I just don’t get it. This and this were NYT bestsellers. The Road Less Traveled, the second of the two mentioned, was on the NYT bestseller list for 10 years; so the back cover claims.
So I go to the NYT Bestseller webpage expecting obscure categories like “Best selling work written by hermit scubadivers” but all of the categories seem innocuous. Is the NYT bestseller list legit, i.e., a list of worthy works, or is it a marketing device only?
I’m putting this in IMHO, but apologize if it belongs in GQ or Cafe Society.
It rained 2.1 inches today, and these books sold more than any others.
Why oh why oh why would you possibly think it a “list of worthy books”? You can’t possibly believe that the best books are the ones that sell the most, can you?
I’ve heard somewhere that some authors–generally the celebrity ones–will convince their friends to buy the book in bulk to move it up the bestseller’s list–at which point they turn around and sell them back to the publisher.
It may just be a conspiracy theory, but it wouldn’t suprise me.
No, I don’t think the books that sell the most are necessarily the best. But a book being on a legitimate bestselling list for 10 years should mean something. Not all popular music will be remembered, but most likely the music that will be remembered will have been popular or seen as the best representation of its genre, right? I may not like popular music but I can usually recognize something in it that made it popular. The NYT Bestseller list seems chock full of worthless titles, moreso than other barometers of other media.
I’m too cynical to think that. All it means that the book sold lots and lots and lots and lots of copies. That’s all it means. Do good books sometimes sell well? Yes, absolutely, thank goodness. But for every Harry Potter there’s at least one Left Behind.
And FWIW, the Bible out-sells (or so I’m told) every NYT bestseller every year.
Anecdotally, I find that hard to believe. I worked in a bookstore for awhile after college, and I guarantee you I sold a thousand Harry Potter books for every copy of the Bible. Why bother paying for something you can so easily get for free?
I would believe that there are more copies of the Bible published than any other book, though.
I agree with Kyla. I think those claiming more copies of the Bible are sold yearly are screwing with the numbers. Totally concur that it probably is the most published though.
The NYT bestseller list has that nonfiction half, and you know what often sells a lot in nonfiction? Latest diet book. Latest self-help book. Whatever was on Oprah. Latest celebrity biography. “Real” nonfiction readership is much more diffuse than fiction.
I’d imagine that it’s important to the author because it means they can command larger advances and more royalties (plus, even if they don’t get a larger percentage, sheer volume means that those monthly checks are pretty big). For the everyday Joe Schmoe reader, they may think the book is somehow better or more vetted because everyone’s buying it, continuing the cycle. Herd mentality, baby!
I thought the Gideons had their own press, but their financial statement webpage implies that they do purchase the bibles they distribute. I quote, ". . . .it received $136.6 million in total income of which $125.4 million was directly contributed for the **purchase **and placement of Scriptures. . . . " In which case I can believe that the Bible is number one selling book every year.
Back to the NYT Bestseller lists, does the NYT audit retail sales of books when compiling the list of bestsellers are does it merely compile orders made to the publishers?
Bibles aren’t purchased in bookstores; they’re purchased in Christian stores, online, and by churches in bulk.
Remember, too, that while it’s rare for anyone to buy more than one copy of a book for their own use, people buying bibles will often buy several for different rooms of the house.
The one actual cheat is that there are many different bibles (not just editions, but formats of the same edition) by many different publishers, and these are grouped together. It’s as if all mystery novels counted all in one group. But since it is a single title, that’s how it’s counted.
Back to the OP, the NY Times best seller means more money to the author. Of course, that’s just because it’s selling better, but it also is a selling point; many people will pick up a book by an author they don’t know if he’s written a best seller.
It’s not really feasible to buy up a bunch of books to get onto the Times list. You’re losing money on the deal, and the Times keeps its list of bookstores secret. They also probably filter out suspicious activity. (The Times list comes from the reports of the bookstores.)
It’s a measure of zeitgeist, not quality. TRLT at least has the virtue of being a fairly robust self help/inspirational book, but many are worse glurge, pap, or tripe. What do you see Americans reading on the beach? A lot of bodice busters and biographies, not so much Kant or string theory.
Actually, the NYT puts asterisks (*) next to some books on the list, and then notes at the bottom that they have reports of bulk orders for these books. They do this specifically in an attempt to deal with the possibility that authors or publishers will arrange large purchases of their own books.
Also, you should be aware that there are several New York Times Bestseller lists. Just for adult hardcovers, there are three lists: fiction, nonfiction, and “How-To and Miscellaneous”. I think the two books listed by the OP were on the last of these three lists.
They put a dagger next to books with bulk orders. These days it’s usually What To Expect When You’re Expecting, which makes sense since you can never have too many copies of that on hand. Back in the late 90s/early 00s, it was common knowledge that Dave Pelzer (or his agents) simply bought bulk copies of A Child Called “It” and it’s noxious sequels for the express purpose of making the bestseller lists.
I believe the Times still makes the list by compiling and extrapolating the sales at numerous bookstores, Costcos, and supermarkets. However, I thought I heard that the actual BookScan numbers (just like SoundScan) are available, but that no publisher wants them revealed because it would upset the apple cart (just like SoundScan).
Someday, we’ll actually know what books are really selling!
Also, it should be pointed out that the Times specifically excludes classics, the Bible (as has already been mentions), and textbooks. Frankly, I wish they wouldn’t do that. I’d be more interested to know if, say, Catcher in the Rye was still selling enough copies to make the list.
Bear in mind that the NYT doesn’t survey religious book stores and publishers, so there are books which sell hundreds of thousands of copies without ever showing up on the NYT best seller lists.