The truth about the New York Times List

That doesn't sound too surprising or startling. It seems unlikely that bookstores would buy enough copies of a book to get it on the Bestseller list if they didn't expect them to sell well. I'd be interested to see if you could actually find an instance of a book completely bombing after it had already been added to the bestseller list.

List

It's really a LOT more complicated than the high on the publishing pole person claims. There's no secret about how it works, no mystery about it, and you can find the details on many websites.

The system isn't 100% accurate, but over the long run, it's pretty close, and no one has come up with a better system.

I'm not going into the system in detail, but it does, indeed, matter how many copies customers buy, but it also depends on where and when they buy them. How many copies certain bookstores and outlets order is only the starting point, and it's a guarantee that any book landing high on the bestseller list is going to have a minimum number of actual sales.

It's also a guarantee that if you book sells enough copies in the right time span, it WILL land on the bestseller list. Surprise, word of mouth tiles land on the bestseller list, and even reach the top, with considerable regularity.

Jamesaritchie said:

It's also a guarantee that if you book sells enough copies in the right time span, it WILL land on the bestseller list.

Click to expand...

I think that might better be phrased as:

If your book sells enough copies in the right time span, it WILL land on *a* bestseller list.

Just maybe not the NYT.

The truth about the NYT list is that it's a list. The truth about the USA Today list is that it's a list. Same with the LA Times list. Or any other list.

They're lists.

jeffrivera said:

The truth about the NY Times List according to someone high-up on the publishing pole is that the list is based on what a select group of stores has bought (notice I didn't say sold) so in other words if the local Barnes and Noble in New York City is one of the stores that reports to the NY Times buys a bunch of copies in order to sell a bunch to their customers and the rest of the stores that report to the NY Times do the same then it will hit the list. It doesn't matter how many copies the customers actually buy.

Also, one store could literarily buy or sell 1 million copies and you could still not hit the list if their store isn't one of the stores that the NY Times depends on to report to them.

One person even said that it's not a computerized system it's all done by hand. Hmmm ... makes you wonder.

Nevertheless I still want to hit the list! Hahhaa.

Click to expand...

Actually, this is close to correct, but not entirely. Here's how it works:

A select number of stores (and the actual stores selected are like the Nielsen television lists--they're pretty secret so people can't skew the numbers) are provided a printed list of recent book titles. This is the "tracking" list. Now, bookstore managers CAN hand write in titles if they're a sleeper hit, but mostly the titles on the list are the ones that are being watched. Usually, to make the printed list means that the author usually has previous good "point of sale" or cash register rings. Making the USA Today list, which is a point of sale list, is one way to make the NYTimes tracking list. Authors and editors are usually VERY excited to learn that their titles are being tracked, since it's the first step to making the list.

Now, once the tracking list has been sent to the stores, then begins the equivalent of a popularity contest. The employees at the selected stores are instructed to listen to what the customers are TALKING about. This starts months before the book hits the shelf, which is often why you'll see something like Harry Potter hitting the NYTimes list months before the actual release. Yes, sales from the publisher to the bookstore are somewhat involved, because the book buyers for the chains tend to listen to the buzz from the public. The more buzz about a title, the more copies they order so there are plenty available on opening day. The actual sales really aren't necessary for the book to make the list. Other than those with a national platform, or a built-in audience for an already best selling author, the books that make the NYTimes main list (positions 1-10) and the extended list (positions 11-35, called "Also Selling Well" in the paper) usually make the list the week AFTER opening week, because that's when the customers begin to talk about it, ask for it and otherwise say the name out loud.

Like Jamesaritchie says, it's not perfect, but nobody's come up with a better system so far. And, it's still the epitome of recognition to the public. Readers are more likely to pick up a title by a NYTimes ranked author when casual buying.

We discovered after our August release that our titles are now being tracked, so I decided to find out more about how it worked.

Euan H. said:

I think that might better be phrased as:

If your book sells enough copies in the right time span, it WILL land on *a* bestseller list.

Just maybe not the NYT.

Click to expand...

No, if it sells enough copies in the right time span, it will land on the New York Time's list, it just won't get there as son as a book by an establish writer. Novels get on teh NYT list in several ways, and good sales in the right span of time is one of them. Despite how the list is set up to work on a day in and day out basis, it is a flexible list, and allows for the unexpected book to not only get on the list, but to quickly rise to number one. But it takes a LOT of actual sales to reach the number the NYT list demands.

Pre-release sales to actual customers are also now a big part of the picture, and help determine how many copies bookstores will actually order, which determines where teh book will debut on the list.

The NYT list is just a list, but it's a damned important list, and it tells a real, and pretty darned accurate, story about a given book and writer.

Several years ago, before I was that interested in bestseller listings, I read a newspaper article about an author who was determined to make the NYT bestseller list and he did. He discovered the store locations from which the NYT survey was made. He arranged with friends and relatives across the country to buy 10 copies of his book at target stores in their area, and he bought a plane ticket and traveled to selected target stores across the country and bought 10 copies at each store he visited. His expenditure on the project was several thousand dollars. I've forgotten the amount, but $20,000 rings a bell. I think he was on the list for a week and then disappeared. I had never heard of the fellow before or since.

I believe one of the best gauges of what is selling across country is the Barnes and Noble Web Site found on www.bn.com. You can find the best sellers from the previous year and I believe the previous week.

There's plenty of cases of people trying to fiddle the bestseller list. Google [manipulate "bestseller list"] or, to get tighter [manipulate "Times bestseller list"].

As jamesaritchie says, timing matters a great deal. Books whose sales are rather modest can make an appearance on the list if they have fairly concentrated sales in what is otherwise a slow sales week.

Jamesaritchie said:

No, if it sells enough copies in the right time span, it will land on the New York Time's list,

Click to expand...

Yes, sales from the publisher to the bookstore are somewhat involved

Click to expand...

I'd also point out that the NY Times is not above changing the structure of the lists to push out books that they don't think belong there.

Not to be rude, but really I have no idea what I was doing with my life before I had all these truths coming around and shining light in. Really, Jeff, just chat with us. You don't have to reveal the truth and secrets behind the publishing industry, because mostly, there aren't any. It's like revealing the secret behind where a writer gets his ideas. Mostly, it's that he makes them up, out of his head.

jeffrivera said:

...according to someone high-up on the publishing pole...

Click to expand...

I'm always suspicious of any information that comes by way of "someone high-up."

I don't really like the snarky tone here. MANY authors--even a number of multi-published ones I know, didn't realize that the NY Times list isn't based on actual sales before I told them. I can't tell you how many times I've corrected people who presume it's just like the USA Today list (which IS based on actual sales.) Why is this considered a "pedestal" thread when a newbie starts it? Ease off, guys. You're bordering on "respect" issues.

jeffrivera said:

The truth about the NY Times List according to someone high-up on the publishing pole is that the list is based on what a select group of stores has bought (notice I didn't say sold) so in other words if the local Barnes and Noble in New York City is one of the stores that reports to the NY Times buys a bunch of copies in order to sell a bunch to their customers and the rest of the stores that report to the NY Times do the same then it will hit the list. It doesn't matter how many copies the customers actually buy.

Click to expand...

Locus magazine does sort of the same thing with the SF best seller list. They tell you up front (well down bottom) the stores they poll.

http://www.locusmag.com/2006/Issues/03LocusBestsellers.html

Cathy C said:

I can't tell you how many times I've corrected people who presume it's just like the USA Today list (which IS based on actual sales.)

Click to expand...

This is interesting. Why is the New York Times Bestseller list so prestigeous? It seems the could base the list on sales if they wanted to. It is possible if USA Today can do it.

Cathy C said:

I don't really like the snarky tone here. MANY authors--even a number of multi-published ones I know, didn't realize that the NY Times list isn't based on actual sales before I told them. I can't tell you how many times I've corrected people who presume it's just like the USA Today list (which IS based on actual sales.) Why is this considered a "pedestal" thread when a newbie starts it? Ease off, guys. You're bordering on "respect" issues.

Click to expand...

I think because the newbie has started several threads, which each have a patronizing "I, the king of publishing, am going to grant time to ye minions; praise me now" sort of tone. Oh, and they seem very much like excuses for advertising his own book.

ETA: Thank you, though, for downsizing your book cover.

jeffrivera said:

I'm sorry you feel that way. As they say, "No good deed goes unpunished."

Sometimes when we feel insecure we perceive the world as if victims like someone's putting us down all the time, as if they think they're better than us.

Click to expand...

What? There are many people I feel inferior to (the Pope comes to mind, as do many of the wonderful people at this site), but let me assure you, you are not one of them. If you read the vast majority of responses to your posts (and I find it odd that you only wish to share your inimitable wisdom in threads you created yourself), you'll see that almost everyone has picked up on your superior tone.

Arg! I give up!

Everyone else, please forgive me. I shouldn't have let my temper get the better of me.

I believe we were speaking of the differences between the NYT list and USA Today...

Jeff, I believe you and think you sound like a nice guy. But what you're hearing from several people here is valuable advice, I think. If you want to build your audience, it's not a great idea to turn people off by making them feel patronized. When you come in here and make multiple threads touting your status as a "Warner Books Author" and with giant book covers in each post and with questionable advice about the industry based on your one sale... well, it comes across as know-it-all bragging. And calling people "sweetheart" and "buddy" before you know them can sound very patronizing, even if you mean it well. Then to compound it by saying it must be because we're insecure... well, no.

What some of the others were trying to explain is that this is a different crowd than most writers' boards you're likely to come across. There are many published authors here (along with some editors, a publishing lawyer, etc.). Many of us have multiple books to our name. I understand that you think self-publishing is a great idea based on your one experience, but advice like that can be dangerous, too-- most people who self-pub do NOT get commercial publishing deals, do not get bookstore distribution, sell 75 copies on average, and wind up very disappointed by the experience. (I can say this because I've chatted with literally thousands of self-published writers over the past 7 years.) So I cringe when someone comes along and says, "Hey! Self-publishing is the way!" It usually isn't. Publishers are normally happier to buy first rights to a book, meaning that it's never been in print before, rather than buying rights to something that's already been published.

So I think it's great that you share your experiences-- I think coming along and telling people that, hey, it IS possible and this is how you did it, is very cool and even inspiring. But to try to translate that into the The Truth About The Publishing Industry doesn't work. See the difference?

Elektra said:

I think because the newbie has started several threads, which each have a patronizing "I, the king of publishing, am going to grant time to ye minions; praise me now" sort of tone.

Click to expand...

I don't find this one to be like that. It's just about the New York Times list. And you may find the tone patronizing, but it's not as if he's the only one who ever seemed a little patronizing here. I'm not trying to argue, but I do think Cathy is right, and newbies do tend to get treated differently. Remarks about insecurity and nicknames might be inappropriate, but perhaps the OP feels attacked. I have seen worse from veterans of the board.