I’ll confess right up front I’ve been sick as a dog and this day snuck up on me when I wasn’t looking. Instead of making a futile attempt at coherency in essay form, I’m going to take a stab at some very unscientific statistics.
Dear Author periodically posts the romance entries to the USA Today Bestseller list, and I’ve been wondering for a while how the subgenres stacked up. So I listed six subgenre headings, pulled up the sixteen random weeks ranging between 4/18/07 to 12/2/07 and started making slash marks.
Now it’s unscientific for several reasons. I didn’t include Nora’s reprints. I didn’t include Janet Evanovich’s Plum books since they don’t really fit a romance subgenre and the author considers them mysteries. I didn’t include the “Guiding Light” tie-in. I also, after a great deal of waffling and discussion with my inner reader, put Debbie Macomber’s significant offerings under Women’s Fiction. It’s just a vibe thing and you may disagree, so throw those numbers in with contemporary romance if you want. For some of them it was a judgment call.
All in all, I included 313 slots from those 16 weeks. NOTE: not 313 different books, but rather 313 slots on the list. For instance, of the four historical western slots, three of them were a single Linda Lael Miller book which stayed on the list for several weeks. Rather than specific books, I was looking for which subgenre was selling well that week.
So here’s what I came up with:
Contemporary: 52
Historical: 79
Historical Western: 4
Paranormal: 65
Romantic Suspense: 67
Women’s Fiction: 27
Urban Fantasy: 19
(As an aside, the title of the entry comes from the pie chart I made. It was too big for RTB, however, and I wasn’t sure how to add it anyway. I have the pie chart up on my blog, so you can take a peek if you’d like, then come back.)
I was a little surprised by how it shook out. I’d been under the impression romantic suspense was the strongest selling of the subgenres and that historicals, while making a comeback, weren’t as strong as romantic suspense or paranormals.
Totally non-scientific-ness aside, were you suprised by those numbers? It makes me very curious as to how an actually-scientific analysis of a full year would shake out. Any volunteers? 
So again, I apologize for the lack of serious contemplation today, but I thought the results of my random curiousity were better than nothing at all.
Oh, and I’d really love to hear how others would classify Debbie Macomber (in recent years). I spent a lot of time debating that with myself.
Interesting information. I’m surprised how it turned out too.
by LA Day February 21st, 2008 at 9:54 amJust from browsing bookstore shelves (B&N and Borders), it didn’t surprise me at all that historicals did so well. I think they’re fairly perennial.
I’ve started noticing historical paranormals, a trend which I like–I wonder how that will shake out?
by Victoria Janssen February 21st, 2008 at 10:03 amI wonder about the distinction between paranormal and urban fantasy. I bet we could draw that line a number of different ways. I continue to be amazed by the popularity of historicals. What kind of comeback is expected for a genre leading the pack?
by Ciar Cullen February 21st, 2008 at 10:29 amI’m not terribly shocked by these numbers. I think there’s been a misconception that historicals are “dying” when it’s really a matter of sales being “flat.”
Re: Debbie Macomber - I think of her current work as women’s fiction and her older work (the books currently getting reprinted) as romance.
by Wendy February 21st, 2008 at 10:37 amI’m kind of surprised by the numbers in urban fantasy. It seems like that genre is exploding right now. A year ago, I didn’t even know what an urban fantasy was.
by Jill Sorenson February 21st, 2008 at 12:42 pmI’m surprised at the low numbers for contemporaries and the high numbers for historicals, but I’m glad to see that historicals–rather than making a comeback–are already there.
Regarding the “unscientificness” of the study, it’s worth considering whether genres like “romantic suspense” or “contemporaries” were hurt simply by the sheer numbers on the market.
If the number of readers were equal for all genres, and there are twenty books to choose from in one genre, and two to choose from in another, the two books in the latter genre will probably have better sales records than any single book in the former category. Essentially, more options divide the vote so that fewer stand out–even if the readership as a whole is larger.
Just a thought…either way, the numbers are interesting. Thanks, Shannon!
by Kacie J February 21st, 2008 at 1:35 pmI would have lumped ‘urban fantasy’ with ‘paranormal’ myself. Given that, and asked to predict before seeing your data, I would have expected the ranking to be:
Paranormal
Romantic Suspense
Historical
Contemporary
One out of four ain’t bad.
by KeVin February 21st, 2008 at 2:31 pmHistoricals will be around for a while and more then likely will survive any fad. I was surprised about suspense beating paranormal but I bet by the end of the year they will either be tied or closer
by Sarai February 21st, 2008 at 3:52 pmIt is funny how I hear historicals are making a comeback when it seems they didn’t go anywhere. I was surprised at the contemporary numbers but then I looked at my TBR pile and saw I only had two and one of those is more likely a mystery. As a writer of fantasy and futuristic, I say ‘Way to Go!”
by Susan Kelley February 21st, 2008 at 9:41 pmIf the number of readers were equal for all genres, and there are twenty books to choose from in one genre, and two to choose from in another, the two books in the latter genre will probably have better sales records than any single book in the former category.
Definitely. Just like when a Harlequin or Silhouette line increases the number of releases per month. More money in the bank for the publisher, but less per book per author.
And with the urban fantasy, I put books by…umm…Kim Harrison, LKH, etc in there, but Ward, Liu, etc in paranormal romance. I read the Amazon descriptions for any I was unsure of, but that’s another reason for the unscientificness—my perception of the classifications. The ones I absolutely wasn’t sure of, I didn’t count, so I know it’s not far off.
I would have lumped ‘urban fantasy’ with ‘paranormal’ myself.
I did think about it, but I’m personally a bit of a ‘romance means at least one HEA per book’ purist. Series like Harrison’s or LKH’s don’t fit that for me. But because I know they’re popular and Dear Author listed them, I included them. But if you did move them to paranormal it would definitely change things up a bit.
by Shannon Stacey February 21st, 2008 at 9:51 pmThe numbers don’t surprise me because I assume a high number of those slots (if not all) were taken by the “top” authors of the genres. So the most bestselling historical authors never stopped selling at the top of the list–references to genres doing poorly or whatever have a far bigger relevance to midlist authors and unpublished authors trying to break in.
Just like when a Harlequin or Silhouette line increases the number of releases per month. More money in the bank for the publisher, but less per book per author.
That depends. If the increase in releases means an author gets to publish three books in the year instead of one, she’s coming out ahead.
Of course, nothing is simple, static, or absolute about any of this, so I’ll shut up now.
Good topic, Shannon!
by Natalie J. Damschroder February 22nd, 2008 at 1:17 am