I would call that out as dinosaur thinking. People communicate what they enjoy and dislike, and the internet is the world's largest communication tool.
I think these are the same people, who a few years at conferences were also dismissive of Amazon's market share. I think there's still a mentality that most sales are through book shops - but I bet if you strip out the bestsellers most sales would be through Amazon, not book shops.
I think publishers in general simply do not understand the internet.
Well, publishers know better than anyone else how well their books are selling and where they are selling, so that's not an issue.
The publishers who told me that - seven years ago remember - also later set up the SF Gateway programme and published the Encyclopedia of Science Fiction online for free, and are generally much more net-savvy than most.
Where there is usually an overestimation, it's from fans of e-readers. I prefer to read paper books and I've been called a dinosaur for that, yet e-book sales are still only 15% of the market in the UK and less than 20% in the USA. Coming from nothing a few years ago, yes that's hugely impressive, but it's not even close to a majority yet, and it's amusing how many e-reader enthusiasts are totally unaware (or in denial) of that fact.
I'm surprised that Pullman, Martin and Gaiman are so low, considering the huge deal that has been made about their work. Pullman's had one book turned into a movie that grossed 370 mil (the book also has two sequels) and another first book in a series adapted by the BBC. Martin has Thrones plus whatever all the others have earned. Gaiman has had a couple of books turned into movies plus his huge reputation from the comics to drive sales and he's written a few books (if you're counting his juvies).
That's an issue of perception. They are not 'low' at all. Most books sell a few thousand copies and then disappear, and that's often enough for the authors to keep being published (though not enough for them to make a living off writing). So when you're talking about even the low millions of sales, you're getting into really impressive numbers. When you get to Pullman's 15 million sales (of just three books, remember) or Martin's 25 million, you're entering
very impressive sales territory.
Gaiman's sales as I've said are an underestimation. He'd sold 7 million
Sandman graphic novels alone as of 2008. With everything else he's done - even his arguably most obscure novels have sold a million copies each - he's probably well north of 20 million by now. I just can't find official confirmation of that.
A typical fantasy book might sell 5000 copies. If a fantasy book has 10,000 ratings on Goodreads it's a pretty safe bet it's doing a lot better than average.
These numbers are significant compared to sales figures and therefore significant full stop. Goodreads has 13 million members - that is a decent fraction of the active reading public and certainly large enough to generate meaningful samples.
This is the same problem that Amazon has, however. There are lots of people who will post reviews of things they haven't read, or of sample chapters alone. I've seen people posting one-star reviews of all of the
Thomas Covenant books because they read up to the infamous rape scene in
Lord Foul's Bane (which happens about 40 pages into Book 1 of the series) and went into a flying rage at the author. Something I think you're slightly familiar with from more than a few reviews by people of
Prince of Thorns who clearly haven't read the book
There was also one internet commentator who started a major witch-hunt against Scott Bakker because they didn't like the prologue posted free online because it alluded to sexual abuse.
And on the flipside you have the self-published groups who all rate one another's books out of mutual interest regardless of whether they've read them or not. Or certain authors who create 200 dummy accounts just to rate and review their own books. Or the infamous ADWD situation, where people rated the book one star because they had to wait six years for it and wanted to 'pay the author back', but a few months later can be found on fan sites eagerly debating the plot twists in the novel and bemoaning the wait for the next book.
Ultimately I think the Internet is a good place for recommendations and reviews, but the impressions you get from it can be highly distorting.
A good fraction of people buying books on the internet probably enjoy other book-related activity on the internet (going on Goodreads etc, reading blog reviews etc)
On a very good month I get 200,000 hits, which is a tiny fraction of what Amazon gets in an hour
There are a few general SFF blogs that do better than me, but not a huge number. Where the real hits go are specific author blogs (Scalzi's probably gets at least 200,000 a
day, and he's not even at the top of the tree) and the larger, longer-established and usually publisher-driven websites like Tor.com. But even they're not getting anything like what Amazon does.
Those of us who use the Internet every day and post to discussion boards every day sometimes forget that there's a vast number of people out there who only use the Internet to buy the odd DVD, make the odd Skype call and swap messages with old friends on Facebook.