Mary Cadden Who Does the Bestseller List Was Let Go From USA Today

[writeway]

Apparently among the cuts going on at USA Today is Mary Cadden. She was the organizer of the USA Today Bestsellers list. Of course, indies are freaking out because no one knows if this is the end of the list or not but Mary posted on Twitter Dec. 8th that she was axed.

https://twitter.com/marycadden

Some authors are acting like their careers are over. I understand getting on the list was a goal of many indies, especially wide authors, but you can't put so much stock on one thing like a bestseller list. Things change in this business.

[alhawke]

If she's fired, does that mean the USA Today bestseller list will be gone too?

[LilyBLily]

That's what everybody is wondering. Apparently, there should already have been a new list published by now.   

[Post-Crisis D]

Maybe Yahoo News can hire her.  They get more traffic than USA Today anyway.  In October of this year, Yahoo News had nearly double the web traffic of USA Today.

[Anarchist]

If she's fired, does that mean the USA Today bestseller list will be gone too?

It's on hiatus.

[Post-Crisis D]

If she's fired, does that mean the USA Today bestseller list will be gone too?

It's on hiatus.

And that news was not in USA Today. 

[alhawke]

Funny thing about USA Today: I'd bet the majority of us on Writer Sanctum know what the USA Today Bestseller list is. But if you go outside of the writing--and reading--world, people have no clue. (I always tell myself that when I lament not making the list )

[Post-Crisis D]

Funny thing about USA Today: I'd bet the majority of us on Writer Sanctum know what the USA Today Bestseller list is. But if you go outside of the writing--and reading--world, people have no clue. (I always tell myself that when I lament not making the list )

I only know about it because of threads like this.  I can't recall that I've ever looked at it or even cared who was or wasn't on it.

[TimothyEllis]

Funny thing about USA Today: I'd bet the majority of us on Writer Sanctum know what the USA Today Bestseller list is. But if you go outside of the writing--and reading--world, people have no clue. (I always tell myself that when I lament not making the list )

I only know about it because of threads like this.  I can't recall that I've ever looked at it or even cared who was or wasn't on it.

Ditto.

In fact, I thought it was the same thing as NYT list, only for a different rag.

[writeway]

I corrected my title. I should've said "let go" instead of fired. I stay pretty in the know in the romance world and what I am hearing is that the publisher of Source Books recently called USA Today and was told the list was cut due to costs. It makes them no money but costs a lot to keep. People who've spoken to those at the company have confirmed. Many think it's gone. I do too only because why would you get rid of Mary if you intended to keep the list? And it if cost too much and didn't bring in enough money? Especially since Gannett has cut 200 people at USA Today and is still making department cuts? I can't see them bringing this list back though I know some are hopeful. Of course, until Gannett or USA Today updates, we won't know for sure but I'm guessing there won't actually be an update in 2023 or it won't be a very good one. And if they do bring the list back, will it be the same or like NYT where they start curating it instead of focusing on sales?

Me, I don't care about the list at all but I'm not negating that others felt it was important and for that I feel bad but personally, it makes no difference to me. What I do know is that this is part of this industry, things change in this business all the time so it's best not to get too comfortable thinking stuff will always be the same. Some relied on getting on this list and others made a living (list-aiming set organizers) constructing sets to get on this list but this is why depending on something that can change in an instant is a big risk. Some probably thought it would last forever but nothing does. Heck, even KDP can up and close. We never know that's why we have to be prepared as best we can. Me, I write because I love it first of all and so I take all the bad with the good and understand it is what it is.

[writeway]

If she's fired, does that mean the USA Today bestseller list will be gone too?

Yes, the list is gone for now and probably for good. Mary was the only one who compiled it for over a decade and it won't be easy to find someone else to do it because of all the effort involved. I doubt they care since they got rid of it because it was costing them money. USA Today claims they got nothing from the list financially so...  Also Gannett who is doing all the firing has a reputation for ruining publications. Kind of reminds me of Vista Scope (or whatever that company is called) that bought Kboards. Heard they got the same reputation of buying up forums and letting them die a slow death.

[Post-Crisis D]

Kind of reminds me of Vista Scope (or whatever that company is called) that bought Kboards. Heard they got the same reputation of buying up forums and letting them die a slow death.

I peek in there periodically and it seems the remaining users there are somewhat in denial.  They argue forums in general are dying, so it's not VS's fault, but also they complain that the new owners got rid of features such as the Yellow Pages there because they didn't want to update the script for the updated forum software.  Given that all that was needed was to update the script(s), a skilled coder could have likely done that fairly easily, so it would seem to me the only reason not to do so was because VS didn't want to.

