First off, thank you so much to everyone who shared Monday’s post on the publishing process in GIF form. I seriously did not anticipate that response when I posted it, but it certainly made for an exciting Monday!
Meanwhile, publishing tongues were wagging this week in the wake of a NY Times article about the (apparently very lucrative) world of fake online book reviews:
In the fall of 2010, Mr. Rutherford started a Web site, GettingBookReviews.com. At first, he advertised that he would review a book for $99. But some clients wanted a chorus proclaiming their excellence. So, for $499, Mr. Rutherford would do 20 online reviews. A few people needed a whole orchestra. For $999, he would do 50.
There were immediate complaints in online forums that the service was violating the sacred arm’s-length relationship between reviewer and author. But there were also orders, a lot of them. Before he knew it, he was taking in $28,000 a month.
Some of the responses to this post, including Salon’s, aligned this practice with self-publishing, likely because most of the authors featured in the article, including John Locke, were self-published authors.
Art: The Cheat with the Ace of Clubs by Georges de la Tour
I used to write press releases for Simon and Schuster. What I did, write glowingly positive reviews in order to convince booksellers to buy the books, strikes me as fairly similar to what these review sellers are doing, with one notable difference. Book Sellers knew that they were reading paid press releases and treated them accordingly. If authors are paying for reviews (and frankly, I don't really see anything wrong with this), then those reviews should bear an imprint that lets a reader know that. Even disregarding the ubiquitous 5-star rating, reviews can provide valuable information about tone, plot, and character that might inform a reader about the book. If every review is 5-stars, 5-star means nothing.
I'm not sure how I feel about it all, but it does remind me not to take reviews TOO seriously as an author. It also reminds me as a reader to give books a chance and not to rely wholly on what other people are saying about them. I guess you really can never tell what's real online when it comes to opinions.
I think it's awful, deceptive, and disrespectful toward readers. However, as a reader, you're a consumer, so caveat emptor. Yes, I do pay some attention to reviews, but I'm always going to make my own decisions based on the book itself. No matter how many positive reviews a book has, if it doesn't grab me, I'm not buying it.
I saw Friedman and friends mention something about having a few official panels/site that review new or forthcoming books. Like a rotten tomatoes of the book world. I think that would be the best solution: one from each B&N/ Amazon and a few completely separate from the source. If these panels gained clout and retained integrity, indie book authors would seek reviews from panels instead of friends and paid sources. Friends and fellow writers would get a reprieve from the pressure of having to write a 5 star review. Of course, there will always be general audience-based reviews for comparison. I don't trust reviews. I read on recommendations from trusted bookie friends.
I don't trust reviews as much as I trust word-of-mouth. And even then, if it doesn't have a sample available to read, I won't buy it.
If it does have a sample, and the sample sucks, I won't buy it.
I only look at reviews for entertainment value.
Reviews from sites/people I can trust (Kirkus, my friends, my online buddies) count as word-of-mouth.
movie reviews are the same – when you look at the source you often find the most glowing reviews come from unheard of sources. then again, the films that advertize with great reviews usually suck.
I also think traditionally published authors have the means to do the same thing. Though the ones I know haven't done so.
Actually, I hardly ever read reviews. I most use the "Look Inside" feature on Amazon and see if the first few pages spark my interest. A writer's work should stand up on its own merits. That said, I think paying for positive reviews is dishonest to potential readers. It's cheating.
TIME book critic and traditionally published author Lev Grossman faked his own positive reviews on Amazon at one point. And he's my favorite writer so I say that with utmost squee.
I don't find anything wrong with buying positive reviews. It's business. I wish I had thought of it first. And no, of course it's not only self-published authors doing this, and I doubt they were doing it first. The marketing department is paid to think of this stuff.
I trust almost nothing on the internet on the face of it, and like others above, rarely base anything on any reviews (which I rarely read). I read blurbs, which could be thought of as reviews of a sort, but something effusive on a back cover is more likely to make me put the book back on the shelf than to buy it.
My personal reaction to this practice is distaste. While I realize this is probably common in traditional publishing, it will do more to undermine the indie movement. Sooner or later, the reading public will catch on, and they won't trust any reviews of indie books.
Even though some might argue, I think a review, or endorsement, by a fellow writer is more transparent and, therefore, more acceptable than a paid good review by a book review business.
I only trust the opinions of the people whose opinions I trust. (Go figure.) So an author could pay for a mountain of five-star reviews from an independent contractor, and they wouldn't sway me in the slightest.
