# I'll light the fuse



## David VanDyke (Jan 3, 2014)

I predict this thread will blow up soon, so read it and post (respectfully please) while you can.

A certain author made a FB post decrying Dominion Rising selling enough copies to make the NYT list, but the NYT did not put them on the list. That author did not make any inappropriate suggestions, just put out the disappointing (to them) info.

Fair enough.

But then Hugh Howey (public figure, publicly shared) shares the post and adds his suggestion that those authors should put "NYT Bestselling Author" on their covers anyway, because they "earned" it.

At the risk of starting a feud with a great friend and ally among us indies, which is not my intention, I have to vehemently disagree.

You can't claim an Oscar, a Masters win, Super Bowl ring or a Nobel prize if you didn't actually get the award. That's the simple fact. The NYT never promised anyone the award based only on the historical numbers other people needed to reach it.

The NYT list is a curated list. Recently, they have been disallowing these huge multi-author box sets. I have to believe it's because it's obvious to anyone that combining all the sales into one number is like putting 20 tennis players onto the court at Wimbledon. It's a perversion of the process and the principle. That's just a guess and my own opinion, of course, but at the very least, the NYT decided the new world of digital publishing makes it too easy to simply hit a number--20+ books at 99c.

Now we have authors saying and others agreeing they should lie and claim the award anyway. Every kindergartner in the world knows that's wrong. You can say all day you should have won the thing, but lying and claiming you DID is still a lie. Shame on anyone for suggesting this is somehow justified.

Should I claim I won a Hugo or Dragon (instead of merely being a finalist) just because I think I deserved to, because of all my hard work, blah blah? Nope. The process is the process, and unless you can prove that the process is somehow illegal, you can't claim to have won it. You can claim you SHOULD HAVE, sure, but putting "NYT bestselling author" on your books is an outright lie.

Also, how long after doing this will the traditional publishers or the media or any other opponent of independent and self-publishers use it to smear all of us indies as liars and cheats? In fact, I could see Amazon (or the other vendors) pulling accounts for violating TOS for doing so. Not that Amazon has a good track record in consistently enforcing its TOS, but it's certainly possible. I could also see authors being sued by the NYT for fraudulently using the NYT tag.

Even if you disagree with me and are completely onboard with the idea that these authors should get the tag, it's still a really, really bad idea for them individually or collectively, to lie about it or support lying about it.


----------



## C.D. Watson (Mar 26, 2016)

That sort of behavior is certainly unethical.

By the way, congratulations on being a finalist in the Dragon Awards. Good luck! We're rooting for you.


----------



## CassieL (Aug 29, 2013)

Agreed that they shouldn't claim the distinction if they weren't awarded it.


----------



## RightHoJeeves (Jun 30, 2016)

David VanDyke said:


> But then Hugh Howey (public figure, publicly shared) shares the post and adds his suggestion that those authors should put "NYT Bestselling Author" on their covers anyway, because they "earned" it.
> 
> At the risk of starting a feud with a great friend and ally among us indies, which is not my intention, I have to vehemently disagree.


What an odd thing for Hugh to suggest. To be honest I would have thought that falsely claiming to be an NYT Bestselling Author (even if you have the numbers) is illegal. Sort of like if Stephen King read your book and liked it, it wouldn't be okay to make up a quote from him and stick it on the front cover. NYT is a brand, so falsely endorsing yourself with that brand sounds like a real good way to get sued.


----------



## C. Gockel (Jan 28, 2014)

I'm going to believe that Hugh was just joking. No, I don't think they can claim NYT letters. That said, they could claim, "30,000 copies sold."


----------



## David VanDyke (Jan 3, 2014)

C. Gockel said:


> I'm going to believe that Hugh was just joking. No, I don't think they can claim NYT letters. That said, they could claim, "30,000 copies sold."


Here's an exact cut and paste. Evaluate for yourself:

"So here's what I think every one of these authors should do: They should start using the NYT Bestselling Author byline on all their books. No asterisk, no apologies. They earned it. Anyone who has sold 30,000 books on release will confirm how difficult this is. Anyone who has been in an anthology or box set can confirm that neither one is a short cut to any list."

"If the NYT doesn't have to explain their capricious and subjective reasons, why should these authors be punished? Give the list the middle finger and use the byline. You all kicked ass and earned it."

"(For those who say this is wrong, but don't see what the NYT is doing as wrong, I've reserved my other middle finger for you &#128519"


----------



## CassieL (Aug 29, 2013)

Was just coming here to say I tracked down Hugh's FB post and no, he was not joking.


----------



## RightHoJeeves (Jun 30, 2016)

David VanDyke said:


> Here's an exact cut and paste.


How... strange.

I mean, I can understand the disappointment at not being on the list. But slapping "NYT Bestseller" on a book when it wasn't on the list (regardless of whether it should have been) is kind of petty and really seems to be asking for a legal smackdown.


----------



## Not any more (Mar 19, 2012)

I think you've said it, David. As to " I could also see authors being sued by the NYT for fraudulently using the NYT tag." This is entirely possible. And Hugh, I'll take the middle finger with pride. I've never considered the letters "earned" by multi-author boxed sets as being legitimate. I'm just always amazed at how many excuses people find to justify scamming the system.


----------



## Going Incognito (Oct 13, 2013)

Having been in a similar situation and seeing all the books that ranked below us on the USA Today list hit The NY Times list we knew we'd been curated off of it as well. It happens. A lot. We actually had bets going on if we'd be considered 'respectable' enough for them not to look down their NY Times nose at us or not and that was _before_ they announced that our kind would not be gracing their lists. But never was I tempted to use it anyway. Wow.

My understanding is that putting letters you didn't earn on your covers has been happening anyway, tho. Often enough that Bookbub announced that they'd be actually checking author names against lists before accepting them if the covers claimed letters, so it's not like it's going to do them any good to claim the false letters anyway.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

Some good old fashioned fraud will certainly raise the reputation of self-published authors!

What a boneheadedly irresponsible thing to say given his sway in the community. What if someone took that advice and found themselves reduced to radioactive vapor both by the media and the public before lawyers even got a chance to come off the leash?

Just having the numbers doesn't make you an NYT Best-selling Author. The NYT puts books on the list based on numbers they get from specific sources. For good or for ill, if your numbers aren't tracked by the sources it's just like if you broke a record and Guiness wasn't there. You did the deed, but it ain't official, hoss. Be proud of what you accomplished instead of lying about what you didn't.

~ Landon Porter, Nobel Award Winner for Physics, Literature, and both Popping and Locking.


----------



## Anarchist (Apr 22, 2015)




----------



## Crystal_ (Aug 13, 2014)

Vaalingrade said:


> Some good old fashioned fraud will certainly raise the reputation of self-published authors!
> 
> What a boneheadedly irresponsible thing to say given his sway in the community. What if someone took that advice and found themselves reduced to radioactive vapor both by the media and the public before lawyers even got a chance to come off the leash?
> 
> ...


That isn't the issue. The issue is that the NTY list will remove any undesirable titles even if they sold more copies than the other books on the list. I was in a situation like this too, where we placed higher on they USA Today list but were curated off NYT. It didn't bother me because I don't care about letters, but it is deceptive of the NYT list to claim it truly represents the bestselling books.

Still, that doesn't give authors the right to use the title fraudulently.


----------



## KMatthew (Mar 21, 2012)

Having NYT by your name, whether you earned it in a box set or solo, doesn't mean much these days with the constantly changing market. I've seen NYT best selling authors that had to go back to their day jobs because they don't sell anywhere near as much as they used to. That being said, I think that anyone who made the list prior, box set or not, deserves them. Not just anyone can put together a box set and hit a list. It takes a monumental marketing effort from those involved and/or tons of money to make it happen. 

No, I don't think that people who have never been on a list should put that they have on their covers. And if the NYT wants to disqualify box sets from their list, that's all fine. But claiming that box set people making the list is scammy is just like saying those who got a BookBub and made a list are scammy. You're leveraging someone else's resources to accomplish something that you could not(or probably wouldn't be able to) do on your own. This is a business. People spend tons of money to hit those lists. Most of the spaces on them that aren't held by well established authors are pretty much bought these days.


----------



## JumpingShip (Jun 3, 2010)

I agree they shouldn't do it, and if I was in the set, even if I felt I deserved to be on the list and put NYT Bestseller on my byline, I'd feel...I don't know...cheated? I guess? I'd just feel so guilty and that guilt would cheat me out of any pleasure actually being named a NYT Bestselling author would have given me. It would definitely be tarnished in my mind. Luckily, I'm in no danger of coming close to being on a NYT list or any other list so no worries.   I consider that a perk of being a mid-lister at best.


----------



## RightHoJeeves (Jun 30, 2016)

Is the problem that they don't allow box sets? Because I can see a situation under which they would be reluctant to include box sets.

You could theoretically release a box set with a short story from 500 separate indie authors. If they all promoted it, the box set could probably sell enough to be on the list. But then those 500 authors (who probably wouldn't be able to make the list by themselves) would be calling themselves "NYT Bestsellers", which (from the POV of the NYT) would dilute the value of being a NYT Bestseller.


----------



## AltMe (May 18, 2015)

Interestingly enough, they did hit #4 on the Wall Street Journal list a couple of days later, and this was after Hugh's post.

I get where Hugh is coming from, since its aimed squarely at the NYT. I get NYT's side of it as well. But personally, I wouldn't be doing what he suggested. And actually, I find splashing that kind of thing across covers to be a put off anyway. It doesnt in any way effect if I read a book or not, and its very ego based and pretentious for covers. Put in your author central bio sure. And they should put "good enough to rank #16 on NYT if they only allowed big box sets on their list." On covers though, no.

I dont know if WSJ is as good as NYT, but its a legitimate claim they can make. And #4 is better than #16.


----------



## MattHaggis (May 1, 2017)

Do you really 'earn' the letters by being one of twenty authors in a 99c boxset? I don't think so, and neither do the majority of readers.


----------



## 39416 (Mar 18, 2011)

MattHaggis said:


> Do you really 'earn' the letters by being one of twenty authors in a 99c boxset? I don't think so, and neither do the majority of readers.


This.


----------



## Forgettable (Oct 16, 2015)

.


----------



## Seneca42 (Dec 11, 2016)

MattHaggis said:


> Do you really 'earn' the letters by being one of twenty authors in a 99c boxset? I don't think so, and neither do the majority of readers.


They should force all these authors to put a "99c Best Seller" badge on the cover of their books 

I bet you each and every one of them would be too embarrassed to do so.


