billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,476
|
Post by billisonboard on Jul 16, 2015 9:23:39 GMT -5
... Don't know about audio books but I can't see that jacking up the numbers a whole lot. I wonder how long it takes to get audio books onto the market. Are they released concurrently or does a book have to show sells strength before an audio version is done? If there is a lag, that would minimize impact even more.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,896
|
Post by happyhoix on Jul 17, 2015 7:34:41 GMT -5
Actually I think these sales might be fairly large - I listen to audiobooks (not purchased but borrowed from the library) during my 30 minute commute, and I have a lot of co-workers who do, too - often I do more 'reading' listening to audiobooks than actually reading on my Kindle, due to time constraints. One of the guys I work with buys 1 or 2 of these a month (which I think is silly, when you can borrow them from the library - and how many times would you re-listen to the same book?) but that's just the YM cheapness in me, I guess).
They are probably counted with the e-book sales, I'm guessing.
|
|
973beachbum
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 16:12:13 GMT -5
Posts: 10,501
|
Post by 973beachbum on Jul 17, 2015 11:30:12 GMT -5
I also remember reading somewhere that it goes by sales that week, sorta like the weekly box office sales for movies. So the 11000 sales are for that week only. And the list has lots of categories. So his would be in non fiction. Totally different number than would need to be sold to get in the fiction category. I would actually be surprised that a book by a political person would even sell that amount in a week. Maybe an ex president or even a first lady but just some guy running? No way.
|
|
OldCoyote
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Posts: 13,449
|
Post by OldCoyote on Jul 17, 2015 11:41:42 GMT -5
So if Costco bought a 100,000 for resale how would NYT know if the books sold or not?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 2, 2024 16:55:51 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2015 11:49:26 GMT -5
|
|
ArchietheDragon
Junior Associate
Joined: Jul 7, 2014 14:29:23 GMT -5
Posts: 6,353
|
Post by ArchietheDragon on Jul 17, 2015 11:50:30 GMT -5
|
|
Robert not Bobby
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jan 29, 2013 17:45:55 GMT -5
Posts: 1,392
|
Post by Robert not Bobby on Jul 17, 2015 11:59:39 GMT -5
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
Meh, who cares...did he self publish or something? Cruz is a Cuban Canadian born joker who really wants to be Ronald Trump. But he has some smarts.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 2, 2024 16:55:51 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2015 12:12:34 GMT -5
Wouldn't "legitimate best seller" mean the most books sold ? If I understand correctly, the NYT decided that there were bulk purchases of the book by Cruz supporters to pump up sales figures. This is different that lots of individuals looking at a book and deciding to buy it to read or gift. Yes it is different, but that has nothing to do with being a "best seller". Sales figures is what makes a book a "best seller". Maybe it should be called a "Uniform Standards" list.
|
|
Robert not Bobby
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jan 29, 2013 17:45:55 GMT -5
Posts: 1,392
|
Post by Robert not Bobby on Jul 17, 2015 12:18:49 GMT -5
If I understand correctly, the NYT decided that there were bulk purchases of the book by Cruz supporters to pump up sales figures. This is different that lots of individuals looking at a book and deciding to buy it to read or gift. Yes it is different, but that has nothing to do with being a "best seller". Sales figures is what makes a book a "best seller". Maybe it should be called a "Uniform Standards" list. So go buy one. Sheesh
|
|
973beachbum
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 16:12:13 GMT -5
Posts: 10,501
|
Post by 973beachbum on Jul 17, 2015 12:38:01 GMT -5
So if Costco bought a 100,000 for resale how would NYT know if the books sold or not? Any books not sold get sent back to the publisher so I would think they know how many are actually sold vs sitting in Costco's waiting to be sold. The NYT's gets the sales info from the publishers not the sellers from what I remember. I think the publishers want the NYT bestseller list to remain a big deal in the book world. So they have a vested interest in this as well.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 2, 2024 16:55:51 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2015 12:47:39 GMT -5
So "best seller" doesn't mean an amount of books "sold" ? i think everyone here is saying that best seller is meaningless if there is only one buyer. I get that. It's still a "best seller". If I sold 3.5 million of one product to one buyer. I still had sales of 3.5 million. It was my "best seller" that month. The NYT is using arbitrary standards that have nothing to do with book sales. Maybe they should call it the "uniform standards" list as the NYT representative stated.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 2, 2024 16:55:51 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2015 12:51:52 GMT -5
