5 ms·

After the William Peter Blatty lawsuit, in which the NYTimes admitted that its best-selling numbers are "editorial" in nature, i.e., made up, I don't know why a

After the William Peter Blatty lawsuit, in which the NYTimes admitted that its best-selling numbers are "editorial" in nature, i.e., made up, I don't know why anyone pays attention to the list at all. The list is fiction. Interestingly enough, the lawsuit wasn't mentioned in the article. https://www.kallistipublishing.com/the-truth-about-the-new-york-times-best-seller-list/ https://www.kallistipublishing.com/the-truth-about-the-new-y...

jjulius 4y ago
I would be curious to know if this has changed in the past 39 years. Edit: I'd also be curious to read the actual testimony. The wiki blurb in that link is vague enough that one could argue it refers to some of the editorial decisions that are referenced in the Esquire piece that this thread is about: >Although the list claims to be a numerical ranking with full autonomy from The New York Times Book Review, some of the sources I spoke with believe that an element of editorial curation must be at play. “To my knowledge, The New York Times tracks sales of books, and the sales are what is ‘supposed to’ decide where those books sit on the list. However, the truth is, it's much more editorialized,” Sarah*, a book publicist who has worked at two Big Five houses, suggested to me. “There is quite a bit taken into consideration—i.e., are the book sales mostly bulk buys? Are they mostly indie bookstore sales? Are they mostly Amazon sales? Even which list the book would be considered for has a huge effect.” For example, whether a book is considered for the Hardcover Nonfiction weekly list or the Advice, How-To, & Miscellaneous weekly list might affect whether it becomes a best seller at all.
lqet 4y ago
Did they really "admit" this or was this just a strategy to get out of the lawsuit? Maybe it really was negligence on their part.

5 ms·

After the William Peter Blatty lawsuit, in which the NYTimes admitted that its best-selling numbers are "editorial" in nature, i.e., made up, I don't know why a

by pseingatl 4y ago

jjulius 4y ago
I would be curious to know if this has changed in the past 39 years. Edit: I'd also be curious to read the actual testimony. The wiki blurb in that link is vague enough that one could argue it refers to some of the editorial decisions that are referenced in the Esquire piece that this thread is about: >Although the list claims to be a numerical ranking with full autonomy from The New York Times Book Review, some of the sources I spoke with believe that an element of editorial curation must be at play. “To my knowledge, The New York Times tracks sales of books, and the sales are what is ‘supposed to’ decide where those books sit on the list. However, the truth is, it's much more editorialized,” Sarah*, a book publicist who has worked at two Big Five houses, suggested to me. “There is quite a bit taken into consideration—i.e., are the book sales mostly bulk buys? Are they mostly indie bookstore sales? Are they mostly Amazon sales? Even which list the book would be considered for has a huge effect.” For example, whether a book is considered for the Hardcover Nonfiction weekly list or the Advice, How-To, & Miscellaneous weekly list might affect whether it becomes a best seller at all.
lqet 4y ago
Did they really "admit" this or was this just a strategy to get out of the lawsuit? Maybe it really was negligence on their part.