Comparison Report from Authorearnings

editing_for_authors
Editing for authors: because every writer needs a good editor.

Status
Not open for further replies.

MacAllister

'Twas but a dream of thee
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Moderator
Kind Benefactor
VPX
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 11, 2005
Messages
21,773
Reaction score
9,999
Location
Out on a limb
Website
macallisterstone.com
HH didn't "send" me or anybody else that I know of. I posted it here because I value people's opinion on this site, same as I value the opinion of the people over there. I don't see any problem with discussing it in both places. I don't think either group has a monopoly on wisdom and insight.

If you're not here posting with the specific intention of "stirring things up" vrabinec, then my warning doesn't have anything to do with you -- so no worries.

And if we thought that WAS why you were here, this thread would have been locked already, too.

Now, that's more than enough of this particular derail, isn't it?
 

Miguelito

Filled with optimism. And scotch.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 27, 2007
Messages
619
Reaction score
66
Location
anywhere but here
I raised this point on the Author Earnings site as well as another site and am copying and pasting here. From the study:

“It turns out that 86% of the top 2,500 genre fiction bestsellers in the overall Amazon store are e-books. At the top of the charts, the dominance of e-books is even more extreme. 92% of the Top-100 best-selling books in these genres are e-books!”

That doesn’t seem to strike anybody as weird? 84% of the top 2500? 92% of the top 100? Jebus, that is a *huge* percentage of total book sales.

To look at that another way, if you take out audiobooks, that means only 12% of sales of the top 2500 are paper copies. Of the top 100, only 4% are paper copies. I know e-books have been continually increasing their share of the market, but paper only represents 12% of the top 2500 sellers and 4% of the top 100?

That doesn’t strike anybody as at least a tad unrealistic that so few paper copies would be sold anymore? Or much more than a tad unrealistic?

The alternative explanation is that Amazon’s ranking algorithm (a black box that everybody has tried to game but nobody has figured out) has pushed Amazon’s Kindle e-books much higher in the rankings than their sales would otherwise justify. This, of course, would lead to a significantly overweighted representation of Kindle e-books in this study.

Which would skew the results of the entire study.

I’m just having a really hard time believing this analysis as based on those book sales stats alone. To me, it indicates something is wrong with the underlying data.

ETA: in all the comments I've read, everybody just brushes this off and assumes that these e-book sales, therefore, have obviously cut incredibly deep into the paper market. Nobody even stops to contemplate that maybe it's Amazon's ranking algorithm boosting the ranking of their self-published books. Another way to look at the data is that, of the top 100 books, audiobooks are selling just as often as paper copies. How reasonable does that sound?

I don't know. Like everybody, I'd love more transparency. And I'm sure that Howey and his partner are very much interested in refining their methodology and I wish them the best of luck doing it. I just worry they're not getting an accurate sampling of actual sales, because all they're doing is sampling ranking and nobody really knows how Amazon does that.
 

Graeme

Registered
Joined
Feb 12, 2014
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
And maybe I'm just too cynical, but I think the Amazon royalty rates will drop dramatically in the next couple of years, once Amazon gains the market share they're looking for. They're in it for the money - not for the writers, editors, publishers, etc. A book to them is just another item to sell, like a spatula or a duvet cover.

Remember that the whole origin of Amazon was a store for booklovers created by booklovers (Bezos). Amazon has always had a love affair with books, their first product. I genuinely think they care about readers and authors and not only about making a profit. They are making a ton of money as they are. I think they are smart enough not to mess with that winning formula. Obviously time will tell.
 

RichardGarfinkle

Nurture Phoenixes
Staff member
Moderator
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 2, 2012
Messages
10,448
Reaction score
1,580
Location
Walking the Underworld
Website
www.richardgarfinkle.com
I have a basic problem with this entire report. Here is the description from the link in the OP of the methodology by which the data were obtained.

This data provided one piece of a complex puzzle. The rest of the puzzle hit my inbox with a mighty thud last week. I received an email from an author with advanced coding skills who had created a software program that can crawl online bestseller lists and grab mountains of data. All of this data is public—it’s online for anyone to see—but until now it’s been extremely difficult to gather, aggregate, and organize. This program, however, is able to do in a day what would take hundreds of volunteers with web browsers and pencils a week to accomplish. The first run grabbed data on nearly 7,000 e-books from several bestselling genre categories on Amazon. Subsequent runs have looked at data for 50,000 titles across all genres. You can ask this data some pretty amazing questions, questions I’ve been asking for well over a year [link]. And now we finally have some answers.

