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
Domino says
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.
Natalie Whipple says
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.
Shakier Anthem says
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.
Cat York says
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.
Alice M. says
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.
Ed Varga says
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.
Cat York says
I also think traditionally published authors have the means to do the same thing. Though the ones I know haven't done so.
Will Overby says
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.
Jaimie says
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.
Richard Gibson says
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.
jscolley says
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.
Krista Van Dolzer says
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.
Chipper Muse says
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.
Jaimie says
@Will – It's only dishonest if you've written a terrible book. Of course my book will be amazing so no false advertising there! 😛
Shakier Anthem says
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 (https://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.
Anonymous says
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.
Chudney Thomas says
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.
AE Marling says
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?
Christy says
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.
Sue Sedgwick says
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.
Neurotic Workaholic says
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.
Miri Thompson says
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.
Anonymous says
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.
Gehayi says
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.
BECKY says
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.
Mirka Breen says
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."
D.G. Hudson says
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.
J.T. Carroll says
It seems to me that the Times article has done all authors and reviewers a great disservice. There is quite a difference between an author paying for a review and and an author paying for a review and expecting to dictate the outcome. One of the earlier posters noted this inadvertently by saying they trust Kirkus. The Kirkus site charges indie authors for reviews, it may charge publishers as well. The point is not whether the review was paid for or not, it is whether it is objective and truthful. The former is a subjective judgement and the latter is verifiable. And, like a previous commenter said, sample chapters of a book provide a reasonably accurate way of judging both the objectivity and truthfulness of reviews.
I am an indie author and I recently paid for a review from Grub Street reads. Ironically, I got my review the same day the Times article was bouncing around. See how it made me feel: https://jtcarrollmysterywriter.blogspot.com/
Liss Thomas says
I don't feel it's honest to the reader. I won't hold it against authors who do it but I won't be one of them.
Bernie Brown says
I do read a lot of reveiws and they pique my interest, but I will always put more value on the recommendation of a friend whose tastes I share than on that of a book reviewer, who is a stranger to me.
LadySaotome says
Honestly, how pathetic do you have to be to want to buy reviews. It's sad. This is actually why I never read the five-star reviews. And I always start with the one-star reviews and work my way up. It's easier to filter out the trolls starting at the bottom than it is to filter out the drivel on top. And it may be unfair, but if a four-star is only praise with no issues, then I toss it out, too.
E.B. Black says
I don't like that they are paying for positive reviews. I'll never do this. I may give my book away to normal people in exchange for a review, but I want them to give their real reactions to my book, not fake ones.
The reason it makes me angry is I'm about to be a self-published author and it's hard enough to sell books without dealing with scandals like this.
Mr. D says
I'll echo the comments that label this practice as dishonest. Because it's basically true. Yes, you can argue that it's essentially the same as a commercial, like those on TV proclaiming the wonders of a product that may or may not be so wonderful at all.
But I would argue that a review is really supposed to be something other than a commercial. It's supposed to be someone's opinion on a work. And, of course, opinions are subjective, so they will inevitably vary.
But if those opinions are not honest ones, then they are misleading by definition. And nothing more than lies.
AR says
Well, the circus of human behavior has given us something new to laugh at. I love the closing line of the article. "I'm glad she liked it," the guy who used to sell fake reviews says about the reviewer of his own book. Of course, when he reads review of others' books, he distrusts them completely.
In other words, this happened because writers are so vain we will believe a thumbs-up is deserved even if we know we paid for it!
Well, revolutions are invariably excessive and then things go back to equilibrium. Events like this, that bring us down from the publishing DIY high, may be part of that balancing process.
The whole business was completely dishonest of course.
Peter Dudley says
Not yet having read the NYT piece, I'll say this: Posting a paid review without disclosing that it was paid for is considered deceitful and unethical according to the US federal government (whether the tenor of the review was guaranteed or not).
The FTC regulates such online communication in the US. Here's a quote from its Frequently Asked Questions about online sponsorships: "If you are acting on behalf of an advertiser, what you are saying is commercial speech – and commercial speech can be regulated under the FTC Act if it’s deceptive."
I'm no expert in this area, but it would seem that the ethics are clear.
It appears the FTC cannot actually punish or penalize advertisers who do not disclose the pay-for-play relationship. (For that's what this is: purchased media, which is advertising.) But such practices undermine the entire word-of-mouth system and should be exposed whenever they are not disclosed.
Taylor Napolsky says
For some reason this whole controversy bores me. I can't wait until publishing news moves on to something else.
I mean, you shouldn't base what you read on Amazon reviews anyway. I always found it incomprehensible. You can click any unknown book on Amazon and the reviews rave about it like it's Jane Eyre.
Brenna Braaten says
Generating attention is one thing. Getting your book out to as many people as possible to help spread the word about it is fine, in my opinion. Sharing good reviews in blurbs is also okay. Showing how other people liked it is fine – but I feel it must be genuine.
I do read reviews. I'm a watcher of them. I like to research things before I do them so I'm prepared. I like reading reviews because they are what I thought were honest opinions of other people. While I've never passed on a book because of a less-than-enthusiastic review, I feel there's a sort of covenant there that reviews should be the honest feelings of a review. As a person who has reviewed, I'm appalled that people would lie, as I wouldn't.
On the other hand, as a writer, I'm a little disgusted that people would pay for this service. Getting the word out is one thing. Paying for false praise is a little sad. I understand the temptation of wanting to have people say good things about your work. We work on hard on our stories, and it hurts when people don't enjoy them as much as we do. And it hurts when people don't know about them because there isn't a lot of news out there about it.
