NY Times won’t put Cruz book on bestseller list

[kent]

Do I care about the book itself?  Not really. What I care about is the New York Times deciding a "best selling" book needs to be more than "best selling" to make the list. 

So now we have a book that doesn't "meet their standards" of "best selling" because according to them, it's not "authentic" nor does it match some sort of mysterious pattern?  Wow!  Regardless of your political leanings, this should be troubling to you.

Joseph Goebbels would likely approve of this tactic.

www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/ny-times-won%e2%80%99t-put-cruz-book-on-bestseller-list/ar-AAcMwJJ

The New York Times will not include Sen. Ted Cruz’s (R-Texas) new book “A Time For Truth” on its bestsellers list, even though the book’s sales would qualify it for the list.

Politico reported Thursday that the Times told publisher HarperCollins that Cruz’s tome did not qualify for inclusion on the list.

NY Times won’t put Cruz book on bestseller list© Provided by The Hill NY Times won’t put Cruz book on bestseller list
"We have uniform standards that we apply to our best seller list, which includes an analysis of book sales that goes beyond simply the number of books sold. This book didn't meet that standard this week,” a Times spokesperson reportedly wrote.

"Our goal is that the list reflect authentic best sellers, so we look at and analyze not just numbers, but patterns of sales for every book,” the spokesperson added.

“A Time For Truth” sold 11,854 copies, according to Politico — more than the number-two book on the list, Aziz Ansari’s “Modern Romance.”

[kittensaver]

Too bad, so sad . . . . .

[NomoreDramaQ1015]

IDK the Oscars have all sorts of weird criteria for what gets nominated for best movie.  It sure doesn't go solely by box office sales.   It's pretty rare that they have a movie I've heard of nominated.

[kent]

Jul 10, 2015 13:06:22 GMT -5 NomoreDramaQ1015 said:

IDK the Oscars have all sorts of weird criteria for what gets nominated for best movie.  It sure doesn't go solely by box office sales.   It's pretty rare that they have a movie I've heard of nominated.

The Oscar is a subjective deal without any real criteria.  "Best Selling" is (or should be) an objective issue - you either sold more books or you didn't. 

[ArchietheDragon]

Jul 10, 2015 13:12:44 GMT -5 kent said:

Jul 10, 2015 13:06:22 GMT -5 NomoreDramaQ1015 said:

IDK the Oscars have all sorts of weird criteria for what gets nominated for best movie.  It sure doesn't go solely by box office sales.   It's pretty rare that they have a movie I've heard of nominated.

The Oscar is a subjective deal without any real criteria.  "Best Selling" is (or should be) an objective issue - you either sold more books or you didn't. 

Unless you buy the book yourself.   

[billisonboard]

11,854 books sold to one person/organization does not a best seller make.

[mollyanna58]

Jul 10, 2015 13:34:08 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

11,854 books sold to one person/organization does not a best seller make.

Where does it say the books were sold to one person/organization?

[ArchietheDragon]

Jul 10, 2015 13:38:53 GMT -5 mollyanna58 said:

Jul 10, 2015 13:34:08 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

11,854 books sold to one person/organization does not a best seller make.

Where does it say the books were sold to one person/organization?

""We have uniform standards that we apply to our best seller list, which includes an analysis of book sales that goes beyond simply the number of books sold. This book didn't meet that standard this week,"

[kittensaver]

Jul 10, 2015 13:12:44 GMT -5 kent said:

Jul 10, 2015 13:06:22 GMT -5 NomoreDramaQ1015 said:

IDK the Oscars have all sorts of weird criteria for what gets nominated for best movie.  It sure doesn't go solely by box office sales.   It's pretty rare that they have a movie I've heard of nominated.

The Oscar is a subjective deal without any real criteria.  "Best Selling" is (or should be) an objective issue - you either sold more books or you didn't. 

Um - - no. The NYT is not beholden to anyone for their criteria. It's their list, they can do what they want, just like the Oscars.

Are you somehow intimating that they "refuse" to put it on their list because they don't like the author?

