ARTICLE: a bad summer for the New York Times

[heidi tandy]

No: HPFGUIDX 637

This is for you, Penny : )
I've snipped out some of the paragraphs, but you can read the whole 
thing at http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20000828/en/culture-
newyorktimes_1.html

Times a changin' for bestseller list 

By Jonathan Bing

NEW YORK (Variety) - It's been a bruising summer for the New York 
Times bestseller list, and the old Grey Lady is still reeling.

Once the gold standard of commercial success in the book world, the 
list has been discarded by America's biggest bookstores, all of which 
now use their own lists as determinants of discounting policy and in-
store real estate.

And in separate incidents last week, the long-unchallenged authority 
of the Times list was called into question.

On Aug. 23, the Times reported that AMG/Renaissance literary agent 
Alan Nevins had attempted to influence the list. Nevins channeled 
sales of 18,000 copies of a book by Amway founder Rich DeVos to Amway 
distributors through Los Angeles-area bookstores that report to the 
Times list.

The Times balked at the sales, dismissing them as at best the 
equivalent of a business-to-business buy, and at worst a naked 
attempt to steal some of the magic the list confers on a book.

``The premise of the list is consumer purchases,'' Times surveys 
editor Michael Kagay said. ``Every attempt over the decades to 
manipulate the list seems to have involved bulk sales.''

But cash registers nationwide recently began telegraphing mass orders 
of another book you won't see on the list this month -- the paperback 
edition of ``Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets.''

With 3.2 million copies in print, it's one of the fastest-selling 
books in America; but the Times has no place for it. There's no 
paperback kids list in the paper, and despite lobbying from 
Scholastic, and statistics showing that 43% of Harry Potter readers 
are older than 14, the Times won't track it as an adult paperback.

``The bestseller list should reflect what America is reading,'' said 
Barbara Marcus, head of children's publishing at Scholastic. ``I 
don't understand the decision.''

Publishing insiders are quick to point out that the Times list is 
still the brand to beat -- a brand based on its accurate record of 
consumer sales at bookstores of all shapes and sizes.

``Its prestige is as great if not greater than ever,'' said Random 
House senior VP Stuart Applebaum. ``It's still the definitive list 
for the literate book-minded consumer in this country and probably 
around the world.''

But it's also a work in progress.

The Times broke with tradition this summer and created a hardcover 
kids list.

Times Book Review editor Charles McGrath has disclosed to Daily 
Variety that the list is going to evolve further, and a children's 
paperback list, possibly to rotate with other categories, is 
forthcoming -- so there's still hope for ``Chamber of Secrets.''

In the meantime, the Times list keepers are left to ponder an 
electronic future, long after Harry Potter has relinquished his grip 
on the list. Once book purchases are reported electronically like 
recorded music sales, there'll be no disputing who's king of the hill.