jameswharris

The Implications of Amazon’s Author Rank Page

Amazon has a beta program for ranking book sales by author that is somewhat controversial, at least with some writers, according to the LA Times.

Amazon says the rankings are based on all books sold by an author updated hourly . I assume it’s total sales for the previous hour, and not total cumulative sales. This is a new, never before seen, way to look at book sales I think.

Before the Internet, the premier best seller list for books was the New York Times Best Sellers list. If a you got on it, you were made as a writer. Now there are zillions of best seller lists, but probably the most important one is Amazon.com sales ranking for all books. Amazon is such a powerhouse at selling books that their sales rankings are a national poll showing the reading interests of the American public.

Amazon is now taking the book buying pulse of Americans based on an author’s sales hourly. That’s kind of cool.

However, Amazon isn’t the be-all-end-all of bookselling, as John Scalzi so carefully points out.

Among my online book club friends, they commonly complain that Amazon’s new Author Rank list doesn’t reflect 1) quality of writing, 2) their favorite writers or 3) the best authors according to whoever. But was that ever the point of best seller lists?

I think we need to take the Amazon Author Rank pages with several grains of salt. Let’s assume they don’t reflect true U.S. sales, writing quality or best of anything. Let’s just assume it’s a Gallup Poll for what readers are buying every hour of the day, what do the various Author Rankings tell us? In polling, the quality of the poll depends on the sample size, and Amazon’s sale figures are a huge sample size.

The fact the E. L. James is the #1 best selling author at Amazon (her books 4, 5, 6 on the current NY Times combined list), and Sylvia Day is #2 (#1 on NY Times) is very revealing. It bugs me that people criticizes Amazon’s Author Ranking system as a huge failure because they hate E. L. James for whatever reason, but usually because they think she’s a bad writer. Big fucking not the deal. Talk about not seeing the forest for the trees. Americans are gobbling up James’ erotic novels like there’s no tomorrow, so what does that mean?

We’ve long heard the truism – sex sells – and boy is this proof. I just finished a book Mrs. Robinson’s Disgrace, about sexual repressed Victorian English society of 1858, but the success of E. J. James makes me wonder if we’re not just as repressed 154 years later? I know I’m going to be shot down for being sexist, but are the huge sales of erotic and romance novels bought by women telling us something about women in general that’s not being reported in the news and literature. In another 154 years will future writers explain all the clues were there in our times about some huge gender issue we’re not recognizing now?

Romance, mystery, fantasy writers dominate the main Amazon Author Ranking. Men read these genres, but I think the general impression is these kinds of books mostly appeal to women. I’m not saying writers on the list don’t appeal to men (how many women read Andrew Peterson) but one impression from studying the list over the past couple days is books women readers love dominate book sales. I know this is unscientific, but study the list and tell me what you think. And I think I’ve read more than once that women really do buy more books than men.

My favorite genres writers are pretty much a no-show on the overall author rank list. I love science and science fiction. And please don’t point to all the fantasy books and say science fiction is well represented. The Amazon Author Rankings change hourly, so it’s hard to generalize about what it reveals. Philip K. Dick started out at #18 when the LA Times wrote it’s piece. He was #50 yesterday and #84 this morning, and #93 right now as I write this. Two days ago Amazon had a ebook sale on several PKD’s ebooks for $1.99 each. I’m pretty sure that got him on the list.

See, the rankings aren’t about writing quality but so many other factors. It’s very revealing about how to sell books. Here are some other factors I see contributing from watching the Author Rankings.

Movies sell books (Argo, Perks of Being a Wallflower, and Cloud Atlas authors are on this list because of them)
Writing a popular book series that stay in print (many example)
Being a very popular writer with many books in print (Stephen King and Nora Roberts)
Writing a current bestseller (Bill O’Reilly and Martin Dugard’s Killing Kennedy)
Writing something sexy (E. L. James, Sylvia Day, Gillian Flynn)
Being a mega best selling writer with a new book (J. K. Rowling)
Winning the Nobel Prize in Literature (Mo Yan)
Having a TV series on HBO (George R. R. Martin, Charlaine Harris)
Being a fictional writer on TV (Richard Castle)
Writing about heaven (M. D. Eben Alexander III, Todd & Colton Burpo, Mary C. Neal)
Amazon puts your books on sale (Philip K. Dick)
You’re an innovative self-publisher (Hugh Howey)

But that doesn’t explain all. How come Octavia Butler, who died several years ago, come in at #20 on the Author Rankings at this moment? And she is #1 on the Science Fiction author rankings. Butler was a ground breaking African-American science fiction writer whose reputation is still growing. Are enough kids being assigned to read her books in school a possible consideration for her being on the list at the moment? I don’t know, but I would like to know.

