Author Earnings Report for Sept 2015

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by Fbone

I looked at his data. The top 5 books for Sept 5th were preorders from indie authors at $5.99. These probably were titles offered first for free to Prime subscribers as part of their Kindle First or similar promotion.

I'd also like to know why he still believes the day's bestseller sells 7,000 copies. It's been at this level for some time. Btw, here's how DG breaks down the rest of the top 10 all estimates, of course. I really wish he could score the actual figures.

7,000
6,250
5,500
4,750
4,000
3,933
3,866
3,800
3,733
3,666

Why would those numbers change much?
Most businesses know approximately how much of a product they will sell a day.
Why should books be any different?

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by Cinisajoy

Proof of author that has stated Data Guy's spiders are wrong.
You always make claims but never back them up.
PS: Data's numbers are rather accurate.

You sure have a bad memory. I posted the link barely a week ago in a thread that you posted in.

https://www.mobileread.com/forums/sho...=264912&page=2

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by frahse

Amazon is giving me small but reasonable numbers and I am by nature incredulous and suspicious. (Goes back to a compulsory stint in Military intelligence after graduation. My diploma said I was an Engineer but they said I understood analysis, the Delphi method, statistics and computers and gave me a reporting date.)

Anyway, I am now mostly retired from Engineering and all the attendant travel and am getting back to writing 50% of the time.

I hope to see good increases in my numbers at Amazon.

One would hope that Amazon is giving the authors accurate numbers for their books, if not then that's fraud and they would end up on the wrong side of pretty big law suit. However, Amazon doesn't make those numbers publicly available as far as I know.

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

You sure have a bad memory. I posted the link barely a week ago in a thread that you posted in.

https://www.mobileread.com/forums/sho...=264912&page=2

Scalzi again I see.
So because your poster boy says his numbers are different, then the other guy must be lying.
Besides if I remember right, your author was proven to not be as big as he was claiming.
Can someone that knows how to search the threads, please find pwalker's original post about Scalzi? I know I found proof to disprove the status and posted it.

[Nate the great]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

Yes they are.
Because he has a network of contributing authors who know what *their* sales numbers are.
(Backed up by cold cash.)

But that's how it goes: deniers gotta deny, no matter how much handwaving they need to conjure to make up for lack of facts.

And he has other sources which i don't think I can name. His figures are as accurate as any estimate of the ebook market, and more so than some.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by Cinisajoy

Scalzi again I see.
So because your poster boy says his numbers are different, then the other guy must be lying.
Besides if I remember right, your author was proven to not be as big as he was claiming.
Can someone that knows how to search the threads, please find pwalker's original post about Scalzi? I know I found proof to disprove the status and posted it.

Ah, now we are in phase II of the standard Internet ad homiem method of debate. First claim your opponent never provides specific links (kind of like the standard grade school taunt "prove it"). Then when proof is provided, dismiss it with a wave of the hand and some red herring claim as to why that doesn't count. I'm sure that tomorrow, if I post something that doesn't match your party line, you will once again claim I make wild claims without posting proof. Really, it's so, so predictable and boring.


Scalzi is one of the few authors who is willing to publicly post his actual numbers. He is in a position to look at his real life numbers and compare them to the estimated numbers that the estimating sites published. He says that the estimated numbers were way off.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by Fbone

I'd also like to know why he still believes the day's bestseller sells 7,000 copies.

Amazon Ranking is not an exact number but rather a rolling average for several days. That is one of many reasons Data Guy reports ratios rather than absolute numbers. The other being that absolutes aren't useful to the goal of measuring change in the industry because of their longer term volatility, especially with BPH titles spikey launch windows.

Remember, DG works with hundreds of thousands of titles across different categories to categorize the market, not individual titles. As is, the rolling average reduces the report's volatility. If nothing else, because it takes time for the spiders to crawl.

That said, one thing that came out from external criticism of the methodology last time out is that the sales profile at Kindle is changing from last year; sales for top sellers are remaining constant over time but midlist sales are growing so that where last year a title needing say 200 sales a day to hold ranking it now needs 210 or 215. (This was pointed out by a respected analyst that goes by the name of Phoenix. It was fun watching her and DG chat on that.) It was acknowledged that that part of the model needed tweaking but it would... complicate... comparisons across quarterly reports. It doesn't impact the top sellers or the purpose of the reports but it is an issue at lower levels or when comparing individual title sales over time. Which isn't a target of the reports.

That is, of course, what I get out of the methodology description and the comments and questions I've seen.

You can always get a better one from DG himself (or herself) at AE. Comments are welcome and questions answered fairly quickly.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by Nate the great

And he has other sources which i don't think I can name. His figures are as accurate as any estimate of the ebook market, and more so than some.

And he/she shines light upon the dark places.

Some cannot stand the light.

[dickloraine]

As I said in the other thread, anecdotal evidence is not real evidence. If you would collect the data from several authors, then you could begin to make reasonable assumptions. Wait, that is what Data Guy does.

If you want to criticize in a meaningful way, dig into the raw data provided and the methods used to abstract them. This is statistic, not logic. These are not "for all x... " type of sentences.

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Ah, now we are in phase II of the standard Internet ad homiem method of debate. First claim your opponent never provides specific links (kind of like the standard grade school taunt "prove it"). Then when proof is provided, dismiss it with a wave of the hand and some red herring claim as to why that doesn't count. I'm sure that tomorrow, if I post something that doesn't match your party line, you will once again claim I make wild claims without posting proof. Really, it's so, so predictable and boring.


Scalzi is one of the few authors who is willing to publicly post his actual numbers. He is in a position to look at his real life numbers and compare them to the estimated numbers that the estimating sites published. He says that the estimated numbers were way off.

I want proof that more than one author claimed something.
One does not make a fact.
I know more than a few authors that have shared their numbers. I would tell you where but I refuse to publicly support that other board.
Just Google writer's cafe.

[Fbone]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

Amazon Ranking is not an exact number but rather a rolling average for several days. That is one of many reasons Data Guy reports ratios rather than absolute numbers. The other being that absolutes aren't useful to the goal of measuring change in the industry because of their longer term volatility, especially with BPH titles spikey launch windows.

Remember, DG works with hundreds of thousands of titles across different categories to categorize the market, not individual titles. As is, the rolling average reduces the report's volatility. If nothing else, because it takes time for the spiders to crawl.

But even rolling averages need accurate numbers to start with and maintain over time. If DG could obtain several figures in the top 100, it would really firm up the data. Ideally, he would need data from several days even weeks to avoid the spikes. This time he chose a day where indies spiked.

Anyway, it's the best we have and I appreciate all the work DG put into it.

[frahse]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

One would hope that Amazon is giving the authors accurate numbers for their books, if not then that's fraud and they would end up on the wrong side of pretty big law suit. However, Amazon doesn't make those numbers publicly available as far as I know.

As the glimpse I gave into my CV might indicate, I always look at numbers I have been given from many angles.

The important thing is that I am pleasantly surprised.

So on to new numbers.