How much time do you think it takes to gain noticeable popularity?

MAP said:

What is your source? I thought this seemed odd, so I went to wikipedia.

Click to expand...

yeah, cause wiki is the font of all reliable knowledge.


here ya go:

original twilight cover www.wondrousreads.com/2009/02/original-uk-twilight-cover.html

the NYT list is not based on sales, but interest, do try not to get the two confused.

and the point I was making was that the books did not enter public consiousness until 2007 when they suddenly seemed to explode. there are lots of books that are 'bestsellers', can you honestly name them all? do you even know what the bestsellers this week are? because I sure as hell don't.

shaldna said:

For instance, Twilight was first published in 2005 and was something of a flop.

..However, the publisher had spent a ridiculous amount of money on it and so a revamp of the cover and a real push in marketing saw it reach the public consciousness around 2007.

Click to expand...

Interesting.

The NYT review in February 2006 has the new cover - was the other cover just a UK one? (It is labelled as 'UK' rather than 'original' in that link)

According to Penguin, it made #5 in the "New York Times Best Seller List for young adult chapter books" within weeks. (Other references are more exact - November 2005, #5 on the New York Times Best Seller List for young adult chapter books)

However the earliest I can find it on the NYT Best seller list is listed under 'Editor's Choice' for February 2006. I haven't figured out the NYT search function, however, so I've probably missed it.

I'm curious what the real answer is.

Mac

Mac H. said:

However the earliest I can find it on the NYT Best seller list is listed under 'Editor's Choice' for February 2006. I haven't figured out the NYT search function, however, so I've probably missed it.

I'm curious what the real answer is.

Mac

Click to expand...

i was the same. i could find no reference to it in 2005.

however, if anyone has a link that shows exact dates that would be great.


also, in this topic i should add harry potter. it was a relatively unknown book and although it had a great word of mouth following it wasn't really until the third book that it really entered public consiouness, and by gob it really exploded.

Birol said:

It takes twenty years to become an overnight success.

Click to expand...

Exactly.

Wise words.

shaldna said:

yeah, cause wiki is the font of all reliable knowledge.


here ya go:

original twilight cover www.wondrousreads.com/2009/02/original-uk-twilight-cover.html

the NYT list is not based on sales, but interest, do try not to get the two confused.

and the point I was making was that the books did not enter public consiousness until 2007 when they suddenly seemed to explode. there are lots of books that are 'bestsellers', can you honestly name them all? do you even know what the bestsellers this week are? because I sure as hell don't.

Click to expand...

The NYT list is based on sales, and on interest, and on a couple of other factors.

khalleron said:

So much baby must be getting thrown out with the bathwater because publishing is out for the blockbuster, not for the good books that will last.

Heavy sigh.

Click to expand...

People who really believe this must never go into bookstores. It's simply not true. It's not even remotely true.

Of course publishers like blockbuster novels. They always have, always will, and should. Such books pay the bills.

But to say they only want bglockbuster novels, or never publish books simply because they like them, or because they think the public would like them, flies in the face of all reaosn and common sense.

Only a tiny fraction of published novels stand a chance of becoming blockbusters, and publishers know it.

But the simple fact is that any lasting book is going to have pretty good sales, even if they don't come all at once. Publishers know this, too, and buy such books whenever they can find them, which is not often.

Publisher do want a book to earn a profit, they always have, but that profit does not have to be huge. Fully ninety percent of the books publishers buy stand no chance of being a blockbuster novel, and aren't bought with the intention of turning the book into one.

shaldna said:

yeah, cause wiki is the font of all reliable knowledge.


here ya go:

original twilight cover www.wondrousreads.com/2009/02/original-uk-twilight-cover.html

the NYT list is not based on sales, but interest, do try not to get the two confused.

and the point I was making was that the books did not enter public consiousness until 2007 when they suddenly seemed to explode. there are lots of books that are 'bestsellers', can you honestly name them all? do you even know what the bestsellers this week are? because I sure as hell don't.

