The literary community was shaken this week by
an article in the New York Times revealing how many "reader book reviews" are written for hire by book review mills. The most shocking revelation involved John Locke, one of the self-publishing movement's greatest stars.
Locke admitted to buying hundreds of reviews from a review mill because "
it’s a lot easier to buy them than cultivating an audience."
But other people weren't all that surprised. The
NYT article quoted University of Illinois data-mining expert Bing Liu, who said,
"about one-third of all consumer reviews on the Internet are fake."
According to the article, Mr. Locke seemed to think purchasing reviews was OK, because he specifically asked the reviewers to be "honest." But once you're in review-buying territory, you're on a slippery ethical slope.
Things are complicated by the fact that Mr. Locke wrote a book about how to sell books in which he instructed writers in specific detail on how to go about "
cultivating an audience." The book didn't mention this particular rung on his ladder to success.
To be fair, exchanging goods and services for book reviews is a time-honored practice. Most reviewers get free books, and reviewers in print publications are generally paid—not directly by the author, of course—but the publisher may have to purchase advertising in that publication in order to have that company's books considered for reviewing. And authors have always reviewed other author's books (not always favorably.) But there has always been an attempt to avoid a blatant
quid pro quo in order to provide unbiased reviews.
When the respected
Kirkus magazine started offering reviews for hire to self-publishers, a lot of people got uncomfortable. Does putting a price tag on a
Kirkus review diminish its value to readers?
Some people think so. In the comment thread on an in-depth post on this subject on
Porter Anderson's Writing on the Ether this week, Barbara Rogan said. "
The only reason writers buy those reviews from Kirkus (at $425 a pop!) and the only reason readers respect them, is because of the reputation of the original Kirkus, respected for its (sometimes scathingly) honest reviews. They are degrading their own brand."
However, this is not only a self-publishing issue. Thanks to Nathan Bransford for pointing this out in
his August 29th blogpost.
The traffic in fake raves is not the only way the review system is being abused. Fake negative reviews are up for sale too. And an
article in the UK's Daily Mail this week reports some publishers are being sued for planting negative reviews for other publishers' books. Even academics are getting into the negative-online-review game, with rival scholars panning competitors' work on Amazon. The article also cites negative reviews given to books by somebody who dislikes the author's spouse or associates.
I've seen "reviews" like this myself. I have also seen sites for review mills that offer to write—for a slightly higher price—a batch of negative reviews for better-selling books in your genre.
Which brings me to what happened the day after the
NYT article about the review mills came out:
A gang of cyber-vigilantes decided to voice their displeasure with Mr. Locke's behavior by writing one-star reviews of his books.
Um, people, how does abusing the review system give a message that abusing the review system is bad?
As the sensible Chuck Wendig pointed out
Bad Author Behavior in Response to Bad Author Behavior is still Bad Behavior.