[Bill Hiatt]

Kind of reminds me of Vista Scope (or whatever that company is called) that bought Kboards. Heard they got the same reputation of buying up forums and letting them die a slow death.

I peek in there periodically and it seems the remaining users there are somewhat in denial.  They argue forums in general are dying, so it's not VS's fault, but also they complain that the new owners got rid of features such as the Yellow Pages there because they didn't want to update the script for the updated forum software.  Given that all that was needed was to update the script(s), a skilled coder could have likely done that fairly easily, so it would seem to me the only reason not to do so was because VS didn't want to.

Yes, what happened to Kboards was definitely sad. But there still seem to be a fair number of people posting. Just out of curiosity, I checked their terms, and the company actually seems to have made changes, though they went from specifically rights-grabby to vague, which may not be much of an improvement.

I was sorry to hear about the USA Today bestseller list, though the very fact that it wasn't making money for the company suggests that it perhaps wasn't really viewed much.

[Post-Crisis D]

I stay pretty in the know in the romance world and what I am hearing is that the publisher of Source Books recently called USA Today and was told the list was cut due to costs. It makes them no money but costs a lot to keep. People who've spoken to those at the company have confirmed. Many think it's gone. I do too only because why would you get rid of Mary if you intended to keep the list? And it if cost too much and didn't bring in enough money?

Do you know what the costs were besides Mary Cadden's salary?

[writeway]

I stay pretty in the know in the romance world and what I am hearing is that the publisher of Source Books recently called USA Today and was told the list was cut due to costs. It makes them no money but costs a lot to keep. People who've spoken to those at the company have confirmed. Many think it's gone. I do too only because why would you get rid of Mary if you intended to keep the list? And it if cost too much and didn't bring in enough money?

Do you know what the costs were besides Mary Cadden's salary?

Heck no, I don't know that. All I am going on is what is being said from the people who talked to the representative from Gannett and also I think the Associated Press and another outlet said this was all due to costs. Whatever the price it cost money and wasn't bringing in any from what Gannett has claimed. They are slashing costs everywhere from CNN, to USA Today, to other smaller companies they own. If they can get rid of departments at people at CNN who were surely bringing Gannett money they can definitely get rid of a list. Either way Gannett doesn't think the list is important and I doubt they will bring anyone back on. As I said, what sense would it make to fire the woman who was the expert at compiling the list if you were gonna hire someone else. Indies should come up with their own list just for indies and not rely on stuff that was created for trade publishing in the first place. And some say they are aiming for the Wall Street Journal list now. That won't happen because the "fiction" they feature is nothing like what most indies are publishing. People should stop focusing so much on making lists and making money and selling.

[David VanDyke]

I say good riddance.

Getting "letters" became a matter of packaging books together into 99c 10-book box sets and marketing the hell out of them, not about any actual popularity.

[Bill Hiatt]

I can totally understand how being able to say one is a bestselling author would certainly be a big thrill. And while it's true that the 10-book-set at 0.99 approach is an artificial situation, if I recall correctly, some people made the list with a single book--probably at 0.99, and probably marketed the hell out of, but still, I get why people wouldn't want to lose that.

How much such a designation really affects sales going forward is another thing. Is Stephen King popular because he's on the bestseller list, or is he on the bestseller list because he's popular? I think it's more the latter than the former. A previous unknown who made a list would probably get a boost from that, though it depends on which list. NYT has all kinds of genre sublists, or at least, it used to. I know someone who was around #15 on one of those, so he can claim to be an NYT bestselling author, but it didn't really do much for his sales. From what I recall, the people I'm aware of who made the USA Today list were pretty big sellers before and pretty big sellers after. I don't recalling any of them saying that making the list was a game changer for them.

I'm not sure whether the general public pays attention, but Amazon Charts is still going, with lists for both fiction and nonfiction, most read and most sold. Most of the top twenty each week in each category are big-name authors that you'd recognize immediately, though there's usually at least one Amazon imprint book (though not this week), and sometimes, there's an indie book. This week, it's Zodiac Academy: Sorrow and Starlight, the eighth book in what I gather is a popular series. (The book is $8.99, with both kindle and paperback editions, but no audiobook, so it's working at somewhat of a disadvantage. But it's #1 in two of the three subgenres mentioned and 2 in the other, and it has over 4,500 reviews. Even at that, it's only #18 on on most read, so that gives you an idea of what your sales volume would have to be like to hit #1.)

Oh, by the way, the most bought fiction list also has an indie this week (at #10). (There is a publisher listed, but it has the same name as the author, so self-published.) There's also a book from Montlake (Amazon imprint) and one from Amazon Original Stories there. Oops, and there's another indie at #14.