----------



## Going Incognito (Oct 13, 2013)

If we could rank 'earned it' on a sliding scale I do think bundle authors 'earn' it more than all the spot buyers 'earn' their spots. At least real people bought it in the cases of most bundles that hit it instead of all the authors who spend $200k buying their own books to 'earn' their spot, or the marketing companies who 'buy' their authors a spot 'earn' it, but either way I don't think you should claim it if it wasn't awarded. 

ETA I don't think they'd be embarrassed at all. I think you'd see "99c New York Times Bestselling Author" badges popping up everywhere if saying the 'how' was a requirement to be able to keep the letters.


----------



## T E Scott Writer (Jul 27, 2016)

I feel sorry for the authors in this set. They followed the rules set out by nyt to qualify, but were not put on the list. This must be really annoying for them. I think this is why hugh is so angry.

But what it highlights is that these list-building sets are devaluing  the concept of a bestseller. If you need 20 other people in your box set to be a bestseller then you personally are not a bestseller.


----------



## Going Incognito (Oct 13, 2013)

TwistedTales said:


> However, the point about whether you "earned" your letters or not is a fair subject to discuss.
> 
> I did earn USA Today letters this year, but it was from a single author 99c sale and a BookBub. Does that mean I can use the title in marketing? Sure, but I don't use it much. The day I make any list with a full price book then I'll be impressed.


It's definitely going to make for an interesting discussion as opinions will vary from black and white to shades of grey. I'm usually a shade person, myself. Cause I'd put you and your sale price and ad higher on the 'earned it' scale than an author who letters at full price, if that 'author' is a stable of ghost writers. Not that I have an issue with ghost writers, not at all.



TwistedTales said:


> I do market the book as having made the list, but I'm not so delusional that I don't get how I got there.
> 
> So, yeah, if you make the list with a 99c multi author box set I think it's a bit of a fudge. By all means use it for marketing, but let's not delude ourselves about what it means.
> 
> Should they use the title if NYT didn't award it? Hell no, that's outright lying. They must have made USA Today's list and a few others so they should be happy enough with those.


I agree on the rest, on the marketing aspect- 'if you have the letters, use them or don't use them.' I don't think readers care about them in the slightest, to be honest. And letters on the cover of a crappy book don't make the book any better. But I also don't believe that if my husband opens the 'right' brand of beer that a pickup truck full of hot babes in bikinis are going to suddenly pull up to the house and want to party, either. Or that if I buy a Mister Clean product that the cartoon bald guy is going to suddenly show up and clean my house.

But even my shades of grey thinking doesnt quite cover using letters that you 'shouldve gotten and would've gotten if they didnt curate.'


----------



## RandomThings (Oct 21, 2016)

I don't personally care whether a book has NYT bestseller tagged on to it. I would barely notice it anyway and reserve judgement for myself. However, if this box set adds it on as an outright lie... each and every author in it will lose any business they would have ever had from me and many others too. More than that, their reputation will be about the same as the scammers that we all complain about. 

Can't believe Hugh Howey suggested this. It's more than un-ethical it's downright sleazy.


----------



## Huldra (Nov 7, 2013)

.


----------



## Jan Hurst-Nicholson (Aug 25, 2010)

If they do use the tag and it all blows up and makes headlines about fraud or similar, then the resultant publicity would probably get them enough sales to pay any lawyer fees


----------



## katrina46 (May 23, 2014)

LMareeApps said:


> To be honest, if I were just reading this comment, I'd assume he was being a bit venty, tongue in cheek, while trying to show support for their efforts. You know like when something p*ss es you off and you're all 'I should just do this' or 'I should just do that' etc, and while you're not joking, you also don't literally intend on putting the action in place. (And by 'you', I clearly mean me, because I do this!)


The problem is who he is. There's that saying with great power comes great responsibility. Some authors will take anything he says at face value whether he said it in the heat of the moment or not. No he isn't responsible for what other authors do, but if I were that big I'd try to remember that I have people looking up to me for advice and watch what I say.


----------



## Guest (Aug 21, 2017)

Isn't it a moot point? I thought most of the participants were already USA Today and NYT bestsellers before Dominion Riding, from being in Rebecca Hamilton's boxed sets. So instead of being a multiple NYT bestseller, they've only got the letters once (or however many times the RH sets made the lists). If you've hit a list more than once can you put a tally on your cover after the letters?


----------



## Going Incognito (Oct 13, 2013)

TwistedTales said:


> Making the list any other way than with a genuine fan base for your books will be a short lived victory. It might help you along the path to success, but it alone doesn't represent or create success.


Totally. Actually, even making a list purely on genuine fan base could still turn out the same. There's plenty of one-hit wonders out there. It's a cool notch in a belt, for sure. But really that's about it.


----------



## Crime fighters (Nov 27, 2013)

I have a general rule of thumb that no matter the stature of an author giving advice, they will always falter. 

Hugh has been a Godsend for the indie community, and he's certainly one of the prime people I look up to and respect. I'm prone to take advice from him, but this is downright stupid. It's bad advice. It's unethical. It's appalling. 

Stephen King is a damn genius, but even he can be wrong too. In fact, he has been wrong before when he decried First Person Present Tense, "It has no place in the fiction world."


----------



## alawston (Jun 3, 2012)

Ah, let's not be too hard on Hugh. It looks very much like the kind of FB post I make all the time when drunk 

And if we're going to start talking about public figures who ought to be prevented from posting on social media when in a fit of pique... well, I think there are more urgent examples in the world than a quite successful novelist


----------



## GoneToWriterSanctum (Sep 13, 2014)

I don't consent


----------



## Colin (Aug 6, 2011)

alawston said:


> Ah, let's not be too hard on Hugh. It looks very much like the kind of FB post I make all the time when drunk


Ah, so you're offering up the old, 'drunk in charge of a keyboard' defence/defense?

Cheersh to all New York Timesh Besht Shellers...

(real or imaginary)


----------



## Not any more (Mar 19, 2012)

Jan Hurst-Nicholson said:


> If they do use the tag and it all blows up and makes headlines about fraud or similar, then the resultant publicity would probably get them enough sales to pay any lawyer fees


The authors are earning $0.017 each per sale. Considering however much they spent on production and marketing, I doubt this will be a money maker even if Oprah touts it. As to whether it pays off in the long term, I think such sets are debatable. I downloaded it because I've previously read some of the names, but haven't opened it. If I get snowed in for a couple of months in a place without internet, I might get around to it. And if I don't ever read the books, will I go on to buy other books by these authors?


----------



## Rick Gualtieri (Oct 31, 2011)

It's NYT's list, their rules. If you make it, you can have the title tattooed on your forehead if you want. If you didn't, you can't. Doing otherwise is little more than being fraudulent. 

It stinks, but claiming accolades you didn't achieve stinks far worse.


----------



## unkownwriter (Jun 22, 2011)

INBTL

I agree with David.

It doesn't matter how hard those authors worked, how honest they were (eschewing the underhanded methods of one of the early "consultants" on the set), by claiming something they didn't earn, it's all out the window. They would be painted with the same brush as RH, at whose feet you can lay the blame for box sets not being listed by the NYT. Her and her partner JW, are at fault for all the sleezy, scammy and contract-violating things they used to push box sets on lists where they didn't belong. And now, WSJ and USA Today may end up also denying box sets. Maybe Howey can give them the finger, too.

And it's been no secret that NYT won't consider box sets after the above persons' shenanigans, so why people expected anything different is beyond me. Howey putting his finger in this only makes all indies look bad, because as noted, he's the banner writer people look at when they see "indie". And if he was drunk when he posted, that, he needs intervention, not excuses.

_Edited. Drop me a PM if you have any questions. - Becca_


----------



## alawston (Jun 3, 2012)

Colin said:


> Ah, so you're offering up the old, 'drunk in charge of a keyboard' defence/defense?
> 
> Cheersh to all New York Timesh Besht Shellers...
> 
> (real or imaginary)


I wouldn't go as far as call it a _defence_ - but though he clearly did mean it at the time, and he _is_ wrong, his statement seems tongue-in-cheek enough that the emergency pearls could usefully go unclutched... A cheery "Shut up and write another hit, Hugh!" would seem to be the best response.


----------



## unkownwriter (Jun 22, 2011)

> deceptive of the NYT list to claim it truly represents the bestselling books


It's been known for decades that the list can be bought. There have been some pretty big scandals about it in the last few years, where it's come out that publishers often buy up copies of an author's work simply to make the list. They have to be gotten from a reporting store, but it isn't hard for them to come up with the sales.

Readers don't necessarily know this, but writers should. And some readers do care, because they buy few books, think these best seller lists are curated with truly the best books, because lots of people bought them, right? And they trust they're getting "good" books this way.


----------



## Sapphire (Apr 24, 2012)

blank


----------



## P.T. Phronk (Jun 6, 2014)

Sapphire said:


> There was a time when "letters" on the cover of a book caught my attention and caused me to give the book additional consideration. Since I've learned how the trad-pubs buy thousands of copies and self-pubs come together to game the sales, I no longer pay any attention at all. In fact, I tend to skip past any cover displaying such honors. Too bad...the value of the lists have become truly devalued over the years.


I'd guess that this is why NYT and others are fighting back by introducing new ways to curate their lists.

It would be nice if they were more transparent about it, but it's a similar situation to Amazon bestseller lists (or ads, SEO, etc.)-if the exact algorithm is known, it's easy to game it. As we've seen, it's easy to game even when we're just guessing at the algorithms.

As a reader, I'd expect some curation on the NYT's part. Before I got into all this author stuff, I'd just assume that if an author claims to be a "NYT bestseller" it means they sold more of their own books than other authors during a specific period of time. I'd never even think that maybe the author was just 1 of 20 in a discounted box set. That's sort of (but not exactly) like every movie on Netflix claiming it's a "#1 movie in America" because more people watched Netflix as a whole than anything else.

Hugh probably just made a mistake, as all of us have done. But it is quite clearly a mistake, as made clear by the 100% rate of admonishment in this thread.


----------



## Not any more (Mar 19, 2012)

I think I'll start putting "Pulitzer Prize Winner" on my covers. I think it's really unfair that they curate that thing. I should at least get a participation trophy.


----------



## 75814 (Mar 12, 2014)

Hugh's great, I love his posts on Facebook.

But on this, he's just flat-out wrong. And giving this kind of wrong-headed advice could actually get people in trouble.


----------



## Evenstar (Jan 26, 2013)

I'm going to throw on petrol by saying that I never quite understood the _phrasing_ of NYT Best Selling Author.

I would understand the _book_ being labelled a NYT Best Seller, and it should have been with those numbers. But not the authors...

