# The Backlash of John Locke's Review Purchases--Duping the Reader



## BarbraAnnino (Jan 27, 2011)

I recall seeing a thread around here some time ago about purchasing reviews. I had no idea that this was even possible, let alone that any self-respecting writer worth a damn would partake in it. (Yes, I am that naive. Or maybe I just have integrity). So I found this article interesting. Thought I'd share.

http://newwaveauthors.com/Blog.aspx?PostID=103&Title=The-Real-Reason-What-John-Locke-Did-is-So-Appalling

I found Lee Goldberg's input refreshingly simple.

_There is a key piece of advice crucial to his success that he left out of this book: pay readers to leave fake reviews. In an interview with Locke in today's New York Times, he admitted that he paid for 300 reviewers to heap praise on his books, a sleazy promotional technique that seems to have worked for him. Locke admits to buying reviews because "Reviews are the smallest piece of being successful, but it's a lot easier to buy them than cultivating an audience." I have some advice for Locke on a more honest and ethical approach he might want to try: Actually write good books. That's how to build an audience. You do not gain readers, or recognition, by swindling readers into buying your books with fake praise. It's unethical and shows a startling lack of respect for your reader. 
_


----------



## Kwalker (Aug 23, 2012)

Well I find Barry Eisler's response in the comments extremely interesting as well.


----------



## Rex Jameson (Mar 8, 2011)

As I've said before, it's certainly disappointing. Hard to swim in the pool when people keep soiling it.

I never bought his book, but his advice has been widely peddled around the self-publishing circuits. I would say that those hundreds of fake reviews had a huge impact on customers' willingness to buy his books.


----------



## K. A. Jordan (Aug 5, 2010)

BarbraAnnino said:


> _Locke admits to buying reviews because "Reviews are the smallest piece of being successful, but it's a lot easier to buy them than cultivating an audience."
> _


Well - duh!

But he writes a book about how to cultivate an audience...and charges top buck for it.

*There's a word for people like that...HYPOCRITE!*


----------



## Rory Miller (Oct 21, 2010)

Kind of funny that in an otherwise scathing article about shady practices the author drops an unnecessary ad for one of her books, with a hyperlink of where to buy it!!!  The point could have been made without specifics and definately without the hyperlink!


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

Kwalker said:


> Well I find Barry Eisler's response in the comments extremely interesting as well.


I'm with Eisler on this one -- that was overwrought. Hearts and souls. Good lord.


----------



## ChadWilliamson (May 31, 2011)

Yeah I'm one of the massive suckers who bought his book and thought "Hey, here's a guy who built it from the ground up!" 
Feeling more than a bit duped.

That said, actually did buy a couple of his novels to get a vibe on his style and I swear to you they were some of the most overdone, underwritten crap I'd ever read in my life. I finished one where I was actually pissed off at how he wrapped everything up, and I couldn't even make it through the other one.


----------



## Andrew Ashling (Nov 15, 2010)

Meanwhile his books are still going strong, including _How I Sold 1 Million eBooks in 5 Months!_, and by the look of it he hasn't lost a single Twitter-follower.

Explanation? Anyone?


----------



## Lefty (Apr 7, 2011)

Go Barry!


----------



## BrianKittrell (Jan 8, 2011)

JRHenderson said:


> Wow.
> 
> I actually bought "How I Sold A Million eBooks", believing that it was the real deal.
> 
> Silly me.


I bought it out of curiosity, and I don't necessarily regret the purchase. It read like a bunch of nonsense when I looked at it the first time, and it makes sense why I felt that way now. I mean, how many people really review books after being harassed relentlessly on Twitter and through email? I've asked nicely to my fanbase of just over 200, which has resulted in like a 1% review rate. Most of the people who have reviewed have stumbled upon it or been given review copies.

The funny part is how he's responding. "Reviews are the smallest piece of being successful..." If that's the case, why does the smallest piece of being successful cost the largest chunk of cash to acquire and why are people saying, "I bought based on all these reviews," in every one of the negative reviews? Compared to how much it cost him to publish at Telemachus (and this is assuming he doesn't also secretly own that company), he spent at least triple on fake reviews.


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

Folks, there was a LONG thread about this a couple of days ago. . . . . .it's borderline WHOA so please keep that in mind.  We'll be watching this thread closely given the nature of the topic . . . . . .


----------



## Lefty (Apr 7, 2011)

Andrew Ashling said:


> Meanwhile his books are still going strong, including _How I Sold 1 Million eBooks in 5 Months!_, and by the look of it he hasn't lost a single Twitter-follower.
> 
> Explanation? Anyone?


Scott Nicholson said it in the thread started a few days ago: in a nutshell, nobody cares.


----------



## BBGriffith (Mar 13, 2012)

CB Edwards said:


> Scott Nicholson said it in the thread started a few days ago: in a nutshell, nobody cares.


Yep. The only people that are really offended are other indie authors.


----------



## EC Sheedy (Feb 24, 2011)

BarbraAnnino said:


> I recall seeing a thread around here some time ago about purchasing reviews. I had no idea that this was even possible, let alone that any self-respecting writer worth a d*mn would partake in it. (Yes, I am that naive. Or maybe I just have integrity). So I found this article interesting. Thought I'd share.
> 
> http://newwaveauthors.com/Blog.aspx?PostID=103&Title=The-Real-Reason-What-John-Locke-Did-is-So-Appalling
> 
> ...


Eisler hit it!

Thanks for the link.


----------



## Catana (Mar 27, 2012)

Question: Does Locke even care about respect or criticism? Here's a guy who churned out a line of ninety-nine cent books aimed at the lowest common denominator. Look at his covers, for heaven sake. He's done what he set out to do -- make lots of money. If he even bothers to read what's said about the books or about him, he's probably laughing his head off.


----------



## K. A. Jordan (Aug 5, 2010)

I guess this puts John Locke in the 'Get Rich Quick' category of Indie writers as opposed to 'Quality First' where so many of us stand.

If I put aside my anger, (*big deep sigh*) this is really confusing.  He's been touted as 'the one to follow' as far as sales go...yet he bought his reviews. So if he says that 'social media' is the way to sell books...does he really KNOW? 

I guess this is the big sticking point...if social media doesn't work, why bother with it?


----------



## BarbraAnnino (Jan 27, 2011)

Becca Mills said:


> I'm with Eisler on this one -- that was overwrought. Hearts and souls. Good lord.


Eisler is right, no doubt about it. The article was over the top.


----------



## BarbraAnnino (Jan 27, 2011)

Ann in Arlington said:


> Folks, there was a LONG thread about this a couple of days ago. . . . . .it's borderline WHOA so please keep that in mind. We'll be watching this thread closely given the nature of the topic . . . . . .


I searched before I posted and didn't find anything on it. Sorry for re-posting.


----------



## gorvnice (Dec 29, 2010)

K. A. Jordan said:


> He's been touted as 'the one to follow' as far as sales go...yet he bought his reviews. So if he says that 'social media' is the way to sell books...does he really KNOW?
> 
> I guess this is the big sticking point...if social media doesn't work, why bother with it?


Exactly. For the most part (with a few notable exceptions) it doesn't.


----------



## Catana (Mar 27, 2012)

K. A. Jordan said:


> I guess this puts John Locke in the 'Get Rich Quick' category of Indie writers as opposed to 'Quality First' where so many of us stand.


Was there ever any doubt? I could see that the first time I read about him, read a plot summary and saw his covers.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Becca Mills said:


> I'm with Eisler on this one -- that was overwrought. Hearts and souls. Good lord.


Yep. Some people need to get a grip.


----------



## Alan Petersen (May 20, 2011)

Kudos to Barry Eisler for leaving that comment. Enough is enough. Yes, what John Locke did was unethical. Especially since he didn't mention he bought reviews in his "how I sold one million" ebook. I was disappointed to learn he did it. But, that post was ridiculous with delusions of grandeur.

I read one of John Locke's ebooks during his rise, I was curios because of all the sales. I didn't like it and didn't buy another one. But a lot of people enjoy his books. There are other factors to selling over one million ebooks, not just reviews (timing, provocative covers, luck).

It's a hot topic so now bloggers want to use it as link bait to get more attention to their blogs. Hmm, good idea. Off to write a blog post about John Locke and paid reviews.


----------



## Guest (Aug 31, 2012)

Modern morality interests me.


I wonder what other authors VS the general public will think, once I release my home sex tapes to promote my book, which is dirtier? Paid reviews, or using porn to promote your authoring?


----------



## MJWare (Jun 25, 2010)

You know, I'm kinda on the fence about this. I think his main issue is failure to disclose it.

If he honestly said, "I don't care about the rating" (or something similar) then it doesn't seem much different from BookRoster or Amazon charging companies for prime and then giving out free merchandise (anything from a $30 hardcover to a $3,000 TV)?

There's also the paid Kirkus reviews that Amazon posts in book descriptions. What's the difference?

I'm not defending him, he should have been upfront about it, but if he had been, would people still be up in arms.

BTW: BookRoster does not deliver on their promises, stops replying to e-mails after they take your $$$.


----------



## Fredster (Apr 11, 2011)

I'm saving that link in case I ever forget the definition of _overwrought_.

Sacred trust? Dealing in hearts and souls? What about just telling a good story?


----------



## Andrew Ashling (Nov 15, 2010)

MJAWare said:


> I'm not defending him, he should have been upfront about it, but if he had been, would people still be up in arms.


That's just it: people aren't up in arms. Only a few indies are.
How many of the rest are thinking, at this very moment, "So, that's how he _really_ did it. Now, let's see&#8230;"
Could be I'm a cynic.


----------



## EC Sheedy (Feb 24, 2011)

Andrew Ashling said:


> That's just it: people aren't up in arms. Only a few indies are.
> How many of the rest are thinking, at this very moment, "So, that's how he _really_ did it. Now, let's see&#8230;"
> Could be I'm a cynic.


Interesting... I read a blog today by a reviewer, Sharon Gallagher, that clearly indicates honest reviewers feel as much put off by this paid-for-reviews _reveal_ as do many self-publishers. No one benefits from an oil spill, it seems. The blog is here: http://bit.ly/T11Uyp


----------



## MJWare (Jun 25, 2010)

Andrew Ashling said:


> That's just it: people aren't up in arms. Only a few indies are.
> How many of the rest are thinking, at this very moment, "So, that's how he _really_ did it. Now, let's see&#8230;"
> Could be I'm a cynic.


That I understand, but the article didn't seem to differentiate between paying for someone to get reviews for you and paying for reviews.

I have no problem paying a service to find reviewers (they are so hard to find), as long as it's clear they aren't professionals and that they may leave negative reviews with no author recourse.

But you are *100%* right, he should have been transparent and should have put it in his book--rather he owed it to readers to include in a book on how he did it.