Yes it is different, but that has nothing to do with being a "best seller". Sales figures is what makes a book a "best seller". Maybe it should be called a "Uniform Standards" list. So go buy one. Sheesh Don't have to. I'm having more fun here, sorting out the bullshit from the reality. I can get a hundred different types of spin from a hundred different posters and "best seller" will still mean the most sold.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 2, 2024 16:55:51 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2015 13:00:43 GMT -5
If I understand correctly, the NYT decided that there were bulk purchases of the book by Cruz supporters to pump up sales figures. This is different that lots of individuals looking at a book and deciding to buy it to read or gift. Yes, as someone else pointed out, a bestseller would be the number of books being bought for someone to read vs the number of books being bought in bulk, by one person (or company) - in which case those 10,000 books might be sitting out in the lobby of their company as a free give away to any client or customer who wants to read them - or they might end up in the recycle bin. So the number of books being "bought in bulk" are not being sold ? Some what contradictory don't you think ? Last I heard, when using the English language, "best seller" still means the most sold.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Jul 17, 2015 16:37:46 GMT -5
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. I agree with you, but they're taking the wrong approach to fixing the problem. They're going to run into the same issues as with black hat SEO: if you've got the money, you can always figure out a way to game the numbers. Embrace transparency in your ranking criteria. Put Mr. Cruz' book in its proper position based on total sales (which is the only metric consistent with "bestseller") and put a big fat asterisk next to it disclaiming "*note: 9,200 of 11,000 copies sold were purchased by Political Action Committee ABC". If some politician wants to blow $100K to tell the world he's buying his own books because nobody else will, let him. I guarantee you it won't happen very often.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 2, 2024 16:55:51 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2015 17:55:19 GMT -5
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. I agree with you, but they're taking the wrong approach to fixing the problem. They're going to run into the same issues as with black hat SEO: if you've got the money, you can always figure out a way to game the numbers. Embrace transparency in your ranking criteria. Put Mr. Cruz' book in its proper position based on total sales (which is the only metric consistent with "bestseller") and put a big fat asterisk next to it disclaiming "*note: 9,200 of 11,000 copies sold were purchased by Political Action Committee ABC". If some politician wants to blow $100K to tell the world he's buying his own books because nobody else will, let him. I guarantee you it won't happen very often. Or they could continue to do what they are now doing. If people want to know why someone like Mr Cruz is not on the best seller list with 11,000 books they can look on internet and find out. Not all problems need to be fixed differently then they now are.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Jul 17, 2015 19:07:06 GMT -5
I agree with you, but they're taking the wrong approach to fixing the problem. They're going to run into the same issues as with black hat SEO: if you've got the money, you can always figure out a way to game the numbers. Embrace transparency in your ranking criteria. Put Mr. Cruz' book in its proper position based on total sales (which is the only metric consistent with "bestseller") and put a big fat asterisk next to it disclaiming "*note: 9,200 of 11,000 copies sold were purchased by Political Action Committee ABC". If some politician wants to blow $100K to tell the world he's buying his own books because nobody else will, let him. I guarantee you it won't happen very often. Or they could continue to do what they are now doing. If people want to know why someone like Mr Cruz is not on the best seller list with 11,000 books they can look on internet and find out. Not all problems need to be fixed differently then they now are. They do if they don't want people scratching their heads wondering what the snow leopard "bestselling" really means.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,476
|
Post by billisonboard on Jul 17, 2015 23:54:08 GMT -5
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. I agree with you, but they're taking the wrong approach to fixing the problem. They're going to run into the same issues as with black hat SEO: if you've got the money, you can always figure out a way to game the numbers. Embrace transparency in your ranking criteria. Put Mr. Cruz' book in its proper position based on total sales (which is the only metric consistent with "bestseller") and put a big fat asterisk next to it disclaiming "*note: 9,200 of 11,000 copies sold were purchased by Political Action Committee ABC". If some politician wants to blow $100K to tell the world he's buying his own books because nobody else will, let him. I guarantee you it won't happen very often. If it were possible to require that the big fat asterisk appear on anything, everywhere and forever when the politician self identifies as a NYT bestselling author, I would agree.
