See how the Result Source campaign made Mark Driscoll a half million dollars (Updated) 23

On Friday Mars Hill posted an announcement where they assured us that Mark Driscoll  “did not profit from the Real Marriage books sold … through the Result Source marketing campaign.” At the time, I found the statement difficult to believe, because the whole point of the $210,000 “investment” was surely to profit from it.

Even if Driscoll gave back every penny from sales and commissions purchased with the $210k, he still profited from the buzz and increased sales that a #1 ranking on the Times generated. Publishers understand the sales boost that can come from such a listing and sometimes offer authors bonuses if their books appear on important bestseller lists.

By tracking the Amazon sales rank of Real Marriage, we can actually see the effects of the bestseller listing. Using archives of Amazon’s Real Marriage page, I tracked the book’s overall Amazon sales rank over the first six months after it was officially published (Jan 3, 2012). Given Amazon’s massive market share of books sold in the United States, it’s a good analog for overall sales in all retail outlets.

"Real Marriage" Amazon sales rank over six months

“Real Marriage” Amazon sales rank over six months

We can see that after about a month and a half, sales started to decline rather rapidly, though are temporarily reversed by Mark and Grace Driscoll’s appearances on The View, CNN and Fox & Friends on March 5, 62 days into the book’s release. We can also see how various Real Marriage conferences over the summer helped drive sales in the third and fourth months. (This isn’t a criticism, it’s just to help explain why the chart changes over time.)

If we zoom in on the first six weeks, we see how the Times’ listing halted the overall downward sales trend.

Amazon sales rankings for "Real Marriage" in its first six weeks of release.

Amazon sales rankings for “Real Marriage” in its first six weeks of release.

The book starts at #5, driven mainly by the pent-up orders that had been arranged by Result Source, though starts to fall precipitously in the first week. On Day 6, it is ranked 84, though recovers to #53 on Day 11. Not coincidentally, the Times published the previous week’s rankings on its website on Day 10 (Jan 13) on which Real Marriage is #1 on the Hardcover Advice, How-To and Miscellaneous list. The buzz from that designation drew attention and sales to the book, bringing its ranking back up. (One remarkable aspect of the listing is that Result Source so effectively masked the sales effort that the book doesn’t earn the dagger symbol, as we’ve seen on some of Furtick’s books, to warn us that the result might be from bulk sales.)

Over the course of the next week, the book again starts to lose traction, but gets a second bump from the book’s appearance at the top of the list when it’s actually printed in the paper on Jan 22. We can see the effect on Amazon, where the book vaults back up to at least #32 (it may have been higher, but the archive doesn’t capture every day), and we also see the effect on the Times’ list itself, where the book reappears on the web-only listing in the #12 position for Feb 12, covering sales in the week after the printed list appeared. The book stayed in the #12 position for one more week before falling away permanently.

After the two NYT bumps, the book starts to lose its ranking rapidly. If we take a snapshot of the sales that are generated immediately after the #1 listing, we can see there’s a window of sales activity where the Times list has temporarily suspended the gravitation pull that started in week 1. I’ve indicated that window with a green box in the chart above.

We can say, then, that the Times list sustained the book at an Amazon sales rank of about 50 for 16 days. Using the same calculations that I used when estimating Steven Furtick’s book income, we can assume that he is selling about 1,500 books per day on Amazon. Assuming that Amazon represents a quarter of all books sold, that means that Driscoll sold 96,000 books inside that 16-day window that he would not have sold without the Result Source campaign. 

Assuming that Driscoll’s holding company makes the standard 15 percent author’s commission on the cover price of $22.99, those extra 16 days of sales netted him $330,000. (See update below for an alternative formula.)

If we take those calculations just a little bit further and assume that ABC, CNN and Fox News would not have invited the Driscolls on their shows if his book had not been a bestseller, we can also roughly calculate the value of the bump we see between Days 64 and 90. The interview on The View was on March 5, and on March 6 the book ranked 348, but by March 8 it had jumped back to 100. By April 4 it was back to 397. Assuming an average sales rank of 200 for those 26 days gives us 13,000 additional sales, netting the Driscolls $180,000 more.

The $210,000 that the church spent had the immediate and direct effect of boosting Mark Driscoll’s earnings by $330,000, with an indirect effect of earning $180,000 more based on the buzz that led to the media interviews, for a total of just over a half million dollars.

By my calculations, Mark Driscoll used $210,000 of other people’s money to earn $510,000 for himself. That is why the Result Source campaign was initially considered an “investment,” but didn’t became “unwise” until just last week.

UPDATE (3/11/14): A credible publishing professional has suggested an alternate formula for calculating royalties based on 25 percent of net receipts, which is essentially the same as the wholesale price. So if the book were sold to a retailer for $12, Driscoll would earn $3 on the sale. My calculations were based on a lower percentage of a higher sales price (15 percent of retail, creating a commission of $3.45 per book), so the alternate calculation — assuming the same volume calculated above — would yield earnings of $444,000.

23 thoughts on “See how the Result Source campaign made Mark Driscoll a half million dollars (Updated)

  1. Paula Mar 10, 2014 7:35 pm

    ”did not profit from the Real Marriage books sold … through the Result Source marketing campaign.”

    I think the IRS could make sure for us, don’t you?