Best selling books, or best selling box set, whichever, it's all the same to me, but isn't it that title that hit the list not any of their other titles. Are all your books of the same quality? I know mine aren't. Some of my early stuff is total pap but if I put NYT Best Selling Author on the front cover then I'm misleading the buyer that this particular book is a best seller. Shrug... That's just always been a bee in my bonnet that I've never mentioned before.

I'm not going to pretend I wouldn't like to be a NYTBS or say that I think it's meaningless. It would be a great accolade to trot out when I talk to schools and libraries. But I never see anyone comment on the point I raised above. Surely it's a best selling book not best selling authors?


----------



## Rick Gualtieri (Oct 31, 2011)

Evenstar said:


> I'm going to throw on petrol by saying that I never quite understood the _phrasing_ of NYT Best Selling Author.
> 
> I would understand the _book_ being labelled a NYT Best Seller, and it should have been with those numbers. But not the authors...
> 
> ...


Yeah, but does anyone actually do this with anything?

I mean, you see people using Award Winning Author all the time, not for a particular book. Same with Amazon best seller.

I understand what you're saying, but I don't think is different than any other title or accolade. I mean, once you've won the Nobel Prize, you're considered a winner, not just a winner with an asterisk next to their name.


----------



## 75814 (Mar 12, 2014)

Evenstar said:


> I'm going to throw on petrol by saying that I never quite understood the _phrasing_ of NYT Best Selling Author.
> 
> I would understand the _book_ being labelled a NYT Best Seller, and it should have been with those numbers. But not the authors...
> 
> ...


Agree completely. I would love to be an NYTBS, but even if I were in a box set that got on one of those lists, I wouldn't put it on my individual titles because I wouldn't feel I actually earned the tag.

If it's one of my books that got on the list without the help of a box set? I'd tattoo that tag on every square inch of my body.


----------



## MKK (Jun 9, 2015)

The only words I would ever take as 'literal' are the ones that from a judge in a court of law. Perhaps Hugh was serious, perhaps he wasn't, but I think his point is simply there is bias in the system and he wants his fans to know about it. If the list doesn't represent bestsellers, as many who are much wiser than I have suggested, perhaps the NYT should think about their own choice of words and consider calling it 'The NYT list of books we like that sold a few copies.'


----------



## Evenstar (Jan 26, 2013)

I don't personally have any beef with the 'individual book' v 'box set' thing. Which I know is a bit of a hot topic. People can and should use it however they see fit in my humble opinion.

And it is a great marketing line in certain areas. But I would still always feel that the book was a NYTBS not me and all my books. Shrug... Not an important point. Just one I thought I'd put out there.


----------



## MyraScott (Jul 18, 2014)

Working hard doesn't "earn" you an award. A lot of people in this business work very, very hard. It doesn't guarantee a spot on a curated list.

With a 20K minimum subscriber requirement to join and 23 authors, this book had an initial reach of over 460,000. 30K is 6%, which is a pretty decent response. Leveraging a large number of established authors is clever marketing.

Frustration is one thing but advising people to commit fraud _over an award _is irresponsible. How much ego is tied up in having those letters that you feel like you _must_ have them at any cost? That you are entitled to claim them even if they weren't awarded? Is it really that important?


----------



## 10105 (Feb 16, 2010)

TwistedTales said:


> I'm probably quite naive because it never occurred to me authors could use a ghostwriter and make it onto a list.


You can use a ghost writer and win a Pulitzer.


----------



## Felix R. Savage (Mar 3, 2011)

C. Gockel said:


> I'm going to believe that Hugh was just joking. No, I don't think they can claim NYT letters. That said, they could claim, "30,000 copies sold."


Yeah. I read the original post and took it as tongue in cheek.


----------



## Joshua Dalzelle (Jun 12, 2013)

Like David said in the OP: the best seller lists are curated and owned by their respective publications. The final word is (and should always be) their own. This has led to more than a few mini "controversies" but there's not really any recourse for snubbed authors. The box sets aside, there have been books that contained a slant or content the editorial board at USAT or NYT doesn't agree with or with that didn't make it. Two that I can remember sold huge numbers that should have put them near the top of the list and neither paper included them at all. 

Anyway ... I'd imagine that in the near future both lists will come out with a policy statement saying that large multi-author boxsets are no longer eligible. A lot of us leveraged the combined strength of our lists and reach to hit a best seller list as part of a group (myself included) to get letters. It was mostly for fun, partly to be able to use that as a marketing tool, and it was also an interesting experiment/experience. I couldn't say how useful it really was in the long run--I'd wager not very--and I certainly wouldn't be advising people to fraudulently add a title to their byline they didn't actually get.


----------



## WHDean (Nov 2, 2011)

If you throw out your ethical principles when you don't get what you want or think you deserve, you didn't have any in the first place. The solution is to stay ethical and use the energy you would've spent in self-pity to come up with a solution. In simpler terms, abide by one of the greatest principles of all time: When the world gives you lemons, figure out how to make lemonade.

Here's the solution. Add something to this effect to the boxed set:



> *Outsold the #1 NYT Bestseller 6 weeks running! *(or whatever the timeframe)


You kill three birds with one stone: You do nothing unethical, you take a shot at the NYT, and you get your bragging point on your cover.

Or, you can continue your pity-party, working up the outrage to commit a fraud, egged along by those equally resentful.


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

> *Outsold the #1 NYT Bestseller 6 weeks running! *(or whatever the timeframe)


Ooo, I like that. 

Folks, personal insults aimed at Hugh Howey (or any other member) will be removed.


----------



## CassieL (Aug 29, 2013)

I feel like I should point out that so far I haven't heard of any of the actual authors in the box set saying they're going to do this.  Sam Peralta wrote a post explaining that they hadn't hit NYT and why, Hugh wrote his FB post saying they should claim it anyway, and now we're discussing Hugh's post.  Hugh was not part of the box set. He just had a controversial opinion about listing on NYT.

Someone feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.


----------



## TheLass (Mar 13, 2016)

WHDean said:


> *Outsold the #1 NYT Bestseller 6 weeks running!* (or whatever the timeframe)


Very Good!


----------



## LindsayBuroker (Oct 13, 2013)

I'm not going to jump on this one, but I will say that it would be nice if the NYT, while it's curating things, removed pre-order numbers from its calculations and truly went by weekly sales. There are *many* trad published authors who can claim the NYT Bestseller title because their book was on pre-order for a year at Amazon and B&N. Good grief, I could make that list regularly, too, with a year to collect orders, and I'm a mid-lister, not a best seller.

*Outsold the #1 NYT Bestseller 6 weeks running!*

And that's gold.


----------



## lilywhite (Sep 25, 2010)

I hope this doesn't qualify as an insult to Hugh because I don't mean it as such; I like Hugh a lot.

But Hugh's spent the last year and change doing naked yoga on a boat, or whatever's going on there.  He hasn't hit publish on a book since September of 2015, as far as I can tell from looking at his Author Central page. He may still be one of the biggest-earning indies, but I'm not sure we can say he's got his fingers entirely on the pulse of what's happening now. 

And I'd be willing to bet he missed most if not all of the box-set shenanigans and subsequent fallout, so he sees a grave injustice rather than the NYT trying to protect the (perceived) integrity of their list after a pretty shameless assault.

Mad respect to the guy, but on this one he doesn't know the whole story.


----------



## Sam Kates (Aug 28, 2012)

lilywhite said:


> And I'd be willing to bet he missed most if not all of the box-set shenanigans and subsequent fallout, so he sees a grave injustice rather than the NYT trying to protect the (perceived) integrity of their list after a pretty shameless assault.


I don't know Hugh personally but he was a regular here when I started out and never came across as someone lacking in integrity. If he was being serious in his suggestion, I can only imagine it was a knee-jerk reaction to, as Lilywhite said, what he sees as a grave injustice.


----------



## MladenR (Jul 1, 2017)

Can't say I'm blaming Hugh Howey for ranting on NYT ways. But I would agree with you guys that stamping the phrase on the cover without earning it.

I think Hugh's point is right for the part where authors shouldn't pay too much attention to NYT list. Yet, he is possibly wrong to suggest we should protest NYT by using the phrase anyways.

It's a tough one, isn't it? I really like Hugh.


----------



## ShayneRutherford (Mar 24, 2014)

MladenR said:


> Can't say I'm blaming Hugh Howey for ranting on NYT ways. But I would agree with you guys that stamping the phrase on the cover without earning it.
> 
> I think Hugh's point is right for the part where authors shouldn't pay too much attention to NYT list. Yet, he is possibly wrong to suggest we should protest NYT by using the phrase anyways.
> 
> It's a tough one, isn't it? I really like Hugh.


I don't think it's a tough one at all. It's wrong to claim an award that you didn't earn. End of story.

And it's not just a matter of numbers, so it's a moot argument anyway. If it were just a matter of numbers, every Amazon-exclusive author who'd made those numbers could claim to be a NYT bestseller, too. But they can't, because the NYT owns the list and makes the rules, and according to those rules exclusive authors don't qualify. So simply claiming that you made the numbers has never been enough. You have to meet all the criteria, too.


----------



## Used To Be BH (Sep 29, 2016)

This is going to make me sound naive, but as a reader I always assumed that NYT and other best seller lists were based on how many copies were sold. The name does suggest that, doesn't it? When I became a writer and realized that wasn't really the case, I was a little disillusioned. I also thought it was noteworthy that the NYT, when responding to the launch of Amazon Charts, talked about the methodology of the NYT list in great depth without once mentioning curation. Should it really be called NYT Editors' Picks List?

All of that said, no, authors who didn't actually make the list shouldn't claim that distinction. That's Basic Ethics 101 stuff.

As for the NYT and other lists, their methodology should be more clear and transparent. I think the list should be based on total sales, period. If a certain kind of publication (such as a box set) isn't permitted, that should be stated explicitly, as should any other exceptional cases. I don't think the lists should discriminate against authors selling only on one platform (which is just a slap at people in Select). If I sell six million copies (fat chance!), it shouldn't matter what store front(s) those sales came from. Bestsellers should be--wait for it--books that sell the most. What a radical concept!


----------



## Alan Petersen (May 20, 2011)

As to the OP: no, they shouldn't claim to be an NYT Bestseller if they weren't actually included in the NYT Bestseller list even if they have the sales. As has been already noted it's not strictly about sales. The NYT editors have their secret sauce for picking which books to include in the list.

Since this has now devolved into whether or not a group of authors in a legit well-run/promoted boxed set should be able to claim the letters (if they were actually included in the list), I don't see what's the issue as long as there wasn't any shady/gaming of the rules to get there. 

