Financial Times corrects book sales figure after conflating volumes with value

The Financial Times has issued a correction to a markets column after misstating the scale of US book sales, confusing the number of copies sold with their monetary value. An article published on December 20 stated that US book sales reached $3.1bn in 2024, when in fact the figure referred to approximately 3.1bn copies sold.

The original piece examined Elliott Management’s private equity bet on bricks-and-mortar bookshops, arguing that physical books have proved more resilient than many investors once assumed. In making that case, it cited US sales data to show steady growth over the past decade. By presenting the figure as revenue rather than volume, however, the article materially understated the size of the US book market and altered the economic context in which Elliott’s strategy was being assessed.

The distinction is not cosmetic. A market selling 3.1bn books is categorically different from one generating $3.1bn in revenue. The former implies a mass consumer product with broad reach and substantial turnover once pricing is taken into account; the latter suggests a comparatively modest niche industry. For a column focused on valuation multiples, growth narratives and the plausibility of a future IPO, that difference shapes how readers interpret both demand and upside.

The Financial Times amended the article to clarify that the figure referred to copies sold, not dollars earned. The correction restores the factual basis of the argument, but it also illustrates a familiar vulnerability in financial journalism: when large numbers are compressed into narrative shorthand, units matter as much as magnitude. Losing a currency symbol, or adding one where it does not belong, can quietly but decisively skew interpretation.

As with many recent corrections across business and economics coverage, the error did not invert the article’s conclusion. Physical books have indeed proved more durable than expected, and Elliott’s contrarian bet may yet pay off. But the misstatement weakened the analytical scaffolding supporting that claim. In markets reporting, precision is not pedantry. It is the difference between scale being understood and scale being misread.