from major houses.

*in all cases my use of this particular pronoun is meant in a very generic sense. I am absolutely not directing my remarks to anyone specific who has posted in this thread.  Just wanted to skip the whole "one" and he/she stuff.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

As a reader, I'm not sure I would start a series if I saw all four books at once with the exact same cover art, only titles different.  If I were a reviewer, I don't think I would NOT review a series because of that; instead, I would make it part of the review.

As for your books, Monique...I'm with Ann; I had to do a doubletake to see that they were all the same image.  You have a strong brand with your covers...I wouldn't worry about it.  Your covers are readily identifiable as your series and it's a strong series.  I think it helps that the cover is so good.  

Betsy


----------



## MariaESchneider (Aug 1, 2009)

Also, fwiw, I see the big publishers taking shortcuts with covers more often these days--they are lot more into branding and re-using the same photo and changing the title.  They'll put a different colored border or move the picture aspect ratio.  I think part of it is that it saves some money and time, but part of it is branding.  Companies are hyper aware of branding and trying to "stay" in people's minds.  That works great if the cover is great...

It's also one of those things where when a writer first starts out the companies are interested in catching the reader's eye--so the cover art is very important.  If an author makes a name for himself (James Patterson) that BECOMES the main part of the cover. 

If you look at an author's first few books they often don't have their name all that large.  As they get more popular the name takes over--it becomes a major selling point.  The background becomes a lot less important to both readers and publishers.


----------



## Monique (Jul 31, 2010)

Thanks, guys. I appreciate the comments.

I have been noodling over new covers, but will put that on hold for now and word on the next book instead.


----------



## MariaESchneider (Aug 1, 2009)

Monique said:


> Thanks, guys. I appreciate the comments.
> 
> I have been noodling over new covers, but will put that on hold for now and word on the next book instead.


That's usually the best policy. Every "rule" is meant to be broken. The trick is knowing if you're one of the exceptions or just a rule-breaker...in your case, I think the votes are in!


----------



## telracs (Jul 12, 2009)

Monique said:


> I didn't realize so many people had such strong feelings about this.


on the internet many people have strong feelings about many things....
and it's usually those with the strongest feelings who take the time to post.


----------



## rweinstein6 (Aug 2, 2011)

It's funny- in one of the other forums I frequent, there was a thread similar to this and someone posted that there were books in a certain genre from different authors but the same pub. Co. That had identical covers! I was flabberghasted that any company would do that to their authors.


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

One of the things I've periodically seen is two completely different books that use the same basic image for the cover.  This is because many independent publishers/writers use stock photography.  They may do something completely different with all the other cover elements, but it's the same girl on the cover.

Similar concepts are frequent however. . . . .naked chested man with clinging/fainting/partially dressed female, for example is popular on a romance novel. . .especially the historical sort.  But that's o.k.  It helps fans find them fast and it helps those who are NOT interested move on down the shelf.  

So, I guess the other issue is that the covers ought to be 'representative' of the genre so that it will be clear to both fans and foes what it is.  Many people DO choose by covers and if they saw a cover as I described above and expected a historical romance and it ended up being a distopian novel instead, well, you'd have unhappy customers.  And the people you wanted to read it -- those that LIKE distopian fiction, would probably never see it!


----------



## MariaESchneider (Aug 1, 2009)

Ann in Arlington said:


> One of the things I've periodically seen is two completely different books that use the same basic image for the cover. This is because many independent publishers/writers use stock photography. They may do something completely different with all the other cover elements, but it's the same girl on the cover.
> 
> Similar concepts are frequent however. . . . .naked chested man with clinging/fainting/partially dressed female, for example is popular on a romance novel. . .especially the historical sort. But that's o.k. It helps fans find them fast and it helps those who are NOT interested move on down the shelf.
> 
> So, I guess the other issue is that the covers ought to be 'representative' of the genre so that it will be clear to both fans and foes what it is. Many people DO choose by covers and if they saw a cover as I described above and expected a historical romance and it ended up being a distopian novel instead, well, you'd have unhappy customers. And the people you wanted to read it -- those that LIKE distopian fiction, would probably never see it!


Actually the big 6 are using a lot of stock photography too. There was a big hoopla a few years back (about 3 or 4?) because two publishers had some photo that was the same and they were arguing that it was chosen on purpose to take advantage of the "sales" and popularity of the other book. Thing is, they came out about the same time and neither book was a blockbuster...

