--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, a_non_moose_ff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: <snip> > The issue is best-seller list compliers. I assume they have some > standards to reduce deceptive ploys that makes things seem to be > "better" than they are. Like bulk sales.
The best-seller list compilers' interest is in their own credibility--whether their lists reasonably reflect the number of people who have shelled out money for a book. Publishers depend on these lists to decide whether to order another printing and whether it's worth putting more bucks into promotion. Book distributors and sellers depend on the lists to know how many books to order. If the distributors and sellers order more books than they can sell, they return the books to the publisher for a full refund. The only entity that stands to lose money from a skewed best-seller list is the publisher. But in this case, the publisher *made* money from the Chopra strategy, as did the booksellers and distributors. As to their standards with regard to bulk sales, it depends on the bulk sale--who the buyer is, and what then happens to the books. For example, I know of a right-wing publication that has bulk-bought the book of one of its columnists (or editors, I forget) and then sold the book on its Web site to the publication's readers at a greatly reduced price, touting the book as a best-seller in its ads because the bulk sale has put it on some list. That's considered marginal, ethically speaking. Other political Web sites make bulk purchases of a book that advances one of their partisan causes and then give the book away as a premium in exchange for a donation to the site. That is not considered unethical even if it puts the book on a best-seller list. Authors make bulk purchases of their own books and then sell the books at their speaking engagements. That isn't considered unethical. Chopra did the same thing. Scientology's bulk purchase, in which most of the books ended up in a warehouse, was considered distinctly unethical. But no bulk purchase was involved with Chopra's book. Sales of two or three books each to individuals, who then resell the book for what they paid for it to their friends who were going to buy the book anyway, are not considered bulk sales. One thing you need to bear in mind is that best- seller status is not some prize awarded for the quality of a book; rather, it's a measure of the success of the book's marketing campaign in convincing individuals to buy the book. And as I pointed out in an earlier post, even the best marketing campaign can't *keep* a book on the best-seller lists if the people who have bought and read it don't like it. The tactic with Chopra's book was essentially a marketing strategy: it sold the book at full price to individuals who wanted to read it. Other individuals then bought the book because of the buzz created by those sales--but again, the book wouldn't have *stayed* on the best-seller list simply on the strength of that kind of buzz. But maybe they are whores of > the industry and have not standards. > > > This was a marketing strategy, a way to catch > > people's attention. They could have bought a > > full-page ad in the New York Times touting the > > book that might also have created a buzz but been > > much more expensive. > > > > As long as the figures weren't artificially > > inflated but just concentrated in a shorter time > > span, I can't see what was wrong with it. > > Well its a matter of degree. Should a 1000 book bulk sale be > counted? No. Should four months of "normal" sales be counted in one > month? And compared to other books' "normal sales". No. Not in my > book (nice pun,huh. :) ) I think thats deceptive. You may differ.I > may draw the line higher than you. No, you're just ignorant of how the publishing industry works. > I fail to see the difference, in substance -- though I do in > degree -- bewteen this and Enron (and any number of other corrupt > companies). Oh, please. Apples and oranges. Enron's ploy involved other people's investments. People lost their life's savings as a result. Who lost money as a result of Chopra's ploy? Your complaint is basically about the nature of marketing itself, the purpose of which is to induce people to spend money on something they wouldn't have bought otherwise. There's a case to be made that marketing is inherently deceptive in that sense. But to pick on the marketing strategy in question and claim it's somehow more dishonest than any other marketing strategy, as I said, makes no sense at all. > Per your logic, I doubt you can see what was wrong with Enron booking > next years earnings this year to inflate the stock price. They > weren't artificially inflating earnings just concentrated them in a > shorter time span. To create positive buzz on the street. They could > have bought a full-page ad in the New York Times touting their > achievements that might also have created a buzz but been much more > expensive. So, hail Andy Fastow. Jai Jeff Skilling. > > It relates to the TMO ethics. "Hey, a little fudging won't kill > anyone. And its for Heaven on Earth and World Peace,right?! Lets go > for it." > > But some perspective. I am not saying what Spraig did was a major > crime of the century. But its hiding stuff. > > Transparency, straight-forwrdness, candor and honesty in book sales, > financial reporting, political positions, economic indicators, > scientific research and relationships are good things. Better than > spinning, deception, slight of hand, severe parsing, optical > illusions, fast talking salesmen, pressure tactics, and reporting > someting that is "not there" as if it were. ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Join modern day disciples reach the disfigured and poor with hope and healing http://us.click.yahoo.com/lMct6A/Vp3LAA/i1hLAA/UlWolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