This essentially says that a piece of software we have not seen crawled through a lot of data we do not have access to, organized by Amazon's deliberately obfuscatory system. There is simply no way, in a situation like this to evaluate the conclusions drawn, because we know next to nothing about the data from which those conclusions were drawn.
 

DoNoKharms

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 19, 2013
Messages
624
Reaction score
264
Location
Silicon Valley
Jebus, that is a *huge* percentage of total book sales.

Of total book sales on Amazon. Which doesn't diminish the figure's significance, but is still an important qualifier. A poster on Chuck Wendig's site pointed out that per Amazon print sales, SAT prep books outsell print sales of Divergent. That doesn't mean people aren't buying print copies of Divergent, just that they're not buying them through Amazon.

ETA: in all the comments I've read, everybody just brushes this off and assumes that these e-book sales, therefore, have obviously cut incredibly deep into the paper market.

I don't think it necessarily means that even if the data is accurate. It is just as easily explained by the possibility that there was a significant audience for low-cost e-books that the print market wasn't satisfying. Again, all the conclusions this report draws seem to hinge on the idea that there is this finite market for both trade and e-book sales, and that a rise in one signifies a decline in the other. I just don't think that's the case.
 
Last edited:

Graeme

Registered
Joined
Feb 12, 2014
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
This essentially says that a piece of software we have not seen crawled through a lot of data we do not have access to, organized by Amazon's deliberately obfuscatory system.

It is indeed very easy to interpret data with a bias, either intentionally or accidentally. We do however have access to the raw data. Anyone could replicate those findings. We have known for a long time through empirical evidence exactly how many sales represent a certain book rank. That is a fact. We know the book price so we know the royalty share. The data is all there on the page. The question still remains, has it been interpreted correctly?
 

KMTolan

No drama
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 22, 2009
Messages
236
Reaction score
12
Location
Near Austin TX
Website
www.kmtolan.com
I genuinely think they care about readers and authors and not only about making a profit.
My publisher, a small press, would probably beg to differ as Amazon changed the pricing on trade paperbacks (if not using their service) to the point where selling the paperbacks on Amazon was no longer profitable. Amazon is not nor never was the author's friend, anymore than any business entity out there. My opinion. Kerry
 

Miguelito

Filled with optimism. And scotch.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 27, 2007
Messages
619
Reaction score
66
Location
anywhere but here
Of total book sales on Amazon. Which doesn't diminish the figure's significance, but is still an important qualifier. A poster on Chuck Wendig's site pointed out that per Amazon print sales, SAT prep books outsell print sales of Divergent. That doesn't mean people aren't buying print copies of Divergent, just that they're not buying them through Amazon.



I don't think it necessarily means that even if the data is accurate. It is just as easily explained by the possibility that there was a significant audience for low-cost e-books that the print market wasn't satisfying. Again, all the conclusions this report draws seem to hinge on the idea that there is this finite market for both trade and e-book sales, and that a rise in one signifies a decline in the other. I just don't think that's the case.


Oh, I completely agree that it's a measure of Amazon's customers (of which I'm one), not the market as a whole. I'm just having a hard time accepting that Amazon's customer base is so lopsided to one form of the medium. But I'm always willing to be proven wrong.
 
Last edited:

ShaunHorton

AW's resident Velociraptor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 6, 2014
Messages
3,482
Reaction score
314
Location
Washington State
Website
shaunhorton.blogspot.com
Cynically, this sounds too good to be true for the pro-self-publishing crowd. I honestly would not be surprised if we find out down the road that numbers were fudged, or just plain wrong.

On a personal level though, I have no reason to doubt the numbers. I personally bought about 25 books last year, only one of which was not an ebook. I couldn't tell you the ratio of self-published, to indie, to Big 5 books though.
 

Graeme

Registered
Joined
Feb 12, 2014
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
We know that Amazon is the world's largest retailer of books. Exactly what percentage of the market is has is up for debate. I am willing to bet that Amazon's sales are very skewed to ebook when you are looking at bestsellers, which the data was. I am sure that most non-ebook readers buy bestsellers at the airport, or grocery store, or all the other places you see all the big names.

We really need data from everywhere.
 

