The Truth about "bestseller" lists

[fjtorres]

From the Observer:

http://observer.com/2016/02/the-trut...tseller-lists/

Not really news but it does collect all the previously reported data about how gamey the gamed bestseller list game has become.

To authors he says:

The only answer to this debacle is to stop worrying about hitting the major bestseller lists.

At this point, the results are so far outside of an author’s direct control, that it doesn’t make sense to make these lists a goal anymore.

Instead, focus on the reader.

Make your book available at the stores or websites your readers buy books from, in the formats they buy in. Make it easy to buy and easy to read.

Don’t make the lists your customer. Keep the reader your customer—the people you’re really writing books for.

To readers I'd say, "take the rankings with a pound of salt and consider an unusually high ranking as more of a warning than a recommendation".

[Cinisajoy]

Great article.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by Cinisajoy

Great article.

You might like this one, then:

http://www.autumnkalquist.com/20k/

[Cinisajoy]

Loved it. Thanks.

[Fbone]

I checked the NYT bestseller list when Dust was published.

Also on the list were Rowling, Patterson and Lee Child. Did the writer of the article really believe Howey outsold The Cuckoo's Calling?

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by Fbone

I checked the NYT bestseller list when Dust was published.

Also on the list were Rowling, Patterson and Lee Child. Did the writer of the article really believe Howey outsold The Cuckoo's Calling?

If it was before Rowling was outed, easily.

If you believe the NYT bestseller list is holy script you can accept the listings at face value. But by their own admission the thing is so tweaked and gimmicked with fudge factors and plain arbitrary manual jiggering that for the rest of us it is meaningless.

Besides, after their last *official* tweaking they openly admitted to Publisher's weekly the list isn't even intended to reflect actual sales, merely highlight *new releases*. A book that works its way to high sales through word of mouth over a year isn't something they want taking up space on their precious marketing tool.

“I think in this new reconfiguration, you’ll see a lot more newly published hardcover fiction,” she said. “Just like book reviews, the bestseller lists are another place for discovery. It will be useful for readers, too.”

http://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/b...ler-lists.html

Discoverability being the establishment's substitute for actual marketing she makes it clear the list is solely a promotional tool not an actual tabulation of unit sales. Hence the need to demote paperbacks.

Just as they created the children's list in the first place to shuffle the Harry Potter books off the then-combined lists when they were outselling everything else.

Can't offend the Manhattan publ i shers or they'll stop buying ads, after all.

[Fbone]

Rowling was outed the month before.

From the PW article:

tweak its children’s bestseller lists, separating hardcover middle grade and young adult titles from paperback and e-book bestsellers.

I don't see that as fudging or jiggering just adding more categories to aid in discovery.

Everyone tweaks their best selling list. USA Today does, NYT does, Amazon does, B&N does, etc. Speaking of Amazon, Author Central determined Amazon's list is off by 14% because they add in KU borrows. It's one reason why the lists never match up. Another is Amazon counts pre-orders while other don't.

Going back to Howey's list I don't see anything overtly fraudulent in the list for that week. Three big names and two romances. We never underestimate the enthusiasm of a romance reader. The article was quick to say bad, bad, bad, fake, fake, fake without concrete proof or numbers. It's ok to criticize but you better have irrefutable data.

[taosaur]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

If it was before Rowling was outed, easily.

If you believe the NYT bestseller list is holy script you can accept the listings at face value. But by their own admission the thing is so tweaked and gimmicked with fudge factors and plain arbitrary manual jiggering that for the rest of us it is meaningless.

Besides, after their last *official* tweaking they openly admitted to Publisher's weekly the list isn't even intended to reflect actual sales, merely highlight *new releases*. A book that works its way to high sales through word of mouth over a year isn't something they want taking up space on their precious marketing tool.



http://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/b...ler-lists.html

Discoverability being the establishment's substitute for actual marketing she makes it clear the list is solely a promotional tool not an actual tabulation of unit sales. Hence the need to demote paperbacks.

Just as they created the children's list in the first place to shuffle the Harry Potter books off the then-combined lists when they were outselling everything else.

Can't offend the Manhattan publ i shers or they'll stop buying ads, after all.

This interpretation comes off as both reductionist and alarmist. The quote in the OP stands primarily because any attempt to "make the list" is gaming the system. There has to be an editorial component. Assessing whether the editorial involvement enhances or detracts from the list is the reader's job, and can probably be accomplished by observation of the list itself, without any "insider information." Granted, in business and self help publishing, gaming systems is the raison d'etre of the genre.

[Tarana]

It's a marketing tool. The average reader has no idea that the Bestseller lists are gamed. They just see that it is on there and consider the book, whereas if it weren't there, they may not have heard of the book.

I know the Bestseller lists were being gamed in mid80s, so this is not a new issue. It really only became common public knowledge, I think, then the members of Church of Scientolgy went on mass buying sprees to get Hubbard's books on the Bestseller lists.

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by Tarana

It's a marketing tool. The average reader has no idea that the Bestseller lists are gamed. They just see that it is on there and consider the book, whereas if it weren't there, they may not have heard of the book.

I know the Bestseller lists were being gamed in mid80s, so this is not a new issue. It really only became common public knowledge, I think, then the members of Church of Scientolgy went on mass buying sprees to get Hubbard's books on the Bestseller lists.

It happened this century too. I can't remember the author, I know the person was known in the Baptist church and maybe other Protestant religions. I can't remember if the person used free or 99 cents but all the on sale books hit the big best seller list on Amazon.
So it still happens.

[Fbone]

Originally Posted by Cinisajoy

It happened this century too. I can't remember the author, I know the person was known in the Baptist church and maybe other Protestant religions. I can't remember if the person used free or 99 cents but all the on sale books hit the big best seller list on Amazon.
So it still happens.

While it may be called gaming the system, it is still legal and should be counted if someone went a retailer and bought them in-person or on-line.

It's no different if Hilary Clinton tells her party followers to buy her book to help support her campaign. Or (many years ago) my college professor telling his students the book he wrote is required reading for the class.

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by Fbone

While it may be called gaming the system, it is still legal and should be counted if someone went a retailer and bought them in-person or on-line.

It's no different if Hilary Clinton tells her party followers to buy her book to help support her campaign. Or (many years ago) my college professor telling his students the book he wrote is required reading for the class.

I have an autographed copy of the book that the college history department edited.
Yes, it was a required book so I got the editors autographs.

[DiapDealer]

No one's really arguing the legality of "curating" a bestseller list. Just pointing out that they don't really represent (nor have they likely ever) what they pretend (or what many people believe them) to be: namely ... a list of books that readers are currently buying the most of. They represent a list of books that publishers/booksellers have decided that readers should be buying the most of. They're not reporting on what's selling best, they're controlling what's selling best.

[Fbone]

Perhaps.

Maybe if they reported with 100% accuracy what people are really buying the list would be the same each week full of religious and literary works. Examples: The Bible, Koran, The Torah, Dianetics, Romeo & Juliet, Wuthering Heights and a MLA Style Guide.

[DiapDealer]

So keep doing these lists they way they do and call them something else, then. Problem solved. "This Week's Notable Movers (as curated by self-proclaimed curators)" comes to mind.