Bernie Sander's campaign bought his own books to inflate sales.

[torius]

57. The publisher doesn't profit (or not much) from the bulk sales.

Last edited Mon Dec 23, 2019, 04:51 AM - Edit history (2)

The publisher pays an advance. In Bernie's case this could be a lot of money. Like hundreds of thousands. So the publisher LOSES that money UNTIL the books are sold, and these bulk books do not go toward repaying the advance. Nor does cash. If the books fail to sell, generally the author keeps the advance, but the publisher is not happy. Again, these bulk sales do not go toward repaying the advance. If they do make some profit (if it's a huge amount of books that lowers production costs), I really don't see what's wrong with that, since the campaign is buying them to sell to actual buyers, it's not some fake, nefarious Trump tower condo purchase kind of thing.

The campaign is spending money on the book, so they would be wasting money if they were doing it only to create sales. They are doing it to raise funds, not "inflate numbers." If some are given away, it's neither here nor there. They paid for the books.

The publisher prints as many as they think will sell. As Bernie has a huge platform there is an audience. The publisher is aware of this and the projected numbers affect how many are printed and his advance. If campaign stops are a good place to sell it then they are. Authors go on book tours with their own books they bought. People don't buy their own books to increase their sales numbers. Actually it hurts them in a way because those books don't go into the books that earn royalties and thus they could end up still owing money on their NEXT book and if they do not earn out there is less chance of getting a next book. They are doing what the publisher expects them to do--sell a certain amount of copies. A famous person with a big platform does not have problems selling books, they carry the books to meet the demand.

YES they do like authors who have a huge platform and audience. But how did Bernie get that? Because he built a fan base. So, he can say to the publisher, I'm gonna sell so many books. They probably worked with him on that and it could even be in the contract. These may be a case of what they call Special Sales. They do like when famous, popular people write books. This is business in a good way, it is not nefarious. Even if they DO profit some from the bulk sales, I don't see why that's bad. Verso is an indie, leftist publisher and their values probably align with the campaign's (that's not a conspiracy). There are few independent publishers left, and supporting them is important.

The help to the author and publisher is not in the BUYING the book so much as is in creating the demand for people to buy it FROM them. And yes, the publisher likes when authors create demand. Similar to movies hiring so-called bankable stars because it sells tickets.


If the campaign says we are gonna buy so many books in bulk, so what? The campaign is taking a risk by buying them. A campaign raises funds, it says thanks with giveaways... it's not enriching Bernie himself.


EDIT: IF HE'S NOT CAMPAIGNING after this, there would be no campaign to buy books, so why would these bulk sales help him in the future? Yes he can sell books on his own, but he wouldn't have the bulk purchases. If he does campaign again, and he writes another book and they again buy them, then the campaign is getting the money. If he isn't a candidate then the publisher would probably just print fewer books.


EDIT: IF HE'S NOT CAMPAIGNING after this, there would be no campaign to buy books, so why would these bulk sales help him in the future? Yes he can sell books on his own, but he wouldn't have the bulk purchases. If he does campaign again, and he had another book and they again buy them, then the campaign is getting the money. If he isn't a candidate then the publisher would probably just print fewer books.

Yes the publisher likes people who have the ability to sell books. Most authors try to build a platform so they can sell their own books. Yes if they sell books it often leads to more books but as I said, the publisher would project sales differently based on what the candidate or ex-candidate is doing to sell them.

Strong book sales lift the industry and help all authors, all potential authors, and all bookstores.

Nowadays you don't even have to bulk-buy--you can just upload to CreateSpace, Blurb, et al. Some publishers no longer even pay advances. And vanity publishers charge you to create the book. If a traditional publisher invests in your book they do hope to sell them and they do projections. Bernie probably could have made more money self-publishing his book.

It would be cheating if you paid or even asked say, 10 people in every city to go and buy your books one week or month, or every week or month, so that you could get on a weekly or monthly bestseller list (one that ignores bulk sales like the one I worked on). If the RNC bought Don Jr.'s book all at once with the intention of getting their asterisk in the weekly NYT list which does count bulk but asterisks them, that is gaming the system.

But that's not what this is. It's not "inflating" sales, it's making actual sales (resales). If some books are given away, I don't see any issue with this. Organizations do that. If they published the book themselves they'd have to buy it, it's not really that different, as the printer would be making money from them buying it. I think the fallacy here is assuming that this enriches Bernie somehow outside the campaign when it's just raising money for the campaign. The publisher is involved, they are not being "tricked" or manipulated. Bulk sales are just that, if one is no longer running then the sales might include some bulk sales from bookstore signings or talks but not a huge campaign, and the rest dependent on libraries and bookstores

Your advance is against royalties so you need to earn actual royalties to pay it back, the money comes from those not the bulk sales. Here is a fairly simple article on how royalties work.