On a related matter

[james_davis_nicoll]

When I did reviews for PW, I told myself that wasn't the same as doing reviews for PW Select but on reflection, that was the wrong call: having anything to do with one arm of a company is supporting the whole edifice.

Although Romantic Times and RT Review Source are not the same organization, they are connected. The review I will be sending RT this month will be my final review for them, at least as long as their upper echelons embrace the idea of RT Review Source.

I have absolutely no ill will towards Regina Small of RT, who had no role in the creation of RT Review Source.

Comments

[elf]

I expect profitable written fiction will stay around for quite a while; while there is plenty of free material, you need training and dedication to find it, and most people aren't going to bother. (I don't bother with genres outside of my favorite; if I want good nonfic, I scrounge up some rec lists and pay for something. I can find free quality fanfic because I've spent years learning how to find it.) (Currently: Search at AO3 and sort by kudos--and then avoid anything tagged "alternate universe" unless you happen to love that particular type of AU.) (Stay the hell away from anything tagged "alpha/beta" or "omegaverse" unless you know what that is and don't mind reading more of it.)

And sure, I'm always looking for better ways to get me the stuff I want to read. But that wasn't the point I was trying to make, or not the question I was trying to ask.

I can see why paying for reviews might not be *profitable* for an author--in the sense that it might not bring in enough extra income, in the long run, to be worth the twist on reputation it also carries. (Worked fine for Locke, though.) I can see that it might not bring the kind of fame or rep an author would like. It won't win awards. It won't bring substantial numbers of real fans, the dedicated kind who put that author's name at the top of their to-buy lists. But it may well bring in a good number of casual readers--"I want a new mystery novel; what's high on the charts this week?"

I know that the history of paying for reviews is full of scams and fraud. I can't tell if that's intrinsic to the practice, or a function of traditional gateway publishing, in the same way that "self-publication" used to be full of scams and frauds (and there's still plenty of vanity presses around to fill that niche). I don't know if pay-for-reviews could reasonably move into the same kind of economic status as pay-for-distribution: the service Amazon and Smashwords provide for independent authors.

Is there an ethical difference between "pay for an ad to appear on some book-focused blogs" and "pay someone to write a blog post singing the praises of my book?" (Presuming, of course, that the book is praiseworthy in the first place. Not talking about upgrading an evaluation--just being willing to evaluate this book, instead of the thousands of others coming out this month.)

FWIW, Amazon absolutely forbids buying reviews, even in the style of "I'll send out free copies to anyone who agrees to review my book with any rating they want." They crack down on it occasionally and inconsistently.

[graydon]

Is there an ethical difference between "pay for an ad to appear on some book-focused blogs" and "pay someone to write a blog post singing the praises of my book?" (Presuming, of course, that the book is praiseworthy in the first place. Not talking about upgrading an evaluation--just being willing to evaluate this book, instead of the thousands of others coming out this month.)

I would think the obvious ethical difference is that the ad is demarcated from the text.

Advertising is about identifying or creating an insecurity and offering to address it in a way that makes a profit for the advertiser. (The route to the profit can be mistaken or long, but that's the category.) Everyone targeted by advertising at least has the opportunity to recognize that it is not undertaken in their best interest.

Were one to pay for reviews to appear on a book-focused blog, the readers of that blog doesn't necessarily know it's an ad; indeed, I'd expect that business model depends on the reader not knowing it's an ad. The reader needs to think it's a review. (An ad wants you to buy the book; the review wants you-as-a-reader to recognize the reviewer as consistent and useful. These really aren't the same objective.) If they think it's a review, they're being misled.

That potential -- nigh-certainty -- of active deception is I think the ethical difference.