6 ms·

I think the biggest problem here is the word 'bestseller'. 4000 is not a number I would associate with that word, prior to knowing what algorithms are used to d

by lukev 14y ago

I think the biggest problem here is the word 'bestseller'. 4000 is not a number I would associate with that word, prior to knowing what algorithms are used to determine those lists. My guess is that 'bestseller' lists are far more a marketing tool than any reflection of how books are selling. I've published technical books that sold in that rough ballpark, and I can tell you they never came near any bestseller list (nor should they have).

arbuge 14y ago
Seconded. In a sufficiently sub-categorized market, achieving bestseller status doesn't mean much. I was born in a tiny country with a small population. Makes me think of how easy it was for me to become under-18 chess champion back there in my high school days. Doesn't mean I was really that good at chess...
busterarm 14y ago
You don't even know the half of it. Some authors actually PAY MONEY to have their book put on the bestseller list. Basically the publishers have all these deals for shelf space with all those little airport and train station bookstores, endcaps in major bookstores, etc. These are guaranteed sales of whatever book the publisher decides to send these stores and the publishers then pass this cost on to authors who want the publicity.
- bennesvig 14y ago
  Those authors make money from doing speaking or consulting gigs where they can then call themselves a "best selling" author.
znowi 14y ago
Yes. I was all sympathetic with a poor famous author who made pathetic $12k on his bestseller until I hit the number of copies sold: 4000... Huh? Suddenly, $12k sounds like a pretty good deal. I should note though that when I hear about authors of tech books (O'Reilly and the like), I do tend to imagine a Jaguar in their garage :) But also a lot more copies sold. And also, 8 months delay on sales you made July last year, that's just not right. I thought if you're indie the turnaround is much faster with better pay. Apparently not.
- coldtea 14y ago
  >I should note though that when I hear about authors of tech books (O'Reilly and the like), I do tend to imagine a Jaguar in their garage :) But also a lot more copies sold. You'd be surprised on both counts. Actual rundowns I've read from technical authors can be even worse than the 4000/$12,000 mentioned here -- except if we talk about something like "The C programming language" or "Learning Perl". Also: remember that 30% cut that Apple/Google etc takes of off your apps and e-books? Well, traditional publishers take something like 90%.
  - olefoo 14y ago
    Your math is a bit wonky and you are missing some aspects of the traditional publishing contract. The traditional publishing deal involves the author getting an advance (cash up front) which they do not have to pay back unless they fail to deliver the manuscript. So the publisher takes on the risk that the book won't cover it's advance. The publisher also manages book production and distribution and publicity, to do those things the publisher keeps staff on hand in some fairly expensive office space ( publishing happens in Manhattan, or used to ). All of which add up to a pretty good deal for authors whose work is salable. With Amazon or Apple, the author takes on the risk, and all the costs of production ( poorly edited ebook only editions aren't going to sell as well as actual books ) and all the costs of marketing and promoting their work. The only thing that's taken care of is distribution; for which they give up 30%, not the actual cost of distribution. So the new deal is riskier and less certain ( if you pay an editor, a book designer, a publicist etc. ) you might wind up losing money.
    - CurtMonash 14y ago
      In theory, the advance is just an advance, and publishers could ask for the portion back that is not covered by royalties. However, they almost never do that. It's one of the few ways in which publishers actually behave decently towards authors.
      - ryguytilidie 14y ago
coldtea 14y ago
>I think the biggest problem here is the word 'bestseller'. 4000 is not a number I would associate with that word, prior to knowing what algorithms are used to determine those lists. That. I'm for a pretty poor, and small sized, european country, with hardly a very reading population, and still a best-seller can sell even ten times that -- and make a popular writer something in the region of $30,000 a year or more.
steveklabnik 14y ago
They said "plus or minus 4000" copies, not that they sold 4000 copies. This caught me by surprise at first, too, until I re-parsed the sentence. Now, upon reading it a third time, I'm not so sure. It is certainly confusingly worded.
- re 14y ago
  "Plus or minus" is most likely used here to mean "more or less" or "approximately".
tehwebguy 14y ago
The point seems to be that many people associate such lists with much more success than they actually represent. Also that the list is not the springboard to further success that some thought it was. (Right now it only takes about 8k album sales in a week to break the Billboard top 50)

by lukev 14y ago

arbuge 14y ago

Seconded. In a sufficiently sub-categorized market, achieving bestseller status doesn't mean much. I was born in a tiny country with a small population. Makes me think of how easy it was for me to become under-18 chess champion back there in my high school days. Doesn't mean I was really that good at chess...