Most indies who make the big lists do so from the push of a well-coordinated promotional campaign including lowering the price of their book to 99 cents and paying hundreds of dollars for a BookBub. So people didn't buy all those books because of the author but because BookBub selected them to be featured to their millions of subscribers. So let's put an asterisk on them too. I'm sure the trades would love that since it's not like Michael Connelly making it on a $28 hardback or a $15 e-book based solely on his fan base versus a 99 cent sale and BookBub.

It's all really silly when we start qualifying these things. 

As long as they're running their promo campaigns on the up and up let people be and enjoy their letters without judging and crapping over their big day. And I've never been in a boxed set and I've been asked in the past but turned them down because I'm in select. 

Obviously, this doesn't apply to the boxed set in question since NYT editors didn't include them on their list for whatever reasons.

And WHDean came up with a brilliant work around that: "Outsold the #1 NYT Bestseller 6 weeks running!"


----------



## Gone Girl (Mar 7, 2015)

We miss you, Harvey Chute.


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

lilywhite said:


> I'd be willing to bet he missed most if not all of the box-set shenanigans and subsequent fallout, so he sees a grave injustice rather than the NYT trying to protect the (perceived) integrity of their list after a pretty shameless assault.
> 
> Mad respect to the guy, but on this one he doesn't know the whole story.


lilywhite, that's a great point. He may very well not know about all that.


----------



## sela (Nov 2, 2014)

Seneca42 said:


> They should force all these authors to put a "99c Best Seller" badge on the cover of their books
> 
> I bet you each and every one of them would be too embarrassed to do so.


Here's the thing: Readers love 99c books. They buy them in droves. So...

I don't agree that the authors should put NYT Bestseller on their books unless awarded. I assumes Hugh was just being ranty. I don't agree with the way the NYT curates its list but at least we know it's curated. As to boxed sets, it has gone rather wild with 20+ books per set. The letters don't on their own help sell books, IMO and in my experience. I had a flop of a book last year and those letters did not help sell my book. They look nice on your cover and can help get promos, but if the book isn't satisfying to readers, letters won't help.


----------



## crow.bar.beer (Oct 20, 2014)

Alan Petersen said:


> Most indies who make the big lists do so from the push of a well-coordinated promotional campaign including lowering the price of their book to 99 cents and paying hundreds of dollars for a BookBub. So people didn't buy all those books because of the author but because BookBub selected them to be featured to their millions of subscribers. So let's put an asterisk on them too.


Let's not, because everyone promotes their books, and trad publishers will throws _millions of dollars_ behind promoting a new Lee Child novel, or whatever. Promoting a single title simply isn't comparable to twenty authors launching a box-set.


----------



## Alan Petersen (May 20, 2011)

crow.bar.beer said:


> Let's not, because everyone promotes their books, and trad publishers will throws _millions of dollars_ behind promoting a new Lee Child novel, or whatever. Promoting a single title simply isn't comparable to twenty authors launching a box-set.


 Ah, dang it, the snippet. Anyone just reading that quote, the point I was trying to make (perhaps badly haha) is that I believe the whole business of qualifying the worth of sales and adding the so-called asterisk is wrong. Let people be and enjoy their success without qualifying it or trying to demean it.


----------



## David VanDyke (Jan 3, 2014)

Re: the possibility the statement was merely a bad and badly told joke: I don't think it was a joke, but high-profile people need to be very careful to make it clear it's a joke, and even then, it can seem irresponsible. In 1984 President Reagan made an open-mike, not-intended-for-the-public joke (unequivocally a joke) to the effect that the bombs would be falling on the Soviets in five minutes. This did not go over well.

Re: whether it helps sales, BookBub says it does, at least when they analyze their data. They say it's worth several percentage points--7%? I can't find the reference right now, but I remember reading it. So there's no doubt a temptation for the unscrupulous to put it on their books whether they've earned it or not, both for ego and for sales. I think most people want to tout the things they've actually earned, and make more sales. Nothing wrong with that.

Re: the NYT ban on box sets--it's probably not hard and fast policy, but the RH/JW debacle certainly made box sets guilty until proven innocent in the NYT's eyes--and to be fair, (as mentioned above) I bet HH isn't up on the latest given that he's in Tonga right now, still apparently living off his boat sailing around the world. He may not realize the shenanigans of the bad box-setters (this is why we can't have nice things!) poisoned the well for everyone, and so he's seeing this in isolation. We may presume HH knows more than he does simply because he's been such a savvy guy in the past.

Re: the NYT policy being stated--they probably won't, because it pins them down. They'll more likely stick with the "case by case" policy to give themselves maximum flexibility.

Re: NYT Bestselling Author (vs. Book)--it seems to me it's part of building an author brand and hoping people go on to look at and buy the author's other books. Also, an author can put that tag on all their books, not merely the one that made the list.

***
Quote: Outsold the #1 NYT Bestseller 6 weeks running! (or whatever the timeframe)
***

I love it.


----------



## WHDean (Nov 2, 2011)

Bill Hiatt said:


> This is going to make me sound naive, but as a reader I always assumed that NYT and other best seller lists were based on how many copies were sold. The name does suggest that, doesn't it? When I became a writer and realized that wasn't really the case, I was a little disillusioned. I also thought it was noteworthy that the NYT, when responding to the launch of Amazon Charts, talked about the methodology of the NYT list in great depth without once mentioning curation. Should it really be called NYT Editors' Picks List?
> 
> All of that said, no, authors who didn't actually make the list shouldn't claim that distinction. That's Basic Ethics 101 stuff.
> 
> As for the NYT and other lists, their methodology should be more clear and transparent. I think the list should be based on total sales, period. If a certain kind of publication (such as a box set) isn't permitted, that should be stated explicitly, as should any other exceptional cases. I don't think the lists should discriminate against authors selling only on one platform (which is just a slap at people in Select). If I sell six million copies (fat chance!), it shouldn't matter what store front(s) those sales came from. Bestsellers should be--wait for it--books that sell the most. What a radical concept!


No shame in not knowing the list is curated. But it's important to recognize that any list like that must be curated to be relevant, regardless of how it's generated. When all the kids go back to college in September and buy, say, _Pride and Prejudice_, _Moby Dick_, and _Hamlet_, the NYT (or anyone else) is not going to put those books on the bestseller list for the whole month if they outrank everything else. Textbooks suffer the same fate in nonfiction. _Introduction to Biology _might outsell _Ten Tips to Make Yourself Better Looking _by two to one, but it ain't making the NYT list.

In case it matters, I'm not defending the NYT or its list, which, in my universe of moral concern, occupies roughly the same level as dog poop stuck to my shoe. One caveat there: If it came to pass that I had stepped in fresh dog poop and a copy of the NYT was on hand, it would rank slightly higher on account of its utility in the situation.


----------



## Alan Petersen (May 20, 2011)

David VanDyke said:


> Re: whether it helps sales, BookBub says it does, at least when they analyze their data. They say it's worth several percentage points--7%? I can't find the reference right now, but I remember reading it. So there's no doubt a temptation for the unscrupulous to put it on their books whether they've earned it or not, both for ego and for sales. I think most people want to tout the things they've actually earned, and make more sales. Nothing wrong with that.


I believe that according to BookBub's tests that the generic "Bestseller" tag helped sales but whether it was NY Times or USA Today didn't matter sales-wise.

https://insights.bookbub.com/the-anatomy-of-a-bookbub-blurb-ebook-description-copy-tips/

So according to that, it doesn't matter from a sales perspective that they won't be to use the NY Times Bestseller verbiage since they can still claim bestseller status in general.


----------



## 10105 (Feb 16, 2010)

Bill Hiatt said:


> If a certain kind of publication (such as a box set) isn't permitted, that should be stated explicitly, as should any other exceptional cases.


This assumes they publish somewhere the criteria for acceptance to the list. Or, perhaps more to the point, the criteria for not being considered.


----------



## A. N. Other Author (Oct 11, 2014)

Wasn't there something a few months ago about NYT changing their criteria? I'm sure they put out a bunch of exclusions and podcasts like the Sell More Books Show and Creative Penn discussed it. 

It used to be that you had to sell a minimum number on vendors other than Amazon, but then they added the condition that a certain number of of physical copies (paper/hard back) must also accompany the digital sales. Or maybe I dreamed that.


----------



## MyraScott (Jul 18, 2014)

ShayneRutherford said:


> If it were just a matter of numbers, every Amazon-exclusive author who'd made those numbers could claim to be a NYT bestseller, too. But they can't, because the NYT owns the list and makes the rules, and according to those rules exclusive authors don't qualify. So simply claiming that you made the numbers has never been enough. You have to meet all the criteria, too.


^This. If I was going to pitch a public fit about authors not being honored by being added to the list, I'd be screaming about _Silent Child_ by Sarah Denzil not making the list, despite having the sales to qualify. A single author, a single book, phenomenal sales but... the book is only available on Amazon.

So, it didn't make the list. And no one is trying to raise torches and pitchforks over it. Because she didn't coordinate 23 people who set their sights on an arbitrary goal... she wrote a great book that people love.

But she too, worked hard. And she had the sales.


----------



## Dpock (Oct 31, 2016)

Maybe I'll add, "OVERLOOKED BY THE NEW YORK TIMES!" to my covers and see if it helps sales.


----------



## Not any more (Mar 19, 2012)

I think people should remember that all the best seller lists are only there to stroke the publications' advertisers. They've never been fair or even handed. They are one of the ways the newspapers solicit advertising revenue. When Indies start buying full-page ads in the NYT to launch a book, then they'll get equal treatment.


----------



## ChristinaGarner (Aug 31, 2011)

Rick Gualtieri said:


> It's NYT's list, their rules. If you make it, you can have the title tattooed on your forehead if you want. If you didn't, you can't. Doing otherwise is little more than being fraudulent.
> 
> It stinks, but claiming accolades you didn't achieve stinks far worse.


Exactly this.


----------



## Used To Be BH (Sep 29, 2016)

brkingsolver said:


> I think people should remember that all the best seller lists are only there to stroke the publications' advertisers. They've never been fair or even handed. They are one of the ways the newspapers solicit advertising revenue. When Indies start buying full-page ads in the NYT to launch a book, then they'll get equal treatment.


I'm sure that is the way it is, but that doesn't mean I have to like it. 

Any list that isn't based pretty much exclusively on how many books are sold shouldn't be called a bestseller list. It should be called something else.

Considering the odds I'll ever have enough sales to be in bestseller territory, I don't know why this upsets me as much as it does. I know things aren't fair--I just wish they were.


----------



## MyraScott (Jul 18, 2014)

Bill Hiatt said:


> Any list that isn't based pretty much exclusively on how many books are sold shouldn't be called a bestseller list. It should be called something else.


Amazon has it's own bestseller list.

Why isn't that enough?

Oh, because not everyone gets on the NYT list, _because it's curated. _ That makes it special.

I guess NYT could publish the Amazon Best Seller list and the Nook Best Seller List and the iBooks Best Seller list and completely get out of any editorial decisions.

But... they choose to publish their *own list* with _their own rules_. And no one has to like it. But you can't claim the byline if they didn't give it to you.


----------



## CassieL (Aug 29, 2013)

ADDavies said:


> Wasn't there something a few months ago about NYT changing their criteria? I'm sure they put out a bunch of exclusions and podcasts like the Sell More Books Show and Creative Penn discussed it.
> 
> It used to be that you had to sell a minimum number on vendors other than Amazon, but then they added the condition that a certain number of of physical copies (paper/hard back) must also accompany the digital sales. Or maybe I dreamed that.


They eliminated some of their existing lists, one of which I believe was for ebooks only which made it harder for indies to make the list in general due to the difference in bookstore sales between trade pub and indie. It's still possible to make the list, but much less likely.


----------



## 10105 (Feb 16, 2010)

Bill Hiatt said:


> Any list that isn't based pretty much exclusively on how many books are sold shouldn't be called a bestseller list.


...within some specified current length of time.


----------



## 75845 (Jan 1, 1970)

I like a lot of what Hugh Howey writes and disagree with several opinions he puts out there. I particularly like his level-headed way of talking about making it as an indie, and have particular problems with his particular problems with the mainstream industry. I disagree with a genuine suggestion that the title should be claimed, but I also disagree with the assumption that Facebook posts should be taken at face value. I generally disagree with multi-author books claiming an NYT Bestseller badge even if their boxset charts, because the award should go to the collating editor or should be NYT Bestseller in the same set as [names of 19 other authors). There is no way to know if an individual author contributed to any of the boxsets sales.


----------



## Fel Beasley (Apr 1, 2014)

I don't think a single author in this boxed set is going to be claiming NYT Bestseller just because Hugh told them to. NYT has always been curated and there are only two multi-author boxed sets that I know have hit the NYT bestseller list, one of them was after the removal of the e-book only list. There could be others that I'm not aware of. I believe that is the reason there was hope that DR would make the list since they sold much more than that boxed set did. 

The easiest way to disqualify a boxed set in the future is to require a certain number of physical books sold just like the requirement for having more than 1 retailer report sales numbers. Since multi-author boxed sets (especially the bigger ones) won't be making paperbacks anytime soon, I doubt we'll see anymore boxed sets on the NYT bestseller list. 

I've got a feeling that they are going to weigh physical copies heavier than e-books, thus limiting the ability for indie authors to make the list, even as a single title at full price. (Because Indies have made the NYT bestseller list at full price, not discounted to $0.99.) Since most Indies don't tend to sell a lot in paper. 

Is it really a surprise that they favor trade published authors? I mean they literally rub elbows with the big publishers everyday. 

At this point I kind of feel like Indie authors are striving to hit the NYT bestsellers list because it's still very exclusive. So many authors now are able to call themselves USA Today bestselling authors that it no longer feels as much as a perk. Perk might be the wrong word. While I won't discount the hard work that authors put into multi-author boxed sets because I've seen said work, lately nearly all the boxed sets I've seen that were list aiming (as in a high buy in for advertising) have made USA Today.  Considering DR sold 5 to 6 times as many copies as those other sets typically do, I can understand the disappointment of not hitting the other list.


----------



## Alan Petersen (May 20, 2011)

coreyjpopp said:


> Reminds me of the 1986 lawsuit by William Peter Blatty against the NYT for intentionally omitting _The Exorcist _sequel from their list. His case was dismissed. The Supreme Court of CA basically said it's a subjective list and the NYT has the right to leave off any book they want to--basically First Amendment protection of the press--or more technically: the NYT can't defame someone by _not _printing their name.
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/1986/12/30/us/court-bars-a-suit-over-books-list.html


 This description, from that article, is the best way of describing what most of these best sellers lists are anyway: " The New York Times Book Review's compilation of best sellers. "


----------



## Wayne Stinnett (Feb 5, 2014)

In a day or two, I'll release Rising Storm, the 11th novel in my first series. It's debut rank will be in the top 100 of the Amazon store, priced at $2.99. A couple of days later, it will peak in rank at around #50, priced at $6.99. How do I know this? From experience. 

So, if my sales numbers are enough to be on the NYT and USAT lists (if they considered Amazon exclusive books), then I should be able to claim NYT and USAT Bestseller status? I mean, I worked really hard at it and I had the sales. It's just the NYT and USAT rules are against me. But hey, what are rules and ethics? 

Screw bestseller status. Henceforth, I demand to be referred to as King. Yeah, that's simple enough. My Amazon author rank is higher than Hugh's in Action/Adventure, so why not?

No, I'm sorry. Rules are rules. An ethical person would never claim accolades they didn't earn. I think the NYT is correct in saying that those 20+ authors don't rate the title. Did they work hard? Yes. Did they get the sales? Yes. But, note that in both those questions I said THEY, as in plural. Bestseller is singular. 

Can I beat up the current world heavyweight champ? No, but with 19 other guys in the ring with me, I can guarantee a knockout in the first ten seconds. Would all twenty of us then be the world heavyweight champ? No, champ is singular.


----------



## ChristinaGarner (Aug 31, 2011)

Wayne Stinnett said:


> Can I beat up the current world heavyweight champ? No, but with 19 other guys in the ring with me, I can guarantee a knockout in the first ten seconds. Would all twenty of us then be the world heavyweight champ? No, champ is singular.


Wayne with the KO.


----------



## PhoenixS (Apr 5, 2011)

*****************


----------



## going going gone (Jun 4, 2013)

going with "I don't think readers care." But no, lying about awards or so on isn't right.


----------



## A past poster (Oct 23, 2013)

she-la-ti-da said:


> It's been known for decades that the list can be bought. There have been some pretty big scandals about it in the last few years, where it's come out that publishers often buy up copies of an author's work simply to make the list. They have to be gotten from a reporting store, but it isn't hard for them to come up with the sales.
> 
> Readers don't necessarily know this, but writers should. And some readers do care, because they buy few books, think these best seller lists are curated with truly the best books, because lots of people bought them, right? And they trust they're getting "good" books this way.


True, and a good point.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

At some point, we really need to either stop complaining about scammer or stop suggesting, advocating or actually pulling scams like this whole 'commit fraud by claiming to be an NYT best-selling author' thing. We really shouldn't be doing both.


----------



## katrina46 (May 23, 2014)

Vaalingrade said:


> At some point, we really need to either stop complaining about scammer or stop suggesting, advocating or actually pulling scams like this whole 'commit fraud by claiming to be an NYT best-selling author' thing. We really shouldn't be doing both.


I stopped paying attention to scamming complaints. There certainly are some out there and this would probably qualify, but the term is often used to point the finger at anyone doing better than someone else. Half the time there's no evidence an author is scamming. Someone not doing as well just thinks they must be.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

I blame the odd little prosperity gospel culture we've developed.

The idea is that the only people who should succeed are the ones that are good people and work hard. Luck and outside factors are never a thing and _obviously_ we're good people who work hard. The best. So if someone is doing better, it can't be that they're better or working harder than us and even considering luck and external factors are hertical so clearly there's some evil at work.


----------



## Stephanie Marks (Feb 16, 2015)

So I think they were robbed? Yeah. Do I think they should claim the title anyway? Well no, because they weren't awarded it.

As to whether boxset authors deserve the titles they earn: Yes!
I am currently in my first boxset and I'll find out on Wed if we made the USA Today list or not. Let me tell you something, I have never cried so much over my writing career in my life. This book was absolutely my hardest novel to write. I had insane writers block, the stakes felt so high. Promotions were overwhelming. I was a WRECK! I have never felt so out of my depth. Everyone else seemed so much more experienced and capable and there was always SOMETHING that needed to be done and I could barely breathe. I've been in a daze for months, swamped under my desire to pull my own weight and keep up with these people that are just so much more experienced and with more sales, readers and credentials than me.

For people to turn around and say that I didn't earn my title (if I get it) is a complete slap in the face. It's not as though you can just make a boxset and someone just hands you a place on the bestsellers list while you twiddle your thumbs.

And it's like everyone has forgotten that many trad published authors have been straight up buying their way onto bestsellers lists for DECADES. 

Whether I earn my letters this time around or not I will probably never do another boxset again simply because I don't know if I can hack it. I don't know if I'm strong enough or organized enough to go through it again. I had no idea what I was getting myself into when I decided to give it a go. And if our boxset makes the list I will laugh, cry, kiss the ground, and slap that title on every single thing I have.


----------



## 75814 (Mar 12, 2014)

Stephanie Marks said:


> And it's like everyone has forgotten that many trad published authors have been straight up buying their way onto bestsellers lists for DECADES.


Whataboutism is never a valid argument. Yes, trad publishers have been shady for decades. And there are plenty of threads where we have complained about that fact. So why is it not okay when the trads do it, but just fine when indies do it?


----------



## Stephanie Marks (Feb 16, 2015)

Perry Constantine said:


> Whataboutism is never a valid argument. Yes, trad publishers have been shady for decades. And there are plenty of threads where we have complained about that fact. So why is it not okay when the trads do it, but just fine when indies do it?


No sorry maybe I wasn't clear. What I meant was that people are acting like buying your way onto a list is something that is brand new that a few Indy authors have begun doing in the last few years and that's where the problem came from and everything was so pre before that, and ignoring that it's been around for ages and started with the TRAD industry.

I never said that buying your way onto a list was right, no matter who was doing it.

I also think that there are a lot of assumptions about who is buying their way onto liars and who isn't.


----------



## 75814 (Mar 12, 2014)

Stephanie Marks said:


> No sorry maybe I wasn't clear. What I meant was that people are acting like buying your way onto a list is something that is brand new that a few Indy authors have begun doing in the last few years and that's where the problem came from and everything was so pre before that, and ignoring that it's been around for ages and started with the TRAD industry.


Except again, no one is acting like this is a new thing. Search the board. There are tons of posts where people complain about the shenanigans trad publishers have used to get on best-seller lists. Every time the subject of lists and box sets comes up, someone always plays the "but what about the trads?" card and not once has anyone ever said, "oh, it's okay when they do it."


----------



## Jena H (Oct 2, 2011)

Vaalingrade said:


> I blame the odd little prosperity gospel culture we've developed.
> 
> The idea is that the only people who should succeed are the ones that are good people and work hard. Luck and outside factors are never a thing and _obviously_ we're good people who work hard. The best. So if someone is doing better, it can't be that they're better or working harder than us and even considering luck and external factors are hertical so clearly there's some evil at work.


