Quantcast

Rupert Murdoch (!) in Denial — #journalism # newspapers $NEWS $NYTIMES

Scary when even a plesiosaur as deadly and unblinking as Rupert Murdoch can’t bring himself to accept the implications of  his own premises.

“Nobody is making money with free content on the web except search,” said Murdoch, noting the trend is particularly worrisome in the newspaper publishing, where News Corp. owns a variety of assets. “People are used to reading everything on the net for free, and that’s going to have to change.”

[ no, it's not ...]

…”Should we be allowing Google to steal all our copyrights? If you have a brand like The New York Times or The Wall Street Journal, you don’t have to,” said Murdoch. “You can say thanks but no thanks.”

[ no, you can't ...]

via Article – WSJ.com.

Amazing images of Beijing Hotel Fire

From The New York Times (l) and Shanghai Daily (r).

Understanding Your Amazon sales rank

I just came across the following online comments from a multiple New York Times-bestselling author, one of the authors I respect and enjoy most in all the world:

Ah, Amazon sales rankings.  What do these numbers — changing every hour
in their hypnotic fashion that drives authors mad — really mean?

Here’s the skinny:

Ranking above 10,000 — essentially meaningless.  At that point, the
books are in order by ISBN or alphabetically or something.  Don’t even look.

8k – 10 k — your title is selling one or two units a month, maybe.

4k – 7k — your title is selling one or two units a week.  Nationwide.

2 – 4 k — OK, maybe a little better than that.

Ranking below 1000 — Now, at 3 figures, we’re getting into “selling
briskly for its genre” territory.

Below 100 — Pay dirt at last.  A book pretty much has to attain and
sustain rankings at two figures to crack any of the bestseller lists; to
crack the big lists like the NYTimes, the title needs to hold well below 50.

The key thing about her comments is that the numbers are completely wrong.


It’s amazing, and depressing, that someone who should be extremely well informed by her publisher, is operating in a near complete informatoin vacuum. I try to give my authors a hell of a lot more transparency than that.

I am a publisher with more than 75 books in print (all POD, so 90% of my business is via Amazon) and I watch the sales ranks v. my inventory closely.

The real numbers are more like this. When a title hits

80,000 that means 1 sale today (within the last couple of hours)
40,000 = 2 sales today
20,000 = 4 sales today
10,000 = 8 sales today
and so on.

It’s a logarithmic function, so as sales rank decreases, unit sales rise exponentially. For a great explanation, see http://www.fonerbooks.com/surfing.html, and for the goriest possible details, see http://www.nimblebooks.com/wordpress/2006/06/power-law-converting-amazon-sales-ranks-to-units-sold/.

The trick is that the sales rank “decays” as soon as you sell a book, so if it’s down around 500,000 that means you haven’t sold a book for a week or so. 1,000,000 means you’re probably doing 1 or 2 a month. Whenever it bounces back up to around 80,000, that means a sale within the last hour or two.

You can follow all your titles (24 x 7, compulsively ;-) ) using free services www.salesrankexpress.com or titlez.com. After you watch them bounce up and down for a while, you’ll get a feeling for what’s happening.

Quaddafi replacing William Kristol

Times change, sometimes very oddly. I was surprised to see Op-Ed Contributor: MUAMMAR QADDAFI on the front page of The New York Times, arguing for a one-state solution. And I agree with him!

There are more than one million Muslim Arabs in Israel; they possess Israeli nationality and take part in political life with the Jews, forming political parties. On the other side, there are Israeli settlements in the West Bank. Israeli factories depend on Palestinian labor, and goods and services are exchanged. This successful assimilation can be a model for Isratine.

via Op-Ed Contributor – The One-State Solution – NYTimes.com.