Ebook pricing & ratings fixes

[elf]

The Shatzkin files has a post about Data helps us understand ebook pricing impacts, with lots of chewy thoughts about how pricing & popularity get tangled together; Shatkzin's opinion is that $.99 books and $19.99 books shouldn't be listed together because they're aimed at such different markets there's no point. "Comparing apples to broccoli," he calls it.

And he posts a link to Dan Lubart's blog which has a nifty factoid worth noticing. His ebook had reached #1 on the charts for its sub-category at Barnes & Noble--and then the next day, it was at #127. This was unheard-of. B&N doesn't have Amazon's activity numbers that can reorganize the whole chart in a matter of hours, and their numbers just aren't that responsive to user activity. (Amazon's rankings go up by page counts & sample downloads. Dunno about B&N.) Anyway, after some digging, he noticed a trend:

# of titles below $3 - ranks 1 - 125: 0
# of titles below $3 - ranks 126 - 200: 65

Barnes & Noble seems to have declared that ebooks that cost less than $3 can't be in the top 125, no matter how well-loved they are. Those ranks are reserved for more expensive books.

So far, this is speculation; there's no proof, just the flat numbers that currently, the top 125 ebooks at B&N all cost at least $3--one day after one of them held the top spot.

Comments

[adair]

I think I might like the B&N way of listing best sellers. I don't want most of the ebooks that are priced very low - I have no objection to paying 2.99 or less, but most of the books at that price are genres that don't interest me. I don't necessarily look for best sellers, but I don't read romances, and a lot of them appear on the lists; a list that more or less excludes romances might show me a title I might want to read.

I think ways of getting ebooks to the notice of possible readers has a long way to develop. Price is not usually a major factor for me in ebook choice, although it might make a difference in the choice of format. Ebooks don't have to be dirt cheap but they should not be the same price as the new hardcover version - I've been seeing that a lot lately.

[elf]

Shatzkin likes it; I'm not as fond of the idea, but that could just be my objections to the term "bestseller" meaning something other than "the books that are the most popular." I can cope with adding page hits & sample downloads to affect the rankings; I'm less happy about arbitrarily removing whole categories because someone doesn't like them cluttering up the list.

However, I could certainly understand an "over $3" and "$3-and-under" list. Or a list based on total *dollar value* sold, rather than number of copies. (I don't think they did that here, if 65 of the 75 rankings between 125 and 200 were under $3.)

I think the digital slushpile is the next big issue that needs tackling. (That, or textbooks, but I really think the slushpile is easier.)

[jumpuphigh]

I see that as cheating. If they want to have two bestseller lists, an over $3 and an under $3, I would be fine with that but otherwise, their rankings are dishonest. I already don't trust Amazon. I don't want to add B&N to the list.

[willidan]

I wish I could say I was surprised at this.

True, there's no proof, except our skepticism and the number on the page. I'd be willing to give B&N the benefit of the doubt if I trusted them in the slightest.

[yourlibrarian]

Agreed. I see no problem in separating lists, though as more authors self-publish and as more small presses experiment with price changes, these lists are likely to be rather arbitrary as titles move back and forth. However, a "best seller" list is a best seller list -- and the way the NY Times has always jiggered that phrase was bad enough.