I worked with a guy for a while who does photography for a company that supplies a couple of the large publishers over in the UK. He gets sent out to take a shots of, say, horses. Or sky shots or whatever image they are looking for. He gets paid x for submitting 100 photos of whatever they are looking for, or sometimes he gets asked to work up covers based on the shots he takes (mock-ups) and then they might only buy the shots based on two of the mockups he does. It's fairly recent work for him (last 10 years) where he is actually sent out to get these shots. Just FYI--he tends to get sent out for these photoshoots for authors that are very popular--the Grishams, Pattersons, etc. I was looking for one of them he sent me so I could state the author name and now I can't find it...


----------



## rweinstein6 (Aug 2, 2011)

I know I can't post the other thread, but I'll give one example. This is something another writer found and posted all three side by side in her photobucket (I don't know how to get them to post in my post. read: I'm dumb), and they're exactly what you said, Ann!

http://s1060.photobucket.com/albums/t452/fairkatrina/?action=view&current=silver.jpg

Weird, right?


----------



## 90daysnovel (Apr 30, 2012)

I don't mind reused images too much. As Betsy pointed out the pool of stock images for some genres is fairly small. It damages the brand image reusing them, but the cost of models + photographer for brand new shots is extremely high relative to most indie budgets. Even the big legacy publishers minimise costs when they can. If you look at some of the magic themed books out there's a glass orb used on about ten of them. I think a unique image reused over your own series is much more professional than random rehashed stock photos.

Monique's covers are good that way - the background is distinctly hers, and the colour swap to denote a new title is an old favorite well applied. I wouldn't hesitate to buy hers if I read paranormal romance.

The ones I would skip are over are repeatedly reused stock photos, but in all honestly my eyes skip over those anyway.


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

MariaESchneider said:


> Actually the big 6 are using a lot of stock photography too.


I guess I've never noticed it, then. . . .might be what I read. 

I do get a kick out of the 'selling it' shorts in the back of the Consumer reports magazine. They often have pictures of multiple advertisements where the same person is, say, a doctor or a car salesman or suffers from some disease -- depending on which ad the picture is in.


----------



## history_lover (Aug 9, 2010)

Ann in Arlington said:


> I guess I've never noticed it, then. . . .might be what I read.


Here's an example... one is from an indie publisher but the other is from Penguin:


----------



## rweinstein6 (Aug 2, 2011)

Wow, your example beats mine.


----------



## history_lover (Aug 9, 2010)

rweinstein6 said:


> Wow, your example beats mine.


Your example looks like erotica covers - even the type font is the same so it must be from the same publisher. I've seen it before with erotica when browsing freebies.


----------



## Steph H (Oct 28, 2008)

That example that was linked (but not posted here) looks like individual stories that were originally in an anthology.  As Katharina mentions, once they're offered for sale as individual stories separate from the anthology, they still just usually use the anthology cover. Happens all the time with indie publishers (versus big publishers, they usually give new covers if the stories are ever offered individually....which can be rare in my experience).


----------



## Tristan Higbee (Jun 16, 2012)

I'm not a fan. If someone recommends a book like that to me, I'd read it. But if I'm just browsing on my own and come across a series of books with the same cover, the whole "what a lazy author" thing does go through my mind.


----------



## Craig Halloran (May 15, 2012)

Monique said:


> Thanks, guys. I appreciate the comments.
> 
> I have been noodling over new covers, but will put that on hold for now and word on the next book instead.


I think your covers are really cool, I wouldn't change a thing unless you really aren't happy with them. 
If your sales are good, I don't think I would worry about the cover, I would just build on that for the next series going forward.


----------



## ruecole (Jun 13, 2012)

Monique said:


> I didn't realize so many people had such strong feelings about this.


Monique, I don't think your covers fall under the "identical" or "one thing changed" category. Between the colours and the fonts they're each unique. I doubt I'd mistake one for the other. I was referring to the type of cover where EVERYTHING is the same except one small change. They just look too much alike!

Hope that helps!

Rue


----------



## Craig Halloran (May 15, 2012)

history_lover said:


> I agree with this. The books could be very well written for all I know but you'd never see this with a professional publisher (and I don't mean just the big 6, indie publishers can be professional too). Covers are an extremely important marketing tool and anyone who doesn't take full advantage of that screams "cheap and unprofessional" to me. In my experience, unprofessional covers can be an indication of the writing quality - not always, of course... but generally, someone who isn't willing to put the money and effort into getting a unique, professional cover (for each of their books) may not have gotten a professional editor either, or any professional writing skills. If an author expects their work to be taken seriously, they need to convey professionalism, in all regards. So yes, to an extent, you CAN judge a book by it's cover. I admit it's not a fool proof system but I'm never going to read all the good books out there anyway so I'm okay with missing some because of the cover. There's just so much self published crap on Kindle, I need some kind of vetting system and unprofessional covers (and titles) are the first thing I come into contact with so they are the first level of vetting.


