Pollcode

Publishers ask me all the time if my Beauty and the Book is a bestseller list reporting store. I am not a reporting store but I do sell sometimes a ton of books. I found out in order for you to be a reporting store you must have a computerized inventory system of which I cannot afford, being a small independent. So think about who does have the computerized inventory systems, large independents and large box stores so all of us little independent bookstores are left out of the mix.
Also I have an author friend who has personally sold, over 200,000 copies of his book. When I asked him why he was not on the bestseller lists, he told me that he sold them himself so that doesn't count. As an author too, I sell my books in my store and have sold a ton, but that doesn't count either. The bestseller lists are geared towards those who already have big numbers in sales. How anybody outside of the box, makes it is still a mystery to me.
Tiara wearing and book sharing,
Kathy L. Patrick
Founder of The Pulpwood Queens Book Clubs and Bookstore Owner and Author
Beauty and the Book
608 North Polk Street
Jefferson, Texas 75657
www.beautyandthebook.com
www.pulpwoodqueen.com

Those of us who run small presses have always known that even when we sell a million copies, we can never make the best-seller lists. That would be true even if all trade sales were counted, because most of our sales are outside of the general book trade, and take place over a period of years rather than just in the month after publication. The fact that not even trade sales are actually counted just makes the system slightly more ridiculous.

There is a fascinating book on the subject:

Making the List: A Cultural History of the American Bestseller, 1900-1999 (Hardcover)

Although a little out of date -- it's an eye opener to how the list has changed (and stayed the same) over the years. It's lees than $1 on AMZ -- look for the audiotape-I found it at my local library. Doesn't look like it ever came out in paper...

I work for a library and lots of our customers base their reading on these lists. If the lists reflect nothing real, then they should not be touted as an accomplishment. The NY Times represents a kind of validation and integrity--at least it's implied. If it's just advertising, then they ought to disclose it.

I've never used the best seller lists to buy my books from or even read the lists for that matter. It's not important to me, I read who and what I like. That said it does make me feel good to see one of the author's I read and support make the list although I don't know it unless it's posted on their web sites. I enjoy knowing their hard work has paid off in some way. I know it's important for me to buy the books the first week they come out if I can and I do if at all possible.I've always wondered how the lists were arrived at but never enough to research and find out. Thank you for bringing it to our attention here and explaining how the different lists work.

This is all so confusing. If it's a "best-seller list," shouldn't it be based on which book sold the most copies. Otherwise, the name should be changed or the rules/judging criteria explicitly stated somewhere. It's more false advertising than unfair.

The problem with bestseller lists is that nothing synchs up. Most people want the bestseller lists in their Sunday papers. That means totals need to be figured out by Saturday for formatting, and really, Friday, since most people work M-F. That means you only have sales from Tuesday (new book day) through Thursday. You have to do some kind of formula to project sales for the week. The only alternative is to constantly be a week off. Can you imagine how people (authors and readers) would feel to see a bestseller list that didn't include Nora, James Patterson, or Stephen King the week after their release, because it wasn't a full seven day sales?

I may be the only one, I think projected sales are the only way to give a fairly accurate bestseller list in the same week a book goes on sale.

There are so many different "lists" out there that the words "Best Seller" have very little meaning to me anymore. If I'm not sure about a book, I'll look for a recommendation from a friend, or an online excerpt - those mean more to me than mostly useless claims of sales.

From what I've heard, the NYT is specifically skewed to keep out genre work, particularly Romance. I've also heard that publishers can push to get authors on the list. But all of that is, of course, just gossip which might not be so persistent if anyone knew how it works!

It's still exciting to see books by authors I love make lists like NYT and USA Today, etc.

Barbara, I JUST found this out a few weeks ago from author Annette Blair and I too was shocked. I tried to do some research and got even more confused. I believe that it also doesn't take into account titles that were overordered by chains and then returned and destroyed. It is very misleading.
Cat