That’s the thing about studying the Author Rankings. I want to know why these authors are popular at given given moment. Some writers are just perennial best sellers with a huge backlist of books that are constantly selling. I have never heard of Debbie Macomber (#28) in my life, but I’ve discovered from the Author Ranking list she’s sold more than a 100 million books and been on the New York Times Best Seller list 55 times. I have to ask myself if I’m missing out by never having read one of her books.

I love the idea of sub-cultures, and I think every genre and sub-genre, appeal to different sub-cultures of American readers. Reading the Amazon Author Rankings makes me want to try new authors and genres out just to see what I’m missing.

The main page for Amazon Author Rank Beta is for all books. But you can drill down into Kindle and Books, and then pick a one of these sub-headings:

Biographies & Memoirs
Business & Investing
Health, Fitness & Dieting
History
Literature & Fiction
Mystery, Thriller & Suspense
Religion & Spirituality
Romance
Science Fiction & Fantasy
Self-Help
Teens

Where’s Science, Math & Technology? Or Non-fiction? Some categories have sub-categories, like Science Fiction & Fantasy are broken into two separate categories. But they aren’t accurate. I don’t consider The Game of Thrones series by George R. R. Martin to be science fiction. But the advantages of having sub-groups, and even sub-sub-groups is to reveal the popularity of more authors. The Science Fiction category under Science Fiction & Fantasy shows the continual success of such classic SF writers as Asimov #23, Heinlein #29, Niven #41, Herbert #45, Clarke #83. It’s great these old writers still appeal to new readers – but it also shows a long list of emerging new writers. Because of playing with the author rankings, I bought The Complete Atopia Chronicles by Matthew Mather, a writer I’ve never heard of before. And I shall return to try out more new writers when I finish reading it.

If I was a budding young author I’d be sorely tempted to start writing a genre series based on a continuing character, even though I strongly dislike reading such books. If your goal is to make money, this technique seems to boost your chances for success. It must also mean that bookworms love series and continuing characters.

I wish Amazon would expand the lists beyond 100 slots. I’d love to see the Top 1,000 authors or titles in Amazon’s listings, but for most people that would be too many. However, if they just expanded it to the Top 200 so many more writers would get noticed. Adding 100 more slots would make a tremendous difference.

To see what I mean, look at Sci-Fi Lists Top Sci-Fi Books. Then look at the Next 100 List. If you are familiar with the classic books of science fiction, you’ll see why expanding the list to 200 entries is so important.

The more I play with Amazon’s Author Rank page, the more fun I have with it. But then I’ve always been fond of lists.

JWH – 10/14/12

Why Does Hulu Plus Show Commercials?

I used regular Hulu.com off and on for over a year before subscribing to Hulu Plus. I was used to the commercials and accepted them. I don’t expect to get anything for free. However, when I started paying $7.99 a month I assumed the commercials would disappear. That didn’t happen. Why? Here’s what they wrote at the Hulu site:

“We include advertisements in Hulu Plus in order to reduce the monthly subscription price of the service. Premium content — especially from the current TV season — is not only expensive to make and license, but we also want to compensate our content partners fairly for the valuable entertainment they provide.”

I imagined that Hulu Plus would be like a premium cable channel and be commercial free. That’s turned out to be a false assumption on my part. But is my assumption that ads are natural for free content, but paid content should be ad free not valid? I’m watching the same shows, so why am I paying $7.99 a month? What am I getting that makes the plus in Hulu Plus?

To get the free Hulu I have to watch it through a computer. Until my HTPC died, I had a computer to watch web content on my big screen TV. I also used this computer to record shows. It was like a home built DVR. Until I replace it, I’ll have to reply on a Roku box to see web content on TV, but the Roku doesn’t offer free Hulu, just Hulu Plus. So essentially I’m paying $7.99 to stream through the Roku.

I had assumed and hoped when I sprang for Hulu Plus the commercials would go away. Boy was I wrong. Now that I’m using Hulu more, the commercials stand out. They are getting annoying, especially since they seem to show the same ones over and over.

I love streaming Netflix because a hour TV show is only about 42 minutes. On Hulu Plus they aren’t back to a full hour, but I’m losing sleep because I’m staying up later every night because of the commercials. Commercials that I hate to watch.

Hulu Plus is a marginal service for me. I gave up cable years ago. I love watching TV shows on DVD and Netflix streaming, but if I want to watch anything current I have to watch it live over broadcast TV, pay Amazon $1.99-2.99 an episode, or get it from Hulu Plus. So my $7.99 pays for a five week window to watch current shows. If I miss Revolution on Monday nights at 9pm, I can still watch it for five weeks. I can do it for free on the computer and pay for my supper by watching commercials.

Or I can pay $7.99 a month, AND WATCH COMMERCIALS, if I want to use my Roku box connected to my TV. I won’t shout that’s unfair, because that’s how Hulu plays the game. I’ve just got decide if I want to pay twice for the convenience.

It is true Hulu Plus has more shows, and for some shows, complete runs instead of the most most recent five episodes.

I’ve read that Hulu Plus streams at 720p instead of 480p, and that is indeed worth some money.

This still doesn’t answer why Hulu Plus, a premium service, has commercials. That bugs me.

I’ll use it for a month or two, and see if I get addicted to it, but I tend to think I’m going to cancel my subscription. I really hate paying for commercials.

Hulu Plus should be free if we have to watch commercials. It’s only delayed broadcast TV, and unlike DVR TV shows, we can’t skip over the commercials.

JWH – 10/9/12

The Circle of Life–Coming Back to Where We Started

My sister Becky once remarked that we started off life living pretty much in one room, and then we spread into several rooms as we become toddlers, and then out of the house as we become kids, then off to school to find our group friends, and slowly we travel further and further from home, making more and more friends, but then as we get older, we travel less, and we start having fewer friends, and then we start staying in our house all the time, and finally we end up in one room again.

If you live long enough you end up back in a crib with people changing your diapers.

My friend Peggy has started hanging out with other people in their sixties, at a dance club that’s a lot like a high school hangout. Her friends have created a new subculture around old tunes and dances they learned in their teens.

Many older people I know have begun reconnecting with childhood friends and schoolmates through Facebook. We have an urge to return to friendship groups like we had in K-12.

Nostalgia means returning home. I’ve reached an age when my peers look backwards.

I’ve also noticed something else about getting older – people want less from life. Back in high school and college we all had such big ambitions about what we wanted to do when we grew up. Now we want less and less. We want to retire. We often return to the hobbies we loved while growing up.

I’m reading books and watching television with the same passion I had in junior high. And my passion for new music is much like I felt for music in the 1960s. I listen to it alone in my room just like I did in 1965, and find the same immense pleasure I once did. Somehow I didn’t pass back through the phase of listening in groups of friends getting stoned.

I do feel somewhat different from other friends my own age – I like new music, and they dwell on the oldies, or stuff that sounds like it could have been on the charts in 1961-1969. I know this will sound sacrilegious, but listening to The Killers at the moment is more meaningful than replaying The Buffalo Springfield. I don’t think none of us are the same, or can become who we were, but so many of us are swimming towards the past like lemmings.

My older friends divide into two distinct groups: those with children and those without. The ones with children and grand children follow a different circle of life than those childless. When I talk to friends with children, our conversations often remind me of talking to my parents and grandparents. Talking to my friends without kids, often feels like we’re still back in tenth grade.

My wife Susan, and some of my other lady friends have gotten into watching TV shows from the 1950s and 1960s again. I think we all are drawn to different aspects of the past we loved so dearly. Or does watching old shows just recreate old feelings?

In my book clubs, we often talk about our favorite books, movies and TV shows from childhood. All of us Baby boomers have commonality even though we’re all extremely different. We will relive the 1960s one day at a time, each a 50th anniversary.

And getting old means becoming weak again like a child. I can no longer lift and do things I once did. Eventually we’ll get too old to drive, and finally we’ll get too old to even take care of ourselves. Dementia and Alzheimer’s is like evolving mentally backwards.

Even sex seems to diminish, like we’re returning to a kind of re-virginal state.

It’s also hard to befriend people in a different part of the circle of life. When we’re kids we play with other kids, when we’re teens, we hang out in gangs of teenagers, when we move away from home, we hang out with other single people, when we get married we hang out with other married people, when we have kids, we hang out with other people with kids.

I’m not old yet, but I already feel the urge to fly south to live in a 55 Plus community.

Should I fight this urge? Or should I just go with the flow? Do I have a choice?

If you’re around my age, 60, are you feeling this too?

JWH – 10/8/12

Climate Change Observations #1

Here’s a week’s reading about climate change happening now.

I have Google Alerts configured to send me links to anything published about “climate change” every day. Often the daily update links to climate change deniers, or just to articles about climate change in general, but frequently enough, it finds articles that relate stories about places around the world where climate change is happening now. The links above are just a week’s worth of stories I found interesting. I get many more links total.

