The Times has declined to make its methodology publicly available. [Times spokesperson Eileen] Murphy reiterated Monday that the best-seller lists "are based on a detailed analysis each week of book sales from a wide range of retailers who provide us with specific and confidential context for their sales."Here's the Ted Cruz book, "A Time for Truth: Reigniting the Promise of America," in case you want to boost its sales. Amazon ranks it as #15 in Books and #1 in 3 categories: 1. Politics & Government > Specific Topics > Commentary & Opinion, 2. Politics & Social Sciences > Politics & Government > Ideologies & Doctrines > Conservatism & Liberalism, and 3. Biographies & Memoirs > Leaders & Notable People > Political.
"Our system is designed to detect anomalies and patterns that are typical of attempts to manipulate the rankings," Murphy said. "We've been doing this for a long time and we apply our standards consistently, across the board. The goal is to give Times readers our best assessment of what books are broadly popular at any given time."
I've got to say that seems weird, given that Cruz isn't polling that well as a candidate. What's the attraction with this book?
पोस्ट्स
५४ टिप्पण्या:
Perhaps he's doing well with the kind of people who hang up the phone when pollsters call?
Or the kind of young conservatives who buy their books on Amazon but don't have a land line?
I think the Times is making mistake to double down on this. Harpercollins has evidence of malice now and that is enough to make a libel case, I think. Salon is agog with lefties who don't understand the risk the NYT is running. Of course it would be a New York jury, so there is that.
Let's take a walk back through time and look at Hillary's book. Oh... bombed in the second week. Interesting.
NYT is projecting. They know this is how the game is played to push liberal books from Kennedy's 'While England Slept' to present day 'Hard Choices', and so assume the same must be true for Cruz.
"What's the attraction with this book?"
Distinguish between buying the book and reading the book.
Purchase is an up-yours proxy vote agains the NYT and the Prog elite.
Then again, Cruz is the one candidate capable of writing a good book, so it might even be worth reading.
Won't need an Ayers to prettify the fables.
"What's the attraction with this book?"
Maybe the very apparent decline in America and it's values?
"Michael K said...
... Of course it would be a New York jury, so there is that."
Why?
The NYT is sold everywhere. Surely the plaintiff could forum-shop. Perhaps the harm to Ted Cruz is most palpable in Texas, where he runs for office?
Nice article over at powerline. Includes a rather damning insider quote from a former president of Times Books.
Scientific Progressives are becoming amazingly petty in their treatment of the Republican candidates.
Here's another example.
Yesterday my local newspaper, the Bergen County Record, published an article about Sunday's Miss USA contest, a Trump production, and peevishly failed to report which contestant won -- Miss Oklahoma.
What's the attraction with this book?
The title, obviously. Maybe a large fraction of the American population think it's time for a lot of folks to start telling the truth.
Hillary's terrible book had no bulk sales that rocketed it to the top.
Cruz on the other did.
And we know this because the Times says, "Trust us."
So, they won't even say which retailers they are using for this.
Anybody who reads the Times deserves to get ripped off. I still laugh everytime they have to publish their horrible business numbers. The media cannot die fast enough.
"Surely the plaintiff could forum-shop. "
Both are in New York City. I doubt they could move a trial.
He's getting more traction from the "scandal" than he ever would have with just being listed. Advantage: Cruz.
I've got to say that seems weird, given that Cruz isn't polling that well as a candidate.
In this poll, Cruz has 3% of Republicans. Aside from the wildly skewing polls (9% in this one), there are 55 million registered Republicans. 3% is 1.6 million people who really like Ted Cruz. 9% is 4.8 million people who really like Ted Cruz.
What is a best-seller? According to this author, "You can, in fact, make it onto the Times top 15 list by selling only 5,000 hardcover copies in a single week."
Its not a good business model to be seen so openly as a house organ of the DNC. If the next election goes Republican I could see the next Administration basically freezing out the NYT on the grounds that it isn't a newspaper but a party organ.
I said somewhere else on the Internet: What OTHER books have been kept of the Times best seller list due to this alleged practice?
Name some names NYT, and let's see if Amazon and other places agree with them on those too.
My suspicion is that Ted Cruz's book is the first book to hit this specific objection, and if true, would look REALLY bad for the NYT.
It's Canadians. They are excited about the prospect of the first Canadian U.S. President.
Maybe Ted Cruz fans are more likely to read books than the general population. That would be embarrassing for the NYT.....
Also, did he advertise the book on Rush or Fox News? There are a lot of old,retired guys who read who would buy just based on that.