This comment is phrased as a less-successful author thinking about more successful ones. Reversing the thought, a successful author might consider his/her success to be the result of only 'hard work,' and 'luck and outside factors are never a thing'--and whatever that hard work is, it automatically has to be fair and above-board. Because nobody wants to think their success is based on questionable methods.


----------



## Wayne Stinnett (Feb 5, 2014)

Stephanie Marks said:


> So I think they were robbed? Yeah. Do I think they should claim the title anyway? Well no, because they weren't awarded it.
> 
> As to whether boxset authors deserve the titles they earn: Yes!
> I am currently in my first boxset and I'll find out on Wed if we made the USA Today list or not. Let me tell you something, I have never cried so much over my writing career in my life. This book was absolutely my hardest novel to write. I had insane writers block, the stakes felt so high. Promotions were overwhelming. I was a WRECK! I have never felt so out of my depth. Everyone else seemed so much more experienced and capable and there was always SOMETHING that needed to be done and I could barely breathe. I've been in a daze for months, swamped under my desire to pull my own weight and keep up with these people that are just so much more experienced and with more sales, readers and credentials than me.
> ...


Truly makes one wonder about all the trials and tribulation that a solo author must have to go through to be a bestseller on their own, huh?


----------



## inconsequential (May 4, 2016)

I don't know, maybe my thinking is off-base, but I always likened the box set authors to Olympic teams. If a team of 5, or 20, or however many people win a medal in the Olympics, they ALL get a medal. They can ALL rightfully claim to be a medalist, even though they didn't win it alone.


----------



## Guest (Aug 22, 2017)

Wayne Stinnett said:


> Truly makes one wonder about all the trials and tribulation that a solo author must have to go through to be a bestseller on their own, huh?


LOL It's not even up for debate. Boxset with 20 authors vs Solo Author is not a comparison. Finding writing / marketing hard before book is completed and selling has NOTHING to do with lists. Multi author sets are just another cheap way of stealing visibility and often (but not always) gaming the system.


----------



## Rick Gualtieri (Oct 31, 2011)

inconsequential said:


> I don't know, maybe my thinking is off-base, but I always likened the box set authors to Olympic teams. If a team of 5, or 20, or however many people win a medal in the Olympics, they ALL get a medal. They can ALL rightfully claim to be a medalist, even though they didn't win it alone.


True enough, but teams compete against other teams, not solo athletes.

Makes one wonder if perhaps Box Sets should have their own separate categories.


----------



## Guest (Aug 22, 2017)

Rick Gualtieri said:


> True enough, but teams compete against other teams, not solo athletes.
> 
> Makes one wonder if perhaps Box Sets should have their own separate categories.


And they shouldn't be allowed in KU.


----------



## inconsequential (May 4, 2016)

Rick Gualtieri said:


> True enough, but teams compete against other teams, not solo athletes.
> 
> Makes one wonder if perhaps Box Sets should have their own separate categories.


I can agree with that.


----------



## Used To Be BH (Sep 29, 2016)

inconsequential said:


> I don't know, maybe my thinking is off-base, but I always likened the box set authors to Olympic teams. If a team of 5, or 20, or however many people win a medal in the Olympics, they ALL get a medal. They can ALL rightfully claim to be a medalist, even though they didn't win it alone.


That's an interesting analogy, but it has one flaw: the situation in which multiple athletes share a medal is a team sport scenario. Is writing a team sport? Not inherently.

I'm conflicted about box sets. I don't think they should automatically be excluded from lists, but I think being a member of a large box set that makes one is different from being an individual author that makes one. In another thread, it was suggested that box set contributors whose set makes a list should be designated bestselling coauthor rather than bestselling author. That seems like a more accurate reflection of the underlying reality.

Another issue is price. As was pointed out earlier, it's harder to move a $20 book than a $0.99 book. From that standpoint, it might be more logical to have bestseller lists for different price ranges rather than lumping such differently priced books together.

Unfortunately, the discussion is largely moot, since the publications aren't exactly looking for ways to improve their process. All they seem to change is anything that works to the advantage of indies. Too many indies in the ebook only bestseller list? Cut it. Too many indies making the regular bestseller list? Require a certain number of print sales.


----------



## Wayne Stinnett (Feb 5, 2014)

inconsequential said:


> I don't know, maybe my thinking is off-base, but I always likened the box set authors to Olympic teams. If a team of 5, or 20, or however many people win a medal in the Olympics, they ALL get a medal. They can ALL rightfully claim to be a medalist, even though they didn't win it alone.


But, they are competing against other TEAMS of 5 or 20. Or was there a four person 800 meter relay team that competed against a solo runner at some point that I missed. I'm having trouble understanding the comparison.


----------



## inconsequential (May 4, 2016)

Bill Hiatt said:


> Is writing a team sport?


No, but they're all working toward the same goal, contributing similar product, time, and effort. That's why I said I likened them to Olympic teams. It's LIKE but not IDENTICAL.


----------



## inconsequential (May 4, 2016)

Wayne Stinnett said:


> But, they are competing against other TEAMS of 5 or 20. Or was there a four person 800 meter relay team that competed against a solo runner at some point that I missed. I'm having trouble understanding the comparison.


Read the above comment I made to Bill. If you're still confused, I'll explain further.


----------



## PhoenixS (Apr 5, 2011)

inconsequential said:


> If you're still confused, I'll explain further.


Please do.


----------



## Guest (Aug 22, 2017)

inconsequential said:


> No, but they're all working toward the same goal, contributing similar product, time, and effort. That's why I said I likened them to Olympic teams. It's LIKE but not IDENTICAL.


It's not the same goal and it's not the same product. It's twenty books vs one. See? Different!

How about I go play basketball, just me vs twenty other players. When they win it's not IDENTICAL to them beating me individually, but it's LIKE they're beating me individually. Wait no it isn't.


----------



## inconsequential (May 4, 2016)

PhoenixS said:


> Please do.


When an Olympic team wins a medal, all participants receive a medal. When all authors in a box set contribute product (a book), time, effort, money for promotions, etc, and IF their box set makes a best sellers list, then they all would be entitled to claim that accolade.

I do agree that there should be a separate best sellers list for multiple author collaborations, but since such a list doesn't exist, they 'compete' for the lists that do exist.

And no, sports and writing isn't the same thing, which is why I stated that I *LIKENED* it. It's a comparison that is NOT identical.

Not trying to start any kind of battle here. I was just weighing in with my thoughts on the subject.


----------



## katrina46 (May 23, 2014)

Vaalingrade said:


> I blame the odd little prosperity gospel culture we've developed.
> 
> The idea is that the only people who should succeed are the ones that are good people and work hard. Luck and outside factors are never a thing and _obviously_ we're good people who work hard. The best. So if someone is doing better, it can't be that they're better or working harder than us and even considering luck and external factors are hertical so clearly there's some evil at work.


I have to agree.


----------



## Going Incognito (Oct 13, 2013)

Bill Hiatt said:


> Unfortunately, the discussion is largely moot, since the publications aren't exactly looking for ways to improve their process.


Thankfully, from this to KU to everything else, it doesn't keep us from discussing it anyway, as how else would I procrastinate? I thought about getting a water cooler delivered to the house, but since I'd be the only one talking around it as I've already scared the immediate family away from any and all writing discussions I'm pretty sure the cat would have me committed.


----------



## going going gone (Jun 4, 2013)

Wayne Stinnett said:


> Screw bestseller status. Henceforth, I demand to be referred to as King. Yeah, that's simple enough. My Amazon author rank is higher than Hugh's in Action/Adventure, so why not?


Okay, King Wayne it is.  (ahh, truncating others' posts. what fun!)

If NYT cares about accuracy and journalistic integrity, they might more carefully name their list. "Books we'd like you to buy" would be more accurate. "Selected top sellers at a very few stores" would be another option. "Books we like while utterly discounting Amazon sales and category romance and ebooks and YA fiction" would be nearing the point of honesty.


----------



## Jan Hurst-Nicholson (Aug 25, 2010)

Dpock said:



> Maybe I'll add, "OVERLOOKED BY THE NEW YORK TIMES!" to my covers and see if it helps sales.


or even: not a New York Times Bestseller


----------



## David VanDyke (Jan 3, 2014)

Vaalingrade said:


> I blame the odd little prosperity gospel culture we've developed.
> 
> The idea is that the only people who should succeed are the ones that are good people and work hard. Luck and outside factors are never a thing and _obviously_ we're good people who work hard. The best. So if someone is doing better, it can't be that they're better or working harder than us and even considering luck and external factors are hertical so clearly there's some evil at work.


This concept actually goes back to the ancient Hebrews in the Old Testament, and came down to us Americans through the Anglo-Saxon Protestants and especially the Puritans and the Presbyterian tradition, which all equated God's blessings with merit and his curses with sin. In the book of Job, Job's friends repeatedly ask him what secret sin he's hiding that brought on his calamities. When Jesus was said to have healed people with congenital conditions, those around sometimes asked "Did he sin, or was it one of his ancestors?" We Americans often have an unconscious belief that people "get what they deserve" and "deserve what they get."

Nicholas Taleb, who comes out of a quite different tradition of thinkers (Arab Coptic Christians), argues in his several brilliant books on mathematical philosophy such as "Fooled by Randomness," that chance plays a much larger role in our lives than people tend to think. But he also argues that chance can be managed and put to use by maintaining your optionality (keep cash and credit lines in reserve, don't commit to restrictive or long-term contracts, maintain control of your own life), and by spreading a lot of small bets out in life to "put yourself in a position to get lucky," like a venture capitalist or entrepreneur.

That all applies to us as small-businesspeople, and Mark Coker confirmed it in a recent presentation I saw him make. He talked about how sometimes books take off and catch fire for some apparently random reason long after they've been published, something that was nearly impossible in the old tradepub world where print runs were cumbersome and used books out there in plenty. Witness the other thread where the Bathroom Yoga book got mentioned on Jimmy Fallon, or how The Martian got discovered and made Andy Weir a million-selling author.

So, hard work will get you on the road and making progress, but that occasional "Black Swan" might make your career.


----------



## C. Gockel (Jan 28, 2014)

> Nicholas Taleb, who comes out of a quite different tradition of thinkers (Arab Coptic Christians), argues in his several brilliant books on mathematical philosophy such as "Fooled by Randomness,"


Ooooo ... a book rec! Off I go ...


----------



## Going Incognito (Oct 13, 2013)

C. Gockel said:


> Ooooo ... a book rec! Off I go ...


Right? Thanks, David!


