Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Washington Post's bestseller lists have been wrong

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 97 posts

Re: The Washington Post's bestseller lists have been wrong

#61

Post by freehunter »

pessimizer wrote: post #57
dlp211 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why should I care what those people are reading or think. I'm not them and they're not me and while some of my interests may overlap with them, it doesn't mean I want to, or will enjoy, reading what they read.

Why should you care about the bestseller lists? This is an alternative if you want to get some insight into the thought process of these (terrible) people. Also these three people are examples; the point is that some public people that you may care about recommend books, and that is a way to discover books.

>thought process of these (terrible) people

Whoa that is some casually thrown-in hardcore judgement.

Re: The Washington Post's bestseller lists have been wrong

#62

Post by [deleted] »

trentnix wrote: post #16
hirundo wrote: post #5

Kudos to the Post for attempting to produce an objective list. The New York Times doesn't: > In other words, The New York Times best-seller list is not a best-seller list -- which even The New York Times once acknowledged. In the early 1980s, William Peter Blatty, author of the monumental best-seller "The Exorcist," sued The New York Times for only listing his novel on the list one time, even though it sold in the mi…

Does that apply to the rest of paper as well?

[deleted]

Re: The Washington Post's bestseller lists have been wrong

#63

Post by CobrastanJorji »

peterlk wrote: post #22

Here's how "Best Sellers" become a thing: Publishers count the number of books they sell. This seems pretty simple, right? It is, but as a consequence, easily gamed. Publishers don't sell to you and me, they sell to book stores. So, you create some marketing to get people to preorder your book from a lots of different book stores. Book sellers inform the number of copies based, in part, on preorder numbers. There are…

You left out my favorite trick: politics! For example, say that you're running for President, and you want your campaign book to be a "top 10 list" best seller. Well, just have your campaign pre-order 4,000 or so copies of the book. That plus 1000 or so real sales will be enough to get you into the top 10 list, and at only about $55,000, it's practically a steal. Even better, the proceeds come right back to you because you're sure as heck not gonna give your campaign a discount.

Re: The Washington Post's bestseller lists have been wrong

#64

Post by wp381640 »

peterlk wrote: post #22

Here's how "Best Sellers" become a thing: Publishers count the number of books they sell. This seems pretty simple, right? It is, but as a consequence, easily gamed. Publishers don't sell to you and me, they sell to book stores. So, you create some marketing to get people to preorder your book from a lots of different book stores. Book sellers inform the number of copies based, in part, on preorder numbers. There are…

I have a story about a well-known "best selling" author

Some years ago received a random package in the mail - turns out it was 40+ copies of this authors new book. Had no idea what to do with them so they just sat around, I never even read it

A few days later I notice some blogs running giveaways for the same book - figure they got deliveries of it as well. Go to a conference and in conversation find that a bunch of people also got the same package

I didn't put together until years later that this is all part of self-sales to boost best seller rankings.

Apparently if you know which book stores are surveyed by the NYTimes you can call them up and order a handful of copies of your own book and boost your own sales

It's no coincidence that this author heavily pitches themselves as a multiple-NYTimes best seller. It likely pays off because I have a good idea of what their appearance fee is and it's mid-5 figures+

Re: The Washington Post's bestseller lists have been wrong

#65

Post by buboard »

jammygit wrote: post #59
trentnix wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does that apply to the rest of paper as well?

Not sure why the downvotes. If a news provider can’t promise to try to tell the truth in a legally binding way, but just claims to be editorializing, it’s no wonder there is so much public distrust of the news.

> to tell the truth in a legally binding way

feels like these two are mutually exclusive

Re: The Washington Post's bestseller lists have been wrong

#66

Post by chillwaves »

jammygit wrote: post #59
trentnix wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does that apply to the rest of paper as well?

Not sure why the downvotes. If a news provider can’t promise to try to tell the truth in a legally binding way, but just claims to be editorializing, it’s no wonder there is so much public distrust of the news.

> If a news provider can’t promise to try to tell the truth in a legally binding way

which news provider does this?

Re: The Washington Post's bestseller lists have been wrong

#67

Post by greedo »

pessimizer wrote: post #55
greedo wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Book sellers are rarely stuck with unsold inventory. They almost always have the ability to send unsold inventory (though not magazines) back to the publisher for full credit.

To remainder paperbacks, instead of sending the entire book back for credit they'd rip off the covers, send those instead, and dumpster the book. I don't know if they do this anymore. When I grew up in the 80s, I read an enormous number of coverless books:)

That's still SOP.

Re: The Washington Post's bestseller lists have been wrong

#68

Post by greedo »

bduerst wrote: post #43
greedo wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Book sellers are rarely stuck with unsold inventory. They almost always have the ability to send unsold inventory (though not magazines) back to the publisher for full credit.

So then if you have sufficient capital, you park it into your own book for a few weeks and then return it all later once the best-selling status is achieved? I can't imagine publishers would let this happen more than once or twice before revoking this ability for the seller. Inventory handling is expensive.

Publishers need booksellers more than the reverse.

Re: The Washington Post's bestseller lists have been wrong

#69

Post by chiefalchemist »

peterlk wrote: post #22

Here's how "Best Sellers" become a thing: Publishers count the number of books they sell. This seems pretty simple, right? It is, but as a consequence, easily gamed. Publishers don't sell to you and me, they sell to book stores. So, you create some marketing to get people to preorder your book from a lots of different book stores. Book sellers inform the number of copies based, in part, on preorder numbers. There are…

This reminds me of the early 90's when Billboard's music sales charts switched from subjective reported to SoundScan (actual scanned sales).

That truth was the breakout tipping point for country music. It also makes you wonder how legit/truthful any charting previous to SoundScan actually was.

Re: The Washington Post's bestseller lists have been wrong

#70

Post by chiefalchemist »

hirundo wrote: post #5

Kudos to the Post for attempting to produce an objective list. The New York Times doesn't: > In other words, The New York Times best-seller list is not a best-seller list -- which even The New York Times once acknowledged. In the early 1980s, William Peter Blatty, author of the monumental best-seller "The Exorcist," sued The New York Times for only listing his novel on the list one time, even though it sold in the mi…

"The New York Times' Hopeful to be Sellers List"

Doesn't seem to have the same ring :)

Post reply on HN