Miguelito

Filled with optimism. And scotch.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 27, 2007
Messages
619
Reaction score
66
Location
anywhere but here
Cynically, this sounds too good to be true for the pro-self-publishing crowd. I honestly would not be surprised if we find out down the road that numbers were fudged, or just plain wrong.

On a personal level though, I have no reason to doubt the numbers. I personally bought about 25 books last year, only one of which was not an ebook. I couldn't tell you the ratio of self-published, to indie, to Big 5 books though.

Doubtful they were fudged. There's actually a large database that backs up their conclusions.
 

DoNoKharms

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 19, 2013
Messages
624
Reaction score
264
Location
Silicon Valley
We know that Amazon is the world's largest retailer of books. Exactly what percentage of the market is has is up for debate. I am willing to bet that Amazon's sales are very skewed to ebook when you are looking at bestsellers, which the data was. I am sure that most non-ebook readers buy bestsellers at the airport, or grocery store, or all the other places you see all the big names.

We really need data from everywhere.

Exactly. And if the topic at hand is "should new authors consider self or trade publishing", solely looking at Amazon ebook sales is just looking at a misleading slice of the whole pie. The necessary comparative information is "For successful trade pub authors, what portion of their revenue is derived from Amazon sales as opposed to everything else (print, media rights, etc.". Without that, you're comparing apples to fruit aisles.
 

Miguelito

Filled with optimism. And scotch.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 27, 2007
Messages
619
Reaction score
66
Location
anywhere but here
We know that Amazon is the world's largest retailer of books. Exactly what percentage of the market is has is up for debate. I am willing to bet that Amazon's sales are very skewed to ebook when you are looking at bestsellers, which the data was. I am sure that most non-ebook readers buy bestsellers at the airport, or grocery store, or all the other places you see all the big names.

We really need data from everywhere.
To be fair, I get my non-ebooks from Amazon. :tongue
 

Graeme

Registered
Joined
Feb 12, 2014
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
To be fair, I get my non-ebooks from Amazon. :tongue

So do I. I buy every book, paper or ebook, from Amazon, but I wonder how many bestselling paper books are bought on impulse at physical points of sale, e.g. airports.
 

juniper

Always curious.
Requiescat In Pace
Registered
Joined
Mar 1, 2010
Messages
4,129
Reaction score
674
Location
Forever on the island
So do I. I buy every book, paper or ebook, from Amazon,

Why? I only buy used text books there. And the last time for that, I found a better used one at the local big bookstore.

(I am lucky to live close to a very big independent bookstore)

Do you not like bookstores?
 

slhuang

Inappropriately math-oriented.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Dec 11, 2012
Messages
2,906
Reaction score
1,139
Website
www.slhuang.com
Note because I know non-AWers are checking out this thread: I am very pro-self-publishing, I am choosing to self-publish my debut novel myself, and I think self-publishing is all that and the cat's meow. But I also think good trade publishers are awesome, and that the right choice will be very individual to each author and his or her book, and I feel very, very strongly about authors being well-informed about the choices.

----------------------------------------

Edits: The unreliability of the sources I posted in one part were pointed out downthread. Also, I realized upon rereading that I elided some of the mathematical language in this post. I'm sure it's already clear what I meant, but I'm footnoting anyway because I'm pedantic with myself like that.

----------------------------------------

Before the other thread got locked, some people asked me why I thought the math/logic in this report was so poor. I really don't have a lot of time to spend on this so I'll just highlight a few things.

First, I'm highly skeptical that they've managed to crack Amazons ranking -> sales function (how many sales a given Amazon ranking equals). My own research suggests that this often fluctuates wildly and may be skewed towards eBooks as Amazon has a vested interest in pushing Kindle products above paper books. Amazon keeps this algorithm a closely guarded secret. Because of this, I'm highly skeptical of the raw data the study is based on.

Even if we accept the raw data as accurate, a quick Google search tells me that online sales (not ebook sales, online sales of any type) account for less than half of all book sales in the U.S. (as of 2012) and that Amazon accounts for half of all online sales (as of 2013). [edit: The unreliability of these sources was pointed out downthread. See footnote #1. In general, take this point to be a point about Amazon being a portion of the market to a degree we just don't know (unless someone can direct me to better sources!)] This means that even rounding up generously Amazon accounts for only a quarter forty percent(?) of books sales in the U.S.. Now, this is not quite a fair comparison, as it appears this applies to all book sales and not just genre book sales, but although I can't make the conclusion that genre sales aren't concentrated at Amazon, I think it's also fallacious to assume that they are without more information. If genre sales are distributed evenly across sales channels, these data are only 25% (40%? Not the whole portion, in any case) of the picture.