Its not a good business model to be seen so openly as a house organ of the DNC.
It's a great business model to be seen as the voice of the socially progressive and the politically left. There are an awful lot of them, they have a substantial amount of money and influence, and they like to be told how good they are--or at least how much better they are than whoever the editorial page is slamming this week.
"There are an awful lot of them, they have a substantial amount of money and influence, and they like to be told how good they are--or at least how much better they are than whoever the editorial page is slamming this week."
-- And you don't risk the Chick-Fil-A or the Mozilla Firefox risk of having a lot of angry people suddenly turn on you. If you have to be political, and are a business, it is in your class interests to support the side that will otherwise make your life miserable and try and drive you from the public square, rather than to support the side that doesn't care if you succeed or fail, at the grass roots level.
EDITED for clarity
So what methodology was the Times using to support their idea that the Cruz book was boosted by bulk sales? And did they use this same methodology to downgrade other politcians' books?
Roger Sweeny said...
Its not a good business model to be seen so openly as a house organ of the DNC.
It's a great business model to be seen as the voice of the socially progressive and the politically left. There are an awful lot of them, they have a substantial amount of money and influence, and they like to be told how good they are--or at least how much better they are than whoever the editorial page is slamming this week.
7/14/15, 9:45 AM
Is it, really? The business of business is business and that means making money. Something the NYT hasn't been able to do for quite a few years. On average over the last ten years their bottom line has been redder than the party organ itself. Its become a vanity press of the socially progressive and depended on a benefactor like Carlos Slim to survive.
The ghost of Pauline Kael glides through the halls....
What's the attraction with this book?
It could be a way of people endorsing him anonymously.
cubanbob said...
Roger Sweeny said...
Its not a good business model to be seen so openly as a house organ of the DNC.
It's a great business model to be seen as the voice of the socially progressive and the politically left. There are an awful lot of them, they have a substantial amount of money and influence, and they like to be told how good they are--or at least how much better they are than whoever the editorial page is slamming this week.
7/14/15, 9:45 AM
Is it, really? The business of business is business and that means making money. Something the NYT hasn't been able to do for quite a few years.
There is a classic business article from 1960 titled Marketing Myopia that asked business leaders, "What business are you in?" It discussed how the railroad industry was declining at the same time that total transportation was increasing. The railroad industry was ran by people who saw themselves as "Railroad Men." They thought they were in the railroad business. Had they realized they were actually in the transportation business, they could've made better investments in the broader transportation industry (shipping, barges, trucks, etc.) and thrived. Instead, they focused solely on the railroad industry and declined.
The legacy news media has its "News Men" or "Newspaper Men". Quite likely, the people who run the NYT see themselves this way, but they also act as if they're "Liberal Newspaper Men". Newspapers themselves are a declining business due in large part to the Internet, and when you actively alienate about half of the potential market, you're going to decline even faster. They should realize that they're in the information business and that their market includes (or could include) Republicans. Instead, they suck up to Democrats in general and liberals in particular, only to wonder why their revenues are declining. It's said that Fox News was established to service a niche market - half the country - that wasn't being serviced by the existing media outlets. That's why they're hated so much - they're showing that another perspective is possible.
Expect to see Cruz's poll numbers go up when people actually start paying attention to the race. Right now, the polls are mostly name-recognition.
A way of endorsing Cruz anonymously, and not risking a social indictment.
@Larry J, great comment. Roger might be right in the sense that the NYT sees the handwriting on the wall and is repositioning itself as a boutique political shop for the progressives who want to feel good about themselves and validate their thinking. Definitely niche marketing. Whether or not it will be viable without a patron to keep pouring money in to it remains to be seen. The same can be said about the WaPo.
A question unasked is what happens to the NYT and The WaPo when power switches in DC and none of the new players pays them any attention?
Cue Mick and more Usurper talk in 5, 4, 3 . . .
cubanbob said...
A question unasked is what happens to the NYT and The WaPo when power switches in DC and none of the new players pays them any attention?
7/14/15, 11:19 AM
Sorry, won't happen. senior GOP would "just die!" if they were not invited to all of the right dinner parties! Not that that would happen either way but if they actually snubbed those rags instead of kissing there asses, they KNOW they would not even be considered for an invitation!
THe GOP is TRULY clueless.
If they were smart, any/all GOP debates would only be held on FOX and the candidates would vote on who would moderates. WaPo and NYT should be frozen out immediately for past crimes and force them to earn their way back in through honest/fair reporting (meaning never).
Cruz is easily the smart ideologue of the bunch, so it's easy to understand that his fans would be the most likely to read the book.