----------



## Andrew Ashling (Nov 15, 2010)

EC Sheedy said:


> Interesting... I read a blog today by a reviewer, Sharon Gallagher, that clearly indicates honest reviewers feel as much put off by this paid-for-reviews _reveal_ as do many self-publishers. No one benefits from an oil spill, it seems. The blog is here: http://bit.ly/T11Uyp


You read a blog today by a reviewer, Sharon Gallagher, that clearly indicates _*at least one*_ honest reviewer feels as much put off by these paid-for-reviews.

That's *all* it indicates.
One reviewer.
One.

Agreed, there will be others, but it is impossible to know how many exactly or even if there are a statistically significant number of them.


----------



## A. Rosaria (Sep 12, 2010)

Andrew Ashling said:


> Meanwhile his books are still going strong, including _How I Sold 1 Million eBooks in 5 Months!_, and by the look of it he hasn't lost a single Twitter-follower.
> 
> Explanation? Anyone?


Some peeps likes his writing. He must know a secret formula (besides buying reviews) to write salable books. I'm with Barry, people should not get that emotional about this or writing in general.


----------



## A. Rosaria (Sep 12, 2010)

dalya said:


> Okay. My emotions have been back and forth on this issue. But now I know what I want to say.
> 
> [expletive] John Locke.


Well I said people should not get that emotional... but then again it's also bad not expressing your emotions. (I really should not drink wine this late, I'm going to bed.)


----------



## EC Sheedy (Feb 24, 2011)

Andrew Ashling said:


> You read a blog today by a reviewer, Sharon Gallagher, that clearly indicates _*at least one*_ honest reviewer feels as much put off by these paid-for-reviews.
> 
> That's *all* it indicates.
> One reviewer.
> ...


I really have to nail down those qualifiers, don't I?


----------



## jasonzc (Dec 23, 2011)

sicklove said:


> Modern morality interests me.
> 
> I wonder what other authors VS the general public will think, once I release my home sex tapes to promote my book, which is dirtier? Paid reviews, or using porn to promote your authoring?


How about I pay people to review and promote my porn?

"Desperate for a solution, they meet teen sensation Yuki, and end up making the best Godzilla movie since the invention of color film. They also establish themselves as the greatest porn duo of all time."


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

> Meanwhile his books are still going strong, including How I Sold 1 Million eBooks in 5 Months!, and by the look of it he hasn't lost a single Twitter-follower.
> 
> Explanation? Anyone?


Perhaps he writes good books and consumers like them?


----------



## Eric C (Aug 3, 2009)

CB Edwards said:


> Scott Nicholson said it in the thread started a few days ago: in a nutshell, nobody cares.


I wonder who would care if every author bought hundreds of reviews.


----------



## nejohansen (Jul 27, 2012)

Eric C said:


> I wonder who would care if every author bought hundreds of reviews.


I feel like it's fairly common. I spend more time than I'd like to admit reading Amazon reviews, and many of them seem very suspicious.

And a lot of people with a large fanbase get their fans to go on and spam them with five star reviews. These are equally misleading; I've bought a few useless -- but ridiculously hyped --books that were seriously underwhelming. The reviews weren't outright bogus, but I don't think they were objective, accurate or remotely helpful.

Reviewing in general is tricky, even without the conflict of interest. The reviews really seem no better a judge of quality than the book's cover or its page count. I mean hell, even the WSJ will use its review section to push books by the paper's employees.

Caveat emptor, I suppose.


----------



## Lefty (Apr 7, 2011)

Eric C said:


> I wonder who would care if every author bought hundreds of reviews.


The same people that care when everyone speeds on the interstate.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

> The same people that care when everyone speeds on the interstate.


That's the smartest comment in this entire multi-thread discussion.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

There is a reason why people who do look at reviews tend to look at the 3-star reviews!


----------



## 56139 (Jan 21, 2012)

ChadWilliamson said:


> Yeah I'm one of the massive suckers who bought his book and thought "Hey, here's a guy who built it from the ground up!"
> Feeling more than a bit duped.


That's actually not what I took away from the book - I mean he started out hawking books in front of bookstores. Some kind of paid display stand or something which cost him a lot of money. John Locke always came across as a man who already had money and was spending a lot of it on marketing.

I never read one of his novels, but that marketing book he wrote might've left out the secret sauce, but it was in no way useless.


----------



## Coral Moore (Nov 29, 2009)

I think most readers don't care because they realize they can for the most part determine on their own if reviews are fake or not. I don't think readers are the intended target of this kind of thing because no one sees those one line "this book is awesome" reviews and thinks that the person legitimately read the book--_even when they did_. Buying reviews is about being picked up on algorithms and other services that use reviews as a litmus test, not fooling readers, if you ask me.


----------



## Eric C (Aug 3, 2009)

CB Edwards said:


> The same people that care when everyone speeds on the interstate.


I think the more correct analogy would be the same people that would care if there were no speed limits.


----------



## Robert A Michael (Apr 30, 2012)

After reading the article and the corresponding comments, I find myself "critical" of Stant's stance as well as Eisler's.  I am sorry if I don't bow to the almighty Barry, but I found his original comments as haughty and condescending as Stant's rant was hyperbolic.


----------



## Simon Haynes (Mar 14, 2011)

If every potential buyer read the samples and examined the low-mid score reviews before committing to a purchase, paid reviews would most likely disappear overnight.

Unfortunately, many people don't bother. Or maybe they read the sample, look at the cover and think 'good enough for me, and hey, it's only 99c.'

(And a part of me is wondering when some low-life will offer a 3-star review service, where the reviews bang on about something ridiculous like 'I didn't like the colour of the protagonist's hair', or 'the cover didn't match the contents', drowning out the legit 2- and 3-stars.)


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

Well, I was waiting for this thread to be merged by the mods before jumping in, but since that's clearly not happening very quickly... (and there IS a longer thread that already has gone over this topic in quite some detail)...

What I will say here in response to the OP is this:

I think Lee Goldberg's being a bit of an opportunist with that "actually write good novels" line.

I respect Lee and enjoy his work, but I have to also admit that I tried and liked John Locke well enough that I own all his books. And it wasn't because of the reviews.

Frankly, the reason I tried Locke out to begin with was because so many in the NY media were saying his books were trash whenever they'd compare Locke and Hocking to trad-pubbed work.

At worst, Locke isn't that different from the prolific (and much under-appreciated) Max Allen Collins. Locke's Donovan Creed follows the tradition of paid killer/crime novels that Collins contributed to when he created the Quarry series.

Except Locke's books have about 50% less cussing (though there's still plenty, LOL).

I liked the twists and turns and laughs I found in Saving Rachel, so I went backward to catch up to Book 3 and just kept buying forward from there.

Is Locke high art? No. But he's not going for that. But what I've found his novels to be (because I've actually read them, and I'm not sure if Lee has or not) is entertaining.

As are many other indies and trad-pub authors (either way) who don't cheat and buy reviews and game the system.

That, to me, is where the criticism should be directed. At the bad choices he made in terms of marketing.

But to insult the work itself because he bought reviews? That's a bit off-target.

Because the books are good reads. They're not for everyone, no; but they're also not trash. Trashy, but not trash. 

Will I continue to buy Locke's novels? Yes. Will I continue to take Locke's marketing advice? No.

But hey, why bother with the opinion of someone who's actually read all of Locke's books? So much easier to jump on the bandwagon and hurl off-the-topic insults along with the rest of the mob.

I've never done what Locke did, in terms of purchasing reviews. Just doesn't make sense to me or fit with my ethics.

But I'll leave y'all with this thought to ponder:

Locke comes from an advertising background (just as James Patterson did, now that I think about it).

That means Locke may or may not have ever been familiar with writerly codes of ethics.

I mean, ad guys starve if they don't sell and move product, right? So maybe, given his business background, he never even second-guessed himself; for him, it could have just been a way to get the word out, in his mind.

Meanwhile, those of us who have focused our lives around writing and have hob-nobbed with fellow writers, rather than with sales people and ad managers, have a different sense of professional ethics for our industry.

All of us (and I've not heard anyone defending the practice of buying reviews) can look at this as say, "Wrong. Unprincipled. Cheating." And we're right.

But to an ad guy with no literary background to speak of? He's concerned with moving product.

You watch shows like Celebrity Apprentice and the like, and how do "project managers" behave?

"We need to win against Infinity this week... we need a successful event... lets call all our celebrity friends and get them to come down to our doughnut shop and pay $10K or more for a dozen glazed ... it's for charity!"

Or they hire actors/extras to get a crowd started around their event and build excitement.

People in advertising/promotions do this sort of thing all the time. They don't say, "Well, we'll make really good doughnuts and if we make the best doughnuts, we should win."

No, ad people aren't like that. They care about the bottom line; about sales and winning only.

So, a guy with an ad background, like Locke? No surprise at all that he would see this as acceptable, because what mattered to him was gaining attention and visibility... he didn't question how... because people in that environment generally don't worry about the "how" of things, just the results.

Am I saying that he was right to buy 300 reviews (and perhaps more)?

No.

What I'm saying is, given his professional background, I doubt he gave it a second thought. It was just something he knew worked... seeding the excitement.

(Wow, I have a low opinion of advertising, promotions and sales professionals, don't I? LOL)

But to him, this was no different that making 10,000 copies of a flyer that says "Big Event Tomorrow! Free Admission!" on a stadium-load of cars in ramps and parking lots where distributing promotional flyers and placing them under windshield wipers is prohibited.

Most ad guys and gals would do it anyway, until someone calls the cops. Because all that matters is spreading the word, for people in that industry.

Sad, but true. While I enjoy his novels, as a book marketer, he's a product/victim of his professional background.

P.S., I spent some time in various sales jobs (though not at an ad agency level) and I was never very good at it, because I couldn't develop that "sell at all costs" mentality.

That's my two cents. Again.


----------



## ElisaBlaisdell (Jun 3, 2012)

So, if he came from an ad background and simply had no idea that what he was doing was considered unacceptable, why do you think that he forgot to mention doing it, in his 5 dollar book that he was peddling to other writers: "How I sold a million books?"

Do you think it was just sheer absentmindedness?


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

ElisaBlaisdell said:


> So, if he came from an ad background and simply had no idea that what he was doing was considered unacceptable, why do you think that he forgot to mention doing it, in his 5 dollar book that he was peddling to other writers: "How I sold a million books?"
> 
> Do you think it was just sheer absentmindedness?


Not at all.

I think by the time he got around to writing the book on how he did what he did, he'd educated himself on the book industry enough to know the practice is frowned on (or worse), and figured "I'm not going to share that bit unless I'm asked."

Which is shady; no one's saying it's not.

But I credit him for not lying when someone from the press did ask. Because at least he didn't continue the deception. Which, by then, he knew full well was deception.

The post I wrote above is speculative on my part, but represents my efforts to understand his motives and why he did what he did, that's all.

I mean, are we writers or a mob?

