what makes a book a bestseller? is there a mile-marker, like going gold after selling a million records? or is it simply a matter of who sold the best? how important is it to be a 'new york times bestseller'? i think i've answered my own questions, but i'll wait and see.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
James D Macdonald
what makes a book a bestseller?
Lots of people buy it.
is there a mile-marker, like going gold after selling a million records?
It shows up on some best seller list or another. There are lots of best seller lists. New York Times and USA Today are a couple of the best known, but don't forget various other newspapers and magazine publish best seller lists.
or is it simply a matter of who sold the best?
In a given place at a given time.
how important is it to be a 'new york times bestseller'?
I can only imagine, but I suppose it's pretty nice. However, if you're writing for the purpose of being a NYT best seller, prepare yourself for disappointment.
i think i've answered my own questions, but i'll wait and see.
Well, good.
Lots of people buy it.
is there a mile-marker, like going gold after selling a million records?
It shows up on some best seller list or another. There are lots of best seller lists. New York Times and USA Today are a couple of the best known, but don't forget various other newspapers and magazine publish best seller lists.
or is it simply a matter of who sold the best?
In a given place at a given time.
how important is it to be a 'new york times bestseller'?
I can only imagine, but I suppose it's pretty nice. However, if you're writing for the purpose of being a NYT best seller, prepare yourself for disappointment.
i think i've answered my own questions, but i'll wait and see.
Well, good.
Writing Again
There is quite a bit of publisher manipulation goes into this, most of which I'm not at all clear on, so I won't discuss it -- I'll just point out it is there.
The only reasonable reason for a writer to want to understand what makes a best seller is so the writer can become one themself.
The best way to understand what makes a best seller is to read current best sellers: When you run out of those read past best sellers. Eventually those "best seller" qualities will creep into your work.
The only reasonable reason for a writer to want to understand what makes a best seller is so the writer can become one themself.
The best way to understand what makes a best seller is to read current best sellers: When you run out of those read past best sellers. Eventually those "best seller" qualities will creep into your work.
Gala
Bestseller list
If you're filthy rich like Rush Limbaugh, you can move up the list quickly by filling a warehouse with your book.
Bestseller lists are based on sales, not reads.
Last I heard Rush still had quite a few books in storage. Or maybe they've been remaindered...nah--he's a bon fire kinda guy.
If you're filthy rich like Rush Limbaugh, you can move up the list quickly by filling a warehouse with your book.
Bestseller lists are based on sales, not reads.
Last I heard Rush still had quite a few books in storage. Or maybe they've been remaindered...nah--he's a bon fire kinda guy.
Jamesaritchie
best-seller
There's really no publisher manipulation. It just doesn't work that way. It would be really nice if a publisher could turn a novel of their choosing into a best-seller. That would mean they wouldn't lose money on four out of five first novels they publish.
Best-sellers are novels that sell a certain number of copies in a certain amount of time from selected locations around the country, and pre-publication orders count onto this total, which means a novel can debut at number one.
Publisher try to push a promising novel by pouring publicity dollars and advertising behind it. Sometimes this works, and we hear about those, but what we usually fail to hear about is all this times this fails, and it's pretty often.
When a publisher puts money behind a novel it's almost always because that novel is already selling very well, and is already sailing toward best-seller status. Pubolicity just makes it happen a little sooner.
The numbers it takes to make a best-seller vary week by week, simply because it's the top sellers in the given time period and from the slected locations that hit the list. This means that what it takes to hit the list is determined by how many people buy books during that week.
I can remember when 50,000 copies would put you fairly high on the list, and now it usually takes millions to hit the top. Being number ten on the New York Times list means far more sales now than being number one did not many years ago.
Publishers, and those who run the lists, are frequently more suprised than anyone by the titles that make the list. You know a book by King or Clancy or Roberts will surely be high on the list, and sometimes a publisher has enough faith in a novel, "The Da Vinci Code" comes to mind, to give it a much bigger push than usual, and it works, but there are always surprises. At least as often as not, when a publisher gives a novel a push, they lose their money.
First novels that become best-sellers are almost always surprises. King's "Carrie," Clancy's "The Hunt for Red October," were given tiny advances and no pubicity, but started selling like mad.