However, I think a person's art should stand on it's own. If a story isn't good enough to deserve 50 stellar reviews on its own, then go back to the drawing board and write something new and better. Having fictions about your fiction is kind of tacky. If it's good enough, just getting the word out that it exists should be enough.
February Grace says
I think it makes life harder for first tme authors who get good reviews because now no one believes they are genuine. I actually check to see if anyone has left me a negative review yet, so maybe people will believe that the people who did review before actually liked the book. That makes me sad.
As far as buying reviews, I wouldn't and as far as 'sockpuppeting'? There is only one word that comes to my mind if you are faking names to review your own book…pathetic.
Andrew Leon says
Speaking as someone that's been talking about honest, objective reviews for a while, now, I can't stand this practice. It's lying to the consumer and, ultimately, cheating them out of money.
In all honesty, I don't trust reviews, but it's not just the buying of reviews that causes that. Authors, especially independently published authors, are too prone to getting all their friends to 5-star them, and it makes it impossible to tell what's good and what's not.
It's bad for business all around.
The Writing Muse says
I liken it to the unpopular kid using candy to bribe the other kids on the playground to be his/her friend. An author paying someone to give them a 4/5 star review is a loud and clear message that they know their work is crap.
I don't take much stock in the 4 or 5 star reviews; I read the 1,2,3 starred ones as I want to see why people would rate it so low. Then I read a few pages of the book and decide for myself.
Antonia Murphy says
It seems a given that it's immoral– but what else is new? We're all a bunch of flawed capitalists just scrambling to make a living.
The real takeaway for me here is that along with the gold rush of self-publishing, readers are now confronted with an OCEAN of poor-mediocre writing. Ultimately, this will make the "cultural gatekeepers" (honest critics among them!) even more important than they were in the last century.
Matt Bird says
I think it is wrong to pay for positive reviews. It degrades the whole reviewing system. If I write an honest review of a book that's terrible but the author has paid for 50 glowing reviews then potential buyers will think of me as some boring sod who should be ignored, when in fact it is the glowing reviews that need to be ignored. Amazon has the verified purchase tag for reviewers who brought the item from Amazon and that goes some of the way to fixing the issue.
Is it possible to pay for reviews that are honest, I wonder?
Carmen Webster Buxton says
I agree with those who have said Amazon (and other online) reviews are not worth much. I generally look at what is said in the one-star reviews to see how specific the reviewer is about what they didn't like. I also don't think it's any worse to create a good review of a book you don't like or haven't read when you're doing it for money than when you do it for love/friendship.
Anonymous says
Aaand on a related note, how do people feel about a major online distributor manually manipulating book rankings (and admitting it to the authors) to remove books from the bestseller list?
Wait, wait, I know the answer. As long as it's not MY book or something I like to read.
Aimée Jodoin says
I work for a magazine that writes reviews on only independently published books. While the reviews in the magazine are free to the author/publisher, we also offer reviews which we post on our website (not random Internet reviews, ONLY our website, though we give the publisher permission to use the review however they would like) for a charge.
I am a strong supporter of independently published books, and I love sharing books with readers who may not have found the book otherwise. If working in the business has taught me anything, it is that people (i.e. reviewers) are as honest as they possibly can be without offending anyone. Just because they are being paid and know the publisher has paid the company to review the book does not mean they will deliberately write a positive review in order to prevent backlash on the company or themselves.
The bottom line, in my opinion, is that when a publisher or author pays someone for a review, they need to understand that they are paying for an honest opinion and a critical analysis of their book, not a positive marketing miracle. Even if the author receives a negative review, they should still appreciate the well-thought-out results and the time the reviewer spent reading their book, and they should take the reviewer's insights to heart, not become offended or defensive.
Robena Grant says
If the book is written by a new to me author, I check the reviews. But I always read the 3 star reviews because I find those to be the most honest. If I'm ordering for my Kindle, I get the sample first. If I'm in a bookstore, I read a few pages. If I really like a book I'll post a review.
Authors should have the freedom to do what they think is best for their career. If they want a paid review, fine. If they want to request all of their family members post a review, fine. If they ask all of their friends to "like" them on FB and Amazon and anywhere else, fine. It's their career. The telling is in the book. If it is good, readers will return. If they've been scammed, they won't.
Bryan Russell says
I wouldn't trust someone who took money for positive reviews, as it sort of makes the review pointless. It would be like reading the author's review of their own book, paid to order. And anyone who takes payment directly from an author for a review would be putting themselves in danger of that, whether intentionally or not. Give bad reviews and the money would dry up… give positive reviews and the money comes in. That's financial pressure for basic dishonesty.
I suppose you can find out basic information about the book, which may be useful in determining whether you want to read it or not. But why would I listen to a recommendation by someone who was paid to recommend it positively? What's the point?
I suppose it depends on the form it takes a bit; are we talking about a real review, or something more like a paid advertisement? If it purports to be an honest review that is objectively evaluating a book and it's not… not so good. But if it's clearly set out more like an advertisement in article form, that might be something else.
Annie says
This has gotten so out of hand. Paying people to write a review seems as squirmy to me as telling Americans there are WMD's in Iraq so hoist a gun and go to war. Where is the honesty in publishing? It's one thing if those contributors truly believe in the author's work, but if they are doing it for pay or payback, that is crap.
Nancy Thompson says
I never knew about this practice until a friend interviewed best-selling British author David Kessler on her blog. He sternly advocates the use of counterfeit reviews as a tool every author should employ. I find this form of perjury egregious to all readers. And as an author, I would never stoop to this level. My book must be good enough to stand on its own merits.
Laurie Boris says
Wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong. I would never buy a review. I've spent a few dollars on promotions, but a review? No.