----------



## WHDean (Nov 2, 2011)

David VanDyke said:


> This concept actually goes back to the ancient Hebrews in the Old Testament, and came down to us Americans through the Anglo-Saxon Protestants and especially the Puritans and the Presbyterian tradition, which all equated God's blessings with merit and his curses with sin. In the book of Job, Job's friends repeatedly ask him what secret sin he's hiding that brought on his calamities. When Jesus was said to have healed people with congenital conditions, those around sometimes asked "Did he sin, or was it one of his ancestors?" We Americans often have an unconscious belief that people "get what they deserve" and "deserve what they get."
> 
> Nicholas Taleb, who comes out of a quite different tradition of thinkers (Arab Coptic Christians), argues in his several brilliant books on mathematical philosophy such as "Fooled by Randomness," that chance plays a much larger role in our lives than people tend to think. But he also argues that chance can be managed and put to use by maintaining your optionality (keep cash and credit lines in reserve, don't commit to restrictive or long-term contracts, maintain control of your own life), and by spreading a lot of small bets out in life to "put yourself in a position to get lucky," like a venture capitalist or entrepreneur.
> 
> ...


In _The Black Swan _he argues that all bestsellers are black swans because books belong to what he calls "Extremistan," a domain of life with low predictability. People invent narratives to explain why this or that book took off ("It touched people!") without (I would add) realizing that the fact and the explanation are the same claim--that is, touching millions of people is just another way of saying sold millions of copies. It doesn't explain why people who hadn't read the book (and thus could not yet have been touched by it) bought it in the first place. Still, human nature makes people look for explanations. Taleb wouldn't be a bit surprised by all the books (and thread here) purporting to analyze and distill the bestseller into a formula.

As for your remarks about fate in Christian tradition, you have to take in account different strains in the whole. While there's something to what you said, especially in the Puritan tradition, there's also a long tradition requiring charitable works, care for the sick, poor, and orphans, etc. The English long had the idea of "the deserving poor," for example, people who fell on hard times through no fault of their own. Much of the modern welfare state is secularized church functions that cared for the deserving poor. Second, the idea of injury and disease as divine punishment is probably a human universal, and it was arguably far stronger in pre-Christian times. The Greeks and Romans instantly jumped to divine explanations for any and every misfortune. They were forever trying to figure out which god or goddess had been offended so they could propitiate it and set things right.

We aren't all that different nowadays either. People look down their noses at gospel culture while our list of "lifestyle-related" diseases grows longer by the day.


----------



## David VanDyke (Jan 3, 2014)

Going Incognito said:


> Right? Thanks, David!


You're very welcome. His books are IMO an amazing mix of high, deep thinking and practical advice on how to live and operate--secular scripture, if you will. And he always reduces things to the practical and proven, vs. the often-false theoretical and intuitive. The cool thing is, he explains why many of these things actually work the way they do, and why people often do exactly the things the opposite of the optimal.

"Antifragile" is his self-declared masterwork, but I advise reading his previous books beforehand. He does re-introduce all the concepts, but they are brief recaps, and you may miss the bases.

http://www.fooledbyrandomness.com/


----------



## David VanDyke (Jan 3, 2014)

WHDean said:


> While there's something to what you said, especially in the Puritan tradition, there's also a long tradition requiring charitable works, care for the sick, poor, and orphans, etc. The English long had the idea of "the deserving poor," for example, people who fell on hard times through no fault of their own. Much of the modern welfare state is secularized church functions that cared for the deserving poor.


That's true, but much of that thinking, as a culture, was left behind by the Pilgrims and all the early British Protestant emigrants to America. Broadly speaking, those were the self-motivated risk-takers who tended to believe they were meritorious already and would be successful. The later, largely poor and Catholic waves of Irish and Italians, who were often economic migrants and culturally had more sympathy for the downtrodden, didn't change the American culture of the time all that much in this respect.

Again, very broadly speaking here, but generally, the British Empire lost and United States gained a seminal group of people that mostly believed that they controlled their own destiny--that God helped those who helped themselves, that merit brought merit, that the new was better than the old, and so on. This tendency persists today, especially among already entrepreneurial groups of people like us. Small and medium business-people are self-selected and then reinforced in these belief patterns--which is both a strength and a weakness. It's a strength when it keeps you going in the face of adversity; it's a weakness when it seems like all that hard work "should have" paid off by now, and people get frustrated, give up, or even look for shortcuts to success.


----------



## 75845 (Jan 1, 1970)

David VanDyke said:


> That's true, but much of that thinking, as a culture, was left behind by the Pilgrims and all the early British Protestant emigrants to America. Broadly speaking, those were the self-motivated risk-takers who tended to believe they were meritorious already and would be successful. The later, largely poor and Catholic waves of Irish and Italians, who were often economic migrants and culturally had more sympathy for the downtrodden, didn't change the American culture of the time all that much in this respect.


Oh dear. A large portion of those that went on to form the dominant religious tradition of Presbyterianism were no get up and goers, but people kicked off the land in Scotland, escaped to Ulster and found themselves by the 1660s facing penal laws for daring to not be Anglican. They were refugees from a double persecution and generally very poor and usually travelled by working a passage by signing up to become an indentured slave (to make matters worse it was usually to an Englishman). Nor was it just the Scots. Most indentured servants were English and few of those travelling to New England in the 17th century were funding their passage in any other way. Its the usual thing (assuming this comes from the mathematician): someone in one academic discipline wants to prove a theory and so opts for a simplistic mis-reading of the area covered by another discipline.


----------



## Alan Petersen (May 20, 2011)

WHDean said:


> In _The Black Swan _he argues that all bestsellers are black swans because books belong to what he calls "Extremistan," a domain of life with low predictability. People invent narratives to explain why this or that book took off ("It touched people!") without (I would add) realizing that the fact and the explanation are the same claim--that is, touching millions of people is just another way of saying sold millions of copies. It doesn't explain why people who hadn't read the book (and thus could not yet have been touched by it) bought it in the first place. Still, human nature makes people look for explanations. Taleb wouldn't be a bit surprised by all the books (and thread here) purporting to analyze and distill the bestseller into a formula.
> 
> As for your remarks about fate in Christian tradition, you have to take in account different strains in the whole. While there's something to what you said, especially in the Puritan tradition, there's also a long tradition requiring charitable works, care for the sick, poor, and orphans, etc. The English long had the idea of "the deserving poor," for example, people who fell on hard times through no fault of their own. Much of the modern welfare state is secularized church functions that cared for the deserving poor. Second, the idea of injury and disease as divine punishment is probably a human universal, and it was arguably far stronger in pre-Christian times. The Greeks and Romans instantly jumped to divine explanations for any and every misfortune. They were forever trying to figure out which god or goddess had been offended so they could propitiate it and set things right.
> 
> We aren't all that different nowadays either. People look down their noses at gospel culture while our list of "lifestyle-related" diseases grows longer by the day.




__
https://flic.kr/p/XHPrhL


__
https://flic.kr/p/XHPrhL
https://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/


----------



## Loosecannon (May 9, 2013)

Do they still_have_ newspapers...like on paper.. Really..?


----------



## Wayne Stinnett (Feb 5, 2014)

inconsequential said:


> Read the above comment I made to Bill. If you're still confused, I'll explain further.


Yes, please enlighten me. I'm easily confused by marketing strategies.


----------



## inconsequential (May 4, 2016)

Wayne Stinnett said:


> Yes, please enlighten me. I'm easily confused by marketing strategies.


I highly doubt that, since you're pretty much brilliant. And my comment had absolutely nothing to do with marketing. It had to do with my very simple interpretation that 20 author box sets were A LITTLE LIKE Olympic teams, in that they all work together for the goal they are trying to achieve.

And I answered it three posts down from the post you just quoted.


----------



## lilywhite (Sep 25, 2010)

inconsequential said:


> I highly doubt that, since you're pretty much brilliant. And my comment had absolutely nothing to do with marketing. It had to do with my very simple interpretation that 20 author box sets were A LITTLE LIKE Olympic teams, in that they all work together for the goal they are trying to achieve.


Yes, we all understand that. But as has been pointed out several times, TEAMS compete against other TEAMS. So yes, box sets are like a team sport, I (we all) grant you that ... but you're still not making a cogent argument for why it's fair that a TEAM should be competing with an individual.


----------



## Guy Riessen (Mar 27, 2016)

Sure NYT Best Soiling Author
Sounds ok to me, what's the prob, Bob?


----------



## inconsequential (May 4, 2016)

lilywhite said:


> Yes, we all understand that. But as has been pointed out several times, TEAMS compete against other TEAMS. So yes, box sets are like a team sport, I (we all) grant you that ... but you're still not making a cogent argument for why it's fair that a TEAM should be competing with an individual.


I never said they should. In fact, multiple times I stated that I agreed, that box sets should have their own list. But in the absence of those lists existing, I guess the authors in these sets 'compete' for the lists that do exist.

I have no idea how any of that works. I don't have any box sets, my own or parts in multiple author sets. I don't try for lists, mainly because I don't have the sales to even attempt such a thing. Nor do I really have the interest in the 'letters', since they don't really seem to hold the same weight they once did. According to many, anyway.

I just honestly don't know. I had just woken up when I read through this thread, and my brain said, "Well, it's kinda like Olympic teams, in a way." And so I said that. I'm now regretting saying anything at all, since I've been belittled for saying it ever since.

It was just a simple comparison based on minimal knowledge said by a simpleton. Just ignore me and move along with the discussion.

I'd delete the post but it's been quoted so, even if I did, it would still exist within the thread.

And now I'm done. Have a good evening.


----------



## MClayton (Nov 10, 2010)

inconsequential said:


> I have no idea how any of that works. I don't have any box sets, my own or parts in multiple author sets. I don't try for lists, mainly because I don't have the sales to even attempt such a thing. Nor do I really have the interest in the 'letters', since they don't really seem to hold the same weight they once did. According to many, anyway.


That brings up something I've been wondering since the boxed-set-bestseller debate first began. What weight _do_ the letters have? I've never, not once, bought a book because of "letters" on the cover. I'm sure I've at times bought books that were on the grocery store shelf to begin with _because_ they'd made those lists, but never because I specifically sought out NYT or USA Today bestsellers. My impression had always been that books _make _the list because so many have sold, but _being_ on the list doesn't necessarily mean _more_ sales. Is the goal to make the lists for the letters? Or to increase sales? Does being on the list increase the chance of getting on store shelves so people like me will make an impulse buy? Does being on a list increase sales? Or once the thousands in ads have been spent, do sales taper off?