busterarm 14y ago

You don't even know the half of it. Some authors actually PAY MONEY to have their book put on the bestseller list. Basically the publishers have all these deals for shelf space with all those little airport and train station bookstores, endcaps in major bookstores, etc. These are guaranteed sales of whatever book the publisher decides to send these stores and the publishers then pass this cost on to authors who want the publicity.

bennesvig 14y ago
Those authors make money from doing speaking or consulting gigs where they can then call themselves a "best selling" author.

znowi 14y ago

Yes. I was all sympathetic with a poor famous author who made pathetic $12k on his bestseller until I hit the number of copies sold: 4000... Huh? Suddenly, $12k sounds like a pretty good deal. I should note though that when I hear about authors of tech books (O'Reilly and the like), I do tend to imagine a Jaguar in their garage :) But also a lot more copies sold. And also, 8 months delay on sales you made July last year, that's just not right. I thought if you're indie the turnaround is much faster with better pay. Apparently not.

coldtea 14y ago
>I should note though that when I hear about authors of tech books (O'Reilly and the like), I do tend to imagine a Jaguar in their garage :) But also a lot more copies sold. You'd be surprised on both counts. Actual rundowns I've read from technical authors can be even worse than the 4000/$12,000 mentioned here -- except if we talk about something like "The C programming language" or "Learning Perl". Also: remember that 30% cut that Apple/Google etc takes of off your apps and e-books? Well, traditional publishers take something like 90%.
- olefoo 14y ago
  Your math is a bit wonky and you are missing some aspects of the traditional publishing contract. The traditional publishing deal involves the author getting an advance (cash up front) which they do not have to pay back unless they fail to deliver the manuscript. So the publisher takes on the risk that the book won't cover it's advance. The publisher also manages book production and distribution and publicity, to do those things the publisher keeps staff on hand in some fairly expensive office space ( publishing happens in Manhattan, or used to ). All of which add up to a pretty good deal for authors whose work is salable. With Amazon or Apple, the author takes on the risk, and all the costs of production ( poorly edited ebook only editions aren't going to sell as well as actual books ) and all the costs of marketing and promoting their work. The only thing that's taken care of is distribution; for which they give up 30%, not the actual cost of distribution. So the new deal is riskier and less certain ( if you pay an editor, a book designer, a publicist etc. ) you might wind up losing money.
  - CurtMonash 14y ago
    In theory, the advance is just an advance, and publishers could ask for the portion back that is not covered by royalties. However, they almost never do that. It's one of the few ways in which publishers actually behave decently towards authors.
    - ryguytilidie 14y ago

coldtea 14y ago

>I think the biggest problem here is the word 'bestseller'. 4000 is not a number I would associate with that word, prior to knowing what algorithms are used to determine those lists. That. I'm for a pretty poor, and small sized, european country, with hardly a very reading population, and still a best-seller can sell even ten times that -- and make a popular writer something in the region of $30,000 a year or more.

steveklabnik 14y ago

They said "plus or minus 4000" copies, not that they sold 4000 copies. This caught me by surprise at first, too, until I re-parsed the sentence. Now, upon reading it a third time, I'm not so sure. It is certainly confusingly worded.

re 14y ago
"Plus or minus" is most likely used here to mean "more or less" or "approximately".

tehwebguy 14y ago

The point seems to be that many people associate such lists with much more success than they actually represent. Also that the list is not the springboard to further success that some thought it was. (Right now it only takes about 8k album sales in a week to break the Billboard top 50)