How have book sales and streaming adaptations of J. K. Rowling's work changed since the transphobia controversy?
Executive summary
Coverage shows a mixed commercial picture: some reporting found short-term drops or slower growth in Rowling’s print sales after the 2020 backlash (for example U.S. print growth lagged broader market growth) while other titles still “topped charts” in the U.K. and individual releases posted strong first-week numbers [1] [2]. Streaming and adaptation activity has continued — the Wizarding World remains a high-value franchise with strong streaming viewership for the films and an HBO Max/HBO TV reboot in production — and studios have largely proceeded despite public controversy and some retail or local boycotts [3] [4] [5].
1. Sales: early evidence of cooling in the U.S., resilience in the U.K.
Analysts cited by Newsweek/Variety told reporters that Rowling’s U.S. print sales grew less than the market in the months after the 2020 controversy — NPD BookScan figures show Rowling’s U.S. print sales rose 10.9% in June while overall fiction rose 31.4% — a sign of relative slowing though not a collapse [1]. At the same time, National Post and other outlets reported new Galbraith/Rowling releases still debuting at or near the top of U.K. charts — Nielsen BookScan numbers and Bookseller commentary were cited saying a Robert Galbraith title sold tens of thousands of copies in its first week [2]. These two threads indicate a geographic split rather than a uniform industry-wide downturn [1] [2].
2. Estimates of financial impact vary and are contested
LGBTQ Nation published a figure that Rowling’s anti‑trans tweets “may have cost her $1.7 million in book sales” in a month, but this kind of estimate depends on assumptions and timing and isn’t confirmed by industry-wide auditing sources in the material provided [6]. Industry trackers like NPD/Nielsen offer measured year‑over‑year comparisons (cited in Newsweek) that show relative underperformance in specific periods but do not equate to total disappearance of revenue [1]. Available sources do not provide a comprehensive audited tally of long‑term lost royalties or theme‑park income tied to the controversy.
3. Streaming and screen adaptations: high demand, fraught politics
Warner Bros./HBO’s multi‑season TV adaptation proceeded in production, with the franchise still drawing large streaming audiences — Digital‑i/Deadline‑sourced figures reported tens of millions of views for early films on Max in 2024, and HBO’s series moved forward with a reported large budget and production timeline [3] [7] [4]. At the same time, reporting shows casting and crew have faced public pressure and social backlash; critics, actors and columnists debate whether working on Potter projects is now a political statement [8] [4]. That combination — huge viewer interest but heightened reputational scrutiny — is the dominant pattern in adaptation coverage.
4. Consumer activism, local boycotts and cultural ramifications
There are documented instances of bookstores and some fan actions refusing to stock or promote Rowling’s books (Booksmith in San Francisco announced removal of Rowling’s titles in 2025), and organized boycotts around projects like games or adaptations have been reported [5] [9]. These moves indicate activists and some retailers are willing to take commercial steps, but the sources show these remain selective and locally variable rather than an industry-wide delisting campaign (p1_s8; [12] notes disputed reports about purges).
5. Interpretations differ: “artist vs. art” and studio calculus
Industry figures and commentators differ on whether controversy meaningfully damages franchise economics. Some executives and writers emphasize separating creator views from IP value and point to high streaming/box‑office numbers [3] [4]. Others — activists, affected fans, some actors — argue the controversy changes the moral frame around consumption and can justify boycotts or career caution [8] [10]. Warner/streamers appear to be calculating that audience demand for the Wizarding World outweighs reputational risk, while also trying to manage public relations around casting and creative control [4] [11].
6. Limits of current reporting and what’s missing
Available reporting provides snapshots — early months after 2020 and later streaming figures and production updates through 2024–2025 — but lacks a single, comprehensive audit tying long‑term book revenue, theme‑park income, licensing, and downstream royalties directly to the controversy. Detailed, audited financial statements or longitudinal consumer research quantifying long‑term lost sales or churn are not present in the cited sources (not found in current reporting).
Conclusion: The factual record in these sources shows measurable regional softness in some book‑sales periods and clear reputational consequences (local bookstore removals, public backlash), yet the broader commercial engine — streaming views, big‑budget TV adaptations and chart‑topping releases in some markets — has largely continued. Different stakeholders draw opposite policy or moral conclusions from the same commercial data: some see financial damage and a moral case for boycott, while studios and many analysts point to persistent audience demand [1] [2] [3] [4].