Free, as in: you owe me big

9 comments on “Free, as in: you owe me big”

1. John McFetridge says:
   November 7th, 2008 at 12:22 pm

   Just curious, what reputation of which medium you think is being brought down?

2. August says:
   November 7th, 2008 at 12:42 pm

   I’m curious about that myself. Unless I hear that the publisher has gotten pissy about poor reviews, I don’t really see those requirements as horribly unreasonable. Publishers and authors send books to bloggers all the time (I’ve gotten several), and the stipulations are more or less the same, minus the bit about the consumer website. If somebody feels like this requires them to write a positive review, then that’s more a failure of personal integrity than it is a reflection of the program’s terms.

3. ed says:
   November 7th, 2008 at 1:05 pm

   The problem, August, is that Thomas Nelson is attempting to exact stipulations for what has traditionally been a straightforward process of the publicist emailing a blogger, or the blogger emailing a publicist. No expectations. No quid pro quo. You’re a publisher. You take a chance on any book you send out getting a review, whether it be an MSM outlet or a blog. It’s the cost of doing business.

   When the publisher starts demanding conditions, the essential trust in anyone writing about books — whether journalist, blogger, or someone in between — is lost. This seems to me an effort by Thomas Nelson to control the newer medium in much the same way that film publicists have seized control and established conditions for online journalists, whereby the online journalist is sometimes elided from a list because of a negative review. It squanders journalistic integrity, auctorial autonomy, and freedom of expression. And the variegated opinions that make any press as free as it can be is junked as a result.

4. Michael says:
   November 7th, 2008 at 1:12 pm

   I have to still raise the same question that John and August allude to. It’s one thing if someone randomly sends you a book and expects to see a review, but if you request a book, it seems to me that while you have no legal obligation to do something with it, there is an ethical obligation. Otherwise, you’re just expecting something for nothing.

   The other side of that ethical obligation, in my opinion, is detailing in your review the fact that you are reviewing a free copy. This allows the reader of the review to make a decision about how much they are going to listen to the review.

   I think as long as the author or publisher isn’t requiring a POSITIVE review, then there is nothing dishonest about it.

5. ed says:
   November 7th, 2008 at 7:05 pm

   Yeah, it would be something to see every newspaper review devote four paragraphs to the fact that the reviewer received a free review copy, rather than an intelligent perspective citing examples from the text. Although I’m not sure there’s enough space in newspapers for this, given the shrinking column-inches.

6. August says:
   November 8th, 2008 at 1:30 am

   The problem, August, is that Thomas Nelson is attempting to exact stipulations for what has traditionally been a straightforward process of the publicist emailing a blogger, or the blogger emailing a publicist. No expectations. No quid pro quo. You’re a publisher. You take a chance on any book you send out getting a review, whether it be an MSM outlet or a blog. It’s the cost of doing business.

   I still don’t see a problem with this, ed. The publisher is not asking for a positive review, though I assume they’re obviously hoping for one. If an author/publisher/publicist contacts a blogger and asks them if they can send a book for review, and the blogger accepts it, then I can see how the publisher might expect the blogger to actually review the book. If a blogger finds himself overwhelmed with reading material, or pressured by the publishers, or is even just trying to establish some kind of rapport with the publisher, then I suppose I can understand agreeing to take a book and then not reviewing it, although it’s kind of a dick move. I can also see how the blogger would feel no obligation at all if the author/publisher/publicist sent the book without first asking if the blogger wanted to receive it. The publisher should not then assume that the blogger will have the time or even be inclined to review it. But we aren’t talking about either of those situations here. We’re talking about a blogger contacting a publisher and requesting to be given, for free, a specific book that the publisher would otherwise be able to sell for cash money. In that particular instance, the particular instance being disussed here, I think it’s perfectly reasonable for the publisher to expect a fair, honest review in return. Which actually brings us nicely to your next comment.

