Author Wall of Shame: John Locke

[vxf]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Seems like marketing to me. Sleazy, but what forms of marketing aren't?

Injuria non excusat injuriam.

[Catlady]

So this guy is one of the big success stories of self-publishing, right? What does that say about self-publishing?

[DarkScribe]

Originally Posted by geertm

I have read most of his books, and I liked them.
Do you really think he sold more than a million books just because of 300 fake reviews?

Yep. I do. His work is appalling. Look at the "non-fake" the hundreds of one star "this is terrible" reviews. He said himself that he wasn't selling much until those reviews came out - then his sales boomed.

[AnemicOak]

Originally Posted by Catlady

So this guy is one of the big success stories of self-publishing, right? What does that say about self-publishing?

That some self pubbed authors buy reviews just like some trad pubbed authors (& publishers) have been known to do.

[Namekuseijin]

this guy sounds like a real scam, right down to the name.

[Phogg]

Originally Posted by Edward M. Grant

True. Because trade publishers would never expect to get reviews in return for buying advertising space in magazines and newspapers. And trade-published authors would never write a glowing blurb for a book without reading it.

Indie writers buying reviews sucks, but let's not pretend that trade publishing is a haven of virtue.

How dare you interject reality into the conversation.
You are disrupting the mantra.

[abookreader]

Originally Posted by DarkScribe

Yep. I do. His work is appalling. Look at the "non-fake" the hundreds of one star "this is terrible" reviews. He said himself that he wasn't selling much until those reviews came out - then his sales boomed.

I read, I think, two of his books. I wasn't blown away but I didn't feel they were any more atrocious than much of what I see publishers putting out in MMP these days. The biggest difference was I paid 99cents (Actually I paid nothing using Kobo discount codes) while if Penguin etc had been in charge they would have wanted $7.99.

I can't say I'm thrilled with the pay for reviews thing but it is rampant in the industry these days. I really don't view him any better or worse.

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by AnemicOak

That some self pubbed authors buy reviews just like some trad pubbed authors (& publishers) have been known to do.

This sounds interesting, but I don't want to see people unfairly attacked on the basis of weak evidence.

Do you have any reputable mainstream links, standing the test of time, that document this scandal?

The closest my own web search found is this from 2009:

Medical Publisher Offers Bribes for Writing Favorable Book Reviews

The only review for the new book Clinical Psychology found on the Amazon.com site gave it only one star, not five, explaining the low rating as follows:

“Elsevier publishing’s marketing department offered financial compensation in exchange for 5 star reviews of this book. Please be wary of reviews posted for this book.”

According to Amazon.com, “27 of 27 people found [this] review helpful.”

[Andrew H.]

Originally Posted by Edward M. Grant

True. Because trade publishers would never expect to get reviews in return for buying advertising space in magazines and newspapers. And trade-published authors would never write a glowing blurb for a book without reading it.

Indie writers buying reviews sucks, but let's not pretend that trade publishing is a haven of virtue.

Originally Posted by AnemicOak

That some self pubbed authors buy reviews just like some trad pubbed authors (& publishers) have been known to do.

The big difference between trad pubbed authors and indie authors is that trad pubbed authors have gone through a gatekeeper. Specifically, a publisher has been confident enough that their books would sell that the publisher has invested thousands or ten thousands of dollars in that book.

Indie books don't have gatekeepers; the answer to the lack of gatekeepers is supposed to be reviews. But if reviews aren't a useful way of sorting indie books, then it is even harder to separate the wheat from the chaff.

That's why this matters for indies much more than it does for trad pubbed books.

[Kumabjorn]

The only reviews I trust are the ones I read here on Mobileread.

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by Kumabjorn

The only reviews I trust are the ones I read here on Mobileread.

How much did they pay you for this commercial?

[Kumabjorn]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

How much did they pay you for this commercial?

They promised not to ban me for another week.

[Kumabjorn]

On a serious note though, my point is that you need to know something about a reviewer if you are going to put any trust into their review. Hence, I would take a review in NY Times, Wash Post, LA Times, Guardian, The Times or Frankfurter Allgemeine, even Le Figaro at face value, not so much on Amazon, B&N, Goodreads, The Sun, Daily Mail, NY Post or Rakuten.

[jhempel24]

At least to me his books were entertaining. I don't really care how anyone gets out there....the only thing that matters to me is "does it entertain ME?"

[speakingtohe]

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

The big difference between trad pubbed authors and indie authors is that trad pubbed authors have gone through a gatekeeper. Specifically, a publisher has been confident enough that their books would sell that the publisher has invested thousands or ten thousands of dollars in that book.

Indie books don't have gatekeepers; the answer to the lack of gatekeepers is supposed to be reviews. But if reviews aren't a useful way of sorting indie books, then it is even harder to separate the wheat from the chaff.

That's why this matters for indies much more than it does for trad pubbed books.

It might matter more to the reader but the act itself is still the same, no matter who the the perpetrator is.

Easy for me to say as I don't pay much attention to reviews or ratings unless I really dislike a book and then I may look up the reviews. Backwards of me I know

Helen