Slothful Publishers?

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by HarryT

All of that seems entirely reasonable - it's a list of what's currently selling well, not a summation of cumulative sales. The pop charts work in exactly the same way, and for the same reasons.

No, no, no.
That's not what they are doing.

The books they excluded (and are purposefully excluding) have high weekly sales *rates*, higher than the listed ones. They just happen to have been published months or years before. So if a book builds up its sales rate over time, say by word of mouth and great reviews, to 100k per week it is excluded but if it sells 50,000 in one week and everybody who actually reads it hates it,it gets listed. Because it is new and they "want to draw attention to new releases". Their words, over at Publishers Weekly.

When they kicked the Rowling books off the list they were outselling everything else, day by day, every day, not just cumulatively. So it is *not* at all like the pop music charts. (Which have their own set of issues.)

[HarryT]

Ok, I see what you mean. Thanks.

[LadyKate]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

Maybe it is different in the international edition, but the first list here is combined print and eBook fiction.

The bestseller lists are newsworthy because they tell you what people are reading. The push as to what people should read comes from the book reviews. Judging by the current number one bestsellers, the ability of the Times to push the books their staff likes is, at best, limited.

Actually, there is the "Combined Print and Ebook" list and the "Hardcover" list ( http://www.nytimes.com/books/best-sellers/ )

As I notice from the pull-down fiction menu, there are five lists. the "Combined Print and Ebook" list and the "Hardcover" and an "Ebook" and a "Paperback Trade Edition" and a "Paperback Mass Market".

It is interesting to see who books are in a different order in the combined lists. (hadn't really realized the combined list existed, shows how much I pay attention to best sellers).

Would like to see the numbers behind these lists but not sure where to look.

[LadyKate]

Originally Posted by Cinisajoy

The best seller lists are partially based on how many books the book seller orders. Not how many actual people buy the book. And usually libraries get the books a bit later.

Ahh that explains in part why publishers prefer hardcover. Sales at the order level making the list instead of actual sales.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Surely it's the other way around, isn't it? A book is on the best-sellers' list because a lot of people buy it. Not vice versa.

It's not for me. I'm sure there are plenty of people out there who do buy books based on them being on a best seller list.

[Fbone]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

No, no, no.
That's not what they are doing.

The books they excluded (and are purposefully excluding) have high weekly sales *rates*, higher than the listed ones. They just happen to have been published months or years before. So if a book builds up its sales rate over time, say by word of mouth and great reviews, to 100k per week it is excluded but if it sells 50,000 in one week and everybody who actually reads it hates it,it gets listed. Because it is new and they "want to draw attention to new releases". Their words, over at Publishers Weekly.

When they kicked the Rowling books off the list they were outselling everything else, day by day, every day, not just cumulatively. So it is *not* at all like the pop music charts. (Which have their own set of issues.)

They explained this because the same titles would appear week after week. For example: The Bible, The Koran, Dianetics, Romeo & Juliet, Rowlings, whatever NYBOE assigns students to read, etc. The lists would be even more meaningless.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

It's not for me. I'm sure there are plenty of people out there who do buy books based on them being on a best seller list.

Definitely. I have noticed and bought some books on bestseller lists. And why do bookshops publish the bestseller list prominently in the shop if not to sell more books.

Sent from my ONE A2003 using Tapatalk

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by Fbone

They explained this because the same titles would appear week after week. For example: The Bible, The Koran, Dianetics, Romeo & Juliet, Rowlings, whatever NYBOE assigns students to read, etc. The lists would be even more meaningless.

That makes a little bit of sense. Except that it doesn't explain why some "best-sellers" are excluded without EVER appearing on the list, while lesser selling titles can stay on the list for weeks. Their explanation simply falls flat on its face. They could easily place a limit on the number of weeks a title can appear on the list. Problem solved.

They should just admit they're cherrypicking and be done with it.

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

The NYT list is strictly a promotional tool to get people to buy the highlighted books.

They've said so themselves repeatedly . . .

Please provide a quote.

Originally Posted by fjtorres

, most recently when they re-rigged the children's book list to exclude titles that reach high levels of sales over time.

Rigged? I've sure heard that word recently.

If you can't find quotes, and are just going by behavior, let's look at the behavior in a direct way. Why is the number one New York Times non-fiction bestseller (combined print and eBook) a personal attack on the presidential candidate they endorsed in the primary season and obviously are going to endorse in November? If the "list is strictly a promotional tool," then they are promoting you know which mid-Manhattan-resident presidential candidate. This is implausible.

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by tompe

And why do bookshops publish the bestseller list prominently in the shop if not to sell more books.

Those shops are using the bandwagon advertising technique.

What books people are reading is still news even though the news may be repeated in advertisements.

The Times doesn't know exactly which books are selling the most because not all sellers release the needed figures. Journalistic judgement comes in as elsewhere in the paper. Journalism is the first draft of history.

[fjtorres]

Short memories.
The whole bestseller rigging thing was discussed right here just a few months back, in february:

http://www.mobileread.mobi/forums/sh...d.php?t=270709

And the Publishers Weekly article on the desire to promote more new releases was linked there. But for the "forgetful", here it is again:

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

Paul hopes that the new lists will help draw potential readers to new books. “I think in this new reconfiguration, you’ll see a lot more newly published hardcover fiction,” she said.

That is promotion-speak, not reporter-speak.

[Katsunami]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

Nope.
The NYT list is strictly a promotional tool to get people to buy the highlighted books.

The NYT list is useless. I think nearly every book I have (had) that is not a classic has printed "#1 New York Times Best Selling Author" printed on the cover.

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

The whole bestseller rigging thing was discussed right here just a few months back, in february:

That quote does surprise me and supports the idea that the list is partly a promotional tool. But since a book attacking Mrs. Clinton is still number one on the non-fiction combined print and eBook bestseller list, I still find it hard to believe it is only a promotional tool.

In as much as they are trying to promote something, it isn't their ideas, but reading itself. One thing I have noticed is that their book reviews, compared against, say, their film reviews, are more positive. Rather than picking books to review at random, they seem to assign ones where there is a good chance their reviewer will like it.

Since you apparently accept Publishers Weekly as a genuine news source, do you like their list better than that of the Times:
http://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/nielsen/top100.html

Originally Posted by Katsunami

The NYT list is useless. I think nearly every book I have (had) that is not a classic has printed "#1 New York Times Best Selling Author" printed on the cover.

I don't have that experience. The list is, to me, only a way to find out what others are reading. But your post mystifies me. If you actually like the #1 bestsellers (or, at least, those authors), then it would seem to me that the list not only is news for you, but also gives an idea of what you like.

[Katsunami]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

I don't have that experience. The list is, to me, only a way to find out what others are reading. But your post mystifies me. If you actually like the #1 bestsellers (or, at least, those authors), then it would seem to me that the list not only is news for you, but also gives an idea of what you like.

I don't go by any best seller lists when buying books. I go by recommendations from others, or by using The Literature Map. Sometimes, I buy a book or a series on a whim, because I like the blurb.

It's very seldom that the book doesn't have the line "#1 NYT Best Seller" on the cover.

[Fbone]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

That makes a little bit of sense. Except that it doesn't explain why some "best-sellers" are excluded without EVER appearing on the list, while lesser selling titles can stay on the list for weeks. Their explanation simply falls flat on its face. They could easily place a limit on the number of weeks a title can appear on the list. Problem solved.

They should just admit they're cherrypicking and be done with it.

So your solution is even more manipulation and cherry picking?

Personally, I don't see any one system that would work especially as no one has all the data.