Mkting Study & Adult Purchases of HP

[plinsenmayer]

Original Yahoo! HPFG Header:
No: HPFGUIDX C7650
From: plinsenmayer
Subject: Re: Mkting Study & Adult Purchases of HP
Reply To: [Yahoo! #7642] Re: Mkting Study & Adult Purchases of HP
Date: 8/23/00 4:42 pm  (ET)

Hi:

<<<No he doesn't. HE knows perfectly well that vast numbers of these books
are being purchased and read by adults. He just doesn't care, and thus
has to lie/misinform the public in order to justify the Times response.>>>

That's true enough. He has his own motivations obviously for keeping
the HP books from dominating the list -- some of which you elaborated.

<<<Its a combination of two things. 1) the other publishers are probably
exerting pressure on the Times (and I suspect this can happen.) 2) The
Times is frustrated and annoyed that HP is such a bestseller because
it's not standard "novel" material and has been on the list for SO LONG
and thus no other book gets there. Never mind that the numbers justify
its places on the list. We can't allow it to stay.>>>

I think the biggest reason for their actions is pressure from other
publishers. But, other books (even "childrens' books") have occupied
lengthy stays on the list. "Oh the Places You'll Go" by Dr. Seuss comes
to mind. I think they are worried that HP would occupy the top spots
perpetually until 2004 or so. Big deal. That's fair market competition.

<<<Before this started I really trusted the Times on the NY Times Best
Seller list. I thought it was simply that, the best seller list. Now
I understand that its a "best selling books list that we think are
appropriate to consider books as long as no one stays too long or is
not what we want it to be.">>>

That's my position exactly. The reason I picked up the HP books in the
first place was *because* of their long-standing run on the NY Times
Bestseller List. I can say that unless they reverse this decision,
I will *never* read that list again. I'll stick with USA Today or the
Wall Street Journal or amazon from now on.

<<<This is probably similar to your rants on the subject, but I'm very
disappointed with the NY Times and their open obvious machinations whose
sole purpose is to get HP off the Times list and to keep him off.>>>

I'm pretty much like Hermione & the SPEW campaign with this issue. <g>

<<<Too bad Scholastic can't charge them with discrimination, but I
don't think age discrimination would stretch to fit and a place on the
NY Times list isn't protected under the 14th Amendment. Actually, even
if it was legally discrimination, I doubt Scholastic would actually take
it to court. It would be an interesting case though.>>>

Where's rainy_lilac (Suzanne)??? She had a rather lengthy discussion
with the Scholastic lawyers about the Stouffer lawsuit. I might consider
calling them myself on this matter. I think McGrath goofed in a big
way with his comment that the HP books were a "special case" (i.e.,
not subject to the same rules as all other books). Suzanne --- do you
remember who you spoke to in the legal dept -- I know you thought he was
quite friendly & helpful. I think this is insane & Scholastic *should*
call them on it.

Penny