Why HP is not a NY Times Bestseller

[Cadaverous Pallor]

Sucktastic. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-giltz/why-harry-potter_b_57099.html)

[Alex]

Too bad, without that extra publicity nobody will know about the new book.

It's the same reason the Advice listing was created, because self help books were dominating the list so that nothing of interest outside that niche was showing up. It is also the same reason that a length cap was put in place for being on the list (no more books on the bestseller list for five years).

The NY Times bestseller list hasn't been about "truth and accuracy" for a very long time (also ignored is the fact that many major book outlets don't even show up in the system used to create the list or Christian lit would prominently dominate in a huge way).

[3894]

The NY Times bestseller list hasn't been about "truth and accuracy" for a very long time

I smiled a thin-lipped, knowing smile when I read this because it's so completely and sadly true. The NY Times has troubles with truth and accuracy in their science reporting.

The Washington Post is the paper of record, IMO.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

Great, so one of the most venerable names you can attach to a book really doesn't represent what is selling, what is popular, what is moving our culture at the moment. According to what Alex is saying, it's been that way for a while. If Christian literature or other genres are really best-selling, how can they ignore that? Maybe it would be more a wakeup call if titles like "Let's Convert the World" or "I Had a Horrible Divorce, What Now" spent a year or two on the list.

[Alex]

Depends on how you look at it. Next week Harry Potter will top the children's list and be deprived of the glory of a top spot on the regular list. A blow that will hardly damage either its reputation or profits. However, there are 14 other YA titles that now get prominent mention in relation to the NYT Bestseller list that never would have had any mention before. At the time the separate list was created the publishers of Harry Potter weren't pleased but the publishers of non-Harry Potter children's and YA titles loved it.

In one sense the argument in the article you linked is a weird loop. It says that without a spot on the list books will be deprived of success, but first they have to have had success to get on the list. It says making that list was the reason for Potter's huge success but it was already showing great success that was undoubtedly boosted even further. So the traditional NYT listing was only an aid to those books that were already, by the standards of publishing, very successful.

So it gets down to what is the purpose of the list. Is it simply a census or is it a tool for readers? If the former then it is definitely lacking. If the latter then is the tool improved by removing the obvious from the list (I really don't need the NYT to tell me that a lot of copies of Harry Potter have been sold so maybe a "not so obviously bestselling list is preferable to a tool). After it has been on the list for six years, it isn't really useful information to me (as a reader) that Bridges of Madison County is on the list.

I find it similar to the debate about the Best Animation Feature Academy Award. Yes, the creation of the category was pretty much designed to prevent another Beauty and the Beast, and when a truly great animated movie comes along it is going to suck that it is relegated to a second tier category. But on the other hand it also guarantees that animation as a form will get at least some recognition every single year.

That said, if Scholastic really wanted to get that top NYT spot all they have to do is stop classifying the book as YA. The categorization of books between the two categories is not imposed by the NYT but rather by the publishers telling the NYT what category it is in (at least that's how it was when it was first split). At least in the early years of it several authors/publishers who thought they might pull it off went this route.

The reason that Christian lit (and other niche publishing markets) tends to get underrepresented on the list is that the list is comiled by random survey of retail outlets and most Christian bookstores and no direct mail bookselling are not part of the survey. That's what indicates just how hugely popular the Left Behind series is. Despite not getting credit for most of its sale a lot of the individual titles have shown up on the list (though not necessarily as high or as long as accuracy would present).

[Tref]

The week Howard Stern's book went #1, the NY Times simply did not print the list.

I think they have the some issues in the department ...

[Cadaverous Pallor]

Maybe I don't understand the purpose of the list, but to me, it's represented as the best selling books in the country, period. In my ideal world, the existence of a Animation category should not prevent an animated film from winning Best Picture also. Same goes for foreign films - it took many years for one of those to break that "barrier".

I thought the NYT list was supposed to represent what America was reading, and it doesn't. If it is reserved for Nora Roberts and Janet Evanovich, I guess I can completely discount it, as I don't read them.

If that tidbit about Howard Stern is true as well, I can't believe that the list is still the standard. Boo, fie, a pox on them.

As for classifying the book as YA - there's still lots of room for debate there. Our library went with a Juvenile classification, which I completely disagree with. Add in the fact that our Young Adult classification is a subset of Adult, and things get even trickier. I'm sure it's different everywhere.

In any case, and IMHO, if Don't let the pigeon drive the bus is outselling the latest "Cat solves a murder mystery with DEATH in the title", then they should tell us that.

[Not Afraid]

The NYT best seller list hasn't represented what I've been reading for many, many, many years. As a matter of fact, I tend to interpret a position on the list as a marker for what I DON'T want to read. It doesn't always hold true, but it seems to 90% of the time.

Now, the Booker Prize is a different story.

[Alex]

All of the national best seller lists have to make compromises in how they put it together (there just isn't an infrastructure that can accurately report book sales across all channels). Wal-Mat, for example, is missing from almost every sales tracking system and while Wal-Mart may not be sell a lot of titles they sell a lot of what titles they have. If you want a pure sales system approach (more like Billboard's list) you might want to keep an eye on Neilson BookScan which attempts to capture all sales (but they still estimate the only get 75% or so). Your library might have access to the raw information.

That said it is certainly politicized to a huge extent. But such things, if they become important always are.

The Howard Stern thing isn't true. Private Parts debuted at #1 on the list October 24, 1993 (http://www.hawes.com/1993/1993-10-24.pdf) (stayed on for 20 weeks (http://www.hawes.com/1994/1994-03-06.pdf)) and Miss America also debuted at #1 on November 26, 1995 (http://www.hawes.com/1995/1995-11-26.pdf), staying on the list for 17 weeks (http://www.hawes.com/1996/1996-03-17.pdf). Stern created some controversy when he accused the NYT of rigging the list when Colin Powell's autobiography bumped him out of the #1 spot.

I also generally use the big best seller lists as a guide to what I don't want to read. If 500,000 people go see a movie I'll want to go see it. If 500,000 people read the same book I'm afraid I'm 90% confident I'll think it trash.

The problems with the list are really big on the non-fiction list where sales are smaller and alternate outlets much bigger. The #1 selling book each year is probably some reference material like the Physician's Desk Reference (and let's not forget the Bible though some here would disagree with the list on which I would put it) but its sales don't show in normal channels.

And while it may attempt to chronicle what people are buying, it doesn't necessarily show what people are reading. After all, Stephen Hawking's A Brief History of Time was on the list for 109 weeks (http://www.hawes.com/1990/1990-05-20.pdf) and relatively few people who bought the book ever actually read the book.

(Sorry for prattling on, we spent about 2 weeks talking about best seller lists, primarily the NYT in one of my collection development classes back in library school. It was interesting to get down into the innards of it. The NYT Best Seller List is still very much an artifact of 1950s technology.)

[Kevy Baby]

Most of my reading starts off with, "Dear Penthouse Forum..."

[Alex]

And then shortly ends with "Honey! Why is the bathroom door locked!"