As writers, putting ourselves into the heads of people unlike ourselves should almost be second-nature.  Seeking to understand another person's mentality is different than making excuses (there are none) or blowing off the matter (it's clearly wrong).

Just wait until EyeCU comes out... I'm putting myself in the head of a main character completely different from myself; but his sense of morals and values is completely rational to him, even though he does some extreme things that I could personally never excuse.


----------



## Justawriter (Jul 24, 2012)

K. A. Jordan said:


> I guess this puts John Locke in the 'Get Rich Quick' category of Indie writers as opposed to 'Quality First' where so many of us stand.
> 
> If I put aside my anger, (*big deep sigh*) this is really confusing. He's been touted as 'the one to follow' as far as sales go...yet he bought his reviews. So if he says that 'social media' is the way to sell books...does he really KNOW?
> 
> I guess this is the big sticking point...if social media doesn't work, why bother with it?


Who is saying social media does't work? Am not seeing that anywhere. If anything, I'm seeing that people who are using it well are selling more books. 

Keep in mind with Locke, we don't know how many reviews he bought, and we don't know how responsible those reviews were for sales. Could be the other activities he participated in, social media, mailing lists, etc. all combined to drive him up the charts.


----------



## MegHarris (Mar 4, 2010)

> Who is saying social media does't work? Am not seeing that anywhere.


I agree. Just because Locke bought reviews doesn't mean the use of social media is worthless. Some authors use it to good effect. Use it if you like it, because it does seem that it can be quite beneficial.



> I think by the time he got around to writing the book on how he did what he did, he'd educated himself on the book industry enough to know the practice is frowned on (or worse), and figured "I'm not going to share that bit unless I'm asked."


In which case he really shouldn't have written the book, because that required him to leave out a fairly significant part of the equation.



> (Wow, I have a low opinion of advertising, promotions and sales professionals, don't I? LOL)


----------



## HeyDrew (Sep 12, 2011)

Funny. I'm actually not surprised by this revelation.

I've bought a few of his books and enjoyed them, although they were not my usual fare. I also bought that _How To_ book but I don't really like blogging or Twitter so it was never of much use. It felt like snake oil more than anything.

That said, I don't see what the fuss is about. It sounds like Locke paid for reviews, good or bad. Is this practice honestly surprising to some, or am I just terribly jaded? The only thing that surprised me is that he actually let them post bad reviews. I see zero difference between this and Kirkus other than one actually appearing to provide better results.

People have been paying for a lot over the last decade that I never thought would have cost them a penny. From gold farming in video games like World of Warcraft to the whole "freemium" model that a lot of apps are going towards, to Farmville and all the Zynga games to Citizens United. If you're willing to spend money, you can buy your way ahead of those who can't. "This is not how the world works," said no one, ever.

Locke approached this like a business and made a business decision. I don't think he ever wanted critical acclaim, just commercial success and a self-sustaining group of readers. If it put him in the black then he made the right decision for his needs.

Is it the same decision I would make? No, because I want to earn respect and sales from my writing.

Can I understand why someone approaching book-selling as a business would do this? Yes, absolutely. I'm sure there are far more than just a few big name people like Locke that are doing it, or whatever the next morally shady practice will be.


----------



## righterman (Jul 27, 2012)

This is going to be a very unpopular comment, but my first review is ALWAYS a five star review given by a friend, relative, etc.  

Here's why...

I'm not going to pour months of effort into a book and just happen to get my first review and have it be a "one star" -- next thing I know, that one star ranking is showing up in the Amazon thumbnails and my book is kaput.  No one buys one star books in general, and I'm not going to risk it.  The first five star goes up, just ONE  -- and then I'll let the cards fall as they may.  If I get bad reviews after that -- so be it.  I know that my books average about 4.2 stars -- and I have a lot of books.  I'm not risking one bad review ruining my book's chances.  What if my next review was going to be a 5 star, but the person never bought the book because they saw the poor ranking?  Not happening.  

Lead with the 5 star and let it be.

Okay, start the backlash...


----------



## Cherise (May 13, 2012)

righterman said:


> This is going to be a very unpopular comment, but my first review is ALWAYS a five star review given by a friend, relative, etc.
> 
> Here's why...
> 
> ...


I see the wisdom in that. No hate from me.


----------



## righterman (Jul 27, 2012)

One more note -- I just looked at one of my books that has ten reviews.  It has my first "fake" five star review from a friend.  It has seven REAL 5 star reviews.  It has one REAL 4 star review.  It has ONE negative 1 star review.  The one star reviewer has almost ALL one star reviews under her belt.  This book has been out for about 4 months.  It sells about 150-200 copies per month at $3.99.  It has a very low return ratio.

Now what if I never put up my initial review and this 1 star just happened to be my first review?  It could have cost me a ton of money.  This is why I am not playing "Review Roulette" when it comes to a new book.


----------



## HeyDrew (Sep 12, 2011)

righterman said:


> This is going to be a very unpopular comment...


Maybe unpopular but certainly not unheard of or uncommon. I sincerely doubt you're in the minority on this, in the literary field or any field. Heck, Apple widely practices this by choosing the Pogues, Grubers, Mossbergs, etc. to get early access for their new hardware knowing full well their reviews will almost always be glowing. Anyone who has ever attended a free movie screening and knows full well they only show the interviews with the viewers who liked the film.


----------



## jackz4000 (May 15, 2011)

I think many readers think that the customer reviews are gamed and don't put much credence in all those glowing 5 star reviews. Some are just not believable. Some are self-sock-puppets and some from a friend or Uncle Bob. 

Many I think are just trying to have that 4 star and above rating to qualify for bloggers and programs which require 4 stars.

You can even watch it happen in the reviews. A book will get a 2 star which knocks it below the magical 4 level and within a couple days suddenly garners two 5 star reviews, bringing it back into 4 star land. You click on the two new reviewers and it's their first and only review or they post 10 book reviews per day...everyday.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

EllenFisher said:


> In which case he really shouldn't have written the book, because that required him to leave out a fairly significant part of the equation.


Agreed.

As to other issues being raised now, I certainly take issue with the idea of "gaming the system" with even one five-star review by a friend or family member, intentionally, as suggested.

Respectfully, I don't think it ought to be done that way by design, ever.

That said, I will say that through experience, first wave of people who review your book are those closest to you, just because they're probably the only ones who know you wrote a book to begin with.

One should not seek out those reviews, and one really doesn't need to seek them out as they tend to happen by themselves. Some of my earliest reviews on my first novel came from a person I knew back in high school, and some people who knew me via me being a beta-reader for them, or from being here in the forums.

The second wave usually comes after you send out tons of review copies to book bloggers. While the free-copy-to-actual-review percentage is low, those are usually the next people to review your book, because you sent them a free copy of it, asking them to place you in their TBR pile. That can take weeks, even months, sometimes.

The third wave comes from actual readers, though some of us have books that don't sell well enough to reach the third wave. But those are the reviews most treasured... the readers who just discover you by accident, rather than by knowing you, or by review request. Those who do reach it sometimes don't get there for months, even years.

Buying book reviews, or having a family member intentionally give you a non-genuine 5-star even if you don't deserve it, may be a shortcut in the system... but if it is, whatever you gain in visibility, you lose in integrity.

That's all for now.


----------



## Caddy (Sep 13, 2011)

> That said, I will say that through experience, first wave of people who review your book are those closest to you, just because they're probably the only ones who know you wrote a book to begin with.
> 
> One should not seek out those reviews, and one really doesn't need to seek them out as they tend to happen by themselves. Some of my earliest reviews on my first novel came from a person I knew back in high school, and some people who knew me via me being a beta-reader for them, or from being here in the forums.
> 
> ...


Well said. You know, it is best to just let reviews happen and not worry about it. Some readeres dont believe reviews from reviewers or bloggers were not bought. Some readers ONLY believe those reviews and feel reviews by just "people" are sock puppets. You really can't win, just let it happen and try to get reviews from honest bloggers and reviewers that don't charge.

I don't have sock puppet reviews but some sound like it. A *couple * of friends left reviews in the beginning or my writing. As readers, they have that right. Also, random readers don't necessarily know how to write a review, they are just going on and saying they love (or hated) your book. I have had 2 5 star reviews from random readers in the last week that were very short and said they loved it, a must read, etc. A sentence or two. Sounds fake. Isn't. They are simply readers that loved the book and wanted to show it and I appreciate it will all of my heart.

Readers also say if you click on the name of the person who left the review that will tell you if they are a "real" person or a friend. Not so. Many people are moved by a book and will suddenly leave a short review and have not done so before in their life. We can't worry about what each reader thinks about reviews in general. We can just be honest, write good books, and let the reviews come in.

By the way, after those two 5 stars on Amazon, a reader went on a Facebook page where I advertised book 1 and the page owner kindly displayed it. Someone came on and said the book was no good. So, their are real highs and lows. I simply replied "Oh gosh, I am so sorry you were disappointed in the book. No author pleases everyone, and thankfully I have please some. I hope, though, that you have found many books to love from other authors on this page." or something like that. I would not have replied at all on Amazon or B&N or Goodreads (and this same woman had given me a 2 star on Goodreads which I did not reply to) as REVIEWS are for readers. But this was my advertisement, and I felt it needed a kind reply. That reader does have the right to not like my book. All books have people who don't.  THat does not mean I don't feel bad that she was disappointed. I don't like to disappoint people.

All of that happened yesterday and I am off to one of my best starts ever, so go figure. 

I am very disappointed the Locke paid for reviews and then worte a book about how to be a success and failed to mention that fact. I am also disappointed that he even paid for reviews. I don't care if "many authors do it", it is wrong.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

righterman said:


> This is going to be a very unpopular comment, but my first review is ALWAYS a five star review given by a friend, relative, etc.


From a strictly theoretical standpoint, why not just have a sock puppet account and give yourself a five-star review? Would that be different? I'm not trying to start something, I'm genuinely curious. It makes no difference to me as I'm unlikely to buy a book because of one five-star review, as I assume in that case it's either the author or someone close to the author (I might buy it, but it would be because of other reasons.) And I see the logic of what you're saying. I was just playing with the idea in my head to see if it bothered me and why or why not....

Betsy


----------



## K. A. Jordan (Aug 5, 2010)

PamelaKelley said:


> Who is saying social media does't work? Am not seeing that anywhere. If anything, I'm seeing that people who are using it well are selling more books.


What bugs me is the quote "It takes too long to build a readership."

However, as Craig said, he's from an advertising background and they think differently about marketing. I don't watch 'The Apprentice' but if that's the way it's done, who's to say we aren't doing it wrong and he did it right?

Moral ambiguity, anyone?


----------



## Ian Fraser (Mar 8, 2011)

A better word for 'advertising' and 'marketing' is *Propaganda*. But the people in these industries would prefer to use soft, nice-sounding words to describe the deliberate manipulation of public perception.