And it's the 25% (40%?) of the market in which self-publishers tend to make the majority of their sales. I don't think it's controversial (unless someone corrects me) to say that it's far more likely that the other 75% (60%?) of the market is skewed toward trade published books, particularly the more than 50% of book sales that are still made off line. Looking at 25% (or 40%, or whatever it might be) of the market might be interesting, but I don't think it provides nearly enough of a picture to extrapolate the rest of it.

More significantly, however, the data are only from 7,000 books on the best seller lists. There are at least 12 million books on Amazon. That means we're looking at five hundredths of one percent of the books there -- and since they're from best seller lists, we're looking at .05% of the top books.

Why is this significant? Because we're only looking at data from books that are already doing well, which tells us nothing about how likely a particular method of publishing is to get it there.

Assuming the raw data are correct -- which show roughly half of these 7,000 books as being self-published and roughly half being trade published -- I think the only conclusion that can be drawn here is that it's possible for self-published books to do well within Amazon's marketplace. Which is nice (yay choices!), and might have been big news a decade ago, but I think anybody who doubted that it was possible for self-published books to do quite well hasn't been reading much about publishing lately.

But saying something is possible does not say anything either way about the likelihood. And looking at people who have succeeded at X after the fact does not tell you anything about what to do to achieve X unless you also know the breakdowns of people who do not achieve X. For instance, if you look at a bunch of lottery winners and see that (say) 75% of them were poor before winning (I'm making this up), it does not help your chances to give away all your money, because you're ignoring that it might be true that 75% or more of lottery tickets are bought by lower income brackets. If a poor person and a rich person each by a ticket, they're equally likely to win; the poor person does not have a 75% chance.[2] And you wouldn't know this from looking at just the winners; you'd have to look at the breakdowns of both winners and nonwinners and see that both had breakdowns of 75% poor people and thus the state of being poor gave no actual advantage in the lottery.

How does this relate here? Well, this link (which is well-worth reading; thanks AWer Gravity!) suggests 8 million of those 12 million Amazon books are self-published. If all books are equal (which they're not, but just as a demonstration), and half the 7,000 top sellers on Amazon are self-published, you have a .04% chance of selling that well if you self-publish but a .09% chance of selling that well if you trade publish[3] -- twice as high. Of course, both percentages are ludicrously small, and don't mean much at all for two reasons: (1) the far more interesting question for aspiring authors is not how to become a best seller, which is quite an achievement in either category, but which avenue is the best business decision for that particular book, and (2) all books are not created equal. #2 suggests that the higher probability of trade published books becoming best sellers means that trade published books on average are either more popular or have better marketability or both, which I don't think is terribly surprising, since self-published books have a much longer tail of poor quality that trade published books do not (note that this says nothing about the comparability of the top self-published books to the top trade published books, only the averages), but other than that I don't feel like there are really any useful conclusions to draw here. What we really want to know is, for us likely-to-be-non-bestsellers, what is the better path to choose? And these data simply don't give us any information on that, unfortunately.

The earnings conclusions strike me as equally skewed. First of all, we have the same problem here, in that we're looking at books that have already been successful. If we condition on a book being successful, of course it's going to have higher royalties on Amazon if it's self-published. Because you get higher royalties for that. But it's ludicrous to condition on a book being successful when trying to make business decisions! We don't want to know which would make us more money assuming we can magically make our books sell brilliantly; we want to know which path will make our books sell better in the first place. A lot of trade published books would not make the sales they do without the support of a trade publisher, so it doesn't make any sense to say a trade-published book selling X copies would make more self-publishing because it would still sell X copies at higher royalties, since it's quite possible it would sell far fewer than X. How to publish is a very personal per-book/per-author decision, I think, and would involve a lot of factors no study can tell a person.