What places famous writers on the best-seller list is having been there before. Millions read their books and love them, and expect to read and love the next, and usually do. If they don't, even famous writers fall off the list. Robert James Waller comes to mind here. "The Bridges of Madison County" set records for how long it was on the list, and went to number one three times. But the public liked each of his next novels less and less, and sales plummeted. Where is he now?
With first novels, with unknown writers, it's almost always word of mouth that turns a novel into a best-seller. A few people read it, they love it, they tell their friends, and they love it and tell their friends. Sales numbers jump way up, and then, and only then, does the publisher pour money into publicity.
In truth, there's very little a publisher can do to make a novel a best-seller, and even in the rare case when they can, if they're wrong about quality, the public won't buy the next book by that writer.
Publishers are wrong an amazing percentage of the time, and whether or not a novel will reach the best-seller list is always a guesstimate.
The reading public makes a best-seller, and they do it by word of mouth. Why the reading public chooses to buy a particular book in such huge numbers is something that's almost completely mysterious. Publishers don't know why, agents don't know why, and even readers seldom know why. If they did, the buying process would be a heck of a lot easier, and an editor would always know which novels to buy and which to reject.
But believe me, publishers have very little impact on whether or not a novel becomes a best-seller. I've been there and I know. If a publisher could make a novel a best-seller, every book published would sell a million copies.
As a publisher, you go by experience, and guess the best you can, and pour money behind this book or that, and sometimes you get it right. Just as often, you get it completely wrong, and a novel you expected to get five or ten thousand sales tops suddenly takes off and sells so fast you can't print them fast enough. Meanwhile, a novel you poured half a million dollars of publicty into sits on the shelves and doesn't sell at all, leaving you with a couple of hundred thousand copies that you can't even give away.
As a writer, I do think it's wise to read the best-seller list, but I don't think it's wise to try and tailor a novel in an attempt to hit the best-seller list. Wreiters who get there seem to be writers who simply write the best way they can, tell the best story they can, and most important, who write novels they love.
There's really no publisher manipulation. It just doesn't work that way. It would be really nice if a publisher could turn a novel of their choosing into a best-seller. That would mean they wouldn't lose money on four out of five first novels they publish.
Best-sellers are novels that sell a certain number of copies in a certain amount of time from selected locations around the country, and pre-publication orders count onto this total, which means a novel can debut at number one.
Publisher try to push a promising novel by pouring publicity dollars and advertising behind it. Sometimes this works, and we hear about those, but what we usually fail to hear about is all this times this fails, and it's pretty often.
When a publisher puts money behind a novel it's almost always because that novel is already selling very well, and is already sailing toward best-seller status. Pubolicity just makes it happen a little sooner.
The numbers it takes to make a best-seller vary week by week, simply because it's the top sellers in the given time period and from the slected locations that hit the list. This means that what it takes to hit the list is determined by how many people buy books during that week.
I can remember when 50,000 copies would put you fairly high on the list, and now it usually takes millions to hit the top. Being number ten on the New York Times list means far more sales now than being number one did not many years ago.
Publishers, and those who run the lists, are frequently more suprised than anyone by the titles that make the list. You know a book by King or Clancy or Roberts will surely be high on the list, and sometimes a publisher has enough faith in a novel, "The Da Vinci Code" comes to mind, to give it a much bigger push than usual, and it works, but there are always surprises. At least as often as not, when a publisher gives a novel a push, they lose their money.
First novels that become best-sellers are almost always surprises. King's "Carrie," Clancy's "The Hunt for Red October," were given tiny advances and no pubicity, but started selling like mad.
What places famous writers on the best-seller list is having been there before. Millions read their books and love them, and expect to read and love the next, and usually do. If they don't, even famous writers fall off the list. Robert James Waller comes to mind here. "The Bridges of Madison County" set records for how long it was on the list, and went to number one three times. But the public liked each of his next novels less and less, and sales plummeted. Where is he now?
With first novels, with unknown writers, it's almost always word of mouth that turns a novel into a best-seller. A few people read it, they love it, they tell their friends, and they love it and tell their friends. Sales numbers jump way up, and then, and only then, does the publisher pour money into publicity.