I find this kind of honesty very helpful and I agree. I'm in the process of changing all of my covers because I don't feel the quality matches my work. My covers aren't bad, but
they don't scream 'Take me Seriously' either. Even though many say they don't really care about the covers, I still think the ratio of those that do, to those that don't is pretty high. I'd say 6:1 if I had to guess. I don't want to miss out on those sales, and I believe covers are the biggest key. When you have thousands of books to choose from, the ones with the best covers are going to be the first ones you look at (probably, I know someone will vehemently disagree). As a reader, what else do you have to go with. Reviews are a big deal in that deparment, but if not enough people are reading, then not enough are reviewing.

This is a great discussion because I want to know what readers are thinking. Thanks to all for your input.


----------



## BTackitt (Dec 15, 2008)

Personally, I don't like absolutely identical covers where nothing is changed but the titles. However, my father, is really enjoying this series:
  

And there are 16 books in the series, as you can see, the only thing that differs in all 16, is the title.

Monique I do not see yours as the same. And I like your covers. For me, I guess it's 2 things, #1, you got me hooked on your series with #1, so after that, the covers didn't matter as much to me, and 2, the color change is enough for me to visually glance and go, oooo Monique's got a new one out!


----------



## charlesatan (May 8, 2012)

It honestly depends on the design. And as Maria Schneider pointed out, branding also plays an important role.

Take Monique's covers. They're actually the same image but because of the design (color change, etc.), they work.

Another one where this works is the UK covers for The Wheel of Time books (https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.93693943088.77863.29185008088&type=3)

Not too thrilled with Len Levinson's covers. It's just plain confusing, if I were sorting through book covers alone. (Well, we have metadata...) That's not to say it'll never work... it can become an author's shtick to have identical covers in every book, but there's usually fame and branding associated with that.

My main point is how it fits with your design and strategy


----------



## charlesatan (May 8, 2012)

Echoing with what others said about stock photography. The Big 6 uses it too, depending on the imprint. And to a certain extent, makes sense, since large marketing budget tends to be reserved for best-sellers. And not as uncommon.There's this news item from a few years back for example: http://www.mediabistro.com/galleycat/its-deja-vu-all-over-again_b7639 (and I liked Girl in the Glass).

But there should also be design changes from the graphic artist/designer. Here's a video of how the cover for Gail Carriger's Blameless was made: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yoDCiTsS7dU


----------



## Ann Chambers (Apr 24, 2011)

I just love Monique's covers, and until this thread, didn't realize the image is the same. Thought they were all clockworks or gears, but didn't notice it's the same. The changing jewel colors and cool font/layout of the titles is plenty of difference, IMO. They are also great books.  

I read a lot of mystery/thriller series books and I like it when they are tied together by a "look" on a cover - style, font, layout, or whatever. It helps to spot them easily and to keep track of them. But all exactly the same? Not so much.

Another example of identical covers - I was just reading a post on Lawerence Block's blog and he's bringing out a handful of stories based on one character as e-books. He designed the covers himself and is very pleased with them. All the same except the title. Just a stock image of a gavel for artwork. (If you don't know LB - he's a grand master, etc. mystery writer. Been around FOREVER and written hundreds of books, including a handful about writing.) He loves e-books and is having a ball bringing some of his out-of-print books out as e-books. Book design, he might do better with a little help.


----------



## pamstucky (Sep 16, 2011)

I agree with similar-but-not-the-same. Knowing myself, I suspect I wouldn't even notice that the books were different books if they all had the same image. I'd think, "Oh, I read that already" and move on.

However, I definitely think it's important to use similar covers in a series, to clue people in that it's all part of the same series. And by the same token, an author's books outside the series should not use a similar cover to those inside the series. There are so many subtle clues that help readers understand, whether consciously or not, what to expect from the books.


----------



## vikiana (Oct 5, 2012)

I'm not a big fan of identical covers for books series...It looks cheap whether it is or not. Everybook has its very orginal and unique look and if the designer put the same cover everywhere I would call this a matter of a bad taste! The designer should think very carefully how to combine them in one without making them equal like funds of beer bottles!