He's on the top three list of millions of folks, so that should be enough to sell quite a few books. This year there are a lot of people who like Cruz and Walker, are OK with Perry, and don't mind Carson or Jindal. Polls (like elections) force them to choose one, but certainly understates the popularity of a few of these guys.
Sounds like the NY Times incorporates some kind of bookstore Nielson rating system for measuring sales, but that the range of bookstores misses out on the ones selling Cruz's book. I can see how the NY Times is afraid of rich authors with an agenda gaming the system. But unless Cruz falls by the wayside in the race I think the Times will end up having to open the kimono on this.
readering said...
Sounds like the NY Times incorporates some kind of bookstore Nielson rating system for measuring sales, but that the range of bookstores misses out on the ones selling Cruz's book. I can see how the NY Times is afraid of rich authors with an agenda gaming the system. But unless Cruz falls by the wayside in the race I think the Times will end up having to open the kimono on this.
7/14/15, 11:42 AM
To be very, very charitable to the NYT it sounds like the NYT gets it's data from a very select group of bookstores in the most fashionable parts of the city where a Republican is rarely seen.
@Todd, you are right the senior GOP is brain dead. 2016 is a pivotal election for the GOP as a party. If the nominee is a moderate and loses an election that ought to be an almost sure win the party will fracture and like the Democrats going to the left the Republicans will go to the right. Winning to win and simply being better at administrating the Democrat's programs is no longer good enough for the Republican Party base. As for the debates, you do have a point and possibly even the dimmest and most cowardly of the senior GOP must have registered the transparent shilling of the other networks in 2012.
cubanbob said...
A question unasked is what happens to the NYT and The WaPo when power switches in DC and none of the new players pays them any attention?
For that to happen, Republicans would have to show some balls. I see little evidence of that happening anytime soon. There was a glimmer of what is possible during the Bush '43 administration. For some reason, for a long time whenever a president gave a press conference, the first question always went to Helen Thomas. She was a nasty partisan piece of work. Bush '43 stopped calling on her. There was a brief uproar about it but he didn't back down. Soon, she was gone from the White House press corps.
If Republicans stand firm and not allow Democrat operatives with bylines (as the InstaPundit calls them) to run their debates next year, that will be a good sign. If the candidates refuse to suck up to reporters who clearly hate them, that will also be a good sign. Cut them off and starve the beast. Go directly to the populace via the Internet and further starve the beast.
I just got my copy of the book yesterday(from Amazon). My son sent me the Politico article that I believe was one of the chapters of the book. Very entertaining and interesting. And when I read about the NYT kerfuffle, I decided to order the book.
I may or may not vote for Ted Cruz, but I'm happy to spend a few bucks to put a stick in the eye of the NYT.
I believe the NYTwits' rationale is, "Hillary did it so Cruz MUST have. He's just GOTTA!"
Just like pedophiles insist everybody secretly wants to diddle children, proglodytes need to project their own moral, ethical and material corruption onto others.
Ugh, more analysis of NY Times articles. Althouse (and Meade) were at their finest when they dug into issues, the zenith, of course, being the Walker fights in Madison. That still remains some of the best reporting ever!
Sitting around interpolating NY Times articles? Meh, not so much.
The NY Times is liberal organ, and doesn't like Ted Cruz, so they found a way to not promote his best-selling book. What a surprise.
That Crux doesn't understand the irony in his title (as if truth was only called for at certain, dire times) is hilarious.
That his supporters don't see it is even funnier.
And what time do YOU think it is R&B? A time for more mush mouthed hipster douchebaggery? If you like your doctor, you can keep him?
My local daily paper is the Los Angeles Times. I've been a subscriber to the local daily paper wherever I live for my adult life. That means I've been a Los Angeles Times subscriber for a bit over 40 years now. The LAT got itself all "progressived up" around 1980--and ceased to be a serious newspaper sometime between 1992--cheerleading for Billy Jeff, and 2000 "hatin' on Dubya".
In its glory days--roughly 1945 to 1980, the Los Angeles Times had so much advertising that their reporters and editors fell into some very bad habits. You had to have at least some "news" on pages that were 75% to 90% full of advertisements. So the Times editors threw away their blue pencils and let their reporters run on forever. You might have to "jump" to three, four, or even five pages to complete a single story. The New York Times editors were ideologues, but they made their reporters be economical of space to complete a story. You could read the New York Times in less than half a hour. Reading a complete LA Times daily paper might take three hours.
