In This Story
Between 2021 and 2022, more than 1,600 titles were removed from U.S. schools and libraries at the behest of parents, advocacy groups, elected officials, etc. The paradox? Banning these titles often dramatically increased readership interest in the circulation of banned books.
What began as banning a book over specific themes—race, gender, or sexuality—has turned into a widespread and successful unintended promotional tool for lesser-known authors and politicians.
In a forthcoming paper for Marketing Science, Sabari Rajan Karmegam, assistant professor of information systems and operations management at the Costello College of Business, found a 12% rise in circulation for the top 25 most-banned books.
Karmegam’s study draws upon large-scale library circulation data from 38 states, focusing on the most commonly banned titles as identified by PEN America and the American Library Association. The paper was co-authored by Uttara M Anantakrishnan, Naveen Basavaraj, Ananya Sen and Michael D. Smith of Carnegie Mellon University.
Karmegam explains that the focus of his research was not initially on political rhetoric or the broader culture war across the American electorate. “We did not restrict ourselves to those topics. We specifically looked at all the books that were banned, but we did see that the majority of these book bans dealt with LGBTQ+ themes, race, and gender,” he says. Through circulation data collected, these themes were present in most banned titles, revealing significant political implications.
Because of the surrounding controversy, lesser-known authors whose titles have been placed on mega-ban lists— books with polarizing content that have received highly publicized bans across multiple states—stand to gain from the inadvertent publicity effect. These bans, while intended to restrict access, have significantly boosted their readership.
Social media, Twitter (since renamed X) in particular, played a key role in increasing the visibility of these books. Banned books that were extensively tweeted about saw an even larger rise in circulation. “What we also see is that this ban introduces these books to a relatively newer audience,” Karmegam says. “And we see that whenever their overall visibility increases, when the overall chatter increases related to these books, we see that these banned books make them more desirable or make more people want to read about them.”
For example, using Amazon sales rank data and publicly available conversion tools, the researchers estimated that banned books were likely to have sold an additional 90 to 360 copies per month on Amazon alone—an effect corresponding to an average 41% improvement in sales rank following the book ban.
If book bans are backfiring at their stated objective (i.e. making the targeted books less popular and profitable), why do they remain so prevalent? Karmegam’s research shows that both Democrats and Republicans strategically employ book bans as political instruments, embedding these actions within a broader ideological culture war.
Yet most of the activity—as well as the reward—has been on the Republican side. “An analysis of 245 political fundraising emails revealed that over 90% of book-ban-related messages came from Republican candidates, who framed the issue as one of parental rights,” says Karmegam.
The mobilization has led to a 30% increase in small-dollar donations for Republican candidates after announcing a book ban—around an $800 boost in monthly contributions per candidate. This effect was largely confined to red states.
Not wanting to miss out, some Democratic candidates have also utilized book bans as a tool to try to mobilize their base. Their strategy has been to position themselves as defenders of free speech, but it has not translated into comparable financial support.
“This suggests that while book bans are a politically charged issue, Democrats have struggled to convert public discourse into tangible campaign contributions. In contrast, Republicans have successfully mobilized their base through targeted messaging,” Karmegam says.