When Is It Appropriate to Label Something a "Bestseller"?

A bestseller should be the top ten!

The term "bestseller" has been hacked to bits so badly that it's hard to even gauge it well, these days. NYT tracks sales for top 35 seats overall, in fiction, and nonfiction, and for ebooks; but their print bestseller lists are based on snapshot sales of books in specific bookstores on specific dates, so it's a little wobbly even then (really more about velocity of sales over a certain short period, rather than total sales).

USA Today tracks the top 150 books. The ABA (American Booksellers' Association, basically indie bookstores) puts out there own lists. There's bunches of others, some more reliable/accurate than others. Technically, making any of them makes one a "bestseller".

I think what you're really asking about is Amazon and B&N lists, though. If you crack the top 100, are you a "bestseller"? How about the top 100 in fantasy, does that make you a "bestselling fantasy author"? Maybe we should limit it to top 35, like NYT does - what if you make the top 35 in Amazon's ebook, released in last 30 days, science fiction, subgenre "Hi-Tech"?

There's only 63 books that meet that list; top 35 gives you better than 50-50 odds of anything you published right now making that list. (Incidentally though, 16 of the top 20 on that list are self published.)

You can see how it can get crazy fast. There's no rules. No one can say you *can't* claim to be a bestseller for making that list. Sorta like no one can say you aren't an "award-winning writer" if you won even a small/local award for your writing.

I'm not so sure readers pay too much attention to this, these days.

Traditionally it meant you were on one fo the well recognised bestseller lists like NYT.

But now it is a claim I just ignore because people use it based on being Thursday's bestseller in the kindle list for fiction>romance>Canadian>wombats--or based on nothing at all.

If a book cries out that it's a bestseller and I've never heard of it, I discount the claim.

If I saw a book or author I hadn't heard of, claiming to be a 'best-seller', I would automatically assume they meant 'in some weird little category I made up, so I could claim best-sellerdom'. I would then ignore the book, 'cause if they're that desperate, how could the book be any good?
Plenty of books out there not making exaggerated claims, willing to be judged on their own merits.

I dunno... While I don't support "random bestsellerdom" - I know darned well I don't read the NYT list every week to see the books there, let alone the 150 on the USA Today list. And while not every book on those lists changes week by week, there's enough that show up there once and then are gone that I would never assume I knew all of them. If I see someone specify their bestselling "credential" (i.e. what list did they make), then I'll take that for what it's worth. Likewise, if someone's blurb says "10 weeks in the Amazon fiction ebook top 20", I know that's got some weight to it.

But "bestseller"? I think people are starting to know better than to take that at face value.

Not sure what would qualify as a bestseller.

However, I just wanted to say that just because you haven't heard of a book or an author doesn't mean that they aren't a bestseller and totally legit in their claims. I frequently come across books with captions like 'The NYT number one bestseller' and I have NO IDEA who the writer is.

Same with prize winners, there are alot of books out there that have won major awards, doesn't mean I know the book or the writer.

Inside of my genre it's a different story, but for books not in my genre, I'm a bit hazy.

In Canada a "bestseller" is so classified once it has sold 5000 units. I thought I read somewhere that in the USA it's 50,000 units (which would be almost the same percentage - canada has 30 mill people, usa has about 300 mill) but I haven't been able to find the article (which I think was in PW or Quill & Quire).

ETA: I believe Canada has these definitions b/c of the gov-funding for cultural industries. If there is funding for "bestsellers" there must be a clear definition of what a bestseller is. Just like there is funding for "small presses" but they are clearly defined.

dgaughran said:

This makes me wonder one thing. Why do they keep using it then? Surely it must have some effect, however subliminal. Is it the case, perhaps, that us writers are a little more cynical about this stuff than the general reading public?

Click to expand...

Could be right on, there. I mean, my impression is a decent number of people scan the NYT list regularly, and that impacts their buying decisions. Anyone who feels that way would be automatically inclined toward approval of an author whose book said they were a "NYT Bestseller". And anyone who was bestseller-prone in their buying habits who didn't know about the way "bestseller" was basically being reduced in exclusivity now that we have much more detailed lists available might feel the same way about any book labeled that way.

Got to remember that most readers don't know as much about books as we do...

KevinMcLaughlin said:

Got to remember that most readers don't know as much about books as we do...

Click to expand...

You are vastly underestimating readers.

That's a dangerous mistake for anyone who writes.

Also? The NYT best sellers lists aren't for readers, or for writers.

They're for book sellers.

They began when the publisher noticed a correlation between books in the book review and the books that got buzz.

They then started collecting data from book sellers about what was being purchased.

By targeting book sellers, the NYT picked up several thousand customers, no small feat back in the day.

I know an author who had the best selling Christmas story for her e-publisher. She got a best seller button to use on her website and everything. She sold 24 copies.

Seeing something labled "Kindle Bestseller" would get a headpat from me and nothing more. When you limit criteria you can call yourself a best seller quite easily.

NYT now has a list for ebooks. Get on that, even if it's top 100, and I'll take the 'bestseller' claim seriously.

All of the print bestsellers are weekly so I would say you have to be on the bestseler list for a week. If a list is too "specfic" then I wouldn't count it for instance Kindle Books->Science Fiction & Fantasy ->Fantasy->Historical.

The "bigger" lists for instance Just "Books" "Science Fiction and Fantasy" (which will include print and ebooks) will list the number of days you are on the list. For instance two of the Ridan book's (Soldier of the Legion and March of the Legion) is currently #23 and #66 on that list and has been for 19 days / 12 days respectively. At curent sales volumes that about 5,500 books per month and 2,500.

Many books sell only a few thosand over their whole lifetime. If you sell 5,000+ books a month...that's best seller status.

VoireyLinger said:

NYT now has a list for ebooks. Get on that, even if it's top 100, and I'll take the 'bestseller' claim seriously.

Click to expand...

The NYT ebook list excludes self-publishers so even though Amanda Hocking and John Locke sell hundreds of thosands of books they don't qualify. There have been a few self-pub'ed titles that "slip on by accident" (and outed by Publisher' Weekly as not suppose to be on there) but I don't think that list has and creditbility given that.