Old Site


Bookninja 2.0:



.

Hearsay:

September 8, 2006

Skeevy promotion from publisher

Anyone have any suggestions how I should feel about this? Because right now I feel like I need a shower. This came into the old spambox yesterday:

Because you’ve done such a great job reviewing and promoting Simon & Schuster and Atria’s books in the past, I’d like to offer you an exciting and unique opportunity. Simply promote _______ by _______ in your blog, and you could be eligible to win a $100 American Express Gift Check and a library of Atria Books titles.

Heh? I’ve “done such a great job”? I didn’t realize I was on the payroll. I’ve removed the title and author because I don’t want to inadvertantly promote them when I’m being asked to whore myself for a hundred bones. Seriously, am I over-reacting? I think this is so low and skeezy that it’s possible I’ll never mention another S&S book on this site again. You can pay for the ads if you want a spot here, S&S, not my opinion.

Share the 'Ninja with your 2.0 friends:
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • del.icio.us
  • LinkedIn
  • Digg
  • RSS
  • Print
  • email

9 comments on “Skeevy promotion from publisher”

  1. Paul says:

    No, George, I don’t think you’re overreacting. Basically, S&S is trying to bribe you for good reviews of their “product”… this totally stinks of payola, and S&S should be more than a little ashamed. It only adds insult to injury that bribe is completely lame. The trouble is, a lot of the nitwits who sit around in “marketing meetings” in the publishing world are so numbly out of touch with what they are selling, i.e. literature, that they start to think this kind of under-handed sleaze tactic is a stroke of genius.

    Recently, Harper Collins Canada sent their marketing idiots around Toronto to spray paint stencilled logos on the sidewalks in front of various bookstores as a promotion for one of their new titles. They succeeded in vandalizing the sidewalks and pissing off the booksellers. The sad thing is, at some point, there must have been a meeting where more than two people thought this was a good idea. Clueless. Just fucking clueless.

  2. Kelly says:

    What I can’t believe is that I’ve seen a number of bloggers doing exactly what was requested
    of them. Good for you for refusing to post this “message.”

  3. Anon says:

    They must have different peeps working on magazines than on blogs, b/c most of the publishing houses are a little more “classy,” and a whole lot more subtle, when it comes to print publications.

  4. rachel says:

    You left out the most hilarious part — you don’t necessarily get the $100, it’s just that you could be ‘eligible to win’ it, which is of course meaningless. I wouldn’t have thought it was possible, but this is actually a combination of payola and spam.

  5. Bourgeois Nerd says:

    What an insulting bribe attempt! If I’m going to be paid off, I at least want the GUARANTEE of a $100 gift card!

  6. Fish Fish says:

    Surprised no one else has picked this story up. Are they all vying for the ‘jackpot?’

  7. Franklin Carter says:

    My understanding of book reviewing is that it is time-consuming work. First, the reviewer must read the book. Then the reviewer must record his or her observations on paper. Then the reviewer must focus the story idea and write the review. A good reviewer will also perform extra research to compare the book to similar works. The whole process takes hours and possibly days.

    To be offered $100 and a few books for the effort doesn’t seem like much. To be offered the mere prospect of winning $100 and a few books seems ridiculous. I cannot imagine any writer who values his or her time and talent accepting such a one-sided bargain.

  8. George says:

    And they’re not even asking for reviews. They just want you to “promote” it. I’m surprised too that this didn’t blow up in their faces. You can really see some fuckwad suits sitting around in a marketing meeting tossing out buzz like “viral marketing” and “early adoption” and “synergy with stakeholders” without ever having an idea what the hell they’re talking about.

  9. Kevin Holtsberry says:

    I am late to respond, and clearly in the minority on this issue, but I don’t see what the problem is with the promotion.

    Perhaps it is different for folks that write reviews professionally or hope to, but I don’t see any ethical issues here. As a blogger people read my reviews, I assume, because they either enjoy them or find them useful. I also assume if I started flaking for certain publishers or writers when I have a clear financial gain they would take my opinion less seriously. I post my honest opinion on the books I review whether the publisher sends them to me; I buy it, or check it out of the library. If readers like that, they click over. If they don’t, they don’t.

    In this case, I simply made note of a webpage and a connected contest. If people want to try and win a free book they can. I noted that I stood to gain in certain circumstances and my cynicism about my chances. If I happen to win will I have some sort of debt to S&S/Atria? No. I got lucky and won a contest. I fail to see how that changes how I operate my blog.

Discuss

Latest comments:
George on
News catchup
Monica on
News catchup
Andrew S on
News catchup
Shelley on
On the dangers of writing about the past
Steven W. Beattie on
Get out there, nerds!
Sean Dixon on
Facebook claims it owns the word "book"
Sean Dixon on
Under-rated Canadian writers
Franklin Carter on
Under-rated Canadian writers
Steven Jensen on
Facebook claims it owns the word "book"
Rob Payne on
Under-rated Canadian writers
Rob Payne on
Under-rated Canadian writers
Brian Busby on
Under-rated Canadian writers
Blake on
Under-rated Canadian writers
Aaron on
Under-rated Canadian writers
Aaron on
Under-rated Canadian writers
Bart King on
How to be a good loser
A.G. Pasquella on
Facebook claims it owns the word "book"
Fred on
Facebook claims it owns the word "book"
Zachariah Wells on
Under-rated Canadian writers
Steven W. Beattie on
Under-rated Canadian writers


Search blog:
Archives:
Old site archive:

January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003

Feeds: