Why Mothers Of Dragons will never be found on the best book sellers list…
And why the author is not concerned about it at all…
No bestseller list measures the actual best selling books…
Best selling lists like The New York Times Best Seller list and Publishers Weekly have been criticized by authors, publishers, book industry executives, and others for not providing an accurate accounting of true best-seller status.
A book industry report in the 1940s found that best-seller lists were a poor indicator of sales, since they were based on misleading data and were only measuring fast sales, double counting, manipulation and conflict of interest.
A 2004 report quoted a senior book marketing executive who said the rankings were smoke and mirrors, while a report in Book History found that many professionals in the book industry scoffed at the notion that the lists are accurate.
Every single bestseller list either measures a limited number of sales in a few places – far worse a small group of people decide what to put on their list, picking books based on what they think are important books, not based on what is actually selling and what audiences really want.
Tucker Max wrote on Entrepreneur.com the most important bestseller list is The New York Times bestseller list, and they are the worst culprit at this curated elitism. They readily admit that their list is only reflective of books that are selling at a certain number of bookstores and online retailers in USA but not an actual bestseller list.
For most of the 20th century, they pretended to use a scientific method to count book sales and claimed their list was authoritative and accurate.
When William Blatty wrote a novel called The Exorcist which has sold 10 million copies and is a famous movie, it sold more than enough copies to be high on the bestseller list for a long time, but initially, it did not appear.
He rightly claimed that The New York Times was intentionally excluding it because the book was considered very controversial at the time and claimed that their decision was costing him millions of dollars in sales.
But he lost the case, because The New York Times defense was that “the list did not purport to be an objective compilation of information but instead was an editorial product.” They won the case in multiple rulings all the way up to the Supreme Court, based on the argument that the list is not supposed to be accurate, but reflects their judgment.
It is a valid legal argument, but it also means The New York Times admitted their bestseller list is just a popularity contest, and they select who they will.
Anyone in publishing has seen this many times…
You can see this clearly if you have access to Nielsen BookScan, which is the database that tracks paid sales covering about 70 to 80 percent of book outlets and publishers can see how much the New York Times List varies from the Nielsen report of actual books sold.
The same thing is true, to different degrees, with the other major national lists, The Wall Street Journal, USA Today and Publisher’s Weekly.
So, for all these reasons Mothers Of Dragons is promoted on a totally different campaign and hosted online on an independent secure platform where sales figures are accurately calculated on a regulated basis.
For authors in business like R.De’Lano, who want to ensure accurate information is read by audiences who care about their development, a book has an entirely different purpose, and that often has no correlation with high margins.
The people who are most obsessed with bestseller lists are the authors who view it as a status symbol, feeling if they can make the list, people will see them differently, and they’ll feel differently about themselves.
And R.De’Lano has no such problem.
To show how ridiculous the abuse of this bestseller list has become, one of the most brilliant marketers, Brent Underwood, took a picture of his foot, published it as a book, and hit no. 1 in with it. He detailed everything here, called out the whole group of people who sell this, and it’s a great read.