Of Bestseller lists

This is like that scandal a few years ago that movie reviews were written by people paid for by the big movie companies! Absolutely ridiculous to have a Bestseller list of books that are not really best sellers but books the list-maker wants to promote! Is there nothing we can believe in today? Everything is about spin and make-believe?

Tim Harford, joint-winner of last year's Bastiat Prize, who blogs here, writes:

Are the bestseller lists made up?

Seth Godin thinks so:

The Times' list is completely fictional. Made up. Divorced from reality. The stated goal of the list is to find (and promote) books that Times editors want people to read, not books that are actually selling a lot. (The editor of the Book Review told this to me years ago). So, they make up 'rules' to appear consistent. When Harry Potter was selling like crazy, they invented a new list so that they could take JK Rowling's books off the real list. When diet and other books started selling a lot, they made up a new ghetto (miscellaneous) for those books. When books started selling in places like Wal-Mart (thus driving the snootiness factor down) the Times penalized sales in chain outlets. And books like the Bible are banished because they're not current enough.

He seems to have a point. Here's the article that got him started:

Why does “Night” become an evergreen [and therefore dropped from the list] at 80 weeks when Malcolm Gladwell’s “The Tipping Point” remains on the list at 164 weeks?