Regarding earnings, it's been mentioned elsewhere that there are potentially quite a few pieces of trade published earnings that aren't taken into account by looking at Amazon sales (plus there's that other 75% (60%?) of the market), whereas it's far more likely that we're looking at the majority of a self-publisher's earnings when we look at sales on Amazon. Stacking the majority of a successful self-publisher's income against a portion of a successful trade publisher's income does not strike me as terribly useful data. Additionally, the numbers make no accounting for the start-up costs a self-publisher incurs. The reason royalties are lower when one trade publishes is that the trade publisher is making a substantial financial investment and needs to earn that money back (hopefully with some profit, as the publisher is a business partner). When a self-publisher publishes, she receives higher royalties, but these royalties must also pay back whatever initial investment she made in cover art, editing, time spent marketing, etc.. This is not accounted for.

I've seen Howey repeat the idea several times that it's better to self-publish because if you're successful, you'll earn more, and if you're less successful or unsuccessful, well, the trade publishers wouldn't have taken you anyway. One of the main reasons this bothers me intensely is that it completely discounts the impact a trade publisher has in whether a book is successful or not. There are few manuscripts that trade publishers put out exactly as they are submitted; the creative support of trade publishers can substantially improve the creative content of a book. The trade publishing process may involve a more professional presentation than the self-publisher can afford. And the trade publisher may be able to put a marketing and distribution push behind the book that the self-publisher does not have access to. IMHO, it's disingenuous to imply that a book will always have the same chances whether one self- or trade publishes and thus one should opt for the higher royalty rate. It also ignores the fact that serious self-publishers are often looking at a substantial financial investment before earning money back, and therefore are taking a large financial risk -- it's entirely possible for a less successful or unsuccessful self-published author to end up in the red, which would not happen if the author opted for trade publishing, regardless of how well the book did. One thing publishers do is assume that risk.

I'm not trying to suggest that these circumstances are always true, just that it's substantially more complicated than, "it's always better to self-publish because if you're successful you'll make more and if you're not you wouldn't have been published anyway so everything is gravy" (paraphrased). Self- versus trade is a complicated decision, with risks involved no matter which way you go.

There are other statistical issues I see with the article -- the extrapolation, many of the other incidental conclusions drawn, etc. -- but I've spent far too long on this already. So there are some broad strokes. :)

The tl;dr version: In my opinion, the data tell us little other than that it's possible for self-published books to compete quite well in the Amazon marketplace, which I venture to say we already knew. I don't see any conclusions that can be drawn about which path is better or more lucrative for a particular aspiring author and his book. I'm not saying that the data contradict self-publishing as the best choice: they just don't tell us anything either way, other than that self-publishing is a viable choice. Which, again, I think we knew already. :) (But maybe that'll be useful to someone!)

----------------------------------------

Final note: I know next to nothing about publishing. But I do know a lot of math. I'm not trying to say here that anyone's beliefs about self- or trade publishing are right or wrong, only that I don't see the data supporting anyone's beliefs either way. There's just not a complete enough picture. I recognize that it may be next to impossible ever to get a complete enough picture -- I'd dearly like one just as much as everyone else would -- but looking at a lot of data doesn't mean that one is looking at enough data, no matter how cool it would be (and it would!) to get some substantive numbers.

Footnotes:

[1] If anyone can find better sources, feel free to point me. Like I said, publishing is not my area of expertise, only math on existing data! ;) I've edited the post to read "maybe 40%" in the sense that we might make a wild-ass guess that Amazon sells as many self-published books as it does trade published ones, since roughly half the 7,000 data points in the survey were self-published and roughly half were trade published. This half-and-half idea is not actually a conclusion we can draw from this, or at least I don't see the math to do it, but calling it half-and-half is consistent with the data. If Amazon sells 100% again as many books that are self-published as it does ISBN-listed trade published books, that would give it roughly 40% of the market instead of 25%. Eeeexcept not necessarily, because if we're adjusting Amazon, don't we have to adjust other retailers? I note that though these adjustments would give Amazon a smaller market share, they would increase the market share of self-publishers in the non-Amazon portion, since SPed books are the ones perhaps not being counted when people calculate market share. So what does this all mean? I feel reasonably confident in saying WE DON'T KNOW. Which was basically my point with this whole post. We just don't know enough to say . . . anything! (I'm happy if someone else can come along with math I didn't see how to apply and find something, but I can't see any conclusions to be drawn here.)

[2] This should have more properly read, "The poor person does not have three times the probability of the rich person of winning." Ironically, I think it's probably more intuitively understandable to non-math people as it's written, and math people almost certainly knew what I meant, but like I said, I'm pedantic about these things.

