Paid Book Reviews-- What Do You Think?

[Christy Pinheiro]

Since the FTC has decided to have review bloggers disclose their freebies; what do all of you think of paid reviews?

I mean, I’m really happy to get book reviews for free, but I think that many of us would be happy to pay in order to get a review in a timely manner. And I don’t think that means the review has to be positive—believe me, I used to give people bad news about their taxes, but they got a bill from me either way! So what do you think of paid reviews??


Indie Book Reviewer List

(I edited this discussion on 10/30-- since it was woefully out of date. I also added the indie book reviewer questionnaire so that book reviewers who want to be in the Indie Reviewer "Yellow Pages" can send it to me and be included in the listing)

[haley mathiot]

if i charge (which i don't) i would charge by the book. if a publisher sent me a book 400 pages long, i'd charge more than one that was 150 pages long. i'd do it by my time, not by "ok here's your review, it's positive i'm charging you more for it." whatever. and i'd make them pay up front 80%. that's the entrepreneur in me ;)

[Robin Kemp]

Book reviews should be book journalism. Reviewing is a public trust and not a sales pitch. I would not give a paid review the time of day because its author has zero credibility.

Let's distinguish also between "paid reviews" -- i.e., glorified ads masquerading as literary criticism -- and being paid for writing a review. Far too many writers are willing to exchange their writing for the ego gratification of a byline or pin money. If a publisher or editor is serious about creating value, then he or she should be willing to pay for quality writing.

[Jenn]

I think paid reviews are logically plausible, if that's the way you want to go. Technically, I feel that if you receive/request a book, you're already obligated to read it. But then again, some/many bloggers to have extremely long TBR piles, so a paid review might guarantee a faster review.

I, personally, do not think I should receive any compensation for my reviews. The reward I get is simply getting to read those books and knowing that I'm influencing others. So while I do not accept or particularly support paid reviews myself, I'm also not vehemently opposed to them either.

Best of luck! :)

Jenn
Books At Midnight

[Christy Pinheiro]

I have to admit I'm still on the fence about the whole issue. With my latest book, The Step By Step Guide to Self Publishing for Profit, it's too soon to tell if any of the promotion, either paid or unpaid, is actually working. I've done both, and paid for a news release, too.

Non-fiction niche books go though a different life cycle than fiction, and they usually build up a fan base over time. The big problem is that everything is updated so fast that non-fiction books become obsolete in a snap! My tax books are obsolete in exactly 12 months, so everything I do is frantic, all the time.

The Publishing Maven

[Roger "Rocky" Kuznik]

I don't mind paying a professional reviewer if he or she can meet these basic requirements:
1. Has read at least 200 books of length or novels of diversity,cover to cover in the last three years.
2. Will write an honest, concise,detailed,opinionated and/or constructive review that will indicate to the author the book in
it's entiriety was actually read.
I respect and applaude any non-professional reviewer who because of his or her love for reading offers up their reviews based on the foregoing. These are the reviewers who impress me and I respect.

As for the others who declare themselves as being book reviewers simply because they wrote two paragraphs from a cover image or flap, reading two or three chapters or twenty pages, or some synposis or copy from some other reviewer or 3rd party friend, or because they wrote a "How to Book" thirty years ago and think it qualifies them as being a "reviewer or critic" of any thing written disgusts me. It reminds me of child that has lied and cheated into the third grade and recieved a degree in literature for the length of time he spent there. Rocky "The Never Pals"

Incidently my reviews are running 7-2 favorable

[Stacy-Deanne]

Wow, this discussion is still hot huh? LOL!

I just have to say this. Someone mentioned that they wouldn't be surprised if paying for reviews will be the norm in the future. I'd like to say something on that.

I don't believe it will ever become the norm just like it will never be the norm for authors to pay agents. But look at it like this, if it did become the norm it would only hurt the smaller book reviewers and blog reviewers. Why?

Well, if publishers start paying for book reviews for their authors and had to choose between someone like Publisher's Weekly, The New York Times and tons of other big-time sites and mags, then that's who they are going to choose because most likely, these folks guarantee sales. They would never pay the blog reviewers (unless they were big time journalists who worked for big papers, etc.).

So this is one reason why even reviewers shouldn't want this to be the norm. It would make book review blogs obsolete because pubs and authors would not pay for them to review a book if they can pay and have a big-time reviewer, etc review it. Also, reviewers would get very competitive with each other (even more than now) because it would all come down to the money. Who is charging whom? How much does that blog charge opposed to that one? Which blog gets the most traffic? Which blog has a standard in the industry?

