Thread: From the NYT on Kindle 'sales' figures
View Single Post
Old 01-23-2010, 03:26 PM   #14
Pardoz
Which side are you on?
Pardoz once ate a cherry pie in a record 7 seconds.Pardoz once ate a cherry pie in a record 7 seconds.Pardoz once ate a cherry pie in a record 7 seconds.Pardoz once ate a cherry pie in a record 7 seconds.Pardoz once ate a cherry pie in a record 7 seconds.Pardoz once ate a cherry pie in a record 7 seconds.Pardoz once ate a cherry pie in a record 7 seconds.Pardoz once ate a cherry pie in a record 7 seconds.Pardoz once ate a cherry pie in a record 7 seconds.Pardoz once ate a cherry pie in a record 7 seconds.Pardoz once ate a cherry pie in a record 7 seconds.
 
Posts: 370
Karma: 1964
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Variable, currently Czestochowa, Poland.
Device: Kindle 2 Int'l
Quote:
Originally Posted by kjk View Post
I remember that-they moved her off to a different list because 2-3 of her books dominated the main list?
Yep, summer of 2000 - Rowling had owned the top three spots on the NYT bestseller list for almost two years, and the fourth book was about to come out, so they created a new 'Children's Best Seller' list to free up space on the main list. There's a good article about it (with some commentary on the importance of bestseller lists, especially the NYT one) on Salon.

In 2004, when publishers-of-children's-books-who-weren't-Scholastic (Rowling's US publisher) created a big enough stink about Rowling's domination of the Children's list they created a second new list, this time for 'Best Selling Children's Series' that ignored sales of individual titles and just tracked series as a whole.

Harry Potter finally fell of the all the NYT bestseller lists on May 11, 2008, to the great relief of everybody else in publishing.
Pardoz is offline   Reply With Quote