[3] These percentages are not actually the random chances of something in 4 or 8 million landing on a certain 7,000 list, since the 7,000 list in question changes over time, so will encompass more than 7,000 books. But as noted there are a lot bigger problems with trying to use numbers here, and I was more doing that for demonstration purposes. Note also here that just the fact that the data give us a roughly half-and-half breakdown but there may be twice as many SPed books on Amazon as trade published means that someone could use these same data to say that you're twice as likely to sell to any given level if you trade publish. This argument would be wrong, of course, for all the same problems listed in this paragraph, but it's an example of people being able to use numbers to suit any purpose they want as long as they twist them the right way. As I said in the post, as far as I can tell, these data don't support self-publishing or trade publishing over the other; they just don't really tell us anything.
 
Last edited:

Putputt

permanently suctioned to Buz's leg
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 10, 2012
Messages
5,428
Reaction score
2,905
More significantly, however, the data are only from 7,000 books on the best seller lists. There are at least 12 million books on Amazon. That means we're looking at five hundredths of one percent of the books there -- and since they're from best seller lists, we're looking at .05% of the top books.

Why is this significant? Because we're only looking at data from books that are already doing well, which tells us nothing about how likely a particular method of publishing is to get it there.

*stickies this to my forehead*
 

Torgo

Formerly Phantom of Krankor.
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 7, 2005
Messages
7,632
Reaction score
1,203
Location
London, UK
Website
torgoblog.blogspot.com
Here's Steve Mosby with some thoughts.

what bothers me most, even more than the importance of sales and money over quality, is an implied argument that I see again and again – that the experiment of publishing a book can be repeated with hindsight. “Look at your sales figures! If you’d self-published, you’d have earned x% more!”

The reality is that publishing anything is a unique path. If you have a book, and you’re trying to decide whether to self- or traditionally-publish, there is only the apparition of help for you in these figures. It might be that you traditionally-publish and sell 100 copies, and would financially have been better off self-publishing. It may be that you sell a million copies through traditional publishing. That doesn’t mean that you’ve left money on the table simply because those million sales if self-published would have netted you more. You can’t say what might have happened had you chosen a different route – whether you would have got those 100 or those million sales or something different.
 

RemusShepherd

Banned
Flounced
VPXI
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
896
Reaction score
112
Age
53
Location
Midwest
Website
remus-shepherd.livejournal.com
To me, the most eye-opening chart on Howey's site is the last one that plots average number of books per author by income. All the best-sellers average between 2 and 5 books.

Almost all proponents of self-publishing are advising authors to write as many books as possible, because each book acts as advertising for the rest of the books by that author. Hockings released 17 books at once, Locke did 23 in 3 years, and even Howey split his two-novel series into nine installments to leverage the multi-book effect.

But Howey's data is showing that the self-publishing gurus are wrong about that one thing. You can be very successful with only 2-5 books. That's a manageable goal. It also makes self-publishing success look like traditional publishing success and less like a marketing trick. Very interesting.
 

Torgo

Formerly Phantom of Krankor.
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 7, 2005
Messages
7,632
Reaction score
1,203
Location
London, UK
Website
torgoblog.blogspot.com

Cyia

Rewriting My Destiny
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Nov 15, 2008
Messages
18,369
Reaction score
3,501
Location
Brillig in the slithy toves...
Why? I only buy used text books there. And the last time for that, I found a better used one at the local big bookstore.

(I am lucky to live close to a very big independent bookstore)

Do you not like bookstores?

I love bookstores, but there are none in my town. The only library is in the high school. Until the half-price books (one town over)opened last year, the only bookstore in a 30-40 mile radius was the coffee shop store attached to a small university that sold text books and inspirational fiction.

Amazon's a lifeline when you're truly rural.
 

Hoplite

Return of the Coffee Shield
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Dec 20, 2013
Messages
1,373
Reaction score
205
Location
On a mitten surrounded by big lakes
More significantly, however, the data are only from 7,000 books on the best seller lists. There are at least 12 million books on Amazon. That means we're looking at five hundredths of one percent of the books there -- and since they're from best seller lists, we're looking at .05% of the top books.

Why is this significant? Because we're only looking at data from books that are already doing well, which tells us nothing about how likely a particular method of publishing is to get it there.

*Standing applause*

I get mine at B&N

I like local used-bookstores. I've always felt uncomfortable about buying e-books (what do I do if in 10 years Amazon goes belly up?).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Featured Book