----------



## lilywhite (Sep 25, 2010)

MClayton said:


> That brings up something I've been wondering since the boxed-set-bestseller debate first began. What weight _do_ the letters have? I've never, not once, bought a book because of "letters" on the cover. I'm sure I've at times bought books that were on the grocery store shelf to begin with _because_ they'd made those lists, but never because I specifically sought out NYT or USA Today bestsellers. My impression had always been that books _make _the list because so many have sold, but _being_ on the list doesn't necessarily mean _more_ sales. Is the goal to make the lists for the letters? Or to increase sales? Does being on the list increase the chance of getting on store shelves so people like me will make an impulse buy? Does being on a list increase sales? Or once the thousands in ads have been spent, do sales taper off?


According to BookBub split testing, their subscribers are more likely to click through to a book if the copy says it's a USAT/NYT bestseller, among other things. But some of those other things get even better results, and for all we know that may be unique to the sort of reader who is specifically attracted to BookBub, and not to readers at large.

https://insights.bookbub.com/test-results-to-help-you-market-your-ebook/
https://insights.bookbub.com/the-anatomy-of-a-bookbub-blurb-ebook-description-copy-tips/
https://insights.bookbub.com/book-description-ab-tests-you-need-to-see/


----------



## MClayton (Nov 10, 2010)

lilywhite said:


> According to BookBub split testing, their subscribers are more likely to click through to a book if the copy says it's a USAT/NYT bestseller, among other things. But some of those other things get even better results, and for all we know that may be unique to the sort of reader who is specifically attracted to BookBub, and not to readers at large.
> 
> https://insights.bookbub.com/test-results-to-help-you-market-your-ebook/
> https://insights.bookbub.com/the-anatomy-of-a-bookbub-blurb-ebook-description-copy-tips/
> https://insights.bookbub.com/book-description-ab-tests-you-need-to-see/


Thanks for the links - I'll go take a look. This is stuff I've seriously wondered. Sometimes, reading through all the posts on the topic, it seems as if maybe we've gotten it all backwards (says someone who will likely never make or attempt to make a list, so take that FWIW).


----------



## lilywhite (Sep 25, 2010)

MClayton said:


> (says someone who will likely never make or attempt to make a list, so take that FWIW).


You can come sit by me; I can't imagine I ever will either.


----------



## MClayton (Nov 10, 2010)

lilywhite said:


> You can come sit by me; I can't imagine I ever will either.


LOL!


----------



## Wayne Stinnett (Feb 5, 2014)

lilywhite said:


> You can come sit by me; I can't imagine I ever will either.


Now will I, unless they change the rules and call a best seller a Bestseller. But, I'm more interested in numbers than letters.


----------



## lilywhite (Sep 25, 2010)

Wayne Stinnett said:


> I'm more interested in numbers than letters.


I think we can close the thread now.


----------



## Jena H (Oct 2, 2011)

MClayton said:


> That brings up something I've been wondering since the boxed-set-bestseller debate first began. What weight _do_ the letters have? I've never, not once, bought a book because of "letters" on the cover. I'm sure I've at times bought books that were on the grocery store shelf to begin with _because_ they'd made those lists, but never because I specifically sought out NYT or USA Today bestsellers. My impression had always been that books _make _the list because so many have sold, but _being_ on the list doesn't necessarily mean _more_ sales. Is the goal to make the lists for the letters? Or to increase sales? Does being on the list increase the chance of getting on store shelves so people like me will make an impulse buy? Does being on a list increase sales? Or once the thousands in ads have been spent, do sales taper off?


Interesting questions. On one hand, (IMO) there are the "bandwagon-jumper readers," who only read books that "everyone" is talking about; whether they want to feel like they're with the "in" crowd, or just don't want to be left out of the watercooler gossip... who knows. On the other hand, there are readers who only read "best-sellers," because they _only read the BEST _, and it's a status thing, like only watching independent movies rather than summer blockbusters. Honestly, I couldn't tell you what books are on the NYT or USAT lists right now. I bet I've never heard of most of them. But if I hear 'real' people, people that I know in real life, talking about a book, that's more likely to get my attention than "letters" on a book cover.


----------



## David VanDyke (Jan 3, 2014)

Mercia McMahon said:


> Its the usual thing (assuming this comes from the mathematician): someone in one academic discipline wants to prove a theory and so opts for a simplistic mis-reading of the area covered by another discipline.


No, that was all me and my history degree--which I am not touting as authority, merely informed opinion. You can disagree all you want--that's what historians routinely do--but at the time, fleeing from persecution took courage and gathering resources, or mortgaging one's body as an indentured servant--but those fleeing persecution were only part of the emigrants. Many were looking for opportunity away from a system that had collected all the land in the hands of the gentry class. Push and pull, carrot and stick. The stick alone was insufficient, and they needed courage and a spirit of hope to reach for the carrot.


----------



## Jan Hurst-Nicholson (Aug 25, 2010)

WHDean said:


> People invent narratives to explain why this or that book took off ("It touched people!") without (I would add) realizing that the fact and the explanation are the same claim--that is, touching millions of people is just another way of saying sold millions of copies. It doesn't explain why people who hadn't read the book (and thus could not yet have been touched by it) bought it in the first place. Still, human nature makes people look for explanations. Taleb wouldn't be a bit surprised by all the books (and thread here) purporting to analyze and distill the bestseller into a formula.


"_It touched people_" probably means they enjoyed it enough to recommend it to friends and relatives. Word-of-mouth will always be the most successful type of marketing, that is why some books only take off years after they were published. This is why the https://www.amazon.com/Guernsey-Literary-Potato-Peel-Society/dp/0385341008 took a while to become a bestseller.

If only we knew how to harness word-of-mouth .


----------



## Joseph John (Nov 6, 2013)

Success.

*THE GREAT AMERICAN NOVEL*
by
Johnny B. Writer

_Eligible for Selection for the National Book Award, Hugo Award, & Nobel Prize, as well as the New York Times Bestseller list._​


----------



## 41419 (Apr 4, 2011)

I'm going to sidestep the argument about whether box sets should ever count for bestseller lists. I can see points on both sides. And my views seem to be changing on that anyway.

I'm also not a great believer in the so-called sanctity of these lists, given the shenanigans (self and trad) that have gone on to reach them in the past, and the questionable decisions often made by the list-makers themselves.

However...



PhoenixS said:


> NYT changed up its lists in early February of this year. The Dark Humanity box set -- one of RH's and Gwynn White's, I might add -- made the NYT list a couple of weeks after. Obviously that box set wasn't curated off. So why was this one? Why were Dannika Dark's 20,000-ish sales curated off last year? I managed a NF box that seemed to have had enough sales a couple of years ago to make one of the NF lists that didn't, yet I managed a fiction box the year before that that did.


I was in one of those boxes. Three authors, three books, a killer promo managed by Phoenix, three big author platforms combining, retailer support, great spread of ads, a LOT of noise on social media - we worked our tails off. And it looked like we sold enough to make the NF list... until we didn't. I estimated we outsold half the books on the list. And it burned.

But it's their list. They decide who goes on it. So I decided I wasn't going to waste any energy fighting it, whining about it, or making myself some kind of martyr. No good can come from that, so I just put it behind me. And I'm glad I did.


----------



## 41419 (Apr 4, 2011)

As for the general box set/bestseller list landscape, my views have evolved quite a bit over the last few years. 

I've been in a few boxes, some specifically list-aiming, and I've helped organize one too. I was even considering moving into publishing box sets at one point but all the shadiness was just so off-putting.

In fact, I'm so soured by all the scammy tactics that I'm almost at the point where boxes should be banned from list consideration altogether, and perhaps even banned from Amazon altogether.

The cons are obvious so allow me to list some pros:

*Cut lots of scammers off at the knees. 
*Instantly make a whole load of shady tactics unprofitable. 
*Plagiarism checker would have a much simpler job.
*Bonus stuffers would be detected much easier.

Amazon could replace box sets with some kind of bundling tool like they use for paperbacks. They could do it in a few ways - let the system automate it like it does for print (my least favorite option), let the author/publisher decide what bundles to offer and at what discount (my preferred option), or go totally crazy and let the readers have control here, and maybe even include multi-format bundles - print, audio, and ebook, like a turbo-powered lovechild of Whispersync and Matchbook.

OK, that was slightly off-topic.


----------



## WHDean (Nov 2, 2011)

Jan Hurst-Nicholson said:


> "_It touched people_" probably means they enjoyed it enough to recommend it to friends and relatives. Word-of-mouth will always be the most successful type of marketing, that is why some books only take off years after they were published. This is why the https://www.amazon.com/Guernsey-Literary-Potato-Peel-Society/dp/0385341008 took a while to become a bestseller.
> 
> If only we knew how to harness word-of-mouth .


No doubt word of mouth is the vector. The mistake comes when we suppose there must be an inherent property in the book--call it bestsellerness--that accounts for its spread and that we can distill. The reality is that there are only contingent and transient properties that change from hit to hit, and they are rarely, if ever, unique to the bestseller.

We make this mistake because we reflexively ignore the silent evidence, namely, all the similar books that did not sell. This propensity leads to magical thinking, a form of circular reasoning that is virtually impervious to reason. Point to the silent evidence and the believer will insist on the uniqueness of the book. "You're wrong!" they say, and then point to the success of the book as proof of its uniqueness, as if (1) all books were not unique and (2) that uniqueness, by definition (and by copyright law), cannot be replicated.

We're just wired to think this way. It's not all bad (if all unfair), however, because it's the same force driving runaway bestsellers in the first place. Success breeds success because readers think there must be something to the book if so many people are reading it. Naturally, when most of them do find the something in the book, it spreads like a contagion. (Of course, the true believer seizes on this and says "So you admit that there's a something there!" The point, again, is that the something is not unique and likely is not even original. Some inscrutable factors made the something into something in this book, at this point in time, and for this subset of people.)

Anyway, the best focus for one's time is understanding the vectors of word of mouth. In general terms, the solution to selling more books is to figure out how to minimize discovery problems and maximize exposure (note that the first isn't reducible to the second and vice versa). How and where do people discover books? Who's my audience and where are they? What venues do I know? How might I benefit from them? And so on. Looking for secret formulas is a mug's game.


----------



## David VanDyke (Jan 3, 2014)

WHDean said:


> Looking for secret formulas is a mug's game.


This.

But the non-secret formulas are well known. The formula only gets you a decent product. That's the craft. It's a combination of art, marketing and luck that makes the first bestseller for a brand. After that, it can become a self-fulfilling prophecy and a self-licking ice cream cone. Witness "The new James Patterson's coming out!" Yet the readers know Patterson didn't actually write the thing. It's the brand that sells, like MacDonalds rolling out a new food, a food that might be inferior to some other item--but hey, it's MacDonalds.


----------

