ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2016 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Monday, July 13, 2015

Of math and the SJW

In which McRapey totally pwns the math:
Vox Day (@voxday)
The @torbooks boycott has reduced @scalzi's Bookscan sales by 68%! http://t.co/kYXVBeBBo7 #SadPuppies

John Scalzi ‏@scalzi
1. A detractor trying to show his "boycott" of Tor was working claimed a 68% drop in my Lock In sales since the boycott, citing Bookscan...

2. His only problem is that he read the data backwards. Literally backwards. My booksales went UP in that time, not down.

3. And people wonder why I occasionally say I wish I had a better class of detractor. Even being able to math would be an improvement!

4. (To be clear, the week-to-week number movement have nothing to do with boycotts or anything else. They're the usual sales up and downs.)

5. Those curious can see discussion of it here: http://file770.com/?p=23709 . Note the first comment, which catches the math error.
You know, I haven't been caught out this badly since I observed that Kim Stanley Robinson was, on the basis of the picture on his web site, a remarkably ugly bearded woman. If nothing else, you'd think the exclamation point on a single tweet would have given it away, but apparently anything short of a "LOL", a smiley face emoji, and a (jk) will be lost on these masters of the social arts.

Johnny Con's attempted derision of his nameless detractor's inability to do math is amusing because there is no mathematical error involved. There is absolutely no indication of not "being able to math". And he would appear to have failed to realize that I was mocking Jason Sanford for a) pretending that an obviously irrelevant snapshot of data was relevant, b) listing the dates in the reverse of the usual order, and c) proceeding to reach a backwards conclusion. See, unlike Scalzi, I don't assume the other side is completely retarded; I find it impossible to imagine that Sanford is genuinely dumb enough to believe that the data he cited is meaningful in any way, shape, or form.

SJWs like Scalzi are so easy. All you need to to do make them jump is offer them a "mistake" they can attack in order to disqualify you and show how totally smart and superior they are. As Scalzi demonstrates, they will ignore literally everything that is relevant to the argument at hand in their desperate eagerness to strike their pseudo-superior poses.

Sanford wrote: "Lock In by John Scalzi (hardcover) 65 copies on 7/05, 39 on 6/28, 74 on 6/21, 63 on 6/14, 46 on 6/7, 54 on 5/31, 21 on 5/24." The chart, on the other hand, begins with May 24th and ends with July 5th, with the data running in the more conventional left to right manner, which made his reversal obvious even for those who don't know how to read dates in the American manner. There is no math error; 21/65 = 0.32, which would indicate a 68 percent decline; more importantly, as Mike Glyer correctly notes, the dates Sanford cites to "prove" the ineffectiveness of the boycott are invalid because he cites data from three successive weeks before the boycott began.
When I aggregated the sales for these 10 books from the week of June 21, the latest unaffected by the boycott (announced on June 19), and the sales from the week of July 5 (the latest reported by Sanford), that gave me 1,740 vs. 1,667 books. Therefore, the July 5 sales of these 10 books were 95.8% of what they were before immediately before the boycott.
In fact, Scalzi's Bookscan sales have observably declined since the boycott began: from 74 the week of June 21 to 65 the week of July 5. That is a 12.2 percent decline. Clearly, if we are to take Mr. Sanford's numbers seriously, the Tor boycott has been effective.

Of course, what will likely be of considerably more concern to Tor Books than the effectiveness or lack of effectiveness of the boycott is the fact that the writer for whom they blew off 523 new writers is selling as few as 21 copies of his "best-selling" hardcover per week.

Remember the First Law of SJW: SJWs always lie.

Labels: ,

78 Comments:

Anonymous Stilicho July 13, 2015 6:22 AM  

Wait, during his best week he sold about 10 copies per day? I could hire a couple of NYC hustlers to move more books than that. If Scalzi is Tor's golden boy, they have a serious problem.

Anonymous Steve July 13, 2015 6:52 AM  

Stilchio - I'm no expert on the book industry, but Lock In appears to be a 'meh' in sales terms.

