Or they used the shipping info like your suggested, the book market seems very different from the toy

But the appearance of specific books on the top 25 (I don’t want to name them because singling out books in a negative way, in the context of this discussion, isn’t really appropriate), not to mention Occam’s Razor, lead me to believe my conclusions are closer to the truth…

I like a good conspiracy theory as much as the next guy, but I simply cannot believe that the NYT is so stupid as to be using comics-store-sell-in-from-Diamond and bookseller-sell-through as if they were exactly the same thing. They simply can’t be that stupid. For years before establishing this list, the NYT’s apparently cited the difficulty in getting appropriate sell-thru figures from the comics market as a reason they hadn’t set up a graphic novel list; the fact that they now have set one up implies that they’ve somehow solved that problem, and it’s defies imagination that their solution would be “To heck with it! Let’s just use the sell-in figures!”

Maybe I’m missing some nuances on the timing here, but isn’t it possible that whatever promotion Marvel did to get retailers to order more copies of the book also had the effect of actually selling more copies to consumers, which sales were reported to the NYT? Isn’t is at least as easy to think that that’s what happened here as it is to think that the NYT is somehow so hapless as to dismiss the difference between sell-in and sell-thru?

If we assume that the NYT is indeed getting actual sell-thru data from comics stores to form the bestseller list, we still don’t necessarily know which stores form those reports. Maybe the stores that reported their sales had exceptional success with this promotion, actually using it to sell dramatically more copies of the book to customers. That’s gotta be possible, right?

Also, if we assume that the NYT applies some mathematical voodoo to their raw data, there’s always the possibility that whatever statistical models they’re using aren’t exactly accurate. Maybe whatever mathematical model they’re using to balance comics-stores-data and other-bookstore-data isn’t fairly weighted. If that’s part of the problem, that’s something you would hope they’d refine in future.

There are obviously real challenges to the NYT in incorporating comics-market data and book-market data in their bestseller list. Absolutely, it’s good to monitor their lists to get a sense of how they’re working and how relevant the list may really be. But if there are problems with the list and its underlying methodology, there are plenty of other possible reasons than just that they’re misusing Diamond sell-in figures.

The Dark Tower continues to sell well on BN.com, as does Joker. The list goes up Saturday, is Sunday-Saturday in review, so for many new titles, only Wednesday-Sunday sales are counted. This may explain why the new Naruto volumes aren’t automatic #1 bestsellers.

Many prose bestsellers only last a few weeks on the lists as the fans buy it immediately. Bookstores generally give a title three months to sell before judging sales and returns. Some hardcover titles sell nicely until the trade paperback is issued. Others stink as soon as they are placed on the shelf, and get a 50% discount with the publisher adding extra accounting so the retailer does not take a loss. (General discount range: 40-48%. Some have sliding scales for quantity ordered.)

Anyone have Bookscan numbers for that week? How does the NYT compare to the USA Today 150? And what are the bestsellers at the Beguiling?

In a few years when/if I’m making money and on my way to doing nefarious deeds at the highest levels of government and commerce, I am going to see that you’re paid a full time salary with benefits just so you can write amazing things like this all the time.

Seriously, you do better work than so many industry journalists. I love you.

Now back to cleaning my room.