[kent]

Jul 10, 2015 13:34:08 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

11,854 books sold to one person/organization does not a best seller make.

It doesn't matter if 11,584 copies were sold to individual buyers or all to one person.  The bottom line is how many were sold to meet the definition of best selling - honest to God.

[kent]

Jul 10, 2015 13:40:04 GMT -5 kittensaver said:

Jul 10, 2015 13:12:44 GMT -5 kent said:

The Oscar is a subjective deal without any real criteria.  "Best Selling" is (or should be) an objective issue - you either sold more books or you didn't. 

Um - - no. The NYT is not beholden to anyone for their criteria. Its their list, they can do what they want, just like the Oscars.

Are you somehow intimating that they "refuse" to put it on their list because they don't like the author?

The NYT would NEVER do something like that - they are one of the least biased media outlets in the world.

[billisonboard]

Jul 10, 2015 13:41:19 GMT -5 kent said:

Jul 10, 2015 13:34:08 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

11,854 books sold to one person/organization does not a best seller make.

It doesn't matter if 11,584 copies were sold to individual buyers or all to one person.  The bottom line is how many were sold to meet the definition of best selling - honest to God.

Your bottom line does not seem to actually be the bottom line, honest to the NY Times. (Not sure what God has to do with best seller listings.)

[Deleted]

Jul 10, 2015 12:11:24 GMT -5 kent said:

Do I care about the book itself?  Not really. What I care about is the New York Times deciding a "best selling" book needs to be more than "best selling" to make the list. 

So now we have a book that doesn't "meet their standards" of "best selling" because according to them, it's not "authentic" nor does it match some sort of mysterious pattern?  Wow!  Regardless of your political leanings, this should be troubling to you.

Joseph Goebbels would likely approve of this tactic.

www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/ny-times-won%e2%80%99t-put-cruz-book-on-bestseller-list/ar-AAcMwJJ

The New York Times will not include Sen. Ted Cruz’s (R-Texas) new book “A Time For Truth” on its bestsellers list, even though the book’s sales would qualify it for the list.

Politico reported Thursday that the Times told publisher HarperCollins that Cruz’s tome did not qualify for inclusion on the list.

NY Times won’t put Cruz book on bestseller list© Provided by The Hill NY Times won’t put Cruz book on bestseller list
"We have uniform standards that we apply to our best seller list, which includes an analysis of book sales that goes beyond simply the number of books sold. This book didn't meet that standard this week,” a Times spokesperson reportedly wrote.

"Our goal is that the list reflect authentic best sellers, so we look at and analyze not just numbers, but patterns of sales for every book,” the spokesperson added.

“A Time For Truth” sold 11,854 copies, according to Politico — more than the number-two book on the list, Aziz Ansari’s “Modern Romance.”

Maybe it's time to start calling it the "Uniform Standards" list.  I still remember when the print media employees had a understanding of the English language. 

[kent]

Jul 10, 2015 13:44:42 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Jul 10, 2015 13:41:19 GMT -5 kent said:

It doesn't matter if 11,584 copies were sold to individual buyers or all to one person.  The bottom line is how many were sold to meet the definition of best selling - honest to God.

Your bottom line does not seem to actually be the bottom line, honest to the NY Times. (Not sure what God has to do with best seller listings.)

What a meaningful response.....

[Deleted]

Jul 10, 2015 13:44:42 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Jul 10, 2015 13:41:19 GMT -5 kent said:

It doesn't matter if 11,584 copies were sold to individual buyers or all to one person.  The bottom line is how many were sold to meet the definition of best selling - honest to God.

Your bottom line does not seem to actually be the bottom line, honest to the NY Times. (Not sure what God has to do with best seller listings.)

I'm not sure what arbitrary standards have to do with "best seller".

[kent]

Jul 10, 2015 13:49:44 GMT -5 @jma23 said:

Jul 10, 2015 13:44:42 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Your bottom line does not seem to actually be the bottom line, honest to the NY Times. (Not sure what God has to do with best seller listings.)