I read online reviews as a way to make up for what I lose by not shopping in a physical bookstore: the opportunity to flip to various pages in a book and read them. By doing that, I can make a buying decision based on whether I like the writing and think I'll like the story. But I can't flip through a book online the same way I can in a physical bookstore, so I have to use something else to help guide my decisions, and a review can do that. If it's honest, of course. What a drag to have fake and paid reviews being posted. It makes me much more leery of buying anything, and I bet a lot of readers feel the same way. And that only hurts authors whose work is good.
@Will – It's only dishonest if you've written a terrible book. Of course my book will be amazing so no false advertising there! 😛
Domino — I think you're right, paid reviews should be disclosed as such. That would feel much less deceptive to me. Paying someone to write 100 positive reviews for your book feels like stuffing the ballot box.
There was an interesting article with Emma Straub the other day (http://www.flavorwire.com/322231/the-future-of-american-fiction-an-interview-with-emma-straub) where she talked about how hugely popular writers are often showered with praise. I think she's right, and I take those sorts of review, too, with a huge grain of salt. There are some highly praised big-name authors whose work I just don't care for, so in the end I have to trust my own taste and the work itself.
The article in the NYT was the tip of a huge issue with book reviews. Low end authors looking for promotional tools in the form of great reviews can go to places like fiverr.com and pay as little as five bucks to get reviews. Other low end authors hocking their books can get friends and family to leave reviews. Let's not forget about the Amazon vine reviewers who will do anything to garner numbers. I've seen them plagiarize and lie. One was caught doing this last year with thousands of fake reviews. The forums where they gather are filled with vitriol.
And then there are my all time favorites: the sockpuppet reviews. This is when authors leave reviews…good or bad…with multiple identities and fake names to either promote their own books or sabotage other authors.
It's a corrupt system and readers need to be aware of the fact that not all reviews are valid. And it's not just with self-published authors. Authors who are with publishers do the dame thing. It's proving that the honor system does not work and that everything needs to be regulated in one form or another.
And, someone mentioned Kirkus reviews. Authors pay quite a bit to get those reviews, too. They may be more valid…but they are still paid reviews.
I don't reviews, because it's all subjective anyway. Besides I've heard other authors boast about having their friends and family write reviews for their books, many of which the friends and family hadn't even read. So no I don't think it's a good idea and I don't trust reviews.
Clearly it is a problem. Fake reviews depreciate a great advantage online markets have over markets without readily available consumer reports. Remember when we had to rely on the quotes the Big Six publishers bought or at least arranged for the book jacket?
This is very common anymore, it seems. Just check out oDesk. Plenty of people paying money for book reviews, not to mention likes on FB, etc.
Um … doesn't this practice completely defeat the point of reviews? If all reviews are basically to be ignored and everyone knows this, why bother?
I suppose the reverse could be taking place too: malicious panning.
If the process isn't honest, it's worthless and I don't want any part of it.
I think it's a scam to pay for positive reviews. I think that positive reviews should be earned, not bought. I also think it's a little ironic that the person who outed the guy writing the fake reviews was a writer who "bought" one of his reviews; I don't think she had any right to complain if she was buying into it.
Paying for positive reviews sound unethical to me. But I think paying for someone to review your book honestly–with the chance that the reviewer might pan it–is acceptable.
Posing as a book buyer and writing a review under the guise of a consumer is deceptive. It's a bogus testimonial.
The author and paid-reviewer do a disservice to the work by participating in this type of promotion. Remember, as your mother always said, honesty is the best policy.
Deceiving readers should be done in the form of fiction when the author tells the truth that lives in her/his story. Then, and only then, the work speaks for itself. No bogus testimonial required.
Like everyone else, we are watching the process of book buying change exponentially.
I think that it's dishonest–especially if the writer and reviewer don't disclose that the review was a paid piece of flattery rather than an honest assessment of the work. And I am certain that this practice will only convince readers not to trust glowing reviews, since the assumption will be that the compliments were bought and paid for, rather than earned through the work's own merits.
Just another reinforcement that the real world isn't what I wish it would be. I find it sad, but agree that we have to make our own decisions and not just go by what "somebody" said.
I suppose people who earn a living posting these fake reviews may stoop to defend this, but it is a *seriously yucky-phooey* practice. That's my scientific term for it.
I'm reminded of the joke about the woman who said yes to the man who said he had to have her, and would she sleep with him for a million dollars? When he then said he didn't have a million dollars, would she take a hundred?
"What do you think I am, a prostitute?' she said.
His reply- "We've already established what you are. Now we are negotiating the price."
Unethical, IMO. Money warps the best of intentions. Muddying the waters of book reviews lead us to wonder at the validity of the book blurbs and the endorsements we see. I don't read them, they're always glowing.
In marketing isn't this sort of faked reviews called 'false advertising'? Or have scruples become a thing of yesteryear?
I would think this doesn't help self-published books very much.
Dishonesty in any profession stinks.