So let me see if I understand your position here. You believe that without question or equivication, that you are fundamentally, totally and absolutely correct. Yes?
--- In [email protected], "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], a_non_moose_ff <no_reply@> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In [email protected], a_non_moose_ff <no_reply@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "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/