In truth, there's very little a publisher can do to make a novel a best-seller, and even in the rare case when they can, if they're wrong about quality, the public won't buy the next book by that writer.
Publishers are wrong an amazing percentage of the time, and whether or not a novel will reach the best-seller list is always a guesstimate.
The reading public makes a best-seller, and they do it by word of mouth. Why the reading public chooses to buy a particular book in such huge numbers is something that's almost completely mysterious. Publishers don't know why, agents don't know why, and even readers seldom know why. If they did, the buying process would be a heck of a lot easier, and an editor would always know which novels to buy and which to reject.
But believe me, publishers have very little impact on whether or not a novel becomes a best-seller. I've been there and I know. If a publisher could make a novel a best-seller, every book published would sell a million copies.
As a publisher, you go by experience, and guess the best you can, and pour money behind this book or that, and sometimes you get it right. Just as often, you get it completely wrong, and a novel you expected to get five or ten thousand sales tops suddenly takes off and sells so fast you can't print them fast enough. Meanwhile, a novel you poured half a million dollars of publicty into sits on the shelves and doesn't sell at all, leaving you with a couple of hundred thousand copies that you can't even give away.
As a writer, I do think it's wise to read the best-seller list, but I don't think it's wise to try and tailor a novel in an attempt to hit the best-seller list. Wreiters who get there seem to be writers who simply write the best way they can, tell the best story they can, and most important, who write novels they love.
Gala
Re: best-seller
according to King's autobio it was a six-fig adv. 400k I think.
Yeah Stevie. (he'd been writing and publishing stories 20 years.)
King's "Carrie," Clancy's "The Hunt for Red October," were given tiny advances and no pubicity, but started selling like mad.
according to King's autobio it was a six-fig adv. 400k I think.
Yeah Stevie. (he'd been writing and publishing stories 20 years.)
HConn
Re: best-seller
King received six figures for the paperback edition of Carrie, not the hardcover.
King received six figures for the paperback edition of Carrie, not the hardcover.
maestrowork
Re: best-seller
King only got $2500 for the hardcover.
Grisham got on a small publisher (small advance) for "A Time to Kill."
Question: how are best-seller lists complied? What data sources do they use?
King only got $2500 for the hardcover.
Grisham got on a small publisher (small advance) for "A Time to Kill."
Question: how are best-seller lists complied? What data sources do they use?
Writing Again
Jamesaritchie
First, I have to disagree with your first two sentences -- There is publisher manipulation, and a lot of it, and it does work that way. I can find support for my contention, but by the time I locate it this thread will probably be long dead.
Second, I must object to your third sentence: your conclusion is wrong -- It is not nice; especially for a writer without a track record.
Third, the conclusion of the last sentence is not supported by anything I wrote: Nor by reality: Nor by any stretch of logic.
The manipulation comes through an in depth understanding of the nature of "best selling lists." There are a lot. Maybe thousands. Some of them are pretty esoteric. The truth is that any magazine, newspaper, columnist, bookstore, or even a website, can have a list -- or lists. And they can sort them into any "genres" they like. They could have a list of authors who remind them of Marilyn Monroe -- And the winner is -- Madonna: Big surprise.
If the jacket says, "Best seller" and doesn't specify the list, then it isn't the New York Times; It might be the Poughkeepsie Poodle News. It might be a list of fifty and that one might be number 49.
Add to this mix the fact that in some areas certain books sell better than in other areas. It used to be an in joke that Chicago bought enough pulp westerns to support the industry. Introduce the novel there first and it is more apt to wind up on a list.
Does this mean the publisher can turn a first novel into a best seller? No. Does this mean he can manipulate his line up? Yes.
What does this mean for the person writing a first novel?
One more hurdle you have to over come.
There's really no publisher manipulation. It just doesn't work that way. It would be really nice if a publisher could turn a novel of their choosing into a best-seller. That would mean they wouldn't lose money on four out of five first novels they publish.
First, I have to disagree with your first two sentences -- There is publisher manipulation, and a lot of it, and it does work that way. I can find support for my contention, but by the time I locate it this thread will probably be long dead.
Second, I must object to your third sentence: your conclusion is wrong -- It is not nice; especially for a writer without a track record.
