Goodreads Authors/Readers discussion
Bulletin Board
>
How many sales for a "successful" book?
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
Belle
(new)
Feb 23, 2014 11:51AM
I know this is probably subjective but are there any objective standards for what is considered successful? By indy standards or by publisher standards?
reply
|
flag
I've heard that 10 books sold in the first year is a great number.
I think you have to set your own standards and objectives to some extent. If your target audience, however small, likes what you're doing then you have surely succeeded. If you count some experts in your subject in your readership, and they gave you great feedback, then surely you've succeeded? Large unit sales don't necessarily count if those readers go away unhappy. Much of it depends on your genre, and whether you're fiction or non-fiction.
Amanda is that paperback and ebook combined?
"Bestsellers" sell in excess of 5,000 a week.The average indie book sells less than 500 a year.
I think it depends on the genre your book is in, as well as the goals you set for yourself. Some books can sell well over 500 or more a month (that has happened with me). It just depend on the interest of the story and the exposure it get from readers.
Justin wrote: "Amanda is that paperback and ebook combined?"All formats, yes. For most writers true success doesn't come until you've released a few books and built a fan base.
I always wondered how many sales make you successful. And if success is "relative" to what others are selling. Is it the set 500 or 5,000 a week, or if you sell twenty a month and the sample of other authors you've taken only sells 5 in the month are you successful? How do you know? I've been wondering if my sales are good, but I have nothing to compare it to. Perhaps it's just subjective. If you think you're doing well, you are. It certainly isn't based on reading experience or a good story. You don't get "repeat" business on a book, usually. A person buys that book only once. They may recommend it but they don't purchase again (yes, there is the argument that they will gift it or buy your next book.) And everyone has different preferences on what's good and what's not - most all books have 5 stars AND 1 stars. In six months I've surpassed that "Indie author avgerage" four times over, but I can't say that I "feel" successful. "Good" maybe, "happy" for sure.
If you're writing to make money, you might not be financially successful unless you pursue writing in many formats, but I am successful because people read and relate to my writing. I do not get worked up over sales. I get worked up over reviews. That's where I feel successful.
The comments above are probably right in shifting success away from the "objective" and into the "subjective." You are successful when you believe that you are successful. But hedonic adaptation affecting all of us, isn't that a sure way to always imagine that we're not successful? The desire to be published turning into the desire to sell enough to live turning into the desire to sell enough to build a safety net turning into the desire to get on the bestseller list, etc.
Yes "success" is subjective and is whatever goal you wish to define it as. BUT if you are going to label yourself a bestseller author and/or your book as a bestselling novel (which many indies are doing these days) then there are objective measures.
Amazon have changed their browse categories and there are now numerous niche sub-categories. This is great for discoverability. The downside is that now anyone who makes a Top 100 list mistakenly thinks they are a bestseller and starts calling themselves/their book as such.
You might be number 74 on the Viking Alien Unrequited Love Poetry Top 100 with an overall ranking of 456,875 and sold 2 books for the whole yet, however that doesn't make you a best seller.
As previously stated, if you want an objective measure of success or being a bestseller, then aim for Top 100
Overall and sales of around 5,000/week.
I read an article that said NY Bestsellers sometimes sale as few as forty (40) books to make the list. All they have to do is get more scans at the register of a bookstore that's associated with the list than the next guy. Where did the 5,000 number come from anyway? A bestseller in a category IS a bestseller in that category. Certainly the term is not relative. My book has set right next to Stephen King, and Walter Mosley in those "sub categories." Perhaps then, we should set boundaries in this discussion. What is successful for an Indie author exclusive of the measurement of what is successful for a traditionally published author.
Abby wrote: "I read an article that said NY Bestsellers sometimes sale as few as forty (40) books to make the list...."If that were the case the list would be thousands of titles long :) I know people who have made the list with romance books, they need to sell a minimum of 5,000/week and sometimes higher. It is slightly relative and if everyone sells well a particular week then you may need to sell 10,000/week to make the NYT list.
Trad publishers have an advantage in that they can do months of pre-sales, which are all counted at the same time when a book is released. Which is how they can have huge numbers in a matter of days to make the lists.
Being on a sub-genre Top 100 list is not the same as being a best seller. Yes you are selling better than others in the same narrow category but you need to look at sales rank overall.
Everybody is calling themselves a bestseller these days, readers are realising it has lost its meaning. Perhaps we should invent a new category, like "uber seller" for people who actually sell large quantities of books? As opposed to handing out "best seller" stickers to everybody like some form of participation award.
Surviving the Fog-Kathy's Recollections is selling between 40 and 50 books a month. That's success in my world.Compare that to Surviving the Fog (the first book in the series. It's free and is downloaded, on average, 1,500 times a month. That's success too, just not financial success.
its crazy I had no intention on getting my novel onto anyone's best seller's list, if it makes it than all praise to Loving Blake. If it doesn't than it doesn't... My definition of success is determined by my breakeven point. As soon as every dollar put in is made back I'll consider myself a success, but until then I'm just another Indie author at a small publisher, trying to get a small piece of that American Pie.Always Writing & Happy Reading
A.W. wrote: "Abby wrote: "I read an article that said NY Bestsellers sometimes sale as few as forty (40) books to make the list...."If that were the case the list would be thousands of titles long :) I know p..."
Every "bestseller" list has a certain number you have to reach to be included as a "best seller." Although you only have to sell what ever number is required for the week on NY Times' list (if it's a slow week and you are the best seller at 2,000, you are the best seller that week), you only have to do it the one time. You don't have to have that number every week. And so people that accomplish it once should still get that distinction.
Likewise, if on Amazon, in a subcategory, it really doesn't matter, you ARE the best seller (there is intentionally a space between the words) on that bestsellerS' list. I put it on my book. I was a #1 Bestseller on Amazon and that's what I put. My rank was 274. I don't say a NY Times or USA Today best seller. As long as you qualify where you have been a bestseller, there is no reason not to speak on that accomplishment. It's not even logical to say you're not a best seller after you've made the bestseller list in a particular venue because that number wouldn't get you on the bestseller list in another venue. That's like saying your state championship in track and field doesn't really make you a champion in your state if you don't get the national championship. My book is a best seller on Amazon. I've sold 140 a week, and more than 500 a month. In two weeks my second book sold more than 100 copies. (Just on Amazon because on B&N I sold two copies.) I am an Amazon bestselling author. But just to clarify, I also don't have a rank of 470k either. And, I don't consider myself successful because I certainly couldn't live off of what I make.
Nice to see you selling some books there Abby.
Belle wrote: "I know this is probably subjective but are there any objective standards for what is considered successful? By indy standards or by publisher standards?""Success" is a rather subjective measure. The average indie book (small press, self-published, etc.) sells 100 or fewer copies.
Success to me is "I got the damned thing published."
This discussion just confirms why "best seller" is a meaningless label. Saying you are a best seller just because you appear on an Amazon Top 100 list (and there are a large number of them now) is like claiming to be an Olympic medallist because you waved the flag at Sochi...
Abby wrote: "A.W. wrote: "Abby wrote: "I read an article that said NY Bestsellers sometimes sale as few as forty (40) books to make the list...."If that were the case the list would be thousands of titles lon..."
Abby, the problem with being a best seller in a sub-category is that if that category has 20 books in it, and all of them have sold 0, then you only have to sell 1 to be the best seller.
The term can be meaningless when used that way. To be honest, a person should say they were a bestseller in "such and such" category.
If they were in the top rank of Amazon overall, then they're an unqualified bestseller.