I am not a scientist, but like Bob Dylan’s famous line, “You don’t need a weather man To know which way the wind blows,” I feel keeping the pulse of what’s happening is revealing. I’ve given up thinking humanity will work on limiting climate change, so now I’m just an observer. Go configure a Google Alert for yourself and read the stories. [Or for that matter, create an alert on any topic and just watch it. It’s a real learning experience.]

And there’s more than one story happening. The political fight against even believing that global warming is happening is fascinating. It’s the forces of greed versus the forces of science. It’s a story of how delusion works wonders on minds who refuse to listen. It’s a story of psychological warfare and FUD.

I don’t know what will happen. However, if the liberals are wrong, the worst that happens is we spend billions making America very energy efficient. If the the conservatives are wrong, millions die and suffer. In making a moral decision, it’s not about who is right, but the harm you cause by thinking you’re right.

JWH – 10/7/12

Where are the Economists in the 2012 Election?

I have memories of past presidential elections going all the way back to 1960, and it seems to me that past elections spent more time with actual economists in the spotlight? Have you seen any economist this election year? In the past, CBS, NBC and ABC would routinely interview economists about politics, but I haven’t seen hide nor hair of them this year. Has politicians and the public given up on the Ph.D.s of the dismal science?

We have numerous computer climate models to predict the weather, and we have gigantic cosmological models of the universe, telling us how our universe was formed 13.7 billion years ago, so why don’t we hear about super computers contemplating the economy? You’d think both the Republicans and Democrats would offer some kind of scientific proof to back their economy philosophies. Are we supposed to just believe what the candidates tell us without reference to academic authority?

From what I’ve read, economists work with computer models all the time. They have been refining their equations for decades. So why don’t we see economic superstars interviewed on television? Why aren’t their computer models shown on the nightly news?

First off, it’s impossible to predict the future, but we can model rough trends. Modeling complex systems is hard. Modeling the Big Bang and the formation of the universe is easier than modeling the weather, which is more successful than modeling the economy, but modeling the world economy should not be impossible. Most Americans would want a model of the U.S. economy, but I would imagine it wouldn’t be very accurate without it being part of the model of the world economy. No matter what Romney or Obama get to do for Americans, it will affect the rest of the world, and then they will affect us right back.

I know very little about economics, but I wonder why economists can’t build an economic model that allows the average citizen to understand how various tax plans would affect the economy. What would happen if Romney did get to kill off PBS and Big Bird? What would happen if we added three trillion to the national debt while the economy recovers? What would balancing the budget do to the economy?

Here’s the thing about computer models, the more data points the more accurate the model. A data point would be like a weather station collecting all kinds of measurements. The best economy model would contain 311,591.917+ data points, one for each citizen of the United States, and to be really accurate, have 7,043,958,151+ points for every person in the world. We also need one data point for every business in the world. Another for each aspect of government. And each data point would measure many factors, such as various tax rates, incomes, assets, debts, etc. And we’d need equations for every interaction. So if we lower the corporate tax, how would it affect all other data points?

For example, Romney claimed his criteria for deciding on government spending was: Does the cost of a program justify borrowing the money from China?

Okay, I can accept that. But how do we decide for each program? It can’t be just whim. Let’s take PBS. I heard that $450 million of the Federal budget goes to PBS, and that’s just 15% of it’s funding. What do we get for borrowing $450 million dollars from China by giving it to PBS? If we had an economic model, could we calculate the early childhood educational benefit of Sesame Street? PBS teaches me a tremendous lot about American History. How valuable is American History to American citizens? Can you put a dollar amount on it? PBS teaches me a lot about science and nature. Does that have value? Can that kind of educational TV be quantified as expanding the economy in some way?

PBS might be an economic powerhouse of early childhood and adult education that generates many times it’s $450 investment. Just because conservatives want to save a few bucks on their tax returns are we being penny wise and pound foolish to get rid of PBS? Can we really know without numbers?

I hate it that politicians expect us to take their opinions as facts. I also hate that so many of my fellow citizens think opinions are facts.

Romney tells people we should say no to PBS, but other than his opinion, what’s backing that idea? Is his opinion about PBS right? I’d like to see an economic study done on the impact of PBS before I’d accept cutting PBS from the budget. Even as a jobs incentive program, how many jobs are created with that $450 million dollar investment?

Economics might be the dismal science, but I’d rather hear facts and figures about the economy from an economist than a politician. I just can’t accept opinions from the left and right, I want some hard cold facts to chew on.

JWH – 10/6/12