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Jul 18, 2015 2:24:11 GMT -5
Did Ted buy thousands of his own books, like Palin did? Used the money his donors sent him to promote his own book? That sure could jack up the numbers.
Sarah Palin has been using her political action committee to buy up thousands of copies of her book, "Going Rogue," in order to mail copies of the memoir to her donors, newly filed campaign records show.
The former Alaska governor and 2008 Republican vice presidential candidate had her political organization spend more than $63,000 on what her reports describe as "books for fundraising donor fulfillment."
abcnews.go.com/Blotter/sarah-palin-pac-buy-book/story?id=9718024
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,130
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 18, 2015 13:22:48 GMT -5
i think everyone here is saying that best seller is meaningless if there is only one buyer. I get that. It's still a "best seller". If I sold 3.5 million of one product to one buyer. I still had sales of 3.5 million. It was my "best seller" that month. The NYT is using arbitrary standards that have nothing to do with book sales. Maybe they should call it the "uniform standards" list as the NYT representative stated. which is why i later added that i attribute zero significance to sales of art. just because an artist, or a politician, or a musician is popular doesn't mean they have anything to say. often the most popular artists are simply those that synthesize the desires of the public into an appealing package, and have the marketing muscle to back it up.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Jul 19, 2015 11:15:20 GMT -5
I agree with you, but they're taking the wrong approach to fixing the problem. They're going to run into the same issues as with black hat SEO: if you've got the money, you can always figure out a way to game the numbers. Embrace transparency in your ranking criteria. Put Mr. Cruz' book in its proper position based on total sales (which is the only metric consistent with "bestseller") and put a big fat asterisk next to it disclaiming "*note: 9,200 of 11,000 copies sold were purchased by Political Action Committee ABC". If some politician wants to blow $100K to tell the world he's buying his own books because nobody else will, let him. I guarantee you it won't happen very often. If it were possible to require that the big fat asterisk appear on anything, everywhere and forever when the politician self identifies as a NYT bestselling author, I would agree. It's not a perfect solution but it's still preferable to a bestseller list that doesn't actually rank bestselling books. The other thing they could do is omit institutional-bulk-buy books from the main list but include them on a "NYT Bulkseller" addendum to the list, giving the with- and without-bulk-purchase rankings of "gamed" bestsellers. This would make it clear why a bestselling book didn't appear on the bestseller list, and it would limit bulk-buyers to claiming they were/are "NYT bulkselling authors", which I'm guessing is a sobriquet they wouldn't invoke too often.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,896
|
Post by happyhoix on Jul 20, 2015 15:39:20 GMT -5
Yes, as someone else pointed out, a bestseller would be the number of books being bought for someone to read vs the number of books being bought in bulk, by one person (or company) - in which case those 10,000 books might be sitting out in the lobby of their company as a free give away to any client or customer who wants to read them - or they might end up in the recycle bin. So the number of books being "bought in bulk" are not being sold ? Some what contradictory don't you think ? Last I heard, when using the English language, "best seller" still means the most sold. A 'bestseller' list is intended to allow people to see what books other people are purchasing and reading. People looking at such lists assume each book shown is an individual person buying the book, not the politician buying 10,000 copies so he can plaster 'NYT best seller' across the front of the book, and add onto his resume 'NYT best selling author.' If you can buy your way onto the NYT sellers list, there is no point I having that kind of list, because anyone with a bunch of money can publish anything and than buy up a bunch of copies so that he can gloat about being on the list. This reminds me of the whole music scandal from years and years ago where DJ's were paid to play certain songs on the air - rather than playing popular songs. Payola. If you're listening to a radio station that promises to play only the top hits of the day, they better play the top hits of the day, and not the hits that someone paid a bunch of money to play. Same thing with the NYTs best seller list. Maybe the NYT should start a second list "Books with the largest numbers sold to individual buyers."
