What bestseller lists really tell us — and why they shouldn’t be the only measure of a book’s worth

Bestseller lists are often treated as objective measures of a book’s success, yet their rankings reflect editorial judgement, marketing dynamics, and cultural visibility as much as raw sales. European Books & Culture Correspondent Milosh Zezelj examines what lists such as The New York Times Bestseller List really measure, and why readers should never judge a book entirely by its cover

The New York Times Bestseller List (NYTBL) is widely regarded as one of the most influential cultural signals in global publishing. For authors, appearing on it carries symbolic prestige as well as commercial recognition, and its language is frequently echoed by other media outlets, retailers, and publicity material around the world.

What is less widely understood is how ‘bestseller’ labels more generally rest not only on reported sales activity but also on how such lists are compiled, interpreted, and presented. This distinction matters because bestseller status is often treated as a straightforward measure of popularity, shaping reputations, careers, and reader expectations, even though it represents one particular lens on market activity rather than a comprehensive account of it.

Launched in 1931 and made digitally available in 2008, the NYTBL ranks weekly book sales across the United States by format and genre. The paper explains that its lists are determined by sales numbers drawn from a wide range of retailers while keeping its sources confidential to prevent manipulation. The precise figures behind the rankings are not publicly disclosed, a policy the newspaper itself acknowledges. This limited transparency has prompted longstanding discussion within publishing about how bestseller rankings more generally should be interpreted when readers assume they function as simple sales charts.

Publishing scholars including John B. Thompson have written about how bestseller lists, particularly the New York Times’, operate as cultural and institutional signals as well as commercial ones, and how they are often read in ways that extend beyond raw sales data.

The New York Times treats the methodology behind its list as proprietary, a position similar to other commercial rankings. Media researchers drawing on agenda-setting theory have shown how institutions that control visibility can influence attention. In this sense, lists such as the New York Times’ do not merely reflect popularity but also contribute to how cultural attention is distributed.

This editorial character was clarified in litigation in the early 1980s when author William Peter Blatty challenged the newspaper over the exclusion of his book. The Supreme Court of California held that the New York Times Bestseller List constituted editorial content protected by free speech. The judgment indicated that such rankings involve interpretation as well as reporting.

Rather than acting as a neutral thermometer of public taste, bestseller rankings can therefore be understood as cultural amplifiers that influence which books receive visibility. Cultural economists have observed that bestseller status typically arises from a combination of sales momentum, media exposure, institutional recognition, and marketing activity.

Questions about how bestseller status is pursued are also part of industry discussion. Analyses such as Sarah Nicolas’ A History of Buying Books Onto the Bestseller List describe how bulk purchases, pre-order strategies, and concentrated release-week campaigns are, so she says, sometimes used to maximise chart performance. The New York Times itself flags unusual purchasing patterns with a dagger symbol (†) to indicate bulk orders. There is no publicly defined number of copies required to reach a particular position on the list, and estimates vary by category and competition.

Researchers have attempted to model these dynamics mathematically. Work by Burcu Yucesoy suggests that books which gain early visibility often experience accelerated sales growth, a pattern linked to timing, exposure, and network effects rather than assessments of literary quality alone. This highlights a tension often associated with the major bestselling lists: bestseller status is frequently linked with merit, while scholars emphasise that literary value remains subjective and socially shaped.

Reader response adds another dimension. Studies into the ‘paradox of publicity’ show that high visibility — including visibility created by prominent lists — can increase scrutiny as well as sales. On platforms such as Goodreads, readers actively debate, challenge, and reinterpret the significance of bestseller labels rather than accepting them uncritically.

Digital recommendation cultures have further diversified discovery. Research by Danielle Fuller and DeNel Rehberg Sedo notes that many readers now rely more heavily on peer recommendations through platforms such as BookTok, Instagram, and celebrity book clubs than on traditional rankings. In this changing landscape, the New York Times list and others remain influential, while no longer being the only route through which books gain attention.

Recognising bestseller lists as editorial constructs, if that is indeed part of what they are, does not diminish their importance. Rather, it clarifies their role as influential cultural signals that generate attention and conversation. For readers, this context offers an invitation to look beyond labels and to view bestseller status as one indicator among many rather than a definitive measure of literary worth.

Milosh Zezelj is a Swiss author with international publication experience and exposure to the European book fair circuit. He works in communications and branding, speaks multiple languages and operates across several European markets. As European Books & Culture Correspondent for The European, he contributes editorial on books, publishing and cultural trends across the continent, including new titles, cross-border literary movements and developments shaping Europe’s contemporary cultural landscape.

READ MORE: ‘Shelf-made men: why publishing still favours the well-connected‘. Figures indicate that Britain’s publishing industry continues to draw heavily from privately educated and well-connected authors, while working-class writers progress more slowly and achieve fewer releases. Here, our Literature and Current Affairs correspondent, RR Haywood, reviews the evidence and considers how background and access continue to influence who gets published.

Do you have news to share or expertise to contribute? The European welcomes insights from business leaders and sector specialists. Get in touch with our editorial team to find out more.