Kindle Sales Rank: 177,545
Hardcopy: 22,934

The harcopy ranking isn't awful, and he could expect another sales bounce with paperback. But for some reason Lock In has very quickly dropped off the radar on Kindle. Not exactly a bestselling-bet-the-company-on-this-author performance.

Anonymous malcolm July 13, 2015 6:58 AM  

From Sanford's follow-up post - http://www.jasonsanford.com/blog/2015/7/why-tors-sales-averages-confirm-the-boycott-is-failing

In addition, the book which dropped the most during the two week boycott was Ender's Game by Orson Scott Card, a strange title for the boycott to focus on since the author's politics are in line with many of the people calling for the boycott.

Even assuming the Bookscan information is enough to tell us anything, this could be the biggest indicator of the boycott's numbers. Most of the people boycotting probably wouldn't buy Scalzi's book anyway, but they will by Card's. So if the biggest drop is there, it may be because of the boycott.

Blogger Cataline Sergius July 13, 2015 6:59 AM  

Not exactly a bestselling-bet-the-company-on-this-author performance.

And yet that is what PNH did.

Blogger VD July 13, 2015 7:15 AM  

Even assuming the Bookscan information is enough to tell us anything, this could be the biggest indicator of the boycott's numbers. Most of the people boycotting probably wouldn't buy Scalzi's book anyway, but they will buy Card's.

So perhaps I am wrong and Sanford is that dumb. He doesn't seem to grasp that the point of a boycott is that you don't buy books from a publisher that you would otherwise buy from them. So, one would expect sales of Card and Wright and Weber to fall, while sales of Scalzi and Walton would go up as anti-boycott people buy books.

I'd be shocked if there were even 10 people involved in the boycott who own a single Jo Walton book. I certainly don't.

Blogger Student in Blue July 13, 2015 7:17 AM  

SJWs like Scalzi are so easy. All you need to to do make them jump is offer them a "mistake" they can attack in order to disqualify you and show how totally smart and superior they are. As Scalzi demonstrates, they will ignore literally everything in their desperate eagerness to strike their poses.

I've noticed this as well. Something that "looks" like a mistake they'll hop on it and crow about it to the detriment of their argument. If you point out even subtly that it's an error on purpose, they'll double down on the crowing (of course).

I've only noticed a distinct difference when, instead of being subtle, you bash them over the head rhetorically with the dumb thing they were saying, making fun of them loudly and long. Only then do they shut up. SJWs just don't do subtle, I think because one needs a complex worldview in order to appreciate. When all you have is a simple worldview that breaks if you look at it too closely... you get an SJW.

Anonymous Roundtine July 13, 2015 7:34 AM  

I haven't had the opportunity to not buy a Tor book yet.

Blogger Shimshon July 13, 2015 7:39 AM  

A classic gamma tell is massive verbiage in response to a few words. Scalzi just can't help himself. Vox writes a single 9 word tweet (not counting the link and the hashtag) and Scalzi, no different than previous exchanges, has a bad case of verbal diarrhea. Gammas simply don't know how to use Twitter effectively. Tweets 3, 4, and 5 were added nothing to the actual "discussion" and could've been omitted entirely. But gammas always need to explain things as if the reader were an idiot.

Anonymous Porphyry July 13, 2015 7:45 AM  

"SJWs like Scalzi are so easy. All you need to to do make them jump is offer them a "mistake" they can attack in order to disqualify you and show how totally smart and superior they are" hmm sounds familiar. I seem to recall a certain evolution thread.

Blogger Steveo #238 July 13, 2015 7:45 AM  

Scalzi could totally pwn all you guys, writing a book about a martian dudebro or something... that comes to earth and knows all that deep stuff, totally brokking everything. You guys would look silly then. Book like that would sell man, scores! He could call it "Rocket Ship Hugo", I googled it and no one has ever written that Title.

(for SJWs only... /s)

I got $ waiting for JCW books.Though they are waiting in maple leafs.