Propaganda works though, just look at the billions spent each year by advertisers trying to push the buttons of sheeple when it comes to everything from food to cars to movies to medicines.

John Locke reveals himself to be a propagandist of the worst sort: manufacturing lies - fake 'glorious' reviews, and then, as a kind of an additional insult and perverse prank on his readers, choosing to sell them a 'how to do it' book that leaves out the integral part of his actual success: pure fraud.

Edward Bernays would have been thrilled with how well Locke created a Big Lie to sell to the easily influenced.

(Bernays: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Bernays
http://www.historyisaweapon.com/defcon1/bernprop.html


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

CraigInTwinCities said:


> That said, I will say that through experience, first wave of people who review your book are those closest to you, just because they're probably the only ones who know you wrote a book to begin with.
> 
> One should not seek out those reviews, and one really doesn't need to seek them out as they tend to happen by themselves. Some of my earliest reviews on my first novel came from a person I knew back in high school, and some people who knew me via me being a beta-reader for them, or from being here in the forums.
> 
> ...


A HUGE, huge assumption--that is a long way from correct--that just because we are indie authors none of us have a following or readers who wait for our novels.

That may be true for you. I wouldn't know. It isn't for all of us--maybe not for most of the authors who post on this forum.

My first reviews are invariably from readers, ones on my mailing list and a few READERS who have given me good reviews in the past who I offer preview copies. That is what smart authors do. It is one of the things that John Locke did. Unlike him, I don't have a huge mailing list (or pay for reviews) but I do have readers who ask me to tell them when my next novel will be out.

If I get a "second wave", it isn't from book bloggers because I consider contacting them to be a waste of my time. The good ones either don't take requests any more or are booked a year or more in advance. My "second wave" of reviews is from reviews trickling in from readers over time.


----------



## Jan Hurst-Nicholson (Aug 25, 2010)

Philosophy on reviews (or any sort of critique) for writers and readers:

Ignore the very good ones. Ignore the very bad ones.


----------



## Caddy (Sep 13, 2011)

> Propaganda works though, just look at the billions spent each year by advertisers trying to push the buttons of sheeple when it comes to everything from food to cars to movies to medicines.


Yes, but if you look at the definition of propaganda, it can also be spreading information for the good of the people. Not all advertising is lies and not all advertising harms people. How else does one get the information out on a new product or idea? The same is true for books. You have to do some marketing, awareness, propaganda, whatever you want to call it to let people know the book is available. To think that all advertising and marketing is simply trying to turn people into sheep is overly simplistic. I will be the first to admit it happens a lot. That does not make marketing and advertising not necessary. It can be done well. I was in the field for twenty years and saw more than my share of both!

John Locke lied to readers and he lied to us. That was wrong. That does not make all marketing wrong.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

JRTomlin said:


> A HUGE, huge assumption--that is a long way from correct--that just because we are indie authors none of us have a following or readers who wait for our novels.


JR,

As you tend to do with me, you've misread me once again.

The theme here was not "for every book we write," but for when one is first launching their writing careers, beginning at zero visibility. That's when those waves are relevant.

Of course, once a person has several books out, they've hopefully developed at least a few dedicated readers who are waiting for their next release; the more, the better. That's the goal of audience-building and branding.

But I suspect you know what I meant... not that that will prevent you from taking potshots at me.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

> A better word for 'advertising' and 'marketing' is Propaganda.


Note the propaganda in my signature line.


----------



## D.L. Shutter (Jul 9, 2011)

> From a strictly theoretical standpoint, why not just have a sock puppet account and give yourself a five-star review?


I think that phenomena is a little more than theoretical. Pretty safe to assume it's happening.

While I personally disagree with the tactic of buying reviews, "honest ones" or otherwise, I do think there's a wee bit of overreaction in response and also that, in principal, it's no different than how the Big 6 have gamed their own system with critics, trades mags and media outlets for decades.

Seriously, am I the only one that's ever bought a 25$ hardback, with a giant blurb by a fellow elite bestseller claiming it was so good they [crap] themselves, and was later reading it to help me fall asleep?

Locke has this stigma right now as a shady seller, particularly from people who admitted to buying his "self help" book. His new rep may be very well erned, but who am I to throw a stone? I used to sell timeshare properties.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

> Locke has this stigma right now as a shady seller, particularly from people who admitted to buying his "self help" book. His new rep may be very well erned, but who am I to throw a stone? I used to sell timeshare properties.


Perhaps he does have a stigma. But I have to question the extent of the stigma since I'd expect purchasers of the self-help book were heavily weighted to independent authors. Independents think he's a creep. OK.

Purchasers of the novels can make up their own minds about the products.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

D.L. Shutter said:


> [quote author=Betsy the Quilter]From a strictly theoretical standpoint, why not just have a sock puppet account and give yourself a five-star review?


I think that phenomena is a little more than theoretical. Pretty safe to assume it's happening.

[/quote]

I totally understand it's happening. My question was directed at righterman, who said he asked for relatives to post a five star review on his new releases so there wouldn't be the possibility of just one one-star review. My question was, if that's okay, (and clearly he thinks it is) why not just eliminate the middleman and do it himself? I was wondering what the difference was, in theory, between the two practices.

Betsy


----------



## D.L. Shutter (Jul 9, 2011)

Betsy, I understood your point, was only commenting on another apsect.

Obviously, friends and family are your first customers, and whether you ask them to or not you're going to get your first couple 5 star reviews from them in most cases.

Do they help at all? I would say no because after you've been looking at newly released indie books for, say, five whole minutes you can pick them out: a new releases with ONLY 5 star reviews, usually 3-5 of them and they always say something along the lines of "Most incredible book since...fill in the blank."

It's going to happen and everyone knows it, no one seems to care either. So I would agree that it really doesn't make any difference if you sock-puppet promo yourself.


----------



## Alan Petersen (May 20, 2011)

JRTomlin said:


> There is a reason why people who do look at reviews tend to look at the 3-star reviews!


So when buying reviews, make them 3-star reviews. The new 5-star review.


----------



## righterman (Jul 27, 2012)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> I think that phenomena is a little more than theoretical. Pretty safe to assume it's happening.
> 
> I totally understand it's happening. My question was directed at righterman, who said he asked for relatives to post a five star review on his new releases so there wouldn't be the possibility of just one one-star review. My question was, if that's okay, (and clearly he thinks it is) why not just eliminate the middleman and do it himself? I was wondering what the difference was, in theory, between the two practices.
> 
> Betsy


Forgive the delayed response Betsy -- long day with the kiddos. I guess there is no difference if it is a question of ethics. I just happen to prefer having a friend/relative buy the book and write it. Is it wrong of me?, yes. But like I said, it's just the first review -- that book that I mentioned has ten reviews already, it will probably have 100 in a few years -- I'm guessing that first planted review won't matter. BUT - you did give me an idea! Once I have generated a real review or two, I can ask the relative to remove the review. In other words, just have one five star "placeholder" review while I am waiting for a few real ones.

I know -- I'm crazy. I'm 80% businessman and 20% writer though.


----------



## Jan Hurst-Nicholson (Aug 25, 2010)

I like the comment in this blog:

As a writer in my Facebook feed joked yesterday, why not buy negative reviews of your enemies' books, while you're at it? 

http://www.salon.com/2012/08/27/can_self_publishing_win_respect/


----------



## Millard (Jun 13, 2011)

Shocking stuff. Locke truly seemed like a man who was in it for the love of the craft, and the deep calling to create a lasting, affecting piece of art.


----------



## SEAN H. ROBERTSON (Mar 14, 2011)

I must admit two years ago, as a newbie author ignorant of that review services hidden practices, I hired them to give me an honest appraisal of one of my books. Who knew then that it was such a fraud? Thank God I only got one review...nothing like what Locke did. Not even close. Amazing.


----------



## KealanPatrick (Sep 5, 2010)

Millard said:


> Shocking stuff. Locke truly seemed like a man who was in it for the love of the craft, and the deep calling to create a lasting, affecting piece of art.


----------



## RuthMadison (Jul 9, 2011)

I read his book about how to succeed. And I've defended him against people who dismissed him. Whether reasonable or not, I do feel hurt now.

As to why he still has tons of twitter followers, etc.: Maybe those are fake too  At least I wouldn't be surprised if the starter couple hundred were.


----------



## MeiLinMiranda (Feb 17, 2011)

Alan, I've considered it in passing. I have really strong reviews for the two books in my series--too strong in the case of book two--and I've joked with my husband that I should pay someone to write a couple of thoughtful 3-star reviews, or see if some of the 3-stars at Goodreads could be coaxed into cross-posting.


----------



## MegHarris (Mar 4, 2010)

> Shocking stuff. Locke truly seemed like a man who was in it for the love of the craft, and the deep calling to create a lasting, affecting piece of art.


  

Fair point. But really, how many of us feel that deep calling? I'm just a hack writer, and proud of it. I write what I like, and I like to think I do it pretty well, but I don't delude myself that I'm this generation's Jane Austen, either. I'm writing to entertain my readers, and to sell books-- which was pretty much the purpose Locke seemed to have laid out for himself as well. But the fact that I am not a great literary icon doesn't mean I have to buy reviews by the truckload, or write books telling people how I sold my millions (well, dozens ) of books while leaving out a large and edifiying chunk of information.


----------



## Jena H (Oct 2, 2011)

More collateral damage: now how many authors are going to cringe when getting a legitimate, non-solicited, honest-to-goodness glowing five-star review? Sure, we're ecstatic to get such a rating, but on the other hand.... how does it look? What about the army of people who troll survey book reviews, looking for sock-puppets? Heaven forbid one of our genuine good reviews should sound suspicious in some way. 

On another site, one of my books got a 4-star review... within hours of me publishing it. There were no comments, just a starred review. I'm thinking someone clicked it in error when glancing at the book online, but that's just a guess. But someone might see that and think I gave my own book a high rating, or asked someone else to, when that's not the case. So, bottom line: it's possible many of us could easily be touched by this brouhaha even when doing nothing questionable.


----------



## RuthMadison (Jul 9, 2011)

MeiLinMiranda said:


> Alan, I've considered it in passing. I have really strong reviews for the two books in my series--too strong in the case of book two--and I've joked with my husband that I should pay someone to write a couple of thoughtful 3-star reviews, or see if some of the 3-stars at Goodreads could be coaxed into cross-posting.


So sad that it has come to this!


----------



## George Berger (Aug 7, 2011)

EllenFisher said:


> I write what I like, and I like to think I do it pretty well, but I don't delude myself that I'm this generation's Jane Austen, either. I'm writing to entertain my readers, and to sell books-- which was pretty much the purpose Locke seemed to have laid out for himself as well.