Third, the conclusion of the last sentence is not supported by anything I wrote: Nor by reality: Nor by any stretch of logic.
The manipulation comes through an in depth understanding of the nature of "best selling lists." There are a lot. Maybe thousands. Some of them are pretty esoteric. The truth is that any magazine, newspaper, columnist, bookstore, or even a website, can have a list -- or lists. And they can sort them into any "genres" they like. They could have a list of authors who remind them of Marilyn Monroe -- And the winner is -- Madonna: Big surprise.
If the jacket says, "Best seller" and doesn't specify the list, then it isn't the New York Times; It might be the Poughkeepsie Poodle News. It might be a list of fifty and that one might be number 49.
Add to this mix the fact that in some areas certain books sell better than in other areas. It used to be an in joke that Chicago bought enough pulp westerns to support the industry. Introduce the novel there first and it is more apt to wind up on a list.
Does this mean the publisher can turn a first novel into a best seller? No. Does this mean he can manipulate his line up? Yes.
What does this mean for the person writing a first novel?
One more hurdle you have to over come.
Writing Again
Writing Again
I guess, in light of the previous discussion, I should add: "Be selective in the list from which you choose your reading material."
The best way to understand what makes a best seller is to read current best sellers: When you run out of those read past best sellers. Eventually those "best seller" qualities will creep into your work.
I guess, in light of the previous discussion, I should add: "Be selective in the list from which you choose your reading material."
vstrauss
The Da Vinci Code is an example of a manufactured bestseller. Dan Brown's previous books all sold around 7,000 copies in hardcover (not great figures for a thriller author). But his editor believed in him and got people at the publisher behind him and they poured a truly extraordinary amount of publicity into Code--sending out unprecedented numbers of ARCs, doing intensive pre-release publicity to build bookseller buzz. It might have flopped, of course, but it didn't.
If the book had come out without the publicity push, though, I doubt it would have done any better than the others, because it's not any better than the others. Brown is an average to poor thriller writer (and the bar for quality is lower in that genre than in others), and a lot of his "research" is bogus.
- Victoria
If the book had come out without the publicity push, though, I doubt it would have done any better than the others, because it's not any better than the others. Brown is an average to poor thriller writer (and the bar for quality is lower in that genre than in others), and a lot of his "research" is bogus.
- Victoria
preyer
so, i can take all this to mean that there are different criteria for different lists? some are straight up numbers while others are rather akin to a neilsen rating? i hadn't thought about that. i imagine, too, that you can help your book depending on which season you release it.
the comment about how often an editor 'fails' on a percentage basis makes me think that even a 30% success ratio is outstanding. after all, if you make that many three-pointers and carry that batting average, you're pretty damn good.
interesting, vedy, vedy interesting. the reason i asked in the first place is my wife reads an inordinate amount of romance novels (we literally buy them by the box full at library sales) and it seems that most of them say somewhere 'by the bestselling author of 'the burning heart of desire'', and it got me curious.
how much stock does the buyer put into it, you suppose? two books with the same appeal, will the buyer go for the one with 'bestseller' on it more often than not?
the comment about how often an editor 'fails' on a percentage basis makes me think that even a 30% success ratio is outstanding. after all, if you make that many three-pointers and carry that batting average, you're pretty damn good.
interesting, vedy, vedy interesting. the reason i asked in the first place is my wife reads an inordinate amount of romance novels (we literally buy them by the box full at library sales) and it seems that most of them say somewhere 'by the bestselling author of 'the burning heart of desire'', and it got me curious.
how much stock does the buyer put into it, you suppose? two books with the same appeal, will the buyer go for the one with 'bestseller' on it more often than not?
Writing Again
I think if a book cover says, "bestseller" on it the book browser is more apt to pick it up first and thumb through it. It won't make an experienced reader buy it, but they will look at it first: Then if it appeals to them they will buy it.
Most people will buy the first book they find that appeals to them sufficiently.
Your "first novel" might have appealed to them equally, or even a little more, but they did not get to it. Once again, it is "one more hurdle" to get past.
Most people will buy the first book they find that appeals to them sufficiently.
Your "first novel" might have appealed to them equally, or even a little more, but they did not get to it. Once again, it is "one more hurdle" to get past.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.