Anonymous NorthernHamlet July 13, 2015 7:46 AM  

If you point out even subtly that it's an error on purpose, they'll double down on the crowing (of course).

Even more so, insisting that you had to have been serious in your mistake. Admitting otherwise would be accepting their own mistake, and they bank on the rest of the audience being too stupid or too emotionally-malleable to understand any of it.

They're too eager and rush in brashly. Yet, their enemy has laid a trap.

Anonymous Steve July 13, 2015 7:47 AM  

Steveo - Dunno. I think I'll save my pennies for his next book, "Time Enough For Rape".

Anonymous George Martin July 13, 2015 7:53 AM  

The real problem with John Scalzi is that his books don't have enough rape. I like rape.

Blogger Cataline Sergius July 13, 2015 8:13 AM  

If Card's numbers continue to slide this could a be a real problem for the children of Tor.

If Scalzi scoops up his marbles and goes to play in another sandbox, no big deal. He is no Jim Butcher. He is no Neil Stephenson. About the only thing that happens, is that Scalzi will have to return his retirement fund,(which means the question is academic anyway, since he won't do that.)

But if Card leaves...

.

Anonymous Ron July 13, 2015 8:14 AM  

Martin reminds me of a cartoon from my childhood. Rape ape. Rape ape...

Anonymous Steve July 13, 2015 8:16 AM  

Scalzi, with his dresses and his blowjob banter, reminds me of Bi-curious George.

Anonymous MrGreenMan July 13, 2015 8:23 AM  

@Steveo #238

Only if the Martian dudebro believes that a hand job is an appropriate greeting, like a hand shake, and he can't understand why he needs money, when he developed such great endurance in his jaw muscles in commerce back home. Oh, the lolz to be had as there are all these confusing scenes - like how does he possibly pay a woman?

Blogger Steveo #238 July 13, 2015 8:31 AM  

@ MrGreenMan
Dude, I missed the whole trans-planeted thing too...

Anonymous Thobby (#58) July 13, 2015 8:36 AM  

Vox said, "I'd be shocked if there were even 10 people involved in the boycott who own a single Jo Walton book. I certainly don't."

Well, I'm a VFM who does. I don't care for her World War II alternate history, and *Among Others* was ghastly; I bought it and couldn't even finish it, which was a disappointment as the blurb had been intriguing. But her Arthurian novels were worth what I paid for them, and she's written one book I love, *Tooth and Claw*.

*Tooth and Claw* is absolutely brilliant if you've read and enjoyed enough 19th-century novels to be familiar with their form. Basically, it's the standard Victorian three-volume novel re-envisioned with draconic protagonists. Every trope is there, and, as Walton herself once said, many of the tropes make much more *sense* when the characters are dragons. There's also the moment at the Halls of Justice where we learn that the building's walls are decorated with a very-Victorian frieze of hearts and flowers. Well, perhaps not, as the hearts in question are anatomically correct, and shown being ripped from the breasts of convicted criminals. :)

Anonymous Conservative Buddhist July 13, 2015 8:58 AM  

Not TOR related but shows SJW Entry-ism at its finest: http://www.campusreform.org/?ID=6659. "Male head of theology at Jesuit university marries male partner"

Blogger Jew613 July 13, 2015 9:11 AM  

Vox, if you were to sign an author to Castalia House with a similar deal to Johnny Con's with Tor what rate should the hardcovers of their latest release be selling?

VFM 322

Anonymous Rhys O'Reilly July 13, 2015 9:20 AM  

So at Scalzi's current rate of sales how many weeks would it take for Tor to break even on their investment?

Blogger Joshua Dyal July 13, 2015 9:22 AM  

But gammas always need to explain things as if the reader were an idiot.

SJWs always project, right?

Blogger VD July 13, 2015 9:30 AM  

Vox, if you were to sign an author to Castalia House with a similar deal to Johnny Con's with Tor what rate should the hardcovers of their latest release be selling?

