Bookbuyer's Bookend
If Bookbuyer comes back to the matter of bestseller lists again, it is only because it is an important one and there is some pretty funnY business afoot. To recap briefly — Britain, unlike other major book-producing countries such as America and Germany, has had no regular national bestseller list worth the name. The Sunday Times thought that was wrong, and last year began devising a formula for a 'definitive' one in fiction, non-fiction, paperbacks and children's books. The Gee Report, a fortnightly publishing newsletter, also thought it was wrong and last November ran the first of their 'top 25' lists of new fiction and non-fiction, based on returns from some 100 booksellers, each of whom was asked to supply a list of his top ten sellers in each category. The Sunday Times remained aloof and continued to work on a more elaborate scheme which would require 300 bookshops to suPPIY actual sales figures rather than general comparisons. The book trade itself was glad of Gee's list and continued to wish the SundaY Times well, though with a sneaking suspicion that it was asking for the moon and would not get it from 300 already overworked booksellers. Earlier this month, the Gee Report gentlemen quietly sold the publication rights in their list to the Observer, a deal which Bookbuyer reported two weeks ago. On hearing the news, the Sunday Times men appear to have lost their cool. Led by the editor's personal assistant, a few devoted staff leapt into action to try and salvage a sorry situation. The following Sunday, when honest citizens were sucking their Easter eggs, the first Sunda Times bestseller list appeared. On the same daY the Observer introduced "a new fortnightlY feature, a bestseller list of hardback books published in the UK and Ireland." The fact that the two lists had only one novel in common, and only five non-fiction books, has alreadY been pointed out so let that pass, for the time being. Gee's system, described here last December' is impressionistic rather than scientific, requiring booksellers to award points from ten (for their fastest selling title) down to one; its virtue is its simplicity. The Sunday Times has alway wanted to do better than this by using actual sales statistics, recorded by booksellers on 3 chart supplied by the Sunday Times. Hence the admirably high-minded remark in the paper's columns on Easter Sunday: "Most other book lists base their findings on assessments of the order of sales. This means that it is difficult t° account for the difference in sales volutne between one position and another on an in dividual shop's list. It is also difficult to coin' pensate for the disproportionate sales bet We one shop and another." Good, dismissive point. So how, you might ask, could the Sunda)" Times have dispatched, collected and collateo 300 written sets of weekly sales statistics fronl booksellers all over the United Kingdom in les; than five days, of which one was Good FridaY.'. The answer is, they didn't. If you read theier introductory blurb very carefully, you will se, that they never actually say they did, thoUgn you might be forgiven for gaining the will impression. Faced with the trivial prospect being beaten into print by the Observer. t!.11` Sunday Times team threw their careful 30.1 prepared system to the winds and resorted t, the silly practice of telephoning booksellers on,' of the blue to ask for their top ten sellers,thy', adopting the very methods they themselve' had spent the past year condemning.
Previous page