I'm not sure what arbitrary standards have to do with "best seller".

Absolutely NOTHING.  At least you understand the concept of basic arithmetic as it applies to this situation and aren't caught up in some other agenda or attempting to add in new elements for no logical reason whatsoever.

Thank you for pointing out truth - I expected you to given your name.

[ArchietheDragon]

Words mean something.

[justme]

For fucks sake fifty shades of grey was on their list and NOW they want to claim standards?

[ArchietheDragon]

Jul 10, 2015 14:50:46 GMT -5 justme said:

For fucks sake fifty shades of grey was on their list and NOW they want to claim standards?

standards in the number of books sold not the quality of the writing. 

[billisonboard]

The NY Times does not allow people to buy their way onto the best seller list so that they can turn around and announce to the world that they are on the NY Times best seller list.  I am glad that the NY Time does not prostitute their list.

[billisonboard]

Jul 10, 2015 14:51:56 GMT -5 ArchietheDragon said:

Jul 10, 2015 14:50:46 GMT -5 justme said:

For fucks sake fifty shades of grey was on their list and NOW they want to claim standards?

standards in the number of books sold not the quality of the writing. 

The standard also includes how books are sold.

[Tennesseer]

Maybe there is some truth to the below:


The New York Times has refused to put Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz on their bestseller list after finding evidence that his book sales were not authentic.

New York Times spokesperson Eileen Murphy told Politico, “We have uniform standards that we apply to our best seller list, which includes an analysis of book sales that goes beyond simply the number of books sold. This book didn’t meet that standard this week. Our goal is that the list reflect authentic best sellers, so we look at and analyze not just numbers, but patterns of sales for every book.”

Murphy later added more detail, “In the case of this book, the overwhelming preponderance of evidence was that sales were limited to strategic bulk purchases.”

Strategic bulk purchases is a polite way of saying that Cruz, his super PAC, or organization that he cut a deal with, bought the books in bulk to inflate his sales numbers and land him on the bestseller list.

Republicans have been using this tactic for years. Sarah Palin had her super PAC buy $64,000 worth of her books in 2010. Mitt Romney landed on the bestseller list by declining speaking fees and forcing universities to buy tens of thousands of copies of his book. Ben Carson’s “bestseller” was fueled by a pro-Carson super PAC buying up $150,000 of his books.

Ted Cruz Busted For Buying His Own Books As NY Times Refuses To Put Him On Bestseller List

[mollyanna58]

Jul 10, 2015 13:41:19 GMT -5 kent said:

Jul 10, 2015 13:34:08 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

11,854 books sold to one person/organization does not a best seller make.

It doesn't matter if 11,584 copies were sold to individual buyers or all to one person.  The bottom line is how many were sold to meet the definition of best selling - honest to God.

Actually, I think it does.  The original article doesn't mention that they thought someone was stuffing the ballot box, so to speak. 

[billisonboard]

Jul 10, 2015 15:48:17 GMT -5 mollyanna58 said:

Jul 10, 2015 13:41:19 GMT -5 kent said:

It doesn't matter if 11,584 copies were sold to individual buyers or all to one person.  The bottom line is how many were sold to meet the definition of best selling - honest to God.

Actually, I think it does.  The original article doesn't mention that they thought someone was stuffing the ballot box, so to speak. 

"... patterns of sales for every book, ...."

[Tennesseer]

Reminds me of some 'Club You Over You Head' religious message movies.  On opening weekend, some of these movies take in $6-$7 million in ticket sales and then tank in sales come Monday and are gone by that Friday.  Turns out churches bought the tickets to support the movie's producers and message and handed out free tickets to their parishioners.

The movie may rank 4-5th in ticket sales for the weekend box office but are never heard from again once the tickets are no longer free.

[NoNamePerson]

They are probably giving him more free publicity by not listing it and he will laugh all the way to the bank.

