Tuesday, May 30, 2006

Only the books die young

The (possibly not completely unbiased) lulu.com (the world's fastest-growing source of print-on-demand books) reports that the life-expectancy of a bestselling novel has halved within the last decade, according to a long-term study of fiction bestsellers. It has fallen to barely a seventh of its level 40 years ago.

Edited highlights:

The average number of weeks that a new No. 1 bestseller stayed top of the hardback fiction section of the New York Times Bestseller List has fallen from 5.5 in the 1990s, 14 in the 1970s and 22 in the 1960s to barely a fortnight last year - according to the study of the half-century from 1956-2005.

In the 1960s, fewer than three novels reached No. 1 in an average year; last year, 23 did.

"The blockbuster novel is heading the way of the mayfly," says Bob Young, CEO of Lulu.com. The plummeting life-expectancy of a fiction bestseller, says Young, reflects the way that the publishing industry is unravelling, in an age of over-production, plus media fragmentation and now disruptive new technologies such as the Internet and print-on-demand: "The publishing revolution is nigh."

Similar trends are happening in other sectors, from music to movies, adds Young. "It's part of a cultural shift."

The future of publishing, he continues, belongs to "niche-busters" - books targeting a niche rather than mass market." Over 1,200 new niche-buster titles are now published on Lulu each week.

Although the latest annual book trade figures show the first fall in US book production for years, the period covered by Lulu's 50-year study saw a huge growth in the annual output of new titles. The number of books published in the US almost doubled between 1993 and 2004 - from 104,124 to 190,078.

Blockbusters, of course, do still exist, concedes Young, who could not do otherwise in the week that the movie of 'The Da Vinci Code' opens worldwide. Indeed, the biggest ones today sell more overall than their forerunners. But even uber-blockbusters like "The Da Vinci Code" fail to achieve the sort of unbroken dominance that was once routine.

The three novels to have topped the list for the longest stints during the 50 years studied were "Advise and Consent," a political thriller by Allen Drury, which hit No. 1 on Oct 14, 1959 and stayed there for 57 consecutive weeks; "The Source," an historical epic by James Michener, which reached No.1 on July 11, 1965 and stayed top for 43 weeks; and "Love Story," by Erich Segal, which, from May 10, 1970, bestrode the list for 41 weeks.

The longest unbroken spell that "The Da Vinci Code," by contrast, has topped the list was 13 weeks, between November 16 2003 and February 15 2004 - or two months less than the average No. 1 bestseller in the 1960s. Dan Brown's novel first hit No.1 on April 6, 2003, but stayed top for just two weeks. It has since lost and regained the top spot over 15 times, for varying periods.

"The market today is more chaotic," says Young. "The churn rate is far higher."

A growing number of bestsellers, says Young, now spend just a single week atop the list. "The New York Times will soon have to publish its bestseller lists daily instead of weekly, in order to stay up-to-date."

Quantity of Novels reaching No. 1 per year
50s: 3.8
60s: 2.8
70s: 4.4
80s: 7.6
90s: 10.0
00s: 18.2

The number of bestsellers per year has increased by over 700 per cent since the 1960s, more than doubled since the 80s and almost doubled since the 90s. If present trends continue, they will have doubled in the 00s compared to the 90s.

Life Expectancy of No. 1 Bestsellers (weeks)
50s: 16.4
60s: 21.7
70s: 13.9
80s: 7.2
90s: 5.5
00s: 3.0


ConradGempf said...

I read an article this very morning citing www.thebookseller.com (original article only available to registered members) that in 2005 "Great Britain has replaced the United States as the publisher of the most new books in English." From 2004 to 2005, the number of new books published in the USA decreased by 18,000 to 172,000, whereas UK increased its new books by 45,000 to 206,000.

brett jordan said...

i wonder what the print runs were? my guess would be that we are producing more publications, but far less copies of each book...

Major Look said...

What's a book?

brett jordan said...

hi major, they're like comics, only thicker, with less pictures.