A Tale of Three Bestseller Lists
Belle Burden's book 'Strangers' is #1 on the NYT Nonfiction Hardcover Bestseller List. Other bestseller lists tell a different story.
I hope you are safe and warm wherever you are. We got about 10-12 inches of snow where I live at the Jersey Shore, which is highly unusual, so, as you can imagine, everything is shut down. I was supposed to start teaching undergrads at Fairleigh Dickinson tonight, but the class was cancelled, so I gave them an assignment: find an example of PR writing in any form (video, social media, legacy media, etc.) and write a discussion post explaining why it is good or bad. I’m curious to see what my students find.
I want to give you all an opportunity to order books from indie bookstores in Minneapolis and beyond. Here’s a list of places that could use our collective support, with hyperlinks—I’ll include additional stores in other newsletters (I’m writing about TikTok later this week), this and next week:
Before we begin the main event, I want to preface by saying I am in the middle of reading Strangers by Belle Burden, and I think it’s beautifully written. There is a quiet restraint used to dissect her marriage and its unraveling that I appreciate, and what I’m about to write doesn’t diminish Burden’s talent as a writer. This is not so much about the author’s writing as it is about how broken the bestseller/media ecosystem is, which is the point of writing this piece.
I was curious to see the New York Times Bestseller list for the period from January 11 to 17. I wanted to know where Belle Burden’s memoir Strangers landed because it was covered so heavily in the Grey Lady. I thought perhaps it would debut closer to the bottom of the hardcover nonfiction list, which had titles selling around 4,000-6,000 copies per week. Imagine my surprise when I saw that it debuted at #1. Since I don’t have access to Bookscan, I waited to see Publishers Weekly’s bestseller lists, which include Bookscan numbers.
As you can see, Strangers sold 6,892 copies in its first week. That is not chump change, but it is also generally not enough to reach the top spot on the NYT list:
Granted, Publishers Weekly’s list is not as segregated as the New York Times's, which has separate lists for Advice, How-To, and Misc. titles (fun fact: you must be very careful with nonfiction subtitles because certain phrases can land you in the “Misc.” category). That said, a sales colleague of mine confirmed that Strangers sold LESS than the #2 book on the nonfiction list, The Other Side of Change by Maya Shankar, and sold far less than The We Do Not Care Club Handbook, which sits on the Advice, How-To, Misc. list one spot below The Let Them Theory by Mel Robbins.
Let’s stroll over to USA Today’s bestseller list, which includes everything but the kitchen sink (yes, I am full of puns today):
I thought a book that debuted at #1 on the New York Times Hardcover Nonfiction list would surely be in the top 50 on the USA Today list. It debuted at #69. As of this morning, it is #137 on Amazon.
I’ve previously written about how the New York Times Bestseller List’s methodology is anything but transparent. They have refused to disclose how they calculate sales for years, and I went to battle with them more than once when I was an in-house executive. This particular instance is quite egregious, though. Let’s look at how much space The New York Times has given to the book Strangers:
The Times covered the author and book FOUR times in the same week. What I am about to say will make some folks mad, but it must be said: The author has a pedigree that includes being a Harvard-educated lawyer and deep ties to American society—especially New York society. There are ties to the Paleys, Vanderbilts, and more. In other words, this book was hard for The New York Times to ignore, especially since the author’s Modern Love essay was what spawned it. It turns out that a certain type of privilege does indeed get you a #1 bestseller.
This is not to knock the author. She can’t help the family she was born into. What is bothersome is the obvious fawning New York Times coverage of the book and its subsequent spot on its nonfiction bestseller list. Look, I get it. As a media outlet, you can’t possibly cover a book that much and have it debut at the bottom of the list. It’s not a good look, but it is also blatantly unfair to authors who must fight for coverage and sales. It exemplifies the very things publishing is criticized for: exclusivity, privilege, whiteness. That’s a problem, and nothing changes unless we call it out.
Strangers would still be on the New York Times Bestseller List if it were in order of Bookscan sales, but it wouldn’t have been #1. It would still have received the bestseller treatment in bookstores through displays, and reprints could still have stated on the cover that it is a New York Times Bestseller. Now, cover reprints will most likely add the phrase “Instant #1 New York Times Bestseller” in a burst (the circle with text you see on some book covers). It will undoubtedly sell more copies because you can’t ask for better marketing than placement with a #1 New York Times Bestseller.
Dial Press is certainly not going to complain about the book’s position on the Times’s list. I would bet, though, that some other publishers questioned it. This type of treatment makes it that much harder for other authors to get coverage, and that is a problem. Media outlets like The New York Times receive hundreds of new books every week, with publicists endlessly following up to see if a title has been assigned for review. When we see a book covered this much in one place, it can feel defeating and unfair—because it is.
The solution is one I have put forth before: The New York Times should be transparent about how it calculates what book gets which spot on its bestseller lists. That is probably wishful thinking, but it would clarify things like which authors receive bestseller bonuses (yes, that is a thing in some contracts). It would also help aspiring bestselling authors see the actual number of copies they need to sell to hit the list. While I never think being a bestseller should be a goal (selling consistently over time is a better, more realistic goal), I also believe in equitable bestseller lists. The New York Times has an opportunity to do better, and I hope they do.
***NEW SESSION OF THE PUBLISHING CONFIDENTIAL COHORT***
The first Publishing Confidential Cohort is in its fourth week and going great, so I’ve decided to open a new session for late winter/early spring.
The What: A 6-week course that meets on Wednesday evenings, where I teach authors about marketing, publicity, and the publishing process. Every registered and paid student receives a spot in the cohort and a 45-minute consultation with me. I also teach you how to pitch your book for events and interviews (especially podcasts).
The Where: All sessions are on Zoom. They are recorded, and a link with slides is sent to all authors the day after class. The group is truly a great community.
The Cost: $350 (a bargain)
Sign Up: Please use this Google Form to sign up. Once you sign up, I will send you an invoice that MUST BE PAID upon receipt, so I know who is definitely taking the class, and how many spots I can continue to offer before it is at capacity. I like to cap it at 40 people, on a first-come, first-served basis. Once you pay, your spot is secured.
Need More Convincing? The dates for this cohort are 3/5, 3/11, 3/18, 4/1, 4/8, and 4/15, 7:30-9pm. If you miss a class, not to worry, because you will receive the recording and can always ask me questions. The complete syllabus is here.
I'm excited about the new Indie top 40 list. It is based on the top 40 books sold as reported by Indie bookstores regardless of the number of copies sold.There is an egalitarian nature to that list which appeals. I wrote a Substack about it last week. I'm hoping indie bookstores post and talk about it to raise awareness and influence.
And a query: is your publicity cohort appropriate for author-publishers or is it more Trad focused?
Thank you for writing this and saying the silent part out loud.