Quote:
Originally Posted by rhadin
It really depends on who is doing the paying. For years people have relied on reviews written for such magazines as the New York Times Book Review and the New York Review of Books. The reviewers in thier pages are paid for the reviews. But they are paid by the magazine, which also assigns the book to be reviewed. I do not see any problem with this. It assures that that the reviewer is competent.
|
My first thought was that- "who is doing the paying?" As I read the OP, I realized it was the author who was doing the paying. So my second thought went like this one:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anke Wehner
If the author paid for it, it's not a review, it's an advertisment. And unless that fact is mentioned in the review, it's deceptive to boot.
|
With regards to ficbot's question, I don't think those reviews should be counted as the required reviews. I think the author directly paying the reviewer makes it virtually impossible to think of that review as unbiased. Even if it's not a stellar 5-star review, who's to say it wouldn't have been a 1 star review that got boosted to 3 stars because of the payment?
I've already posted about the frustration of dishonest reviews. The latest ridiculous thing I saw was a reviewer who stated that she sends her reviews to the author for approval before posting them. What the heck is that about? That's not a review! That's a promotional piece! At least I know that now, and won't be reading any of her reviews. I don't want to waste my time reading reviews that had to be "approved" by the very person who has the most to gain from a positive review and the most to lose from negative feedback. WorldWalker made a good point about the higher ups in these situations perhaps having something to gain from positive reviews about their advertising customers, too. That puts another spin on it.
As someone pointed out, yes it's true that many reviewers receive free books in exchange for reviews. I wouldn't say that's the same as being paid, but I would say that it's a benefit for reviewers. A lot of time and effort go into writing a good review, and an author may have a lot to gain from positive reviews. So of course they'd want to get that book out to people who may be able to help them out in that regard. If it makes a reviewer more likely to put a positive spin on every book, then that's something that has to be discerned by the reader, I guess. I try to be clear that honesty is what you'll get from me. I will look for positives, but I won't shy away from the negatives, if they're there. If an author sends me a book and doesn't like my review, I guess it's just a risk that person takes. But it's true, there's no one but myself keeping my reviews honest. Readers can't truly know about the level of the reviewer's integrity, except what can be gleaned from reading the pattern of previous reviews.