I'm wondering how honest the New York Times best seller list is?

Question

A blog was saying, they go by how many copies of a book the bookstore orders. Not by how many they sell.

They can order 1,000 copies of a book, return 900, but the book still counts as a 1,000.

The best sellers all seem to be the same authors, every summer.

Answer 1

It seems like everything is a New York Times best seller these days. I always see that worded on practically every book cover.

Answer 2

I think there are two big reasons why the same authors seem to have the best-selling books all the time and that none of them have to do with how the New York Times assembles their lists.

The first is that many of those people are actually really good writers. Which in a way poses a bigger question: Why aren't ALL of them good writers, and why aren't OTHER good writers getting best-sellers too? Which leads to the second reason:

There are really only a handful of major publishing companies. Big fish have swallowed all but the smallest fish up. These leads to a couple of the down-sides of a near-monopoly.

For one, competition is fierce. None of the remaining fish want to be lunch. And that means they can't afford to take risks. They won't spend lots of money on new authors when they can have old ones that have PROVEN their salability. They won't produce works that sacrifice popularity in order to be new, artistic, or good in other ways. You get a lot of the same, over and over and over (movies tend to have the same problem).

Secondly, you don't end up with too many choices. If three companies produce 90% of all books and none of them like a particular author, you're going to have trouble finding books by that author. Instead you're only going to see huge publicity and massive printings for the books THEY think most people will want to read, whether they do or not or whether you fit into that group or not. And let's face it: publicity works and big fish are the only ones who can afford the stuff.

I don't think it was so bad back when we actually had dozens of companies competing. In some ways, even a total monopoly (or at least a single dominant force) might be better - the resulting company wouldn't have to worry about risks any more. Until then, keep your eyes on independant publishers and e-books.

Peace.

Answer 3

The market is catering to what people sell. So and so did well last summer, we want more of their books! Or others like them.

Then stores remember how hot the author is, and stock on speculation. This gets reported as a best seller and seen by you the consumer who then buys the book.

Self perpetuating. It also makes it difficult for new authors to break the cycle with new stuff because they are unproven or not writing stories about the subjects So and So is writing.

It is frustrating how much crap is out there. When in doubt, search and read older books.

Good luck.

Answer 4

Frankly I mistrust anything coming out of New York but best seller lists are especially suspect. Too much power in the hands of too few, IMO

Answer 5

according to wiki,

the way they NYT best seller list is compiled is "classified as a trade secret."

so most likely the blog you were reading was probably just trying to slag the NYT.

Answer 6

According to this article, it is based on actual retail sales.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Best_Seller_list

Answer 7

probably not very accurate. maybe just there to make more people buy

Answer 8

pretty honest!