Book reviewers would be scrounging over authors (especially the popular ones) if they wanted to review a book. A lot of reviewers have a hard time finding authors to review now, they definitely would if paying would become the norm.

So the small blogs and reviewers will be lost in the shuffle. No one would pay for them to review a book. That's just how it is. Pubs and authors would always go after the reviewers with the most clout and power.

Authors would still find someone to review their books for free. If paying got too expensive for an author, there are other ways. You can get friends and family to review a book for free and how would someone know who that person is in connection to the author? See? Charging for reviews as an industry would be very confusing and would cause a host of problems.

So that's one reason that wouldn't work as (the norm) and why it would get very messy.
Another thing is that if paying for reviews become the norm everywhere, then what's the need for the review? They would lose their value to consumers and to people who rely on reviews because guess what...they are paid for. So, if this does become the norm (and I don't believe it will), reviews will be of little to no value as a whole.

But like I said, if reviewers want to get paid for writing reviews then they should work for sites and other venues who offer them payment. They shouldn't get it from the author. Once that happens it's clear that the reviewer is mostly interested in the money because reviewers claim they "love to read" and review books. So why would they want to charge for something they enjoy?

Best Wishes,

http://www.stacy-deanne.net

[Robin Kemp]

Content Wants to be Free: Hmmmmm.... Why would anyone want to be paid for doing work that he or she loves? By this logic, teachers should teach for free. Carpenters should build houses for free. Mechanics should fix cars for free.

There are professional book-lovers out there: people with English or other literature degrees, for example, literary journalists, and writers who actually make a living as writers. Should these poorly-paid lovers of literature volunteer to review books on pro bono grounds? I don't think so.

It's completely reasonable to pay someone for his or her professional opinion on the quality of a book. Devoting one's life to the systematic study of literature, from which any given reviewer develops his or her own considered opinion, is not a 100% guarantee that the review will be fair, intelligent, or what the author wants to hear; however, the inverse obtains with amateur "criticism." (That's not to say no autodidact can evaluate a work on its own merits, but that far more folks fancy themselves experts than are actually experts.)

Writing and reading are not, for these few souls who go to the trouble to study writing instead of accounting, PR, or law, hobbies, but are hard work and lifelong callings. Such specialized work, already made at great personal and economic sacrifice in this particular culture, is most worthy of remuneration.

Raves vs. Reviews: A rave along the lines of "It was great!" isn't a review. Raves (whether for and against) should indeed go unpaid. While positive raves are every author's dream ego stroke, they aren't the same thing as criticism.

I think we as writers must reimagine the ways in which we earn our living--and I'm not talking about trading poems for potatoes.

Let me pose some questions: Why do we discuss "being paid" in the passive voice? Why do we, as a culture, think that artists (especially writers) should starve in garrets, should give away their writing, shouldn't bill their hours--unless, of course, they're "professional" (copy)writers?

Clearly the huge data aggregators find "content" valuable. That's why they pay writers like me (and possibly you) so little to create content and charge users (including libraries) so much to access it through online databases.

[Stacy-Deanne]

Hi Robin,

"Content Wants to be Free: Hmmmmm.... Why would anyone want to be paid for doing work that he or she loves? By this logic, teachers should teach for free. Carpenters should build houses for free. Mechanics should fix cars for free."

Those are professional jobs for people with degrees. I'd hope a teacher (which my mother was) carpenter and mechanic wouldn't ever work for free. They'd be stupid if they did because they are trained, educated and experts in their field. Besides, I know alot of teachers who hate it because of how teaching has changed in the last 20 years. I also know a carpenter who never wanted to be one, it just fell onto him. He doesn't hate it but it's not his "dream" job either. Also, no one is stopping reviewers from charging. If they want to, it's their right but I feel if they wanted to charge, more would. Obviously they don't want to.

The question is now, what reviewers deserve to get paid and which reviewers don’t?

Reviewer A is a journalist, has been critiquing books for over 20 years, works for reputable, well-known industry outlets, could or could be a writer, taught or at least know what a creative writing course is, knows the industry’s expectations of a book. Knows the difference between a self-published book and traditional when she sees it. Has developed a long-standing network with publishers, publicists and authors. Her reviews have appeared in magazines or on popular sites. Her reviews can get books sold. She is known in the industry. Her reviews have merit or clout. She's been featured in magazines and newspapers. Just the mention of her name gets an author excited. She has a league of twitter fans and people who follow her blog like their lives depend on it. She can make and perhaps break your book but one thing’s for sure, she can get it noticed. Publishers salivate at the thought of her reviewing your work.