Except you, as you say, _write what you like_. Most of us do, I think. But I've always thought that Locke - who has never hidden the fact that he's a marketer first and foremost - was writing what he did with a coldly calculating desire to write something market research said would appeal to the lowest common denominator. But, I've never liked marketing types - the fundamental belief that honesty is a terrible character flaw kind of creeps me out.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

RuthMadison said:


> I read his book about how to succeed. And I've defended him against people who dismissed him. Whether reasonable or not, I do feel hurt now.
> 
> As to why he still has tons of twitter followers, etc.: Maybe those are fake too  At least I wouldn't be surprised if the starter couple hundred were.


Would it be surprising? Nah.

After all, a full 70 percent of Barack Obama's followers AND Lady Gaga's followers have been determined to be fraudulent accounts. So it would be completely unsurprising of a good portion of most celebrity's followers were, likewise, fraudulent.

Heck, I don't always know who's real and whose fake, so I wouldn't be surprised if some of my followers are fake... when I get followed, I tend to just follow back, so who knows?

But I will say I've found Twitter to be almost useless when it comes to affecting sales, or connecting with real people.

While I can't easily close my Twitter account, I just find Facebook and my blog/website to be of far more value. And I'm experimenting with Tout.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

> Shocking stuff. Locke truly seemed like a man who was in it for the love of the craft, and the deep calling to create a lasting, affecting piece of art.


Well, I sure don't qualify on those counts. Perhaps everyone else does. I don't know. Why think Locke did? I figured he was a guy trying to write and sell books that would entartain folks for a few hours.



> But, I've never liked marketing types - the fundamental belief that honesty is a terrible character flaw kind of creeps me out.


I can't dispute your likes. And that fundamental belief is creepy. But why should we believe it is a general belief of marketing people? Anyone think writing a blurb is marketing? How about sticking a cover in a signature block? Running a Facebook author page? Managing a twitter account? Creepy?


----------



## Beatriz (Feb 22, 2011)

BarbraAnnino said:


> I recall seeing a thread around here some time ago about purchasing reviews. I had no idea that this was even possible, let alone that any self-respecting writer worth a d*mn would partake in it. (Yes, I am that naive. Or maybe I just have integrity). So I found this article interesting. Thought I'd share.
> 
> http://newwaveauthors.com/Blog.aspx?PostID=103&Title=The-Real-Reason-What-John-Locke-Did-is-So-Appalling
> 
> ...


This was excellent and I couldn't agree more. My reviews are few, but I earned each and everyone of them. A few people that read my first book said it actually helped them and bigger praise can not be had, so I rather have one review like that than a thousand fakes. I think it's a matter of self respect, respect towards the reader and most of all, respect for your art. If you lie about a review, what else are you lying about? Are you plagerizing the book as well? People will wonder if those are your actual words or if you're stealing from every Tom, Dick and Harry, you know.


----------



## George Berger (Aug 7, 2011)

Terrence OBrien said:


> Anyone think writing a blurb is marketing? How about sticking a cover in a signature block? Running a Facebook author page? Managing a twitter account?


Absolutely. But for most of us, it's not our primary skill, our bread-and-butter, our, dare I say, passion. Most of us are, in fact, pretty damned bad at it, because we're awkwardly honest and feel guilt, however slight, when we lie. I know I'm not the only one who views all these things as - advertising, writing blurbs, promoting one's self on Twitter or Facebook - as an unpleasant chore, something to be done, grudgingly, but not enjoyed or looked forward to.



> I can't dispute your likes. And that fundamental belief is creepy. But why should we believe it is a general belief of marketing people?


Because it's an essential requisite of the job? That professional marketers are about as honest as your average professional politician has been my experience, over the years. Without exception. Call my cynical, but I truly don't think there are any honest marketers - just ones who haven't been exposed as liars or hypocrites, yet.

Your mileage may vary, of course. Perhaps your glass is half full, as well.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

> Because it's an essential requisite of the job? That professional marketers are about as honest as your average professional politician has been my experience, over the years. Without exception. Call my cynical, but I truly don't think there are any honest marketers - just ones who haven't been exposed as liars or hypocrites, yet.


Are people marketing books for Random House fundamentally flawed and creepy, but an independent author marketing his own books is not?

Perhaps my glass is half full, but I look at both halves.


----------



## RuthMadison (Jul 9, 2011)

I've been really enjoying the marketing that I've been learning as part of selling books.

I devour books about it and love learning about it. I never expected to love marketing. I had no idea how interesting and fun it was.

However, throughout everything that I learn, I continue to be absolutely honest.

There are some marketing ideas that are sleezy. I don't participate in those. But I think there's a lot of room for honest people and genuine care and love in the field of marketing. Enjoying marketing does not mean one has to be an evil person trying to trick people into buying what you're selling. When you sell something that you believe in from the heart, you can be a marketer and a genuine, honest person.

(I should say I _try _not to participate in sleezy ideas, but mistakes can be made.)


----------



## George Berger (Aug 7, 2011)

Terrence OBrien said:


> Are people marketing books for Random House fundamentally flawed and creepy, but an independent author marketing his own books is not?


It's not the act of marketing which is creepy, Terrence. It's trading in an important piece of your soul for a paycheck, that is. There's no room in _professional_ marketing for an honest man, or a conscience.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

> It's not the act of marketing which is creepy, Terrence. It's trading in an important piece of your soul for a paycheck, that is. There's no room in professional marketing for an honest man, or a conscience.


Well, knowledge of such a trade is probably beyond our knowledge. How do you know the mystical details of the trading portfolio of those Random House marketing folks? They don't call me any more than Amazon calls.

And if the actions of marketers are benign, then why is an IPO on a soul necessary to enter the field?

Should we be worried about the salvation of independent authors? The more books they write, the more they undertake benign marketing actions, the more money they get in Amazon wire transfers, and the less of their soul they own? That is creepy. Seems like a good book in there somewhere. _Dorian Gray, Independent Author._


----------



## Jena H (Oct 2, 2011)

George Berger said:


> It's not the act of marketing which is creepy, Terrence. It's trading in an important piece of your soul for a paycheck, that is. *There's no room in professional marketing for an honest man, or a conscience.*


Personally, I think that (highlighted) is a harsh statement. While I agree that, as in many _other _professions, it's possible for people in marketing to go over the line, there are thousands of people who work in marketing who are honest and have perfectly healthy consciences.
IMO


----------



## TLH (Jan 20, 2011)

A big part of the reason, IMHO, Locke still sells a lot of books and hasn’t lost is Twitter followers is because consumers don’t really care that much about what he did. It hasn’t wronged them really. Why? I tell you why. 

Reviews are a way to make a decision. Whether you use it or not doesn’t matter. There are a lot of people who do use them. It’s there to be used or not used. Just like all the other things we make available to help a reader make a decision on what book they want.

Price is a factor. Cover is a factor. Description is a factor, so is the sample, the ranking, word of mouth, blog poste, tweets, freebies, and so on. People will use what they feel comfortable using to make their decision. If there’s one thing I’ve learned, as an ad man for 22 years, is that you cannot make a person buy something they don’t want. No way, now how. The only thing you can do is to make your product attractive enough so that they try it. And if they like it, they’ll come back. If they don’t, you’ll never see them again.

If Locke paid for 300 reviews, that doesn’t come close to the number of books he’s sold. He’s obviously writing something that people like. Proof is that readership doesn’t fall off after the first book. People came back. Who cares how he got them to take the first bite? Not consumers. If Coke came up to me while I was standing in line to get something to drink from Pepsi and said, “Hey we got a new product we’ll give it to you free. It taste wonderful and it’s refreshing and I have it right here in my hand, ice cold.” I would take the damn thing. Is it morally wrong for Coke to take Pepsi customers out of their line with free product? Maybe, but the customer doesn’t care. They don’t care about any of the business that’s involved in bringing a product to market, they really just care if they like it or not. It’s not until you develop a following that’s loyal to your brand/product that a lot of those decision-making factors get thrown out the window and they buy your product based on the logo or in our case, the author’s name.

I’m not saying what Locke did is right but it’s not wrong. There’s no law against it. Little kitties aren’t being killed over it. This is a business and he did what he needed to do to make his business successful. If it pisses you off that he didn’t play fair and didn’t follow the make believe handbook that you’ve decided to follow, then that’s your fault. Get back at him. Make your books something his readers would want and win them over. Capture his market share.

We’re all here because we take what we do seriously. We’re small business owners. We make books and we sell them. We want to be successful and be able to make a nice living off the sales of our books. Well I do. It’s not enough to write the book and throw it out there. We all know that. That’s why we try things, different things. Locke tried a lot of different things and it worked. I’m not saying we should do what he did; I’m just saying that’s business. You run your business the way you feel comfortable running it. The cards will fall where they fall.


----------



## Matthew Stewart (Jan 7, 2011)

What I'm curious about is where does the threshold of ethics exist for everyone else? If someone told you, hey, spend $400 on some book reviews and you could easily make 100,000 sales and transition to doing this full-time, would you do it? Would your quality suffer? What if it was 1,000,000 sales? 

I think at some point almost everyone would be willing to do what Locke did, it's just that his threshold for greed seemed to be quite a bit lower than what appears to be the standard.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

I wonder if attitudes would change if Amazon changed the title from "Customer Reviews" to "Customer Comments?"


----------



## BBGriffith (Mar 13, 2012)

Matthew Stewart said:


> What I'm curious about is where does the threshold of ethics exist for everyone else? If someone told you, hey, spend $400 on some book reviews and you could easily make 100,000 sales and transition to doing this full-time, would you do it? Would your quality suffer? What if it was 1,000,000 sales?


Interesting moral question here. Let's take it to extremes. How about 1 dollar for 1 million sales. Who would pay?


----------



## 60169 (May 18, 2012)

Old man to attractive young lady at a cocktail party: "Would you sleep with me for a million dollars?"
Blushing, she replied "Why, yes, I believe I would."
Waggling his eyebrows, he said "How about five bucks then?"
"What kind of a girl do you think I am?"
"We've already established that. Now we're dickering over the price."


----------



## Gone 9/21/18 (Dec 11, 2008)

The Drudge Report has a link to an article discussing author sins and review problems:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/booknews/9518531/RJ-Ellory-fake-book-reviews-are-rife-on-internet-authors-warn.html

It's not indie sins being featured at such a high traffic site.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

TLH,

You argue the Locke/sales mentality well.

It's true that 300 reviews is miniscule compared to 1M sales.

And it's also true that people wouldn't be coming back in droves if Locke was writing the literary equivalent of "See Creed run. Run, Creed, run! Run, run, run..."

But I do think you minimize the ethics issue far too much.

Sure, plenty of people may not CARE that Locke bought 300 reviews. But clearly some people do care.

And does one's sense of right and wrong depend solely on what the majority of people care about? I don't think so.

And although this may be why I never succeeded in selling insurance or cell phones, I've never been one who buys into the whole "the ends justify the means" mentality.