    And “did not profit” so what is the point of doing it in such an underhanded and deceptive way? Do they seriously expect people to be that stupid?

    I guess they do.

  2. Paula Mar 10, 2014 7:36 pm

    I mean… saying “I didn’t profit” from this action doesn’t mean much. It just means “it didn’t work out the way we planned.” So that makes it better?

  3. Tim Mar 10, 2014 7:46 pm

    The emphasis on profit or lack of profit at Mars Hill reminds me of the Scriptural question “For what does it profit a person to gain the whole world and forfeit his or her soul?” I invite Mr. Driscoll to do some soul searching.


  4. Russell Mar 10, 2014 8:33 pm

    If the ox can’t stop eating should it be muzzled ?

  5. tony walker Mar 11, 2014 1:36 pm

    maybe they have the same mindset as a place i worked out of high school (i wasn’t high up, just a night shift nobody)…

    “we’ve lost 25 million dollars this year so far!!!!!!!!!!” says the bosses.

    translation: we only made 550 million dollars instead of 575 million we wanted.

  6. Pingback: How Mark Driscoll Could Have Banked $500,000 With His “Investment” of Church Money | The Wartburg Watch 2014

  7. Tim Lawing Mar 11, 2014 7:10 pm

    This is made up madness.

    Mark Driscoll did not do this, there is absolutely no evidence he was involved. And even if he did….big whopping deal.

    You are doing what Liars do…LIE

    • Tim Mar 11, 2014 7:28 pm

      What a hoot, tim, thanks for the grin!

      His church’s pastors admitted hiring that firm under that contract to manipulate that book onto the bestseller list when it really wasn’t a best seller. If their admission means the rest of us are liars, then it’s a new definition of lying to me.

      As for how big a deal it is, it’s a very big deal. That money could have been much better spent in the Seattle area by a Seattle pastor from a Seattle church, and their decision to use it to manipulate sales records is very poor stewardship.

  8. Junius Mar 11, 2014 7:49 pm

    Sticking up for the false teacher and money changer Driscoll, interesting!

  9. Headless Unicorn Guy Mar 11, 2014 8:18 pm

    Invest $200 grand of Other People’s Money…
    Rake in half a million…
    Nice Racket!
    (Move over, Underpants Gnomes!)

  10. Headless Unicorn Guy Mar 11, 2014 8:18 pm

    I Spy
    With My Little Eye —

  11. Junius Mar 11, 2014 10:37 pm

    Speaking of profit, NewSpring brought in $50.7 million, $15.7 million (31%) of which paid salaries! A robust 9% went to missions.

  12. Junius Mar 11, 2014 10:38 pm

    Not to hijack, here’s the link:

  13. Jason Mar 11, 2014 11:16 pm

    Well, perhaps NS should be thankful that the church’s finances are publicly disclosed which would appear to be more than Elevation church does regarding their pastor’s salaries and such not.

  14. Charles Grant Mar 12, 2014 1:13 pm

    Jason, don’t be too sure about that NS annual report as they don’t disclose what Perry Noble or anyone else on staff is actually paid. For all we know, Perry’s salary at NS could be anywhere from non-paid (work for free) to $500,000 a year. Without more detail on their’s or any other church’s finances there is no way to know for certain who is paid what.

  15. Junius Mar 12, 2014 2:33 pm

    Dr. Duncan,

    Do you have any explanation for how NewSpring’s staffing costs have been static at 30% even in light of astronomical revenue growth?

    Staffing Costs

    2011: $7,007,015.01 (30%)
    2012: cannot locate
    2013: $15,717,000.00 (31%)

  16. Charles Grant Mar 13, 2014 10:57 am

    Junius, the percent Newspring spends on staffing costs may have been static at 30% over the past few years but the amount of money spent has continued to rise each year as you have noted. Even if you know the number of people on paid staff, you still cannot know what each person is paid despite being able to find the average salary very easily.

    Just an example as we have no idea what anyone on staff there is paid, okay? Suppose Perry Noble and Brad Cooper are both paid $200,000 per year but thirty other people are paid $40,000 per year (again, there is no way we know what anyone there is paid). Do the average and it works out to $50,000 per year. That’s a very generous salary in the Anderson area and it also does an excellent job of hiding the two outlying salaries at $200,000 per year by statistically weighing those down with enough lesser salaries to make it look like those two people are earning significantly less money.

    Now back to reality. Unless Newspring, Elevation, or any church is willing to disclose what everyone on staff is paid, putting out an Annual report listing staffing costs, with or without the number of people on staff, is a waste of time. Going by that information you simply cannot know what individual staff members are paid.

  17. Junius Mar 13, 2014 4:55 pm


    I know that the average salary would not tell much, if anything, about NewSpring salaries.

    If I had to guess, I would say that Perry Noble is taking home $700k, and I’m sure Lucretia Noble is being paid a salary as well, Clayton King $180k, Brad Cooper $160k, Lee McDerment $150k, high-level staff $130k, campus pastors $90k, and the “plebes” of the staff probably take between $35-45k.

  18. Pingback: Saturday Ramblings, March 15, 2014 |

  19. Pingback: Mark Driscoll Gives It All to the Church? It Depends on What His Definition of “All” Is. | The Wartburg Watch 2014

  20. Pingback: See How the Result Source Campaign Made Mark Driscoll a Half Million Dollars |

Comments are closed.