Authors claiming to be "bestsellers"

I think that if people don't say on what publication or organization's list they are a bestseller, they are just blowing smoke and should be ignored.

That said, I think you're drawing the net too narrowly. The ABA Book Sense, the IndieBound, the Library Journal, and the Christian Booksellers Association lists can be meaningful and worth bragging about, as well as topic-specific lists (if someone's book about trout fishing is the #1 bestseller on Field and Stream's list, that's meaningful).

Also, other highly thought-of national publications do bestseller lists. The Wall Street Journal list is usually much closer to Bookscan figures than the New York Times list, and newspapers like the Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, and so on do well-researched local lists.

And then, of course, there are all the bestseller lists in the other English-speaking countries of the world.

But the people who don't say what list they're bestsellers on generally don't because the prestige of the list is underwhelming. Being a bestseller for one day in one sub-sub-sub-category on Amazon.com isn't a big whoop-de-doo.

Whoops, sorry, I missed your "etc." because I was reading on my iPad. :shame:

Generally, best selling books are the ones everybody is talking about and reading and on bestseller lists. However, I'm sure self-published books can be best sellers in whatever chosen venue they are published (i.e. Smashwords, IUniverse, etc.).

I think being bestselling in a major category on Amazon could be worth a mention. If someone is #1 of the romance section, that's pretty hard to do. But usually, they were top of the romances-about-people-dressed-as-bees-who-like-to-knit category for a day. Then one of the other three books in that category overtook them. And that's why they don't want to mention the details when they say bestselling.

Another not-really-bestseller I've come across is they're the bestseller for their shady vanity publisher, who everyone warned them about, but they signed with them anyway because it was going to be different for them. They know everyone was wrong, because they sold a whole 50 copies which is double what anyone else has sold through the publisher.

This is why I assume anyone who doesn't give the details isn't a bestseller. Though I have to say, even if someone is, I don't take someone referring to themselves as "bestselling author Bob Smith" very seriously. It's the sort of detail to put in the waffle on a website, not in the name field of all your profiles.

So, it's more so a promotional thing than anything? As in "I'm bestselling, you should buy my books", right?

The Amazon sales ranks are mostly meaningless, and easily manipulated by folks who want to expend the energy to do so.

When I feel like it, I call myself a bestselling author. (Several Locus best-sellers.) Yeah, it's mostly promotional.

This is probably just the jaded reporter in me but whenever someone uses a superlative like "Best selling" to describe themselves its a bit of a roll eye moment for me. Like technically I'm an "Award winning investigative journalist," and an "Award winning writer," but I think when you start to refer to yourself in that way you lose credibility. If you can, you should let the work stand for itself. If the work can't stand for itself, then by all means, claim as many superlatives as you'd like in order to puff up the sales of a book that probably shouldn't be selling that much anyway.

When I began seeking publication, when I attended one of my first conferences, they explained that for a book to be called a "bestseller" it didn't have to be on a bestseller list; it just had to sell a certain number of copies. For a novel, the number was 5,000. For non-fiction, the number was 7,500. Don't ask me who established these protocols. I assume it's some kind of unofficial industry consensus.

If this is true, once a novel sells 5,000 copies, the author may claim it as a bestseller even though it's never been on any bestseller list. Then, of course, once an author had had one book hit that number, they can say they are a "best selling author."

Has anyone else heard this?

NDG

Norman D Gutter said:

When I began seeking publication, when I attended one of my first conferences, they explained that for a book to be called a "bestseller" it didn't have to be on a bestseller list; it just had to sell a certain number of copies. For a novel, the number was 5,000. For non-fiction, the number was 7,500. Don't ask me who established these protocols. I assume it's some kind of unofficial industry consensus.

Click to expand...

No. 5,000 is NOT a bestseller by any meaningful definition of the word 'bestseller'. That's actually a fairly low number. As is 7,500.

IceCreamEmpress said:

I think that if people don't say on what publication or organization's list they are a bestseller, they are just blowing smoke and should be ignored...


...But the people who don't say what list they're bestsellers on generally don't because the prestige of the list is underwhelming. Being a bestseller for one day in one sub-sub-sub-category on Amazon.com isn't a big whoop-de-doo.

Click to expand...