----------



## jemima_pett (Feb 13, 2012)

An interesting thread.  I automatically thought that books in a series should have a themed cover, whether it was layout, colour scheme, whatever.  I like Monique's idea of using the colour to make the main difference.  I was trying to think of any series I had read that had identical covers though.  Most have the style the same, picture position the same, with different colours (in a harmonising palette), pics - and title of course.  I thought it was 'the done thing'.  

I was going to add that I couldn't think of any books with identical covers - then I realised my three Lord of the Rings volumes are identical - a matched set.  But with a graphic (of the eye in the ring), not a picture and that is what I think is different.

Is it also a matter of fashion though - what was cool in the 1970s (matched set) would at least require a change of colour in the 2010s?


----------



## MariaESchneider (Aug 1, 2009)

jemima_pett said:


> An interesting thread. I automatically thought that books in a series should have a themed cover, whether it was layout, colour scheme, whatever. I like Monique's idea of using the colour to make the main difference. I was trying to think of any series I had read that had identical covers though. Most have the style the same, picture position the same, with different colours (in a harmonising palette), pics - and title of course. I thought it was 'the done thing'.
> 
> I was going to add that I couldn't think of any books with identical covers - then I realised my three Lord of the Rings volumes are identical - a matched set. But with a graphic (of the eye in the ring), not a picture and that is what I think is different.
> 
> Is it also a matter of fashion though - what was cool in the 1970s (matched set) would at least require a change of colour in the 2010s?


Tastes definitely change. None of us wear our hair like we did in the 80s. Well, except possibly Dolly Parton.

There's a thread around here somewhere with some older Conan the Barbarian type covers that wouldn't get a positive nod today. Pulp fiction covers have had a comeback, but they are done with an obvious nod to the era. Artwork and what is "pleasing" is an ever changing thing.


----------



## JumpingShip (Jun 3, 2010)

I'm not a fan of identical covers, but not because of it looking cheap--I hadn't really thought about that. What would concern me, as an author, is that readers would think it was the same book they had already read, and so wouldn't bother to click on the description. As a reader, that is what I would think.


----------



## vikiana (Oct 5, 2012)

MaryMcDonald said:


> I'm not a fan of identical covers, but not because of it looking cheap--I hadn't really thought about that. What would concern me, as an author, is that readers would think it was the same book they had already read, and so wouldn't bother to click on the description. As a reader, that is what I would think.


The covers should be more or less connected somehow and that depends on th designer very much.

_<<Reminder: No Self Promotion is permitted in The Book Corner>>_


----------



## LT Ville (Apr 17, 2011)

I don't have an issue with identical covers as long as the books are clearly labeled and I know how they connect with each other but this forum has me feeling kind of bad because it seems like most people dislike identical covers.


----------



## Lensman (Aug 28, 2012)

LT Ville said:


> I don't have an issue with identical covers as long as the books are clearly labeled and I know how they connect with each other but this forum has me feeling kind of bad because it seems like most people dislike identical covers.


Iorry - I'm going to add to your misery. I positively dislike a series with the same cover on every volume. I'm trying to juggle full-time work and limited leisure - I haven't time to peer at tiny thumbnails (with worsening vision - yes, I'm getting old) to work out if the text is different. I'll just assume it is the same book I've already seen, and I may well miss a new book being released. Yes, using the same cover image is (IMHO) laziness and cheapness, and does not help the buyer.

Old books getting new covers can be irritating - I've bought more than one that was the same book re-issued. The worse crime (still IMHO) is re-covering and _re-titling_ books. Andre Norton (mentioned at the beginning of this thread) was a victim of this on numerous occasions - Secret of the Lost Race became Wolfhead, Star Rangers became The Last Planet and so on. A straight new cover can be annoying, but is usually capable of being spotted, and is inevitable when a publisher decides to reissue something that has gone out of print - as another poster commented, styles in covers change as the years pass. But repeating an existing image on a different book - no, I don't like that at all.


----------



## Mark Young (Dec 13, 2010)

Why shoot yourself in the foot? Don't let a great book go unread simply because you want to save some change on the design. I believe an indie writer needs to produce a product--which is what a book really is--that is competitive with all the others. The old adage," don't judge a book by its cover", may not be true in this highly competitive market.


----------



## NoahMullette-Gillman (Jul 29, 2010)

You would never see a series of books with the same cover in a book store, and I don't think ebooks should be held to a lower standard.

There are so many ways you can change a cover in Photoshop, even if for some reason you can't manage a brand new one, that there is no excuse. I can't imagine reading a series which shared a single cover over multiple books.


----------

