Thread: Why aren't e-books included in best seller lists?
View Single Post
Old 07-20-2012, 12:39 PM   #9
elemenoP
Wizard
elemenoP ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.elemenoP ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.elemenoP ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.elemenoP ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.elemenoP ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.elemenoP ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.elemenoP ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.elemenoP ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.elemenoP ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.elemenoP ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.elemenoP ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
Posts: 1,717
Karma: 3790058
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: NYC
Device: Kindle Paperwhite, Sony 650
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob Lister View Post
I'm just not getting the distinction.



So, When Vintage Books (Random House) releases their sales figures for 50 Shades of Grey--which tops every best seller list in the US and UK--they only release what sold in paper? I can't imagine they'd reduce their sales figures by a very likely 20% (probably far more) coming from e-sales. Why would they differentiate?
Bestseller lists come from booksellers (retail sales) not publishers (wholesale sales). I didn't realize that Amazon doesn't release sales information. I wonder where the New York Times gets data for ebook sales, then? Anyway, you can see Amazon's own bestseller lists on their site. Maybe the New York Times is scraping the data that way?

eP
elemenoP is offline   Reply With Quote