Since Amazon Charts is undoubtedly put together by algorithm, I think it's here to stay. I don't know how much it's viewed, but it is a list indies can make. And Kindle Select books, which wouldn't qualify for most lists because all the sales would be Amazon, are eligible for Amazon Charts. In fact, they have an advantage, since KU stats are included, particularly for most read categories.

I don't know if that's a comfort to anyone or not, but I mention it for what it's worth. It's certainly a list that has indies far more often than any other. 


 

[Bill Hiatt]

It's back!

USA Today has just announced a new and improved bestseller, free of "editorial subjectivity"--an obvious, but in some ways well-deserved, dig at the NYT.

https://lithub.com/usa-today-is-bringing-back-its-bestseller-list-with-some-improvements/

[alhawke]

It's back!
USA Today has just announced a new and improved bestseller, free of "editorial subjectivity"--an obvious, but in some ways well-deserved, dig at the NYT.
https://lithub.com/usa-today-is-bringing-back-its-bestseller-list-with-some-improvements/

Thanks for posting! This is great news, but more of a challenge than ever for Indie's with Amazon's new ranking system. I posted in another thread how ranking is delayed by upwards of 36hrs now by Amazon with BookBubs. It wasn't just my book delayed this week, I noticed it affected every book advertised on BookBub was effected. This led to my book not passing 1k mark in US (used to be in the top 100 in the store in the US during the first day of BB). Why is this huge? There's attrition every hour in ranking that a book isn't listed on Amazon. So it seems harder than ever for anyone to attempt this.

[Bill Hiatt]

It sounds very much as if Amazon is trying to hobble the effectiveness of BookBub. There have been signs of this before. But, particularly with USA Today's bestseller list coming back, it's a short-sighted move.

Anyone going for a bestseller list would have to be wide, but even so, most of the sales are probably going to come from Amazon. And whether or not a bestseller bid is involved, reduced ranking diminishes potential additional sales generated by increased visibility. Amazon ends up losing money in that scenario, and for what?

I guess the answer would be, to make AMS ads the only way to achieve sales on Amazon. But if that's what Amazon is up to, there's no guarantee that the lost sales will be made up for by bigger ad revenues. Most people I know are already spending what they can afford to spend on AMS. There's a limit to how much Amazon can squeeze out of people.

Are we sure that only Bookbub titles are the only ones affected? It's possible Amazon is just slow in updating. That's happened before, sometimes at very inconvenient moments.

[alhawke]

I guess the answer would be, to make AMS ads the only way to achieve sales on Amazon.

This. Yes. And co-author books using every individual author's reading list is another strategy. But it's gonna be real real hard now, unless ranking rules change with Amazon or the list deciders. These lists rely heavily on Amazon sale numbers. It's compiled over a few days, but I still argue that the new ranking rules put a dent in BB promotion power.

As I said a while back ^, most average readers don't really know what the USA Today or Wallstreet Journal bestseller list is anyway (side story, when I was looking into publishing, a mentor told me she was a Wallstreet Journal bestseller. I had no idea what that was). So it's questionably worth it to make it for just the list title, imo. I suppose other publishers and agents know what they are.

About a year and a half ago, I strived for making the list with a boxed set. I spent a lot of money, too much, & help w BookBub, I made it to the top 6 in B&N and top 50 in Amazon. But I still didn't make the list. I realized I would have needed to spend even more advertising money   

Many readers don't know what these bestseller lists are. They know the NYT's list, but that one's supposedly partial to trad published writers, I hear. Now, as with my newest promo, my goal is visibility and a sales tail, "list" or whatever.

[Post-Crisis D]

USA Today has just announced a new and improved bestseller, free of "editorial subjectivity"--an obvious, but in some ways well-deserved, dig at the NYT.

https://lithub.com/usa-today-is-bringing-back-its-bestseller-list-with-some-improvements/

From the article quoting from the press release:

"Using technology to enhance the user experience and automation to increase data sources . . ."

So, in other words, Mary Cadden lost her job to AI? 

[writeway]

It's back!
USA Today has just announced a new and improved bestseller, free of "editorial subjectivity"--an obvious, but in some ways well-deserved, dig at the NYT.
https://lithub.com/usa-today-is-bringing-back-its-bestseller-list-with-some-improvements/

Thanks for posting! This is great news, but more of a challenge than ever for indie's with Amazon's new ranking system. I posted in another thread how ranking is delayed by upwards of 36hrs now by Amazon with BookBubs. It wasn't just my book delayed this week, I noticed it affected every book advertised on BookBub was effected. This led to my book not passing 1k mark in US (used to be in the top 100 in the store in the US during the first day of BB). Why is this huge? There's attrition every hour in ranking that a book isn't listed on Amazon. So it seems harder than ever for anyone to attempt this.

