There was an interesting article in the LA Times yesterday. It starts with the story of the trial between Clive Cussler and media mogul, Philip Anschutz, who bought the rights to Sahara. According to Anschutz he was told the book had sold 100 million copies and apparently he’s now trying to pin the movie flopping to that being a totally made up number. (If this is all true and the guy didn’t get the number in writing, you kind of have to wonder, don’t you?)
But the main story is how the book industry pretty much lives on falsehoods or puffery if you like. It’s all about the hype. Which means anyone can be made into a “big” name or a “bestseller”–they don’t even need “real” sales. Here’s a quote.
Even a spot on a bestseller list is not what it may seem: Readers might be surprised to learn how few copies you need to sell to be able to call your book a “bestseller.”
Recently, for example, Martin Amis’ “House of Meetings,” a highly praised work of literary fiction, made bestseller lists in Los Angeles, the Bay Area, plus the national “Book Sense” list from independent stores. According to BookScan, the novel had sold about 5,000 copies in its first two weeks.
Attend a few PAN sessions at an RWA National convention and you’ll know making a bestseller list is all about velocity of sales, not volume, but it is still a little startling to see such a small number making lists.
Does this bother anyone? As a reader, I guess I felt a little deceived the first time I learned the truth behind the curtain, but now I kind of take it as a given. How would things change if lists actually meant total sales–as in what sold at Walmart and the local grocery, not just traditional bookstores? And is that even fair considering the majority of books aren’t available in those venues?
Are books different? Do they deserve a little extra gray space?
What bothers me is the way some lists count the bestsellers. I’ve seen bestsellers of the month… but you have to figure that when books are put on the shelf throughout the month, the books that get put out last are not going to sell enough copies to compete with the books that came out early in the month. And as a reader, that’s something I think I deserve to know. I’m likely missing some great books just b/c they haven’t been out as long. And then by next month, they’re last month’s news. Very sad, very cruddy way of counting. A weekly best seller list would make more sense to me in most cases.
by Ally @ The Cata Network February 15th, 2007 at 9:39 am