[fjtorres]

"Bestseller" listing is no longer meaningful because all it captures is sales volume during a narrow window, usually at or shortly after release. In the olden days this mattered because once the release window (usually three months) everything but the biggest seller became a lot harder to get; this forced even mildly interested to buy during the window. Any sales outside the release window were deprecated so slow steady sellers never reached bestsellerdom, even if their cumulative sales were superior to early spike sellers.

Nowadays, with easy backlist availability online, even pbook buyers are released from the need to buy within the launch window. And then there are the "eternally" available ebooks to further extend availability. The obvious result is that with the pressure to buy early even big sellers are seeing lower early peak sales because consumers now buy at their convenience, not the publisher's.

A side effect of the lowered peak sales bar to achieve bestseller status is that it becomes easier (and viable) to game the bestseller ranking system for fun and profit, which further devalues the ranking. In fact, the label itself no longer tells knowledgeable consumers anything meaningful.

That is exactly what has happened to broadcast TV; the abundance of choice drives viewers to shows and channels they actively like instead of shows they don't object to. Less viewers for the genetic shows but lower expectations and greater survivability for niche shows.

This fall, we're going to see this effect in action over at the CW if, as is likely, they pick up the new FLASH series. A generation ago, CBS ran an earlier incarnation that was critically acclaimed, enjoyed by loyal viewers numbering in the millions yet the show was rated a failure by CBS and preempted repeatedly and eventually cancelled. Not becsuse it was bad but because it never ranked higher than third in its time slot. Of course, the fact that it ran opposite the Cosby show and The Simpsons wasn't deemed excusable in those pre-dvd, pre-DVD set days.
Fast forward to the near future: the new show is guaranteed to be rated an instant hit though it likely will never match the raw numbers of its precursor. First, because today the bar for success is set lower, second CW expectations for their shows are based on targeted demographics, not raw numbers, and third because the show is being launched as a companion and complement to the very successful ARROW. Indeed, a good chunk of the show's cast has already been screentested, in character, on ARROW. With that kind of platform, the odds of hitting the target audience go way up. And that is because TV studios and networks have adjusted to the on-demand world.

In the world of TV, raw release date numbers are the dominant metric.
The dominant metric, instead, is *who* is watching. Teens, young adults, mature viewers? Consistently hit a specific demographic and the network will find and air ads targeted at those viewers. If the audience and ad numbers hold up, the show endures. Even with apparently low viewership numbers. The latter is because the networks are more aware of modern viewing patterns and are adjusting. Go to Hulu and you'll find some shows listing five episodes for viewing, others listing season-to-date, and a few listing the entire series to date. (Fourteen years worth for one of the LAW AND ORDER shows.) And its not just Hulu; most networks are streaming their shows through mobile and stb apps and websites. Where and when people watch now matters less than making sure they watch. And watch the ads attached. Or paid a fee.
As long as they get money or eyeballs or both the TV folks are becoming very flexible. They're not yet quite where consumers really want them but they're getting there.

Publishing, on the other hand hasn't really started to adjust.
They don't have suitable metrics, much less a vision of where they need to be for long term survival. So far its been just short term thinking about propping up quarterly profits and angsting about the success of one of their distributors. About protecting the status quo. And way too much focus on release windows and spike sellers and very little on the psychology of on-demand culture.

Of course, just as the on-demand culture has been good in the TV world for status quo challengers, the on-demand culture is proving to be good for indie publisher. If the big guys won't move, the small fry will colonize the new world.