Where we end up matters, yes, but how we got there also matters.

I have defended Locke in this thread and others... but as a writer, not for his poor marketing choices. My line of thought consistently has been that Locke is a good writer, but no one's going to talk about that anymore, because of his poor choices.

Remember Milli Vanilli? Lots of artists lip-synch live shows today, because of the extensive choreography audiences expect. But they were the first to get caught doing it red-handed... yeah, their career really took off after that.

Except it didn't.

And even now, when such things are commonplace because of extensive choreography, did getting exposed for lip-synching her performance on SNL a few years back help or hurt the career of Ashley Simpson?

Point is, one can come up with fine-sounding arguments to justify and rationalize just about anything, but being the best BSer in the room doesn't mean truth is on one's side.

Will I continue to buy Locke's novels, because I enjoy them? Yes.

But do I defend his ethical practices in marketing? No. My opinion of him has dropped, and his career/success advice will never look as impressive to me as it once did before this came to light.

That said, I'm also not going to the other extreme some people are jumping to and calling him a bad writer when the problem lays in his marketing ethics.


----------



## GlennGamble (Sep 15, 2011)

Matthew Stewart said:


> What I'm curious about is where does the threshold of ethics exist for everyone else? If someone told you, hey, spend $400 on some book reviews and you could easily make 100,000 sales and transition to doing this full-time, would you do it? Would your quality suffer? What if it was 1,000,000 sales?
> 
> I think at some point almost everyone would be willing to do what Locke did, it's just that his threshold for greed seemed to be quite a bit lower than what appears to be the standard.


The moral indignation displayed on both threads is even more disgusting than John Locke's How to book, which in itself is a steaming pile of [crap]. His novels on the other hand are very good. I really don't see the big deal here. Publishers have bought print ads in newspapers' books sections for years in exchange for glowing reviews, but its a travesty when an indie with deep pockets does the same thing in employing a review service. Seriously, what's wrong with what John Locke did? He bought honest reviews

Most of the people crying "unethical" would have done the same thing if they had Locke's deep pockets.

I believe the people who say they would never do as John Locke did about as much as I believe that a growing minority of independent authors don't resort to stalking and trashing books in the top 100 free lists with 1-star reviews out of spite and jealousy. I don't believe you at all.

The only thing I have issue with is his lying about how to get reviews and sales from twitter followers. That there was a crock of [crap], just like your aim to protect the sanctity of reviews is a crock of [crap].

If customers choose not to utilize the download sample feature, shame on them.


----------



## TLH (Jan 20, 2011)

Hey Craig,

If what he did really was a problem, people would stop buying his books, in masses. There are times when consumers don't like what a company does and they punish them buy not buying what they have to sell. Even though it bothers you, it wasn't enough to stop you from buying his books. Maybe if he dragged it out, kept denying it, promised he didn't do it until proof was shown, that might have been the tipping point for you to stop buying. As it stands now, he hasn't pushed your buttons far enough. Seems like he'll come out of this okay. He owned up to it right away—a classic PR move. Maybe he knew from the very beginning that if this did come out that he would have to take some flack for a bit and eventually it would calm back down. He's probably right. In two weeks we'll be bitching about something else.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

So far as I have seen, the "backlash" seems to be from other authors rather than the public--something rather important for John Locke anyway. We may be still be bitching, but who else is?


----------



## Guest (Sep 4, 2012)

CraigInTwinCities said:


> Remember Milli Vanilli?


Yes, and the problem was not lip-synching. It was that they didn't even record the songs originally. Someone else recorded the songs, but they got put on the album cover because they looked more attractive than the actual singers.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

T.L. Haddix said:


> That's a very important distinction. Let me ask this, as I've been running around like a headless chicken, and aside from what I've seen here on KB, I don't know - how widespread is the news of this review buying fiasco? I've seen some very recent posts on authors' FB pages where they're just discovering the whole mess. Is it just now spreading through mainstream sources, or are people just trickling into it?


I'm honestly not sure. I haven't seen any indication of a real reader backlash so far, but that doesn't mean it couldn't happen. I have seen very few comments on this issue from anyone not an author after the original articles. That doesn't mean I couldn't have missed them but I suspect someone here would have brought them up.


----------



## Eric C (Aug 3, 2009)

There is plenty in this world going on that outrages me, things that politicians do, that auto mechanics do, and that people of other professions do, but I don't go around publicly declaiming them very often. I would perhaps if I belonged to that particular profession. So if the general public hasn't made a big noise it's either they don't follow the publishing industry closely or they haven't bothered to comment.

But what is happening is what should happen IMO. John Locke's reputation within the industry is now permanently sullied. (He could help himself with a mea culpa, though, instead of a denial that the buying of 300 reviews was of little import or consequence.) That has helped to encourage dialog within the industry as to what is acceptable and unacceptable behavior and that kind of dialog will help to maintain what remains of the integrity of the Amazon review system. Just imagine what would happen to the utility of the review system for readers if all authors bought 300 or so reviews each.


----------



## CoraBuhlert (Aug 7, 2011)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> Yes, and the problem was not lip-synching. It was that they didn't even record the songs originally. Someone else recorded the songs, but they got put on the album cover because they looked more attractive than the actual singers.


That, too, was not exactly an uncommon practice.

Regarding Milli Vanilli, they were produced by Frank Farian who was also the mastermind behind such disco era acts like Boney M. and Eruption. Farian was known to use lip-synching and having different singers (often Farian himself) sing the songs than the people who showed up on stage. Ironically, Farian's original justification was that no one would want to see a blonde German sing calypso-flavoured disco hits, so he hired a bunch of black singers/dancers and called them Boney M.

This was already widely known even back in the 1980s, at least in Germany where Farian was based. I certainly knew it, because I remember wondering why everybody was so shocked about the Milli Vanilli revelations, considering that Farian had been doing the same thing for ages.

All of which is only tangentially related to John Locke and others paying for reviews.


----------



## Victoria J (Jul 5, 2011)

The only backlash I see going on is within the writer community. I don't see readers up in arms over this. Most of the readers I know are completely unaware of this. If he isn't losing any of his readership he did something right when writing his books. This kind of stuff happens everywhere in every industry and it's been happening for many years. It doesn't justify the behavior but writer outrage won't do a thing to stop it. What R. J. Ellory did, in my opinion, was worse than what John Locke did. Locke didn't do anything, as far as I know, to actively tank *other* people's books. Locke's behavior was bad enough but he was concerned with his own product. Vicious, insecure people like Ellory can do far more damage to other authors than authors like Locke because they actively attack others and hide behind false accounts.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

> Just imagine what would happen to the utility of the review system for readers if all authors bought 300 or so reviews each.


Good question. I imagine consumers who use reviews would simply accept the fact that the Amazon reviews contain all kinds of stuff. Some real reviews, some fake reviews, some potshots from other authors, and one from Mom. They are a pretty resilient bunch.

Does all this matter to anyone? Too early to tell. But we can get a good answer by watching Locke's rankings.


----------



## Eric C (Aug 3, 2009)

Victoria J said:


> What R. J. Ellory did, in my opinion, was worse than what John Locke did.


I don't have an opinion as to who was worse, but I will point out that every time Locke hopped onto some top 100 list on Amazon with the aid of his purchased reviews, he knocked some other author, who presumably didn't cheat, off. And as long as he stayed there he prevented other authors who presumably played the game straight of climbing onto the list.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Joe Konrath rings in and some here won't like HIS opinion. 



> The Writers' Code of Ethics
> 
> ...
> 
> ...


----------



## Eric C (Aug 3, 2009)

Terrence OBrien said:


> Good question. I imagine consumers who use reviews would simply accept the fact that the Amazon reviews contain all kinds of stuff. Some real reviews, some fake reviews, some potshots from other authors, and one from Mom. They are a pretty resilient bunch.
> 
> Does all this matter to anyone? Too early to tell. But we can get a good answer by watching Locke's rankings.


Off the top of my head I would think that few readers would bother paying attention to the overall star rating averages anymore or bother reading any five-star reviews, so cluttered would they be with fakes. (I suspect that currently there is a correlation between book quality and star ratings, but it would be some undertaking to prove it.)


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Here's the ranking for John Locke's _Box_ which has been out for about a month:

Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #398 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)

#7 in Books > Literature & Fiction > Humor
#9 in Kindle Store > Kindle eBooks > Humor
#13 in Books > Literature & Fiction > Genre Fiction > Action & Adventure

Not number one overall, but frankly, if that's backlash...

ETA: I was curious about what readers were saying about this "scandal" so I glanced through the reviews of this novel which was released August 8. Even the bad reviews didn't mention it.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

> Off the top of my head I would think that few readers would bother paying attention to the overall star rating averages anymore or bother reading any five-star reviews, so cluttered would they be with fakes.


I've speculated for a long time that the star icons are far more important than whatever the reviews say.

We can't ignore the stars. They sit right next to the title in all the Amazon listings. It's impossible not to see them. We may never read a review, but consciously or subconsciously, I suggest the star icons affect us all. Even if Amazon randomly assigned them, we've been conditioned all our lives to associate quality with stars.

In terms of paying attention to a diverse mix of review provenances, consumers may treat them like advertising. Ads contain lots of fluff, but they also contain lots of good information. Anyone ever buy a product because they learned about it in an ad?

But in all this stuff, just follow the money. I'm sure Amazon knows far more than any of us about the ways in which reviews are being used, but I note they seem pretty content with the situation. Something is working.



> I was curious about what readers were saying about this "scandal" so I glanced through the reviews of this novel which was released August 8. Even the bad reviews didn't mention it.


That's what I expect. Every industry has its internal controversies, but they rarely gain much outside attention unless there's a made-for-TV movie..


----------



## Edward W. Robertson (May 18, 2010)

Victoria J said:


> The only backlash I see going on is within the writer community. I don't see readers up in arms over this. Most of the readers I know are completely unaware of this. If he isn't losing any of his readership he did something right when writing his books. This kind of stuff happens everywhere in every industry and it's been happening for many years. It doesn't justify the behavior but writer outrage won't do a thing to stop it. What R. J. Ellory did, in my opinion, was worse than what John Locke did. Locke didn't do anything, as far as I know, to actively tank *other* people's books. Locke's behavior was bad enough but he was concerned with his own product. Vicious, insecure people like Ellory can do far more damage to other authors than authors like Locke because they actively attack others and hide behind false accounts.


What Ellory did was more hurtful to writers. What Locke did was more hurtful to readers. I don't think one act is particularly better or worse than the other. They're both a disgrace.


----------



## Lummox JR (Jul 1, 2012)

For my two cents, the indignation is well-deserved and it was Eisler's response that was hyperbolic. He took Stant's reaction--a reasonable one, albeit strong--to the issue and threw up a bunch of examples of things that ought to be taken _more_ seriously just to marginalize it. There's no harm in feeling outrage over an issue yet reserving still more outrage for (his examples) rape or those WBC nuts. It's like saying "Well you can't complain you had a bad day, because I have cancer. How can you say you hate your cell phone service when there are kids starving somewhere in the world?" Come on, let the man have his feelings for crying out loud. I found the whole (paraphrase) "You shouldn't use superlatives so much" bit pretty darn condescending. Couldn't he just _simply_ have said that he too disagreed with Locke's behavior, but found Stant's reaction to it a bit too strong from his own POV?

The only point of Eisler's I found somewhat reasonable, besides "I don't feel the same way about it", was that Stant ascribed to writers a level of ethical importance that might be a bit overstated outside of, say, journalism or nonfiction. However, inasmuch as a guide on how to sell a million ebooks _is_ nonfiction, it's fair to hold Locke to a higher standard. Nobody wants to buy a book on how to be a successful marketer only to have half the chapters suggest you should invest heavily in e-mail spam (not just writing to a list of interested people who've contacted you, but actual spam). Nobody wants to buy a book on how to succeed in the stock market by having it advise them to do things that would get them thrown in jail.


----------



## Jena H (Oct 2, 2011)

Edward W. Robertson said:


> What Ellory did was more hurtful to writers. What Locke did was more hurtful to readers. I don't think one act is particularly better or worse than the other. They're both a disgrace.


I agree. But in my opinion, 90% of John Q Public out there in Reader-land either aren't aware of this "scandal," or wouldn't care if they did. I think a lot of the public reads books that their friends or co-workers recommend, and either don't notice the reviews or don't care. A lot of people buy books from word of mouth (what their brother-in-law or their hairdresser read) rather than starred reviews; they want to read what their friends are reading. I'd be willing to bet that the average "person on the street" isn't aware of the John Locke or RJ Ellory (sp?) situations.


----------



## BarbraAnnino (Jan 27, 2011)

Edward W. Robertson said:


> What Ellory did was more hurtful to writers. What Locke did was more hurtful to readers. I don't think one act is particularly better or worse than the other. They're both a disgrace.


Here's Eisler's further views on the subject. I think his point about _intention _makes a whole lot of sense. I've always considered intention when dealing with a problem or person. It applies here too, IMHO.

http://barryeisler.blogspot.com/2012/09/and-why-beholdest-thou-mote-in-thy.htmlerson


----------



## Kent Kelly (Feb 12, 2011)

What is the message here, if not indignation?  That we should all buy reviews and feel justified in doing so?


----------



## Amanda Brice (Feb 16, 2011)

T.L. Haddix said:


> That's a very important distinction. Let me ask this, as I've been running around like a headless chicken, and aside from what I've seen here on KB, I don't know - how widespread is the news of this review buying fiasco? I've seen some very recent posts on authors' FB pages where they're just discovering the whole mess. Is it just now spreading through mainstream sources, or are people just trickling into it?


Outside of the publishing circles, I really don't think people know and/or care.


----------



## GlennGamble (Sep 15, 2011)

Kent Kelly said:


> What is the message here, if not indignation? That we should all buy reviews and feel justified in doing so?


The message is for all of us to mind our own business and focus on our own affairs.


----------



## Eric C (Aug 3, 2009)

GlennGamble said:


> The message is for all of us to mind our own business and focus on our own affairs.


This IS our business.


----------



## MJWare (Jun 25, 2010)

BarbraAnnino said:


> Here's Eisler's further views on the subject. I think his point about _intention _makes a whole lot of sense. I've always considered intention when dealing with a problem or person. It applies here too, IMHO.
> 
> http://barryeisler.blogspot.com/2012/09/and-why-beholdest-thou-mote-in-thy.htmlerson


I think Eisler's take on this is really good and since that link doesn't work, here's the working one:
http://barryeisler.blogspot.com/2012/09/and-why-beholdest-thou-mote-in-thy.html

Besides the friend/family reviews that Eisler mentions, what really bothers me is the tactics publishers take in gaming the system. For example, giving out ARC copies to bloggers that only leave positive reviews (and cross-post them to Amazon). I see this all the time and it really creates an unfair playing surface for use indies.

Most bloggers give honest reviews, but I've seen more than a few that _seem_ to have a policy of, you send me lots of books and I'll post good reviews.

Or how about all the big reviewers who don't take indie books (or have policies that effectively don't allow indie books), or only take them if we pay hundreds of dollars?

Really it all comes does to where we draw the line. I'll pay a fee for someone to go out and find reviewers for me as long it's clearly stated that those reviews are unbiased and they aren't paying the reviewers. Still, some consider this dishonest or at least unsavory.

While what Locke did was wrong, I don't see it that much worse than what big publishers do all the time.


----------



## BarbraAnnino (Jan 27, 2011)

Kent Kelly said:


> What is the message here, if not indignation? That we should all buy reviews and feel justified in doing so?


The message is a matter of degrees. Intention to harm? Intention to sell books? Or innocuous intention?

I just read on another site that there is a reviewer scouring Amazon to call out ALL author reviews and tweeting that they are falsified--many by authors who reviewed another writer favorably.

In other words, the pendulum has swung the other way.

For example, if I review a book and give it 5 stars because I truly like it, yet I know the author--is that a foul? 
What if I know the author _now_, but didn't know him when I wrote the review? 
What about if I don't know the author at all, but I like the book and review it well. Am I not allowed to review now because I have books available for sale on Amazon?

Is asking your friends and family to review your book unethical? What about author blurbs--is that practice unethical considering that most are written by authors contracted under the same house? Or authors who are friends?

It's a sound way to look at this and points out that we don't play in a black and white arena and never have in this business.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

GlennGamble said:


> His novels on the other hand are very good.


I agree. I own every book he's written. That's not what's at issue.



GlennGamble said:


> ...but its a travesty when an indie with deep pockets does the same thing in employing a review service. Seriously, what's wrong with what John Locke did? He bought honest reviews


It's not the same thing as buying ads. And what he bought were not "honest" reviews.



GlennGamble said:


> Most of the people crying "unethical" would have done the same thing if they had Locke's deep pockets.


False. It only costs $5 to get two five-star reviews at Fivver.com or whatever. Buying 300 at once might be out of the reach of some of us, but we're not talking an economy of scale here, but a principle... just about anyone could conceivably game the system using such services. Most of us don't. So your assumption is not only untrue, it's insulting.



GlennGamble said:


> I believe the people who say they would never do as John Locke did about as much as I believe that a growing minority of independent authors don't resort to stalking and trashing books in the top 100 free lists with 1-star reviews out of spite and jealousy. I don't believe you at all.


Well, you don't know most of the folks in this community then. That's sad for you, but it's your distorted view, not the way things are. I'd suggest most of us in WC have not done such things, because they're not worth doing. Trashing someone else's book doesn't sell a single extra copy of one's own book. Plus, it's just mean and dishonest. Most people understand that.



GlennGamble said:


> The only thing I have issue with is his lying about how to get reviews and sales from twitter followers. That there was a crock of [crap], just like your aim to protect the sanctity of reviews is a crock of [crap].
> 
> If customers choose not to utilize the download sample feature, shame on them.


Personally, I have no stake in the "sanctity of reviews" in general. Because I don't rely on reviews to determine my purchase decisions on books. But that doesn't mean all your venom is true, or justified.


----------



## MJWare (Jun 25, 2010)

BarbraAnnino said:


> The message is a matter of degrees. Intention to harm? Intention to sell books? Or innocuous intention?
> 
> I just read on another site that there is a reviewer scouring Amazon to call out ALL author reviews and tweeting that they are falsified--many by authors who reviewed another writer favorably.
> 
> ...


This is what Barry's post is all about.

I've had authors that I sorta knew review my books--what was I suppose to do, ask them to remove it? I didn't feel I knew them well enough to do that.

I've left reviews for books and later got to know them enough that I don't do it anymore. I had other KB authors do that for me as well, but now that we are really acquainted they don't review me anymore.

I've asked my family not to leave reviews, but how can I enforce this?

I don't know where the line is, but I think we can (mostly) all agree not being forthcoming (like Locke), or buying reviews on fiver, stuff like that is clearly over any reasonable line.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

TLH said:


> Hey Craig,
> 
> If what he did really was a problem, people would stop buying his books, in masses. There are times when consumers don't like what a company does and they punish them buy not buying what they have to sell. Even though it bothers you, it wasn't enough to stop you from buying his books. Maybe if he dragged it out, kept denying it, promised he didn't do it until proof was shown, that might have been the tipping point for you to stop buying. As it stands now, he hasn't pushed your buttons far enough. Seems like he'll come out of this okay. He owned up to it right away-a classic PR move. Maybe he knew from the very beginning that if this did come out that he would have to take some flack for a bit and eventually it would calm back down. He's probably right. In two weeks we'll be bitching about something else.


No, my decision to continue buying his books is based on judging his WORK separately from his marketing ethics.

Not everyone hangs others in effigy over things like this. That doesn't make the action appropriate or justified. And if he were to ever write any how-to books in the future, he wouldn't get a sale from me on those, because how-to-book honesty is a big part of what's at issue here.

But one CAN judge an entertainer's ability to entertain, separately from their moral character. If that were not true, Alec Baldwin would never find work in Hollywood ever again.

The ends do not justify the means, my friend.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

JRTomlin said:


> Here's the ranking for John Locke's _Box_ which has been out for about a month:
> 
> Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #398 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
> 
> ...


By standards set by other releases, him being out of the Top 100 so quickly is a step back.

But I do think most readers are completely unaware, and probably wouldn't understand the issue even if they were.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

Terrence OBrien said:


> Every industry has its internal controversies, but they rarely gain much outside attention unless there's a made-for-TV movie..


That seems to be true.

Not many people understand why "insider information" is an unprincipled way to buy and sell stocks on Wall Street.

Not many people understood "Whitewater-gate" during the Clinton era, and why sweetheart real estate deals were wrong.

The public's understanding of scandals within particular industries is often low. But right and wrong is not determined by "the public's understanding/agreement."


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

CraigInTwinCities said:


> By standards set by other releases, him being out of the Top 100 so quickly is a step back.
> 
> But I do think most readers are completely unaware, and probably wouldn't understand the issue even if they were.


For all I know, it could have been in the Top 100 and has slipped. Or his sales overall could be going down. I don't know, but I see no sign of a reader backlash.

I think we are (rather unusual for us) pretty much in agreement. The ends don't justify the means, but if I wanted to read his fiction, that wouldn't stop me. I seriously doubt it would people who don't have a clue about the issue. Now a "how to market an ebook" from him--no way I'd trust him enough to buy one now.


----------



## GlennGamble (Sep 15, 2011)

Eric C said:


> This IS our business.