You can't reasonably compare. The differences in overhead, distribution, etc. are simply too high. That being said, our average hardcover would be expected to sell between 15 and 30 copies per week.

Blogger VD July 13, 2015 9:33 AM  

So at Scalzi's current rate of sales how many weeks would it take for Tor to break even on their investment?

You have to keep in mind that most books are sold in the first three months. Now, some writers like Card have a very fat tail. Scalzi obviously doesn't. The thing is, he's a successful writer, but he's a successful MIDLIST writer. Tor's long-term problem is that they market him like a bestselling writer, which he just isn't.

His whole game is self-inflation, which is why he was running around claiming 2 million monthly pageviews back when he had 300,000. Tor is simply continuing that game on a larger field.

Anonymous kfg July 13, 2015 9:43 AM  

'The big trouble with dumb bastards is that they are too dumb to believe there is such a thing as being smart.' -Kurt Vonnegut

Anonymous Laz July 13, 2015 9:45 AM  

"...23 years."

Talk about a long-term investment. lol.

Blogger VD July 13, 2015 9:45 AM  

So at Scalzi's current rate of sales how many weeks would it take for Tor to break even on their investment?

The book costs $24.99. Amazon probably buys at a 55 percent discount, so Tor gets $11.20. That's about the cost of printing 1000 copies of a 340-page hardcover, but figure Tor gets a 35 percent discount for volume, so they make about 4 bucks per book, including royalties which are recoupable.

At a 7-week average of 53 copies per week, that's $212.57 in gross profit. As reported, his new contract pays $261,540 per book, so at that 7-week sales rate they'd cover their advance on his next book in 1,230 weeks, or 23 years and eight months.

Anonymous Bz July 13, 2015 9:54 AM  

Cough, I actually read and enjoyed Tooth and Claw too, and own a few other of Walton's books. (Fine condition, any offers will be considered.) So it's probably best for her sales figures if Tor delays any launch in the near future.

I'm actually surprised that Scalzi is selling that poorly. The book in question appears weak, but the SF field also certainly seems to be in decline. How bad is it for the typical SJW if the white male hope Scalzi is limping along? Patreon don't fail me now.

(Also, one can but wonder how Ender's Game did during the same period?)

Blogger SirThermite (VFM #0025) July 13, 2015 9:55 AM  

"Scalzi could totally pwn all you guys, writing a book about a martian dudebro or something... that comes to earth and knows all that deep stuff, totally brokking everything."

I love this blog. First real laugh I've had on this fine Monday morning

Anonymous Minion #0172 July 13, 2015 9:59 AM  

And yet Tor is sending the Chinless Wonder on a national book tour which has to cost them big bucks that can only be recovered from profits unrealized for years?

Based on his prior sales, makes no economic sense.. But I guess it's just another form of White Flabby Girly-Man Privilege.

Anonymous fanboi July 13, 2015 9:59 AM  

I'm actually surprised that Scalzi is selling that poorly.

As you should be, because he isn't.

Blogger Elocutioner0226 July 13, 2015 10:00 AM  

"How bad is it for the typical SJW if the white male hope Scalzi is limping along?" So much for lowest difficulty setting.

SJW's - too pathetic to slide that switch from novice to expert since 1977.

Anonymous Bz July 13, 2015 10:04 AM  

Well, Ender's Game was right in the sales figure of that blog post as it turns out. Judging from the squiggly lines, it outsold Lock In and every other title but one during the whole period. Annoying, isn't it?

I certainly hope the ebook figures are better for everyone involved, or at least will be after the boycot is over.

Blogger Rabbi B July 13, 2015 10:06 AM  

"A classic gamma tell is massive verbiage in response to a few words. Scalzi just can't help himself."

The fact that he feels compelled to respond at all is telling. What does it matter what some nameless 'detractor' who can't do math thinks?

Anonymous Harsh July 13, 2015 10:13 AM  

21 copies a week? (laughs) Seems like the most amateurish self-published author could do better.