Came the Internet around 1990 and the advertisers went away. The quality of the reporting and writing was so bad that the subscribers went away. Editors and reporters were "downsized" and dropped off the staff like a deciduous tree shedding its leaves in November. Even the long time liberal grandees of the reporting and editorial staffs got the axe. With an unerring instinct for disaster, the LA Times managed to keep the worst of the lot.
Old habits die hard: I like my daily paper, although the only thing worth reading in it is the sports pages and even that is a pale imitation of what it was.
Every now and then for fun, I call the subscription department and threaten to cancel. They respond with offers of greatly reduced subscription rates. They haven't yet actually offered to pay me to allow the paper to be delivered to my house, but they're getting close. And in all equity they should pay me to allow that "progressive" fish wrapper through my front door.
@skeptical voter: the business of newspapers is advertising. The rates depend on circulation. The actual cost of producing and selling a newspaper is not covered by the sales price. There are quite a few local papers that are entirely "free." So it's possible that at some point the LA Times will be "free" to you just so that their salespeople will be able to tell their advertisers that their ads will be seem by "X" million readers.
That, by the way, is why newspapers hate the internet. They made fortunes off of want-ads that people used to sell cars and other household items that they no longer wanted. Now they can be put on the internet for no charge.
And what time do YOU think it is R&B? A time for more mush mouthed hipster douchebaggery? If you like your doctor, you can keep him?
It is a time for running and screaming and lighting one's hair on fire and yelling "We're all gonna daaaaaiiiiiiieeeeeeeee!!!!1!"
Well Moneyrunner, the quality of the Los Angeles Times is fast approaching that of the local "Pennysaver" available free outside supermarkets.
But lets get back to Ted Cruz and his book and the "strategic bulk purchases"--you know the kind of purchases that Hillary's organization made in an effort to keep her ghostwritten tome off the remainder table.
I'm always willing to stick it to the New York Times and anybody associated with them. Well "stick it" and Maureen Dowd bring unpleasant images to mind, so I won't go there.
That said, I went on to Amazon today to see if I could buy a copy of Ted Cruz's book. I'm an Amazon Prime member (amazing how useful that membership is) and I can usually get anything Amazon has in two days or less. Well an Amazon Prime purchase of Ted Cruz's book "usually ships in thee to four weeks".
What does that tell me? The demand far outstrips the supply. I think that the NYT has once again soiled its editorial diaper.
I'm not tried to buy Harper Lee's new book "Go Set A Watchman" released today, but I'm betting that I could get a copy of it from Amazon in a lot less than three weeks.
R&B's: "It is a time for running and screaming and lighting one's hair on fire and yelling "We're all gonna daaaaaiiiiiiieeeeeeeee!!!!1!"
From the gang that gave us "elimination rhetoric".
You have to remember that even if Cruz is not polling well at the moment, he may still be the 2nd, 3rd or 4th choice of many people who have another favorite they give to pollsters.
What's the attraction? Same as the attraction for Kanye West and Amy Schumer. Outrageousness sells.
I don't have a problem with the NYT or any bestseller list ignoring bulk purchases in cases where a political organization may be buying the books just to give them away or a publisher may repurchase books just to boost the book's place on the bestseller list and get attention and more sales down the road. The question here is does the NYT apply its criteria evenly? Did they do the same with Hillary's awful books?
Brando said...
The question here is does the NYT apply its criteria evenly? Did they do the same with Hillary's awful books?
7/15/15, 6:38 AM
No and no. Next question...
P.S. As the NSA records all communications (in all forms), your comments concerning the next (preordained) President's literary contribution has been duly noted. Re-education camp for you (if you are lucky)! Oh, and the IRS is already getting the colonoscopy scope greased up...
Brando said...
The question here is does the NYT apply its criteria evenly? Did they do the same with Hillary's awful books?
To ask those questions is to answer them. You know the answers and so do I.
The question here is does the NYT apply its criteria evenly? Did they do the same with Hillary's awful books?
Hard Choices made the NY Times Best Seller list.
So no.
I have read the New York Times through every election cycle for 48 years. This time is hands down the earliest in any cycle they have begun the DNC sycophant ass liplock. From Rubio DMV tickets to every single headline about any Republican having a negative or "concerned" slant; from every Hilary article, even those considered "negative" by liberals, still ending the last 3 paragraphs of every article with a positive or reassuring quote to the complete opposite for every single article about the Republicans; from every single Hilary proposal being endorsed in an unsigned NYT editorial . . .
The slow but assured destruction and failure of the New York Times respectability will be one of the single greatest boons to American democracy.
Did you notice that the NYT gave up this week, and put Cruz on the Bestseller list?
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा