Why being on the (bestseller) list works

Behaviour Change

A 2007 study by Sorensen investigated the impact of appearing in the NY Times bestseller list. He tracked the success of books that should have been included on the basis of their actual sales, but – because of time lags and accidental omissions – weren’t, and compared them to those that did make it on to the list. He found a dramatic effect: just being on the list led to an increase in sales of 13-14 per cent on average, and a 57 per cent increase in sales for first-time authors.

A bestseller list pretends to describe the market while quietly rearranging it.

The label says many people chose this, which reduces risk for the next buyer and earns the book more attention. Sales produce rank; rank produces sales. App stores, restaurant menus and marketplaces run the same loop. “Most popular” beside one dish directs eyes and reassures the uncertain diner. Download charts convert yesterday’s distribution into today’s apparent quality. A sold-count makes an unfamiliar vendor feel safer than an equally capable neighbour with no visible history.

This is particularly potent when assessment is hard and attention scarce. But it makes rankings less innocent than they look. Early promotion, timing, stock and the rules used to construct the list can compound into a lead. The winner may be good; the size of the lead is not pure evidence of goodness. Treating a leaderboard as objective merit is like judging the fastest runner after giving them a moving walkway.

If genuine adoption exists, show it. Use truthful counts, relevant peer groups and honest popular choices. Do not manufacture urgency or launder broad numbers into a claim about fit. Buyers should also ask what created the visibility they are using as evidence. Lists simplify decisions because other people already decided, and that circularity drives the effect.