Amazon Charts is a different kind of "bestseller" list
 

From Amazon:https://amzn.to/2qx3Llw

Via: https://the-digital-reader.com/2017/...t-seller-list/

For those tbat care:

More at Nate's.


I guess they got tired of the APub and KDP select titles being blocked off lists. And with the NYT kicking so many books out of consideration they saw a need.

More interesting than what is selling, in what people are actually reading in digital. They have parallel lists for ebooks and audio listing sales and *active* reads. And guess who's filling a quarter of the top slots?



The formatting is appropriately function-rich with buy and read buttons (of course) and for tradpub titles they now not listauthor and publisher but also yhe agent! Bragging rights for all.
It also makes it easy to make out indie titles.

Edit: here's the link to the Amazon press release.

http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix....cle&ID=2273973

Note the headline:

I received an email on Amazon Charts yesterday, and I was really surprised to see so many of the books in the spoiler tag above on the reading list.

I wonder if it is because that series is one of the few popular, big publisher books that you can read on Kindle Unlimited, or if there is just that much interest in them still?

The latter.
The series is timeless and each year a new wave of readers discovers the franchise.
"The winnah and still champeen!"

My sister's twins (Boy and Girl) are 7 years and 4 months old. We are currently reading the first three Harry Potter books out of KU so I think that interest in those books, like the Narnia, Wrinkle in Time, Earthsea Trilogy and of course the Lord of the Rings series will be sustained as long as caregivers continue to introduce them to there urchins.

I love the fact that since the NYT bestseller list excludes so many books that Amazon has decided that they were going to have their own lists now. It is about time that mainstream publishing and there patsy's get what is coming to them for consistently screwing there customers and authors.

Authors in particular get screwed by the NYT rules.
Back in 2015 they openly told PW that their objective was to promote new releases so a children's book that took a year to ramp up its sales rate via word of mouth to where it was outselling most new releases week to week wasn't worthy of their list. So they not only didn't list it (USAToday did), they changed the official rules.

Happens all the time. They openly admit they arbitrarilly move titles up and down or add or delete titles at will. Their list isn't about what readers are buying but about what they want people to buy.

A book can sell 100,000 copies and never make their list while a one week wonder selling 10000 gets celebrated.

That's why USAToday got into the list game...

There is an awful lot of evidence that most book bestseller lists are manipulated garbage that hypes certain books while pushing others to the side. Until they go to something like Soundscan for music then I have no intention of paying them any mind. The kind of books I typically read never make it on these lists anyone. I have long since passed the stage where I care what everybody else is reading, listening to or watching. I consume what ever media I like no matter what others think. After all I have a finite number of years to read my TBR pile.

...and the good news is that the tsunami of content across all forms of media is bringing in so much variety there is something for every taste and plenty of it, whatever "it" might be.

This is not new. Sheila Hailey wrote about how many copies each of her husband's books took to make the NYT book list.

USA Today's list include Amazon KDP titles but not Walmart/Sam's Club or most independent bookstores.

Amazon's list may be dominated by Kindle select titles unavailable to the physical bookstore shopper.

Each list will appeal to different people depending on their reading and shopping habits.

Yep, most best seller lists are oriented towards certain types of books. As long as a list points you to books you find interesting, then it's a benefit. If the list doesn't point you to books you find interesting, then ignore it.

Good fantasy series will always be popular with the reading public I think. I mean some of the oldest writings there are fit in the genre i.e. "The epic of Gilgamesh" and Homer's two books "The Illiad" and "The Odyssey." Even though they may not have been considered as such when they were created of course.

Not the first one.
It's pretty balanced.

It's near the end of the month so people may have already grabbed their free title.

Or Amazon is being selective in choosing their best sellers perhaps by excluding the free giveaways.

They're not supposed to be gaming the list.
The whole idea is to offer a straight report of paid sales for the week.

If they are living up to that there is little reason to expect KDP titles to dominate because readers open to Indie reads tend to spread their spending around instead of clustering on new releases.

Also, if by "free title" you're referring to the Kindle First titles, those aren't KDP books but rather APub offerings. Traditionally published books from the Amazon subsidiary. Different kettle.

The may 14 mix was hardly dominated by KDP. Or even Amazon:

20 Most sold

Big Pub 10, Amazon 6, Small Pub 2, Indie 2.

Even on the most read side, if you count Rowling as Indie, you only get:

20 most read:

Big Pub 11, Amazon 4, Small Pub 0, Indie 5.

If the list skews even slightly towards anything it is towards backlist, which is probably going to really annoy the BPHs because they prefer to promote fresh releases during the launch window and forget about them afterwards. Spotlighting a two year old biography doesn't serve their interests regardless of who published it.

You might be surprised. While most books do peak during the initial release, there have been quite a few books that built up a readership. Some publishers/editors even plan for it with certain types of books, such as biographies. For example, John Adams, by David McCullough was initial published in 2001. It saw a bump when McCullough won a Pulitzer in 2002, then saw another big bump when the mini-series came out in 2008. Being on a major best seller list servers the BPH interest, regardless of how long it takes. Books that stay in print and continue to have good sells numbers year after year are very much in the BPH interest. That's money in the bank for them.

From a BPH point of view, all sales are good.