Blogger Daniel July 13, 2015 10:13 AM  

When I first saw the link to Sanford chart, I knew he was in trouble. This guy misrepresents "hard science fiction" in the exact same way.

The only reason why his public stupidity is so unprintable is because an ignorance-based alphabet has not yet been invented.

I think these people are so ableist that they think that acting like retards makes them look smarter.

Anonymous Dave July 13, 2015 10:18 AM  

"At a 7-week average of 53 copies per week, that's $212.57 in gross profit. As reported, his new contract pays $261,540 per book, so at that 7-week sales rate they'd cover their advance on his next book in 1,230 weeks, or 23 years and eight months."

Assuming that they would get full retail $24.99 for that stretch.

Anonymous Difster VFM #109 July 13, 2015 10:34 AM  

Dang it, Scalzi isn't coming to Austin on his book tour, I was going to troll him. Maybe bring a copy of a John C. Wright novel and ask him to sign it.

Anonymous IsMise July 13, 2015 10:37 AM  

Ender's Game(1986) Amazon rank -> 316 / Lock In(2014) Amazon rank -> 19,365
Will Scuzzy be selling like that a generation later?

Anonymous Minion #0172 July 13, 2015 10:53 AM  

I'm planning an even more amusing (harmless, of course) prank to pull on the manboob.

At which event only I know, heh! heh!

Blogger bob k. mando July 13, 2015 10:54 AM  

when is the last time an SJW announced a boycott ... and then wasted time actually compiling AND PUBLISHING sales numbers?

i don't remember them expending this much effort before.

*buffs fingernails*

if i were Tor, i'd be terrified. the 2nd best selling title was published ... in 1985. and is a TRADE paperback.

the only one who outsells OSC is Sanderson's MASS MARKET paperback which didn't hit the shelves until March of this year.

i wonder how Card feels, being the guy paying Scalzi's advance?

Anonymous Steve July 13, 2015 11:13 AM  

(Also, one can but wonder how Ender's Game did during the same period?)

Here's how it's currently doing:

Amazon.com Sales Rank: 316 (paperback)
Amazon.com Sales Rank: 5375039 (hardback)
Kindle: 41,847

Pretty damn good for a book first published 30 years ago.

Blogger CM July 13, 2015 11:22 AM  

The statistic on booksales (and to a lesser degree, movie sales) baffles me a bit.

I would expect diminishing returns on such goods because of the nature of the product. Its not a consummable... it is an object once purchased, you don't need to buy again... barring any damage incurred by extraneous circumstances.

So tracking purchases of a single book over time doesn't seem to say that much to me...

It may just be the nature of the game that is already accounted for in the anslysis of the numbers, but wouldn't the boycott effectiveness be best measured by comparing sales of newly released books to books that were released before the boycott?

Blogger VD July 13, 2015 11:33 AM  

As you should be, because he isn't.

Those are Bookscan numbers cited by Jason Sanford. If you want to take exception to them, take it up with them. As for Amazon:

Publisher: Tor Books; 1 edition (August 26, 2014)
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #18,996 in Books

#2698 in Books > Science Fiction & Fantasy > Science Fiction
#5949 in Books > Mystery, Thriller & Suspense > Thrillers & Suspense
#7119 in Books > Literature & Fiction > United States

That's right for an average of around 50 per week. Look, he's a successful midlist writer. There is no shame in that.

Anonymous Harsh July 13, 2015 11:43 AM  

That's right for an average of around 50 per week. Look, he's a successful midlist writer. There is no shame in that.

Of course when asked about how many books he sells, Scalzi's response is "up to about 1000 books a week... approximately".

Anonymous Fanboi July 13, 2015 11:46 AM  

I have no problem with Sanfords numbers, just that they indicate someone "selling poorly".

I agree with you that the numbers show Scalzi is a successful writer, especially since the book in question is almost a year old.