Click to expand...

Wikpedia may not be the best source, but your link does not support your claim. That was the cover for the UK release of Twilight in 2006, not the first print in the US in 2005.

Jamesaritchie said:

People who really believe this must never go into bookstores. It's simply not true. It's not even remotely true.

Of course publishers like blockbuster novels. They always have, always will, and should. Such books pay the bills.

But to say they only want bglockbuster novels, or never publish books simply because they like them, or because they think the public would like them, flies in the face of all reaosn and common sense.

Only a tiny fraction of published novels stand a chance of becoming blockbusters, and publishers know it.

But the simple fact is that any lasting book is going to have pretty good sales, even if they don't come all at once. Publishers know this, too, and buy such books whenever they can find them, which is not often.

Publisher do want a book to earn a profit, they always have, but that profit does not have to be huge. Fully ninety percent of the books publishers buy stand no chance of being a blockbuster novel, and aren't bought with the intention of turning the book into one.

Click to expand...

They don't publish books they *expect* to take a loss on, as Tolkien's publisher did.

"But the simple fact is that any lasting book is going to have pretty good sales, even if they don't come all at once. Publishers know this, too, and buy such books whenever they can find them, which is not often."

I'm not sure what you mean by this - in today's book climate books don't stay on the shelves long enough to build sales. So if sales don't 'come all at once', then they never do.

Which is another reason for going e- . Books never need be pulled from virtual shelves.

Which is good news for the next Tolkien, whomever that might be.

khalleron said:

So much baby must be getting thrown out with the bathwater because publishing is out for the blockbuster, not for the good books that will last.

Heavy sigh.

Click to expand...

I think there are lots of "good books that will last" being published.

Jamesaritchie said:

The NYT list is based on sales, and on interest, and on a couple of other factors.

Click to expand...

It certainly isn't based on solely sales (even if that is the intention)

It is pretty clear that in at least a few examples they are counting books coming IN to certain bookshops as 'sales' even if they aren't sold. (I doubt it is intentional - but if they grab the data electronically from a couple of centres, it would be easy enough to get wrong)

So then it might be an indication of expected sales in some corner cases.

To be honest, I figured shaldna's comments were rubbish originally, but now that I've looked into it a bit it makes a lot of sense.

Despite the fact that lots of official websites claim that the first book reached #5 within a month or two of release, it is looking like it didn't actually happen.

I suspect that the cover was a different issue, but the idea that the 'instant success' side of that book was a marketing beat-up is looking very much like it could be true !

Fascinating.

Mac

MAP said:

Wikpedia may not be the best source, but your link does not support your claim. That was the cover for the UK release of Twilight in 2006, not the first print in the US in 2005.

Click to expand...

was that cover just for the UK?

and it's not about supporting a claim. I said that it didn't enter public consiousness until around 2007. Which is true. This side of the ocean at least. By which stage the book had been around for a couple of years.

It might well have been a bestseller, but so were hundreds of other books that year and the year after and the year after that and even sucessful books can get swept up in the tide and forgotten about in a year or two.

Mac H. said:

Despite the fact that lots of official websites claim that the first book reached #5 within a month or two of release, it is looking like it didn't actually happen.

Click to expand...

Does anyone have a way of finding out? Is there a search function we can use anywhere? I can't find a reference for it, but I may not be looking in the right place.

Polenth said:

You're going to chain yourself to a public monument?

Click to expand...

Tried that. Didn't work. I did it too early in the morning and by the time a crowd gathered I had to pee really bad and everyone thought my twisting and churning was some kind of interpretive dance.

Scoody said:

Tried that. Didn't work. I did it too early in the morning and by the time a crowd gathered I had to pee really bad and everyone thought my twisting and churning was some kind of interpretive dance.

Click to expand...

that could be part of your marketing plan. you coudl chain hundreds of people to public monuments and the last person to go for a bathroom break wins.