I guess proclaiming oneself a bestselling author has joined the ranks of those saying they are a published author. There's a whole range of (ahem) meaning within that scale.

I've noticed this a lot too, especially on Twitter. I swear half the authors on there claim to be bestsellers, and some of them are hard to look up. I respect the kindle top 100 and consider that a valid list, but there are so many categories for stories on kindle that I've seen kindle books ranked in the 50,000's as bestsellers in a certain category. I've also seen books listed in categories that they shouldn't even be listed in (but now that I type this I can't recall a specific example).

I'm a best-smelling author. It's all the flowers they throw at me.

Norman D Gutter said:

For a novel, the number was 5,000. For non-fiction, the number was 7,500. Don't ask me who established these protocols. I assume it's some kind of unofficial industry consensus.

Click to expand...

No, it isn't.

Almost any commercially published book exceeds those numbers, usually by a lot.

If I want a bestselling writer, I go to the NYT section of the bookstore.

Otherwise, I read a book because it looks interesting, or because trusted friends tell me it's a must read.

Though I will say I'm extremely likely to ignore a book purely because a writer calls it a bestseller when I know it isn't one by any real standard.

Norman D Gutter said:

When I began seeking publication, when I attended one of my first conferences, they explained that for a book to be called a "bestseller" it didn't have to be on a bestseller list; it just had to sell a certain number of copies. For a novel, the number was 5,000. For non-fiction, the number was 7,500. Don't ask me who established these protocols. I assume it's some kind of unofficial industry consensus.

Click to expand...

No, it really isn't. Whoever said that at the conference was just blowing smoke.

The "best-selling" claim without any info on where it was bestselling, which list, sounds so meaningless to me. It reminds me of when I looked at an internet dating site and this one guy said "WORLD CHAMPION, NUMBER ONE RATED" on his profile, but didn't say world champion of what. Ok, dude, you just sound like a tool, and you're not fooling anyone.

MysteryRiter said:

I haven't heard this and it also doesn't seem right to me. I know Locke's feat is extremely rare but if he's out there selling a million copies in just a few months and calling himself a bestselling author, it doesn't make sense for someone with only 5,000 copies sold to call him or herself a bestseller. As said above, that seems like a fairly low number.

Thanks everyone for the input. I could also start a thread about the definition of being a published author because that's another thing I'm seeing: people with self-published books (or even vanity published books) claiming to be "published authors" when I only consider authors "published" if they have novels out with commercial presses. I guess these terms don't have real definitions and if they do, they seem to be often stretched.

Click to expand...

What does "vanity-published books" means?

And the 5,000 copies thing doesn't sound right. That number is fairly low, if you ask me.

Silver-Midnight said:

What does "vanity-published books" means?

Click to expand...

Vanity-published means someone paid a vanity press (such as AuthorHouse or Tate) to publish the work for them.

It differs from self-publishing in that with self-publishing, the author does (or hires) all the work him- or herself, and therefore receives all profit, not just a share of it.

Add "award winning" to the list of claims made by oh-so many ... awards by bloggers, writers groups, hastily-assembled groups of unknowns ... meaningless ...

I'm a best selling author. I sold myself a pitch for a nifty novel that I wrote. It was tough to convince myself to write it, and even tougher to actually do it - but its done!

I have several super human powers. They are "the power of semantics" and "the power of mental gymnastics".

With my powers combined, I am "Best-selling Author Man"!!!

When I went to RT Booklovers' Convention this past April, I noticed that all of the authors there using "bestselling author" had a qualifier attached. Usually it was something like USA Today or New York Times, but I really don't think I saw "bestselling author" by itself.

We have one legitimate bestselling author at Musa--Sharon De Vita, who is a USA Today Bestselling author and a RT Lifetime Achievement award winner. We have plenty of authors that have been #1 bestsellers on a third party site--heck, my first fantasy novel unseated Gaiman's Stardust from # 1 on Fictionwise the week the movie came out--but we don't claim those authors as "best sellers." Although it would be nice to have "# 1 bestseller in X genre on ARE" I don't allow any author to claim "bestseller" status when their book is REALLY "#68 in Kindle Store > Kindle eBooks > Fiction > Genre Fiction > Gay & Lesbian."