Anonymous Fanboi July 13, 2015 11:53 AM  

Some numbers I do have a problem with, assuming I'm reading you correctly, is your break even analysis. You assume flat sales starting with numbers from when the book was nearly a year old and assume no eBook, paperback or audio book sales.

Blogger VD July 13, 2015 12:21 PM  

Some numbers I do have a problem with, assuming I'm reading you correctly, is your break even analysis. You assume flat sales starting with numbers from when the book was nearly a year old and assume no eBook, paperback or audio book sales.

I'm not assuming anything, Fanboi. I answered the question asked. All of those things are applicable. None of them have anything to do with how long it would take to recoup a certain investment at the current rate.

I agree with you that the numbers show Scalzi is a successful writer, especially since the book in question is almost a year old.

No one claims Scalzi isn't a successful writer. The point is that the level of his success does not justify his star status with Tor Books. He will never be an Orson Scott Card or even a Brandon Sanderson.

Blogger bob k. mando July 13, 2015 12:23 PM  

49. Fanboi July 13, 2015 11:53 AM
You assume flat sales starting with numbers from when the book was nearly a year old and assume no eBook, paperback or audio book sales.



no shit?

he doesn't extrapolate off of sales data HE DOESN'T HAVE?

inconceivable!


49. Fanboi July 13, 2015 11:53 AM
starting with numbers from when the book was nearly a year old



so ... why is Sanford looking at sales figures for Ender's Game?

Anonymous Jim Milo July 13, 2015 12:25 PM  


The thing is, he's a successful writer, but he's a successful MIDLIST writer. Tor's long-term problem is that they market him like a bestselling writer, which he just isn't.

His whole game is self-inflation, which is why he was running around claiming 2 million monthly pageviews back when he had 300,000. Tor is simply continuing that game on a larger field.


He's like the Grammy award winner for best polka album.

Blogger dlw July 13, 2015 12:41 PM  

> "Male head of theology at Jesuit
> university marries male partner"

Hm. Interesting.

The various news articles mostly mention his "partner" is Episcopalian, but I've been through half a dozen links and haven't found what faith Hornbeck belongs to, if any. He seems to be an academic with a primary interest in "gender affairs" and a secondary interest in theology. Specifically, I can't find any mention that he might be a Jesuit.

Granted it has been a long time since the Society of Jesus put the ungodly to sword and torch (see: Spanish Inquisition), but it looks like the SJW-ism of modern academia has triumphed over a what was once the Church's most militant order.


Now I know what the snake said to Adam and Eve. It said "Don't worry about the fruit, let me tell you about tenure..."


Anonymous BigGaySteve July 13, 2015 12:54 PM  

Math requires future orientation. Here is something to throw into the face of anyone that says disparate impact. Woman committed a HIPAA law violation using patients info to file tax returns in their name, shared the info with her friends including papers on what to put in each 1040 line, & posted on facebook that she was the "QUEEN OF TAX CHEATS". She is obviously smarter than most blacks.
http://www.tampabay.com/news/courts/criminal/in-tax-frauds-wake-a-generation-of-kids-grow-up-motherless/2236057
Note the original story is about how the criminals children will suffer. All of these sows had the IRS money sent to their home address, even illegal aliens cheating the child tax credit are not that stupid.

"Rashia Wilson, 29 21 years $3.1 million Latasha Callens, 37 12 years, 5 months$207,768 /Selathiel Frazier, 30 8 years $4 million /Howayda Hamdan, 32 7 years, 6 months $908,075/ Ashley Guy, 32 7 years $309,895 /Jameshia Mack, 29 6 years, 3 months $100,135 /Tiki Dennis, 32 6 years, 2 months, $222,767 /Nikia Williams, 31 5 years, 6 months $519,542 /Tavia Ball, 36 5 years $405,169 /Remesa Buemer, 25 5 years, 5 months $462,039 /Rosa Martin, 27 5 years $153,219 /Porscha Williams, 32 4 years $9,116/ Rhonda Brooks, 33 3 years 6 months $23,096

Blogger James Dixon July 13, 2015 12:57 PM  

> I'd be shocked if there were even 10 people involved in the boycott who own a single Jo Walton book.

