Bestsellers?
Oct. 19th, 2006 10:22 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
msagaraWell this is a lovely present :D. I have been reading past LJ posts (in lurk-mode because really, who wants comments on entries that are months old?) in a vain attempt to catch up on everything, but I've also been reading my friends list -- and tnh, at making light, has posted a comment about misinformation and the publishing industry.
She is, as usual, right, but one of the things that strikes me about the article -- and the questions she poses in her response -- is this: How do most people know what a Bestseller is?
It's an interesting question. In a chain store, you, as the stocking or sales clerk, know chiefly by the number of copies you receive and the place you're instructed to put them. In a specialty store, such as ours, you actually don't have that as a guide. Oddly enough, one of the questions we don't ask our sales reps when ordering is "How much did your company pay for this?". Or "how much is your company spending on this book for placement?" or even, generally, "How many (net) copies of this author's previous book did you sell?" (The latter would be a reasonable question to ask, but as it's not relevant – the relevant information would be how many copies of this authors previous book did we sell – we generally don't ask that one either.
The obvious names that parade before us – Norah Roberts, to take one – often parade past as well (although we do sell a small quantity of the J.D. Robb books); when we peruse the various catalogues, we come to know who the publisher is pushing, and who the publisher expects will outsell everyone else in the catalogue. But as these things are again not as relevant to a specialty store, we don't paper the store with information about the latest book by so-and-so.
This gives many (but by no means all) customers who tend to specialize in their reading tastes an odd view on what constitutes a bestseller. They are not, by and large voracious NYT readers, or USA today readers (which, given geography, is not surprising). They are often not writers, and many feel no pressing need to clutter their mind with trivia about the various publishing houses; they want something to read. They want something they like to read. They're willing to spend money to get it. More than that is superfluous.
If the claims of the respected paper tnh cites were true, our bookstore would pretty much cease to exist tomorrow, or perhaps in a few weeks, when we suddenly failed to get any new books to sell. Because very few SF/F books qualify as genuine bestsellers.
And when tnh asks people who buy only bestsellers to raise a hand… I'm not sure how she'd verify the truth of the supposition when taking a count. Because I've personally been told which books – often OP – are "bestsellers"; which books should by reason of good reviews, or popularity during the Golden Age (I'm not making this up), be bestsellers; which books obviously come under that heading because, you know, they're garbage written for the teeming, moronic masses just to make money.
Which is to say: I'm not sure that half of the people raising their hands would actually be raising their hands in a statistically meaningful way. This actually holds true for writers in some cases as well. I remember one writer was astonished to learn that another writer was considered midlist, given the amount of noise said author made about his bestselling status.
However… the paragraph to which tnh takes particular exception must come from somewhere. That paragraph is clearly a belief which has been around for a long time, and which does not seem likely to go away any time soon.
I have a few ideas on why this persists. Ummm, I know I've been gone for a while, but that absence doesn't seem to have cured me of a tendency to ponder, with digressions, at length – and I'm sort of terrified of boring people to tears so soon. I've been in the middle of a more writerly post about accessibility, partly because of the Luna restructuring, so there might be two years worth of posts pent up behind a very reedy little dam.
Should I finish the first post, or just leap off the cliff?
ETA: I want a Dire Legal Notice!
ETA (In reference to the copyright notice on Making Light itself, just in case some of you think I'm asking to be sued)
She is, as usual, right, but one of the things that strikes me about the article -- and the questions she poses in her response -- is this: How do most people know what a Bestseller is?
It's an interesting question. In a chain store, you, as the stocking or sales clerk, know chiefly by the number of copies you receive and the place you're instructed to put them. In a specialty store, such as ours, you actually don't have that as a guide. Oddly enough, one of the questions we don't ask our sales reps when ordering is "How much did your company pay for this?". Or "how much is your company spending on this book for placement?" or even, generally, "How many (net) copies of this author's previous book did you sell?" (The latter would be a reasonable question to ask, but as it's not relevant – the relevant information would be how many copies of this authors previous book did we sell – we generally don't ask that one either.
The obvious names that parade before us – Norah Roberts, to take one – often parade past as well (although we do sell a small quantity of the J.D. Robb books); when we peruse the various catalogues, we come to know who the publisher is pushing, and who the publisher expects will outsell everyone else in the catalogue. But as these things are again not as relevant to a specialty store, we don't paper the store with information about the latest book by so-and-so.
This gives many (but by no means all) customers who tend to specialize in their reading tastes an odd view on what constitutes a bestseller. They are not, by and large voracious NYT readers, or USA today readers (which, given geography, is not surprising). They are often not writers, and many feel no pressing need to clutter their mind with trivia about the various publishing houses; they want something to read. They want something they like to read. They're willing to spend money to get it. More than that is superfluous.
If the claims of the respected paper tnh cites were true, our bookstore would pretty much cease to exist tomorrow, or perhaps in a few weeks, when we suddenly failed to get any new books to sell. Because very few SF/F books qualify as genuine bestsellers.
And when tnh asks people who buy only bestsellers to raise a hand… I'm not sure how she'd verify the truth of the supposition when taking a count. Because I've personally been told which books – often OP – are "bestsellers"; which books should by reason of good reviews, or popularity during the Golden Age (I'm not making this up), be bestsellers; which books obviously come under that heading because, you know, they're garbage written for the teeming, moronic masses just to make money.
Which is to say: I'm not sure that half of the people raising their hands would actually be raising their hands in a statistically meaningful way. This actually holds true for writers in some cases as well. I remember one writer was astonished to learn that another writer was considered midlist, given the amount of noise said author made about his bestselling status.
However… the paragraph to which tnh takes particular exception must come from somewhere. That paragraph is clearly a belief which has been around for a long time, and which does not seem likely to go away any time soon.
I have a few ideas on why this persists. Ummm, I know I've been gone for a while, but that absence doesn't seem to have cured me of a tendency to ponder, with digressions, at length – and I'm sort of terrified of boring people to tears so soon. I've been in the middle of a more writerly post about accessibility, partly because of the Luna restructuring, so there might be two years worth of posts pent up behind a very reedy little dam.
Should I finish the first post, or just leap off the cliff?
ETA: I want a Dire Legal Notice!
ETA (In reference to the copyright notice on Making Light itself, just in case some of you think I'm asking to be sued)
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-10-20 12:46 am (UTC)I think you should write your own Dire Legal Notice.
Those who annoy The Proprietrix will discover their underwear infested by Dire Crustaceans, their books by Dire Larvae, their thoughts by Dire Musings, and their nights by Dire Manifestations.
no subject
Date: 2006-10-20 02:33 am (UTC)