There are also some that fall in between that are capable of reviewing books. They might not be journalists, etc. but they at least know how to review and they take it seriously.

Reviewer F started a blog or site because she read Twilight and wanted to talk about it. She doesn’t read many books at all. She’d rather talk about how cute the cover on the book was than how the book was written. She doesn’t know the names of some of the most popular authors in literature. She’s never read anything out of her genre. Sorry but you cannot call yourself a reviewer if you haven’t branched out of your genre at least once or twice. She doesn’t even know what “genre” means. She doesn’t host contests, author interviews, doesn’t know anything about what it takes to write a book correctly but gushes that she will put a review on Amazon for you. Her reviews sound like this, “Oh I liked this book! It’s the best book in the world! I loved the cover, tee hee!” She spams your inbox with emails about her own self-published books, in short, she doesn’t know squat about reviewing books. Her reviews are so riddled with grammatical errors that whoever sends her their book should be embarrassed. Her reviews hold no clout in the industry and she can’t provide the platform an author wants when promoting their book. Let’s be real here, authors want reviews for one reason only. They want promotion and reviewer F cannot give any type of promotion that’s valuable to the author or the industry. She is the type that gives a genuine reviewer a bad name. No author in their right mind would want her to do a review.

Is she to be paid the same as reviewers A, B, C, and D? And if so, who would pay her?

The point is that if a reviewer wants to charge then they can but they’d better be able to back up the purpose for the price. In other words, “Why should anyone pay me? What do I bring?” That’s the question. They have the right to charge just like I have the right not to pay for a review.

Real reviewers know the technicals of writing so they can judge books correctly. They know the difference between "then" and "than", showing versus telling. It’s more than just the plot they look at. They look for character development, POV issues, sentence structure, pacing, content development, dialogue, accurate use of historical information, level of editing, these are things professional and knowledgeable reviewers look for. They don't just say, "Oh I like the book. The characters were fun! Hee, hee!" LOL! But that's what you see from wannabe reviewers.

Liking a book and wanting to comment on it doesn't make one a reviewer. That's more of a critique. Real reviewers take it seriously and when they review, they go deeply with their review and you can tell, "Hmm this person knows what they are talking about."

Also, writing a book review doesn’t make someone a writer. That person is a reviewer. A writer is a writer and there is a difference. I might have misunderstood but I thought you were saying reviewers were writers, the same as published authors or journalists????? Huh? Now some reviewers are already writers who happen to review books but being a reviewer definitely does not make a reviewer a writer and does not mean someone can be a writer. Maybe I misunderstood you.

Best Wishes!

http://www.stacy-deanne.net

[Robin Kemp]

Hi, Stacy-- I think we pretty much agree on most of this, but a reviewer who writes a review is, by definition, a writer. Some journalists do write book reviews. Some authors write book reviews. Many writers wear many hats (I'm one). The point I was trying to make is that writing, regardless of genre, is work and should indeed be paid for--just not by the author whose work is up for evaluation.

Naturally, there are poets, professors, and plumbers who hate their jobs. In any case, if they *do* their jobs, then they have earned the right to be paid fairly for their work. Unfortunately, too many of those who own the means of distribution (social networking sites, media companies, etc.) are unwilling to pay good writers fairly for their work. This includes book reviewers.

The wonderful thing about writing is that you don't need an advanced degree to do it. You just have to show your chops.

[Jermaine Mintuck]

I already do book reviews. And I figure that the book to keep was enough payment as is. Some of the books that I have gotten may be over 20 CAD, even. Doesn't that seem worth being paid by just getting that price of book from the get go? I figured that the book was good for payment.I thought that getting free product that I get to actually KEEP was awesome.

Might be nice to be paid for it, though.But, free product is good pay, as is. Otherwise I would have had to actually BUY the item. I would NEVER have been able to buy some of the books I have at the local Chapters [Canada's Barnes and Noble].

I have gotten some VERY thrilling free books to read. And what really rocks is to be able to keep it forever.

[Mary Salvato]

I dont mind as long as there is transparency. I havent done any paid reviews yet (besides free product) and would love to do some. I agree that your review would be done in a more timely manner.

[Mystee]

I love doing book reviews and simply getting to speak with the author and maybe getting to do a guest blog spot is wonderful for me. I try to always determine a reasonable time limit when able. I know a lot of people feel that book reviewers would be biased to those paying for reviews. But I believe that a good many of us would be true. After all, a book review tells something about the book and then gives that readers opinion. If I could get a job as a book reviewer for a publishing company, I would be in heaven. I would be doing something that I love AND getting paid for it.