   Yeah, it would be something to see every newspaper review devote four paragraphs to the fact that the reviewer received a free review copy, rather than an intelligent perspective citing examples from the text. Although I’m not sure there’s enough space in newspapers for this, given the shrinking column-inches.

   I hate to break it to you, but book blogs are not the same as the book review section in your local or national newspaper. To the best of my knowledge, you make your living in the industry, through journalism or other pursuites. So do some other fine book bloggers. Most don’t. By and large, we aren’t professional critics. We aren’t journalists either (”new media”, “pseudo”, “e-”, or otherwise). I think we’re actually much closer to what Robertson Davies used to refer to as “the clerisy.” What we are, when you look outside the realm of high-profile sites like yours and George’s (where most book blogs sit), are dedicated amateurs who are trying to participate in the public discourse surrounding something we love. Period. We don’t have editors or publishers or credentials; many of us don’t even have reputations. To think that a publisher, or any business for that matter, would send most of us anything for free just because we asked is ridiculous, and I’m not at all surprised that a publisher has finally made this expectation explicit. I would agree that it’s unethical for a publisher to expect a good review, but considering the publsher in question didn’t do that, whether or not a blogger feels like they have to give one is their moral issue to wrestle with.

   I’ve been reviewing and blogging about books for nearly nine years; I’ve made a couple hundred bucks from it, and I can count on my fingers the number of books I’ve been sent for free. To compare what I do to what happens in newspaper books sections is so absurd as to be borderline stupid. A publisher/author/publicist–or even a reader, really–has no idea what to expect from me they way they would know what to expect from a newspaper; it’s my responsibility to tell them. There’s a set of expectations built into newspaper book sections that isn’t built into blogs. That’s what our ‘About’ and ‘FAQ’ things are for; you’ll notice that newspaper book sections tend not to have them. In fact, because of this discussion and similar discussions on other sites, I’ve been drafting a policy document so that authors/publishers/publicists/readers know exactly what to expect from my site, if and how they can send me books, and what I promise and do not promise in return.

   I know that blogs have brought us to the cusp of a new media revolution, we’re killing newspapers with citizen journalism, blah blah blah. The fact that there’s a number of high-profile book blogs out there lighting fires under the “old media” doesn’t suddenly transform the rest of us into professional critics with all the access and expectations and privileges that newspapers and magazines have.

7. Michael says:
   November 8th, 2008 at 7:03 pm

   August,

   I’ve posted a similar document to what you mention on my own book review site (see link above). I think with this kind of thing the clearer everybody is, the better. I’d appreciate your feedback on it.

8. ed says:
   November 10th, 2008 at 1:20 pm

   August: To respond quickly to your comment, I agree with you in part. For stories that I pursue because newspaper editors won’t chase the angle, I have a job that is often twenty times more difficult, which is compensated by a bulldog tenacity. I can’t just say the magic words “New York Times” and get someone on the phone. I have to sometimes offer a lengthy explanation as to who I am and what I’ve done. Having said this, however, if you do something long enough — whether for print, online, or both — you eventually obtain a certain credibility. The TN deal is an effort to stack the deck against other publishers and treat bloggers like nitwits. A review copy is the cost of doing business for any publisher. Ask yourself why TN isn’t holding newspapers to the same standard. It’s because TN views bloggers as second-class citizens, while other publishers understand that the blogger may be more inclined to review the book.

9. Basil Sands says:
   November 10th, 2008 at 2:31 pm

   I like ripe peaches…I also like free books…I also don’t mind paying for ripe peaches nor do I mind pyaing via a service rendered for the chance at a money free book.

   As a matter of fact, I have thirty some odd books I am going through this month while reviewing them for a thriller writers contest, books were free, I am doing it for free, but have to grade them all as part of the getting them free bit. worthwhile trade off I think.

   Oh, and if I really like one, I’ll be sure to post something on the web about it … after the contest is over though.

Discuss