Yeah, I was gonna post about this yesterday but forgot to pop back in. Not so sure this is good at all for indies. We will see but this is a new list in more ways than one. First off, there are NO indies on the list. Not one. Just hybrid and trade authors. Secondly, this new list is partnered with Bookshop. A trade-book retailer who deals in only print books. The list also partners with other retailers and I think some small presses if I'm not mistaken. So I can't see the list being "fair" in the least. If they are partnering with trade retailers then that's who they most likely will be catering to. Also, this list seems to put a heavier weight on print books meaning that seems to be what they are looking at the most. Well, indies surely can't match that seeing how most do POD and can't get into stores while others don't do print at all. You'll need more than ebook sales to get on this list. Some speculate the amount you need to make the list has gone up too.

All in all, folks wanted the list back but this might be a case of "be careful what you wish for." This list is run differently and obviously, it caters to a different audience than before. It's even said the prices skew toward higher prices which is another thing that cuts indies out. People also pointed out that there weren't many if any romance books on there. That's telling because the other list used to have a pretty good chunk of romance. It's fine if they didn't have any that sold enough this period (yeah, right) but I hope they don't curate romance out of the list in favor of other genres that might not even be selling well. This list was full of nonfiction and celeb bios.

Some indies who feel they should've made the list because of sales numbers didn't make it. For example, Marie Force who made the Wallstreet Journal list, didn't make this one I believe due to print sales. So if you got big-time indies like Marie who sell millions who aren't making the USAT but should've had the numbers, something is fishy. There are also other big indies who said they surely had the numbers to make the list and didn't. So it seems to be some curation going on and not a positive one where indies are concerned. At least right now it doesn't seem that way.

So, if indies were hoping the list would return just like before where it was easy for you to make it with 100 authors in a 0.99 box set, I think they will be very disappointed. It just doesn't seem like that's the kind of thing this list is aiming for.

But when someone partners with someone else, who do you think they'll favor? That list will be full of what's selling on Bookshop, watch.

Another thing, a lot of trade people love the changes. If that doesn't give indies cause to worry, I don't know what would. Usually when the trades love something it's not too good for indies.

Oh, yeah and the fact that they axed Mary for a bot isn't too comforting either. I feel sorry for Barbara Vandenburgh the editor that will be overseeing this who is probably gonna be stalked to no end.

[writeway]

It sounds very much as if Amazon is trying to hobble the effectiveness of BookBub. There have been signs of this before. But, particularly with USA Today's bestseller list coming back, it's a short-sighted move.

Anyone going for a bestseller list would have to be wide, but even so, most of the sales are probably going to come from Amazon. And whether or not a bestseller bid is involved, reduced ranking diminishes potential additional sales generated by increased visibility. Amazon ends up losing money in that scenario, and for what?

I guess the answer would be, to make AMS ads the only way to achieve sales on Amazon. But if that's what Amazon is up to, there's no guarantee that the lost sales will be made up for by bigger ad revenues. Most people I know are already spending what they can afford to spend on AMS. There's a limit to how much Amazon can squeeze out of people.

Are we sure that only Bookbub titles are the only ones affected? It's possible Amazon is just slow in updating. That's happened before, sometimes at very inconvenient moments.

Amazon has been doing this kind of thing to Bookbub for years now. It started to become obvious with freebie promotions more than anything. It was like Amazon purposely wouldn't update the rank. It wouldn't be like that for other books in your catalog, just the one with the BBFD. At a conference a while back, a representative of Bookbub mentioned this. Of course, she didn't wanna sound like Bookbub was accusing Amazon of manipulation but she made it very clear Bookbub had heard of these "ranking issues" that happen during Featured Deals.

I always said, I wouldn't be shocked if Amazon ended up buying Bookbub one day. Ugh.

[alhawke]

Some indies who feel they should've made the list because of sales numbers didn't make it. For example, Marie Force who made the Wallstreet Journal list, didn't make this one I believe due to print sales. So if you got big-time indies like Marie who sell millions who aren't making the USAT but should've had the numbers, something is fishy. There are also other big indies who said they surely had the numbers to make the list and didn't.

If it's easier to make the Wallstreet Journal list, than it sounds like this new USA Today won't be much move viable for Indies than the NYT list.

[Bill Hiatt]

I didn't pick up on the AI part when I first read the article. And if the list, which claims not to be curated, is actually curated, that's very disappointing.