--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, a_non_moose_ff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, a_non_moose_ff <no_reply@> > > 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. > > AND many book buyers depend on these lists to narrow down the list > of books they will consider buying.
That's actually a much smaller factor in the equation. MUCH smaller. And it doesn't kick in until the book has been on the lists for at least a few weeks. > >One thing you need to bear in mind is that best- > seller status is not some prize awarded for the > quality of a book; > > I disagree, per above. Well, it's not a matter of disagreement; it's a matter of fact. And certainly nothing you said above is relevant to this point. You would have a great deal of difficulty finding anyone knowledgeable about publishing who would say best-seller lists are a measure of the quality of the books on them. > > rather, it's a measure of the > success of the book's marketing campaign in > convincing individuals to buy the book. > > Thats one aspect of it, more important is the publics perception of > a book if it is on the bestsellers list. To the extent that this is even a factor, it doesn't become a factor for some time, as I pointed out above. The folks it affects are primarily the booksellers and distributors. If the book seems to sell well right off the bat, they buy more copies and put more money into promotion. It isn't until that promotion has been implemented that the general public even begins to have a perception of the book as a best-seller that they should buy. > > 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. > > While I appreciate your examples, I am not sure who "considers" this > or that practice ethical unethical. You asked about the folks who compile the lists, and I told you. What are you missing here? > And "ethics" is a bit of a > strawman. My concern was "deception". Er, deception is generally considered unethical. > To me, "decption" /slight of hand is more objective. It happenend or > it didn't. Ethics is in the eye of the beholder. All of what you > describe above is deceptive if, as you say, " [best seller lists are > a] measure of the > success of the book's marketing campaign in > convincing INDIVIDUALS to buy the book." > Individuals being the operative word. That some practices are > considered by some amophous body as ethical or unethical is another > issue. No, it isn't. You can't separate the two. The unethical aspect is whether people are deceived into buying more books. > > > 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. > > Thats funny. "I think thats deceptive. You may differ.I > may draw the line higher than you." is an invalid statement because > [I am] just ignorant of how the publishing > industry works." ????????? Yes, indeedy. My standards are contingent on KNOWLEDGE > OF how the industry works??????? hahaha. Maybe that says a lot about > your standards. Nope. It says a lot about your ignorance. > As you say bestseller lists are a measure of the > success of the book's marketing campaign in > convincing INDIVIDUALS to buy the book. When people buy "bulk" -- > more than one copy, and not for their own use, Buying two or three books to sell to your friends for what you paid who would have bought them anyway isn't considered "bulk sales" in the publishing industry, as I already told you, and most likely not by most reasonable people either. > for the purpose of pushing > up sales in the first month, they are tweaking the system, "I think > thats deceptive. You may differ. I may draw the line higher than you." > > > > 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. > > Um, I said "I fail to see the difference, in substance -- though I do > in degree" -- its apple and oranges in degree. I "said" that. But not > in its nature, its substance. A deception might be big or small. It is > still deception. In that sense, all marketing is deception, as I pointed out. > >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? > > Obviously the book sellers and authors whose book would have been on > the best seller list had the chopra book campaign not used slight of > hand practices. You're still not getting it (willfully at this point, I suspect). The booksellers, obviously, wouldn't have lost any money at all; more likely they'd have lost money *without* the Chopra campaign. And as far as the authors of other books are concerned, the amount they make, unless they're already best-selling authors who don't even *need* marketing, is very highly dependent on the effectiveness of the initial marketing campaigns for *their* books. Only after the first wave of selling takes place does the quality of the book even begin to be a factor. Chopra's book had a more effective marketing strategy, based on the fact that it had a built-in audience big enough to get it on a few best-seller lists, at which point booksellers bought lots of copies and began to promote it in their stores, at which point people *not* in the built-in audience, most of whom had never heard of Chopra, began buying it and recommending it to their friends. That's what kept it *on* the best-seller lists, because people liked it. Not every author, no matter how good their book, has the advantage of a built-in audience to prime the selling pump; in that regard, it's a matter of *life* just not being fair. Chopra's was an *unorthodox* marketing strategy, but only because there aren't many authors with such a built-in initial audience who were willing to put themselves out a bit to bring the book to the public's attention. If there were many such, it most likely would be a *common* strategy. > "lost money" if meant in an absolute sense, is a bit of a strawman. > Its more an issue of "lost money relative to what would have occured > without the distortion." Right, that's what I meant, in a relative sense. > The bumped book may have still made money. > maybe not. The issue is their true earnings potential was skimmed by > Chopra and co. Same with Enron -- in the specific example of > reporting next years earnings this year. Many eneded up with lower > profits or higher losses than they would have had the distortion > not taken place. And the relevance of this to the Chopra situation is...? > > 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. > > No, thats not correct. That is not my argument. Some marketing is > deceptive. I am against that. Some marketing is informative. I am > for that. Chopra's marketing informed the public about the book. It informed those concerned with best-seller lists that there was a substantial number of people who were enthused enough about Chopra to buy the book as soon as it came out. Would those who look at best-seller lists have been *less* inclined to buy the book if they knew those people were *so* enthused about Chopra that they bought copies of his book to sell to their friends so their friends could have it right away, saving them a trip to the bookstore? Seems to me that's a point in favor of the book, not against it. > >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. > > HAHAHA. Faint praise. And a shallow basis for ethics. "We were no > more deceptive than anyone else." As I said, your argument here works only if you think marketing is *inherently* deceptive. Which is true in a sense, as I've already suggested. Otherwise, you're being inconsistent. Jeff Skilling said the same thing. George > Bush says the same thing. Apples and oranges, not just in degree but in quality. ------------------------ 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/