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 2, 2024 16:55:51 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 22, 2015 13:00:07 GMT -5
So the number of books being "bought in bulk" are not being sold ? Some what contradictory don't you think ? Last I heard, when using the English language, "best seller" still means the most sold. A 'bestseller' list is intended to allow people to see what books other people are purchasing and reading. People looking at such lists assume each book shown is an individual person buying the book, not the politician buying 10,000 copies so he can plaster 'NYT best seller' across the front of the book, and add onto his resume 'NYT best selling author.' If you can buy your way onto the NYT sellers list, there is no point I having that kind of list, because anyone with a bunch of money can publish anything and than buy up a bunch of copies so that he can gloat about being on the list. This reminds me of the whole music scandal from years and years ago where DJ's were paid to play certain songs on the air - rather than playing popular songs. Payola. If you're listening to a radio station that promises to play only the top hits of the day, they better play the top hits of the day, and not the hits that someone paid a bunch of money to play. Same thing with the NYTs best seller list. Maybe the NYT should start a second list "Books with the largest numbers sold to individual buyers." By definition of the phrase, a "best seller list" is a list of books that sell the best. If you can buy your way onto the list, you would be paying the NYT for a position on the list. Not the same thing as selling books. If one group or singular person decides to buy a bunch of books for whatever reason, it's still a best seller. Going by the last sentence in your post, we are in agreement. We're just saying it in different ways. I believe I said it should be called a "uniform standards list" as that's what the NYT representative stated, and it seemed a good fit also.
|
|
ArchietheDragon
Junior Associate
Joined: Jul 7, 2014 14:29:23 GMT -5
Posts: 6,353
|
Post by ArchietheDragon on Jul 22, 2015 13:02:19 GMT -5
A 'bestseller' list is intended to allow people to see what books other people are purchasing and reading. People looking at such lists assume each book shown is an individual person buying the book, not the politician buying 10,000 copies so he can plaster 'NYT best seller' across the front of the book, and add onto his resume 'NYT best selling author.' If you can buy your way onto the NYT sellers list, there is no point I having that kind of list, because anyone with a bunch of money can publish anything and than buy up a bunch of copies so that he can gloat about being on the list. This reminds me of the whole music scandal from years and years ago where DJ's were paid to play certain songs on the air - rather than playing popular songs. Payola. If you're listening to a radio station that promises to play only the top hits of the day, they better play the top hits of the day, and not the hits that someone paid a bunch of money to play. Same thing with the NYTs best seller list. Maybe the NYT should start a second list "Books with the largest numbers sold to individual buyers." By definition of the phrase, a "best seller list" is a list of books that sell the best. If you can buy your way onto the list, you would be paying the NYT for a position on the list. Not the same thing as selling books. If one group or singular person decides to buy a bunch of books for whatever reason, it's still a best seller. Going by the last sentence in your post, we are in agreement. We're just saying it in different ways. I believe I said it should be called a "uniform standards list" as that's what the NYT representative stated, and it seemed a good fit also. You should write a strongly worded letter to the NYT.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 2, 2024 16:55:51 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 22, 2015 13:20:39 GMT -5
By definition of the phrase, a "best seller list" is a list of books that sell the best. If you can buy your way onto the list, you would be paying the NYT for a position on the list. Not the same thing as selling books. If one group or singular person decides to buy a bunch of books for whatever reason, it's still a best seller. Going by the last sentence in your post, we are in agreement. We're just saying it in different ways. I believe I said it should be called a "uniform standards list" as that's what the NYT representative stated, and it seemed a good fit also. You should write a strongly worded letter to the NYT. It would be disregarded as a missive from an English language troll. Then I would have to add it to my list of troll names. Math, Physics, and my personal favorite, Education troll. If you want to be popular on a forum, never use an educated reason to blow the crap out of some make believe. (Not referring to this thread or forum)
|
|