Daniel Lisi is a publisher in Los Angeles, California. He is the publisher of Network Press and Not a Cult. Recently, Lisi published A Book About Books, a guide to how the book industry works.
As publishers, we trade in curated lists—but it’s important to remember that the system isn’t a true meritocracy. While quality may determine a book’s long-term perennial potential, it is strategic coordination between publisher, distributor, and author that dictates whether a title is even positioned to achieve bestseller status in the first place.
These systems are old, and arguably ill-suited to today’s faster, more decentralized publishing environment. They exist primarily to support the marketing architecture of legacy publishing, and in many cases, they’ve lost the plot when it comes to amplifying new or genuinely authoritative literary voices.
The New York Times & Los Angeles Times
For starters, the physical format of a book determines which bestseller list it may be eligible for. The New York Times publishes separate lists for hardcover, paperback, and eBook editions, segmented further by genre. A paperback does not compete directly with a hardcover; each appears on its own list. The Los Angeles Times bestseller list is more curated and occasionally combines formats, but hardcover editions are still the most commonly represented.
Most Big Five publishers release titles first as hardcovers, followed by a paperback edition a season or two later. This strategy exists primarily because hardcovers carry better margins, and the avid fanbase will typically adopt the more expensive version during the presale and release window. Libraries also prefer hardcover editions for their durability and archival value.
Bestseller lists are then compiled on a weekly basis using sales data from a confidential and curated network of region-specific booksellers, including independent stores, select Barnes & Noble locations, and online retailers. This data is submitted to the editorial team responsible for producing the list. While the exact methodology remains proprietary, it's understood that the list is shaped by a combination of actual sales numbers and editorial discretion. Only a select number of booksellers contribute to this process—not the full retail market.
Amazon
Amazon’s bestseller rankings are based on real-time sales velocity within a given category. These rankings update hourly and reflect recent sales activity rather than long-term performance. A title can rank highly in a sub-niche with relatively modest sales volume, which is why Amazon bestseller status is often more fluid and volatile compared to curated industry lists.
BookScan
BookScan (operated by Circana, formerly NPD) compiles point-of-sale data from a wide range of retailers—but not all of them. It is considered the industry standard for estimating print book sales, but it captures only a portion of the market.
Amazon is included in BookScan’s reporting—specifically print sales tied to ISBNs—though not all Amazon sales channels are equally reflected (BookScan ignores a huge swath of KDP sales, including print titles assigned an ISBN from Amazon KDP). BookScan also captures data from major national retailers like Barnes & Noble, Target, and Walmart, as well as some independent bookstores that use participating POS systems. However, coverage from indie booksellers remains incomplete.
Crucially, BookScan does not report on wholesale distribution (like Ingram shipments) or direct-to-consumer sales through author or publisher websites. In today’s landscape, where many independent publishers and authors rely on direct sales, this creates noticeable blind spots in BookScan’s reporting.
Co-Ops
“Co-ops” refer to paid, premium placement opportunities offered by bookstores or online platforms. The most visible example is at Barnes & Noble—those prominent front tables of new releases or themed displays are typically co-op spots. Publishers, working through their distributor, pay for these placements as part of seasonal marketing programs.
Amazon offers a digital version of co-op through its Amazon Marketing Services (AMS) platform, which includes homepage banners, carousel slots, and featured product recommendations. These placements are often targeted and algorithmically driven, but still require a financial commitment.
Very few independent bookstores offer co-op placements. Their merchandising tends to be more curated, reflecting staff picks, seasonal interests, or local authors. These stores typically have more skin in the game when it comes to what they feature, and paid placement is rarely part of the equation.
Publishers in league with their distributors deploy co-op strategies at select regional big-box retailers to enhance their opportunity to chart on bestseller lists published by the Times. This is how publishers can indirectly pay for the marketing opportunity that these lists enable.
The most effective strategy for charting on the Times bestseller list begins well before publication. Publishers work closely with independent booksellers during seasonal sales conferences hosted by their distributor—typically on a biannual calendar (Fall/Winter and Spring/Summer for Ingram-distributed titles). These conferences give sales reps the chance to pitch upcoming titles directly to booksellers, who often place early orders based on these presentations. When paired with targeted co-op placement, this strategy ensures strong shelf presence during a book’s release week.
For authors with bestseller ambitions, it’s critical to examine the publisher’s approach during this stage: how the book’s metadata is structured, how its description and positioning are pitched, and how the physical book is printed and bound. Every detail—from the spine width to the comparative titles—plays a role in whether a title earns attention, garners early orders, and builds enough momentum to chart.
Lol seriously you couldn't be bothered to not have an AI slop image with nonsense text for the share image for this?
Nice insights. It's too bad it doesn't come solely down to performance. Hopefully, the industry can move close to meritocracy in the future.