Having said that, I've never ever in my lifetime bought a book based on anyone's "Best Seller List"  Guess it makes the author feel proud though to make it  

[Ryan]

Tim Ferriss talked about this a few years ago. I don't think it's any kind of bias, but just a wonky way of determining the best seller list.

fourhourworkweek.com/2012/08/17/amazon-monthly-100/

The New York Times

At the top of the heap of all the lists, of course, are the publishing industry standards: The New York Times Bestseller lists. Yes, “lists.” There are a lot of NYT lists: in fact, now 20 weekly and 3 monthly lists. Check them out here. The 4-Hour Workweek is still appearing here at #10 this weekend, more than five years after publication! It’s been a wild ride.

The New York Times list is what they call a “survey,” based on a proprietary and closely-guarded list of accounts they poll weekly for sales. It’s tabulated Sunday to Sunday, which is why I prefer to launch on Tuesdays instead of Thursdays, two common options for publishers (nope, you can’t just launch at retail whenever you like)…

The Times uses a methodology for filtering these reported sales that excludes books which are reported too narrowly. For example, if only a few accounts are reporting significant numbers, and most are not reporting any, they will automatically exclude this title. Ditto if a lot of bulk sales (high-volume sales to one customer) are reported without the balance of a broad reporting profile. You may have noticed the “dagger” next to titles on their lists–that means bulk sales have been reported, but a lot of “normal” sales too, so the title makes it. Often titles that do well across the board are not even tracked on the list. Note to authors: it is the publisher’s job to make sure NYT have a copy of the book and are tracking it. Independent bookstores are known to be central to success on the Times’ lists, so if they turn their nose up at your book, you are toast, alas.

Nonfiction books that deal with advice, how-to, political and a host of other prescriptive and practical matters (including some religion) are treated by the Times separately from all other non-fiction. They are given the shortest of all the lists, the 10-slot weekly “Advice/How-To” list, sometimes referred to as the “Mt. Everest of lists.” To make matters more confusing, the Times refuses to track eBook sales for all this “lesser” non-fiction! This all means that many worthy and popular titles fail to make the shorter Advice/How-to list and are then doubly damned by being ignored on the NYT eBook lists… even if they had enough sales to make both lists in the broader “Nonfiction” category. I’ve seen authors petition for reclassification precisely for this reason. It can make the difference between “New York Times bestseller” on the cover and resume, or not.

[Deleted]

Jul 10, 2015 13:41:19 GMT -5 kent said:

Jul 10, 2015 13:34:08 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

11,854 books sold to one person/organization does not a best seller make.

It doesn't matter if 11,584 copies were sold to individual buyers or all to one person.  The bottom line is how many were sold to meet the definition of best selling - honest to God.

Apparently it mattered to the New York Times.  I agree that if the majority of the books were sold to one person or organization then it is not really representative of a best seller.  Authors or publishing houses could buy its own books just to get on the best seller list.

I write a book and make 12,000 copies, sell  the book to myself for $10 a piece and am on the NY Times best seller list.  It is a bogus dishonest claim.  In my opinion.

eta:  I think what many people want out of a best seller list is a number based on people who bought the book with the intent to read it.

[djAdvocate]

that is really what matters, right?  if you sell 12,000 copies to one buyer, that is quite different than selling 12,000 copies to 10,000 buyers.

if anyone doesn't think those two things are different, i would like them to explain why.  if the only meaningful measure is quantity of books sold, then the bestseller list becomes meaningless.

[NoNamePerson]

Jul 10, 2015 18:14:51 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

that is really what matters, right?  if you sell 12,000 copies to one buyer, that is quite different than selling 12,000 copies to 10,000 buyers.

if anyone doesn't think those two things are different, i would like them to explain why.  if the only meaningful measure is quantity of books sold, then the bestseller list becomes meaningless.

First let me say I know the difference. But just curious if a retailer like B&N report 5,000 sales do they have to provide proof of who purchased the books? Maybe turn over sales receipts of all sales with purchaser's name as proof. - exception cash sales. Is this furnished to best seller's list?

I say do away with best anything lists.