A "single" Jo Walton book? I'd have to check, but it's entirely possible I do. I've bought a lot of books over the years, and I remember some of her early stuff as being OK to good.

Blogger Blume July 13, 2015 1:07 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger Blume July 13, 2015 1:09 PM  

No you just use what the retailer pays them for the book. So the 11 bucks a book number.

Blogger Res Ipsa July 13, 2015 2:44 PM  

What are the chances that anyone now boycotting Tor, actually was reading Scalzi in the first place?

I think the more adroit use of the Scalzi sales data would be pointing out that Sci fi fans are now 68% more sophisticated in their literary selections. How many bad Star Trek stories can a person be expected to read and still buy more?

Blogger Res Ipsa July 13, 2015 2:55 PM  

Dang it, Scalzi isn't coming to Austin on his book tour, I was going to troll him. Maybe bring a copy of a John C. Wright novel and ask him to sign it.

Diff,

Do it buddy! and get it on film! That would make the best SJW post we've ever had.

Anonymous Curious but not an SJW July 13, 2015 3:45 PM  

I would expect diminishing returns on such goods because of the nature of the product. Its not a consummable...

What do you mean it's not a consumable?

When we burn a copy with a picture of Scalzi pinned to it we need another one to burn to keep up the pressure!

Blogger bob k. mando July 13, 2015 4:09 PM  

59. Curious but not an SJW July 13, 2015 3:45 PM
What do you mean it's not a consumable?



non / consumable is just more SJW incoherence.

more readers are being born all the time. i certainly didn't buy a copy of the Count of Monte Cristo that was printed in the 1800s.

for an SJW to assert the non-consumable nature of Scalzi books is to implicitly admit the extremely limited nature of the Scalzi market.

Anonymous Minion #0172 July 13, 2015 5:38 PM  

Scalzi better understand that if he tells his snarky lies about the puppies at his book events he will be likely be challenged.

And video'd.

Woof! Woof!

Blogger CM July 13, 2015 6:20 PM  

for an SJW to assert the non-consumable nature of Scalzi books is to implicitly admit the extremely limited nature of the Scalzi market.

How'd i earn the rep of being an SJW?

But Curious' comment was funny.

Bob,

I find the vast majority of modern "lit" to be limited in scope. I can't imagine someone 20 years from now picking up half the books that exist outside a used book store or garage sale.

Blogger Tom Kratman July 13, 2015 6:43 PM  

"If Scalzi is Tor's golden boy, they have a serious problem."

Not really, based on the data. Most hardcover sails are in the first 3-4 months. That's what you have to look at. A year after release the number of hardcovers sold is almost always trivial. Once the MMPB comes out, sometimes as soon as the MMPB is announced, HC sales become practically non-existent.

In some ways kindle is a better/more long term/more consistent measure.

Anonymous fanboi July 13, 2015 9:31 PM  

I'm not assuming anything, Fanboi. I answered the question asked.

Ah, well fair enough. I would have pointed out that the question as asked wasn't meaningful, but that's just me.

Blogger Thucydides July 13, 2015 9:55 PM  

Perhaps the greater issue the post indicates is how successful the "Long March" through academia has been. The vast majority of readers would look at the post and not have an intuitive grasp of the numbers to recognize the trend of sales being downward. The crowing about sales going up and the Puppies being in error would have been slapped down as totally off base perhaps as late as 20 years ago, but now the "severely normal" (i.e. readers who are not politically or personally engaged in a topic) will probably accept it as fact; being unable to see the reality through the distortion field.

Think about that the next time you see other figures quoted, like US unemployment data. When you look around in your community, do you really believe that the unemployment rate is around 6%? Do you believe the economy is growing at the rate the government is claiming? How about other Progressive SJW strongholds like academia? Do any of the "facts" and figures they spew have any relation to reality? (Think 1 in 5 women on campus being sexually assaulted, for instance).

If you are responsible for children at all, ensure they are raised to be numerate, for that will be the ultimate means of winning this battle to distort reality.

Blogger The Overgrown Hobbit July 13, 2015 11:02 PM  

44. Books don't need to be purchased more than once OWTTE do why bother to track sales over time?

Word of mouth, and gift purchases.

Anonymous The other robot July 13, 2015 11:28 PM  

When we burn a copy with a picture of Scalzi pinned to it

Whoa. What an idea! Maybe we can get people to burn their copies of Scalzi's books. It's not like they are going to read them again.

Post videos!

Blogger bob k. mando July 14, 2015 12:44 AM  

62. CM July 13, 2015 6:20 PM
I can't imagine someone 20 years from now picking up half the books that exist outside a used book store or garage sale.



oh come on, man. that's a skiffy law and everything.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturgeon%27s_law

Blogger Cee July 14, 2015 2:04 AM  

I'd be shocked if there were even 10 people involved in the boycott who own a single Jo Walton book. I certainly don't.
*raises hand sheepishly*

What can I say, Tooth and Claw is a charming period romance with dragons. She didn't do the job she thought she was of subverting the genre.

But I'm what, one person? So unless there's nine other people out there, you're doubtless correct.

Blogger Cee July 14, 2015 2:06 AM  

Oh I see Thobby @ 19 has my problem as well. Make that two.

The Arthurian novels weren't bad either, yes, but I didn't buy those.

Anonymous Jim Milo July 14, 2015 3:09 AM  


Maybe we can get people to burn their copies of Scalzi's books.


Waste of gasoline. I gave Redshifts and the Dick ripoff one to the Goodwill.

Anonymous Laz July 14, 2015 4:08 AM  

"I would have pointed out that the question as asked wasn't meaningful, but that's just me."

It's not trolling if you admit to it.

Anonymous Shut up rabbit July 14, 2015 5:23 AM  

How many bad Star Trek stories can a person be expected to read and still buy more?

I don't think they read any of them - they just collect them. The recent rise in nerd culture is marketeers realising there is a group of young lonely people with high disposable incomes who will buy anything from their favourite fetish franchise, even multiple copies of the same thing with some "variant".

Surprised they ignored them for so long - probably because of the smell.

Anonymous Bz July 14, 2015 6:23 AM  

Comparing Scalzi's sales from Lock In (about $200 a month, it seems), here's one of those "internet entrepreneurs". He got $1447 in one month just from his ebook "How to Start a Food Truck".

http://www.smartpassiveincome.com/my-may-2015-monthly-income-report/

And that's about 1% of his total income that month. (Well done!) Anyway, my point: it doesn't seem like the marketing muscle of Tor is all that.

Blogger CM July 14, 2015 7:58 AM  

Well Bob,

I learn something new everyday.

Anonymous Minion #0172 July 14, 2015 8:27 AM  

If Scalzi is able to get $3 million plus over ten years for 13 books, with his rather mediocre sales record, I wonder what Andy Weir is gonna get after THE MARTIAN, a legitimate and huge bestseller and now a major motion picture. And unlike the manboob's stuff, actual science fiction.

Blogger MidKnight (#138) July 14, 2015 9:18 AM  

The Martian was a great book, and I'm glad it appears to be getting a decent movie treatment (even if it's Matt Damon playing him - anyone else get a kick out of how he was used in Interstellar?).

On the one hand it's deserving of the success it's seen, but I'm actually still surprised at how quickly it went from nothing to huge hit with a movie.

Blogger cynthia joy July 15, 2015 2:21 AM  

This is a attention-grabbing post by the way. I am going to go ahead and save this post for my brother to check out later TestoEdge 20 on tomorrow. Keep up the high-quality work.
Wow in actual fact a great post. I like this.I just passed this onto a colleague who was doing a little research on that. And he actually bought me lunch because I found it for him. Overall, Lots of great information and inspiration, both of which we all need!http://www.supplements4help.com/testoedge20/

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts