Branding Science Fiction Romance, Part III

In the previous two posts, we discussed two major branding components of science fiction romance: genre labeling and content. Among those who participated in the discussion (and with the implicit approval of the silent majority of lurkers, tee hee), we reached a general consensus regarding continued use of “science fiction romance” as a marketing label. We addressed a few key points regarding story content, but largely this aspect is a work in progress—and that’s to be expected this early in the game.

Branding is about both the product as well as the audience for said product. In this post, I’m going to attempt to define the audience for SFR as well as lay out possibilities for finding them.

So...who are they?

SFR fans come from both the SF/F and romance realms--no secret there. We all have our individual preferences for this blend, whether they be SFR heavy on the romance or the science fictional elements (or both if a lengthy word count allows it). Many of us are willing to adjust our expectations for this hybrid genre, although it's downright fabulous when authors strike just the right balance, which, of course, can mean different things to different readers.

While it certainly won’t happen overnight, as far as attracting new readers to the genre we may be able to cast our net beyond the romance community. Here are a few categories of existing and potential science fiction romance fans:

* Those who enjoy paranormal romance

* Those who are tired of paranormal romance

* Readers who like action & adventure in their romance

* Fanfiction readers

* E-book aficionados/early adapters of dedicated devices (which include both romance and SF readers. Did you know that “Kindle readers purchase more books than most heavy book purchasers”? Did you also know that JA Konrath makes more money from his Kindle sales than from his print ones? Have you read this Kindle success story?)

* Fans of futuristic erotic romance

* Readers who seek out niche romance sub-genres

* SF readers who enjoy character-driven stories

Nothing is 100% for everyone. If we can siphon off x percentage of romance, paranormal, and SF readers, then that will count as a great success. Such an achievement doesn’t need to change the face of publishing to constitute a hit or failure. As an investor, if I can turn $10 into $50, I’m happy. There are those who would turn up their noses at this, and hold out for something that’s either $100 million or forget it. But it means they’re turning down a steady, but building revenue stream.

Build the Buzz, and they will come

We currently have tools at our disposal that can help build mass amounts of buzz. There’s buzz about the genre in general, and then there’s the buzz associated with breakout books. Lucky for us, in addition to print mediums such as RT Book Reviews and Loveletter, we currently have the power of teh Internets (blogs, Twitter, various forums such as Goodreads & Shelfari, as well as emerging digital ebook technology). However, we can also network with potential SFR readers in a time-tested tradition: by recommending reads to friends as well as folks we meet at bookstores and libraries.

Perhaps our best investment right now is time—devoting time to talking about our favorite stories. Authors will have certain promotional costs, of course, and free books/excerpts will continue to be effective loss leaders, but if you ask me, I’d rather authors use the money they’d spend on bookmarks/book videos/t-shirts to pay themselves to get online and engage other readers in discussions—not just as authors, but as readers. Name recognition alone has a wide reach.

In response to my earlier post Does Science Fiction Romance Need a Gene Roddenberry?, Linnea Sinclair stated that “The visual media has NOT been romance-deficient. But watchers are not always readers, apparently.”

Her observation certainly rings true. Still, I wonder if conventions have been underutilized as buzz-builders and reader recruitment arenas. It’s no accident that publishers of all sizes congregate at the major ones to showcase their wares. These might be the locales in which to target viewers who enjoy romance and SF blends in films and television and even fanfiction.

Perhaps another way to look at this is to find the fans of visual media SF and lock them in a room with a science fiction romance book encourage them to try FIREFLY/BATTLESTAR GALACTICA/STAR TREK in book form. It’s all in the pitch—a pitch that would be especially effective if it were delivered in the form of a panel (with giveaways, of course).

As many times as I’ve attended Comic-Con San Diego, I have yet to see a panel or booth devoted to science fiction romance or some variation thereof. Whose fault is that? Certainly not the attendees. If no one beats me to the punch, I will pledge to make that happen (like I really need an excuse to return, lol!).

Yes, this type of endeavor requires a financial investment but it seems to me it could be accomplished for the price of a single book video—maybe less. Plus, you’d get to hang out with Wolverine.

Joyfully yours,

Heather

Branding Science Fiction Romance, Part II

In Part I, we discussed contenders for the most effective label for blends of science fiction and romance (excluding romantic SF, which technically falls under the SF umbrella) and the consensus was that we forge ahead using “science fiction romance” or some variation thereof.

Works for me.

The label, of course, only goes skin deep. In order for blends of SF and romance to qualify as SFR and appeal more widely to romance readers, it’s important that the external plot/science fictional elements don’t overshadow the romance (as BevBB noted).

But how can that be accomplished while also delivering quality speculative elements?

What factors will provide SFR with wider appeal?

I agree very much with Rowena Cherry’s idea—as noted in the comments for Does Science Fiction Romance Need a Gene Roddenberry?—that future SFR stories should be fashioned after Star Wars rather than Star Trek, especially if the target audience is romance readers.

Case in point: “The Force” is vague; the Millennium Falcon just blasts off—no technical explanations are provided as would be the case on Trek. The recent Trek movie took this path too, and outgrossed every other Trek film to date. Much as the achievements of Star Trek’s empire are laudable, two main drawbacks for science fiction romance are its technobabble and muted conflict (not across the board but a significant issue given Roddenberry’s vision of the future).

And like Linnea Sinclair noted, we had Gene Roddenberry—so what is the need for duplication?

Elise Logan stated in the comments that “Christine Feehan, Gene Roddenberry, Laurell K. Hamilton all have something in common. They built a world and populated it with their stories. They created a mythology and an entire universe that is a whole and complete creation.”

Based on all the comments provided by my esteemed passengers and my own reflection, I culled together a few possibilities:

* More "Star Wars" type stories are needed, but also near-future/Mundane/steampunk to draw contemporary and historical romance readers

* Include accessible speculative elements more often than not

* Emphasize the world (big-picture) vs. worldbuilding (details)

* Make the exotic more familiar

* Make character-driven stories a cornerstone of the sub-genre

* Include more Alpha heroes, at least in the beginning, to help readers transition from paranormal romances (or at least heroes that convey lots of power and danger).

* Create heroes/heroines who embody the speculative element in some way (e.g., cyborgs, beings from other worlds).

* High concept stories/characters that emulate Christine Feehan’s Dark series–a la Linnea Sinclair’s Dock Five series. In other words, stories set in a similar universe with some kind of brotherhood (sisterhood?) from which the author can spin countless stories.

You may know of others, and I’d love to hear about them. I would think one of the greatest challenges lies in deciding on the scope of a story. Buddha knows I love a grand, sprawling, epic space opera, but they don’t really lend themselves to a hybrid tale of romance and science fiction. The scope would dictate which details to keep and which to ignore. The tighter the focus, the more we can be assured our expectations will be met.

Joyfully yours,

Heather

Branding Science Fiction Romance, Part I

In Does Science Fiction Romance Need a Gene Roddenberry?, we discussed many crucial elements regarding both the nature of science fiction romance as well as its historical journey in the world of publishing. Perhaps I should have titled this post “Does Science Fiction Romance Need a Christine Feehan?” since so many of you contributed valuable information on her impact in paranormal romance, and how it could potentially benefit SFR.

For this post and the two that follow, I loosely organized the feedback in an attempt to further lay the foundation for what needs to happen in order for SFR to gain in popularity within the romance community. However, “popularity” can be defined in several ways and except for sales can be difficult to measure. Regardless of whether we seek to attract five new readers or five hundred thousand, it seems there are a number of key factors to address.

Here is the first:

The GREEN EGGS AND HAM conundrum

Regarding the “science” in science fiction romance: Hoo boy, this is a biggie.

What are our choices? Either we sell readers on the appeal of the (accessible) speculative elements and keep science fiction romance, or we change the name to obscure/dress up the nature of the content. Paranormal romance lucked out because paranormal is a “softer” term than “horror.” Yet it also describes the stories in the genre pretty accurately. What is the separate-but-equal alternative for SFR?

This issue reminds me of the SyFy Channel name change. The head honchos reconfigured the channel’s name for a reason. It’s an attempt to gain new viewers outside of SF fandom. They already had SF fans, so the name change reflects an attempt to widen the net. SF fans were not the target audience for this change.

And in last week’s discussion, Linnea Sinclair observed that Christine Feehan “went for romance fans. Period.”

As we discussed recently, there’s an underlying issue tied into the name. A significant one is the idea that science fiction is a “boy’s game” (to borrow passenger Rae Lori’s description). As a result of this propaganda, female readers have shied away as a result. Thus, my concern that one of the reasons romance readers avert their gaze from “science” anything is because voices of the past have convinced them that women can’t understand science or won’t enjoy it. The belief is perpetuated in art despite the fact that speculative elements in an SFR are for entertainment purposes.

I’ll admit I’m bothered by the implication that (generally) romance readers will happily try SFR as long as it’s called something else. It seems so…transparent. I’m dismayed to think that a mere label contains so much power it will make them more amenable, regardless of whether the content matches their tastes.

What’s the more realistic goal, then? Do we demonstrate the appeal of speculative elements for romance readers, or cast out “science” from the name once and for all? I’m even going to assume for the moment that we’re not factoring SF readers into this equation. We also should take into consideration that publishers are continuing to use the label “futuristic romance” no matter how enamored fans are of a particular term.

What label other than “science fiction romance” could both accurately describe the sub-genre and make it appealing to romance readers at the same time?

* “SFR” or “Sci-Fi Romance or SF Romance: All shorten the “science fiction romance” label and obscure the science angle somewhat. Would that be enough?

* Futuristic Romance: It’s familiar, short, and publishers both print and digital alike are still using it. If it’s the most effective way to appeal to romance readers, then we should all do a 180 and start using this term again. Period.

* Speculative Romance: Could this be the new “futuristic romance,” or is “speculative” as threatening (not just to readers but also to booksellers) as the word “science?” Some may not consider it as sexy as “futuristic.”

* Awesomesauce Romance: Uh…you think that’s overstating the case? Really?

A Spoonful of Sugar

Remember Herb Alpert’s Tijuana Brass’ album Whipped Cream and Other Delights? Yeah, I thought you might. Well, that jazz album sold over six million copies in the United States, and let me tell ya, the main reason had nothing to do with Herb’s trumpet skills (although his memorable tunes ensured the product lived up to the packaging).

Transparent marketing or not, it was the whipped cream goddess that attracted the majority of those sales and started the popularity ball rolling. Once enough people actually listened to the music—a genre the majority of buyers would probably never have sampled without said cover—they discovered they actually liked it. This never would have happened unless the marketing department chose this photo over the typical group shot of several middle-aged guys. You see where I'm going with this....

Do we need to spruce this sub-genre up with a dollop of whipped cream? Is that what it would take? Does the label “futuristic romance” sweeten it up enough?

Or do we keep using the term “science fiction romance” and send the message that readers are missing out if they focus too much on the label? In other words, as Eloriealton noted, “We may very well be stuck with the label “Science Fiction Romance,” but that doesn't mean we can't take that label and redefine it, if we have to.”

What say you?

Joyfully yours,

Heather

Call for Submissions: Norilana Books--The Ladies of Trade Town

Since we’re on the subject of editors seeking stories, Norilana Books has announced a call for submissions that might interest SFR authors (thanks to Linna Sinclair for the information):

Type of Market: Anthology

Type of Notice: Guidelines for Submission

Name of Market: The Ladies Of Trade Town

Editor: Lee Martindale

Publisher: Norilana Books, scheduled for publication in April 2011

Description: An anthology of original science fiction, fantasy, and related
genre short stories about the world's oldest profession .... "The World's Oldest Profession" Found in every civilization, culture and era known to man. Its practitioners known by dozens of names in every language, at every level of society, from temples to back alleys, from royal courts to hot-sheet motels in the seediest parts of town.

More below the cut:

Reading Period:
Opens: January 5, 2010
Closes: June 9, 2010

Caveat: Manuscripts received before or after this period will be discarded unread, unless prior arrangements have been made otherwise.

Final Selections: by July 15, 2010, with notifications to the writers shortly thereafter

Query eAddress: editor@HarpHaven. net

Not Wants: porn, erotica, or gore-soaked horror. Absolutely no child abuse, incest, or non-consensual situations. Also not looking for poetry, fanfic or proselytizing either for or against the theme.

Fiction: build on that varied background to tell well-crafted tales of the women and men - and other sentient beings - who "ply the trade" in a variety of times and settings. I'm looking for original science fiction, fantasy, and related genre short stories that entertain and play to the imagination of the reader. Show me something I haven't seen, read, or written. (For examples of that last, see "Lady Blaze" in Roby James' Warrior Wisewoman 2 and the title cut of the filk CD that gives this volume its name.) Humor, characters of all orientations and gender-identities, and new writers all welcome.

Payrate:

When pay: on acceptance of completed anthology manuscript by the Publisher

Rights: First English Language Rights and non-exclusive electronic rights. The anthology will be published by Norilana Books as a trade paperback edition in April 2011, to be followed by an electronic edition to be produced later.

Fiction:

Per word: $0.02 a word, as an advance against pro-rata share of the royalties after earnout…Plus: one contributor copy

Submission:

Submissions multiple: No.

I will notify writers as soon as possible if a story has been rejected, at which time they are welcome to submit another during the reading period. Writers will be notified if a story is being held for further consideration.

Reprints: No. This includes stories that have appeared anywhere on the Web, including online workshops or the writer's own website.

Length: Mostly looking for stories in the 5,000 - 6,000 word range, but I'd like to have a few stories on the upper and lower ends in the mix. The upper limit is firm for unsolicited stories.

Minimum: 3,000 words
Maximum: 10,000 words

Format: Disposable hard copy only, sent via USPS 1st Class Mail. Use standard manuscript format, 12 pt. type, and include name, address, phone number, word count, and email address on first page.

eMail: No email submissions or mail requiring special handling.
Supplementary Material: Also include a cover letter with any credits to paying markets and a short bio.

SASE: not necessary; rejections and acceptances will be sent via email

Address: Lee Martindale, Editor
Attn - Anthology Submission
PO Box 865137
Plano, TX 75086-5137

Joyfully yours,

Heather

Call for Submissions: Samhain Publishing Steampunk Romance Anthology

Writers, fire up your difference engines! Samhain Publishing has just announced a call for submissions for its steampunk romance anthology:

Welcome to the world of clockwork pendants and steam locomotives, corsets and lace, dirigibles and difference engines. Yes, we’re talking about steampunk, where fantasy, history, technology and romance mix to create a glorious genre that looks at Victorian and Edwardian Era England and the American wild west through brass goggles.

I’m very pleased to announce an open call for submissions for a new, yet-to-be titled fall 2010 steampunk romance anthology. Don’t know what steampunk is? Think League of Extraordinary Gentleman and The Wild, Wild West. Even Joss Whedon’s Firefly and Serenity have steampunk elements transported into space. For more information on steampunk, you can check out the entry on wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steampunk.

I’m open to M/F, M/M, or multiples thereof, and any sexual heat level, and the romance must end happily ever after or happy for now.

The novellas must range between 25,000 to 30,000 words in length, no more, no less—please note, only manuscripts that fall in this word count will be considered for this anthology—and will be released individually as ebooks in November 2010.

Submissions are open to all authors, published with Samhain or aspiring to be published with Samhain. All submissions must be new material—previously published submissions will not be considered. Additionally, manuscripts previously submitted, whether individually or for past anthologies, will not be considered either. Please be aware that manuscripts submitted to this anthology cannot be resubmitted at a later date unless by invitation from an editor.

To submit a manuscript for consideration, please include:

The full manuscript (of 25,000 to 30,000 words) with a comprehensive 2-5 page synopsis. Please include a letter of introduction/query letter. Full manuscripts are required for this as it is a special project.

As well, when you send your manuscript, please be sure to use the naming convention Steampunk_Title_MS and Steampunk_Title_Synopsis. This will ensure that your submission doesn’t get missed in the many submissions we receive, and makes it easy for me to find in my ebook reader.

Submissions are open until April 30, 2010. No submissions will be accepted after this date—no exceptions. A final decision will be made by May 31, 2010. Please send your submission to editor@samhainpublishing.com and include Steampunk Anthology in the subject line. Questions and queries can be addressed to Sasha Knight (sasha@samhainpublishing.com).

Wow, this news is truly steam-alicious!

Joyfully yours,

Heather