Whether or not John Locke buys reviews is his business, not ours. Don't like the way he does business then do business differently. Like I said months ago, I see nothing but jealousy at the forefront with the self-appointed review police force --the aim of protecting readers is a farce. This reminds me of politics:

"I don't believe in abortion"

Don't get an abortion

"I don't believe in gay marriage"

Marry a heterosexual or stay single

"Buying sock puppet reviews is unethical"

Then don't buy em

I also find it interesting that major publishers have bought reviews for DECADES, yet you all have never gone after them for engaging in unethical practices, yet you go after John Locke --very hypocritical. With the major publishers you all turn a blind eye to their unethical behavior, but you flame John Locke? Apparently, unethical behavior isn't the underlying problem here.

The real issue is that most of you are envious of his sales, and your jealously is the real fuel behind this controversy.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

JRTomlin said:


> For all I know, it could have been in the Top 100 and has slipped. Or his sales overall could be going down. I don't know, but I see no sign of a reader backlash.
> 
> I think we are (rather unusual for us) pretty much in agreement. The ends don't justify the means, but if I wanted to read his fiction, that wouldn't stop me. I seriously doubt it would people who don't have a clue about the issue. Now a "how to market an ebook" from him--no way I'd trust him enough to buy one now.


Truly, it is a "mark your calendar" day! We are in essential agreement on something. Yay!


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

CraigInTwinCities said:


> Truly, it is a "mark your calendar" day! We are in essential agreement on something. Yay!


It was bound to happen eventually.


----------



## Eric C (Aug 3, 2009)

GlennGamble said:


> Whether or not John Locke buys reviews is his business, not ours.


Then I suppose Apple shouldn't have sued Samsung. Then I suppose no one should've commented on the anti trust case against the big publishers.

In any industry, businesses monitor the ways in which their competitors conduct business and often attempt to self-police the industry.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Eric C said:


> Then I suppose Apple shouldn't have sued Samsung. Then I suppose no one should've commented on the anti trust case against the big publishers.
> 
> In any industry, businesses monitor the ways in which their competitors conduct business and often attempt to self-police the industry.


Doing something illegal and violating copyrights is rather different than doing something a lot of people don't approve of. Who is it you think is going to sue Locke? I suppose some of the authors who bought his book might, but they'll look pretty silly if they do.

There is really a pretty simple rule here. If you don't approve of buying reviews, don't do it.


----------



## Justawriter (Jul 24, 2012)

George Berger said:


> It's not the act of marketing which is creepy, Terrence. It's trading in an important piece of your soul for a paycheck, that is. There's no room in _professional_ marketing for an honest man, or a conscience.


This is so not true! Maybe I'm biased because I've been in sales for years, but the most successful sales and marketing people are the ones who believe passionately in what they are selling. When you love what you sell, the marketing is easy, you are just sharing how you feel about the product. Basically word of mouth at its best. If you don't believe in yourself and your products, who will?


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

> In any industry, businesses monitor the ways in which their competitors conduct business and often attempt to self-police the industry.


If this follows the pattern of many industries, there won't be any policing. There will be a huge increase in purchased reviews.


----------



## Edward W. Robertson (May 18, 2010)

JRTomlin said:


> Doing something illegal and violating copyrights is rather different than doing something a lot of people don't approve of. Who is it you think is going to sue Locke? I suppose some of the authors who bought his book might, but they'll look pretty silly if they do.
> 
> There is really a pretty simple rule here. If you don't approve of buying reviews, don't do it.


Unless you plan to never criticize or judge anyone's actions ever again, this argument breaks down pretty fast.


----------



## Justawriter (Jul 24, 2012)

Terrence OBrien said:


> If this follows the pattern of many industries, there won't be any policing. There will be a huge increase in purchased reviews.


Yes, unless Amazon nips it in the bud ASAP, which they should. If they don't, it could serve as a green light and blueprint for many to go forward. I think all Amazon has to do is come down hard on a few obvious culprits and it will make others think twice about doing it. If they don't do this, I can't help but think it will get much worse.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Edward W. Robertson said:


> Unless you plan to never criticize or judge anyone's actions ever again, this argument breaks down pretty fast.


There is rather a difference in "never criticizing anyone's actions ever again" and accusing someone of illegal actions which the post I responded to did.

I stand by my comment. If you don't don't approve of something (which isn't illegal) then don't do it. And be careful getting on a moral high horse, because there is a good chance at some time somewhere you've done something wrong [that someone else doesn't approve of].

I don't believe in lynch mobs, virtual or otherwise. That is exactly what this looks like to me.

I happen in this instance to agree with a comment from Joe Konrath's blog:



> Joe Konrath said...
> 
> I invite all to show me how these don't apply to this situation:
> 
> ...


ETA: John Locke did something many of us disapprove of. To be best of my knowledge he did NOT commit any crimes.

Now THESE guys broke the law. It is a major event in the publishing world. Yet not a single whisper has been said about it on KB. Fascinating.

Missouri consumers are expected to receive up to $1.1 million, and Illinois consumers are expected to receive more than $2.7 million in proposed antitrust settlements between 55 states and U.S. territories and three of the nation's largest publishers.

Hachette Book Group Inc., HarperCollins Publishers LLC and Simon & Schuster Inc. have agreed to pay more than $69 million to consumers to resolve allegations that they illegally conspired to raise prices of electronic books, Missouri Attorney General Chris Koster and Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan announced. The publishers have also agreed to pay $7.5 million to the states for fees and costs.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

> Yes, unless Amazon nips it in the bud ASAP, which they should. If they don't, it could serve as a green light and blueprint for many to go forward. I think all Amazon has to do is come down hard on a few obvious culprits and it will make others think twice about doing it. If they don't do this, I can't help but think it will get much worse.


I suspect it will be a function of sales.

Anyone think those endorsements from authors on the back of paper books are all honest? Nobody seems to care about that. It's worked fine for years. Amazon sells that paper, too.



> Now THESE guys broke the law. It is a major event in the publishing world. Yet not a single whisper has been said about it on KB. Fascinating.


No whispers? There was a chorus of support for what they did.


----------



## Edward W. Robertson (May 18, 2010)

JRTomlin said:


> There is rather a difference in "never criticizing anyone's actions ever again" and accusing someone of illegal actions which the post I responded to did.
> 
> I stand by my comment. If you don't don't approve of something (which isn't illegal) then don't do it. And be careful getting on a moral high horse, because there is a good chance at some time somewhere you've done something wrong.
> 
> I don't believe in lynch mobs, virtual or otherwise. That is exactly what this looks like to me.


Yeah, but what if some criminals deserve to be hanged? 

I'm sure I have done some things that others would consider wrong. Navigating this business isn't always easy. In fact, it's really easy to screw up. And Eisler, Konrath, and others in this thread have pointed out numerous gray areas when it comes to reviews, blurbs, etc.

Reasonable people can disagree on which of those things are unethical, and if so, how dirty they really are. But buying hundreds of reviews--with the intent of deceiving prospective readers into thinking a book has been vetted and enjoyed by huge numbers of readers before them--that's just flat-out dirty. Repeatedly buying batches of fifty reviews isn't an innocent mistake anyone can make. I don't think this horse is very high. I might have to kneel to mount up. Somebody needs to feed it better because man this horse is short.

Anyway, the other thing that bugs me about it is it casts a kind of retroactive dirt back on all those reviews that _are_ legitimate gray areas. Not to mention all the reviews that look dirty but are in fact perfectly legit. It makes the environment worse for everyone else.

I might have some motes in my eye, but I'm comfortable judging this particular log.


----------



## GlennGamble (Sep 15, 2011)

Eric C said:


> Then I suppose Apple shouldn't have sued Samsung. Then I suppose no one should've commented on the anti trust case against the big publishers.
> 
> In any industry, businesses monitor the ways in which their competitors conduct business and often attempt to self-police the industry.


The point I'm making is if you go after John Locke for buying reviews, then you better go after the major publishers for engaging in the same "unethical" practices. Where's all the outcry against the major publishers?

Since we're comparing apples to samsungs, I think your collective outrage is misdirected. Use that same outrage to hammer the major publishers for offering unfair contracts, particuarly when it comes to non-compete clauses and reversion of rights. I'd like the see authors unite and rabble rouse when it concerns bigger entites than John Locke and more important issues than buying reviews.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Edward W. Robertson said:


> Yeah, but what if some criminals deserve to be hanged?
> 
> I'm sure I have done some things that others would consider wrong. Navigating this business isn't always easy. In fact, it's really easy to screw up. And Eisler, Konrath, and others in this thread have pointed out numerous gray areas when it comes to reviews, blurbs, etc.
> 
> ...


None of us is happy with this situation. He lied to people he sold his ebook marketing book to. He deceived readers with reviews and now it reflects on our reviews. However, let's get real. Publishers game the numbers to get their books on the NYT best seller list--which happens all the time. Millions of people buy books because they think the NYT BS list means something when it's nothing but a huge scam. There has been a rather dirty underbelly to publishing for a long time and it hasn't disappeared. I can't do anything about it except look to my own behavior.

As for criminals who "deserve to be hanged" as someone who is strongly opposed to the death penalty, I'm hardly going to go out and approve of virtual lynch mobs. *Mob mentality is NEVER pretty.* It wasn't a few weeks ago when someone totally innocent of wrong doing was strung up. It isn't now when someone not so innocent is the target of a witch hunt.


----------



## Edward W. Robertson (May 18, 2010)

I'm not sure it's a witchhunt when someone has confessed to and is demonstrably provable of being a witch.


----------



## GlennGamble (Sep 15, 2011)

I was also pissed off when I read John Locke's How-To book.  Its a terrible book that offers no good advice beyond "write a lot of books" --advice that Joe Konrath offers for free.  I wrote a 1-star review (my first 1-star review) , because that's the appropriate response.  Now that he disclosed leaving out that part about paying for reviews, the book is even worse than I thought.  While I find that misleading, I don't think sending a mob to serve him the guillitone is appropriate for his misdeed.

So what if he bought a few reviews and wrote a shitty how-to book, shit happens.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Edward W. Robertson said:


> I'm not sure it's a witchhunt when someone has confessed to and is demonstrably provable of being a witch.


Witchcraft was illegal--punishable by death.

What law is it he broke?

*currently taking an oath not to even look at this thread again*


----------



## Edward W. Robertson (May 18, 2010)

JRTomlin said:


> Witchcraft was illegal--punishable by death.
> 
> What law is it he broke?
> 
> *currently taking an oath not to even look at this thread again*


I don't know. Fraud? Probably nothing, really. Then again, I've hardly seen anyone calling for his metaphorical head, let alone his literal one. Who else has been strung up by the mob? Leather? He outed himself. Ellory? He was actively damaging authors he saw as his competition. For these crimes, the mob has.. publicly shamed them. Which is generally what happens to people who commit acts that are perfectly legal yet highly unethical. I haven't seen any innocents dragged into it at all. I mean, besides the entire indie community that's now under increased scrutiny due to the unscrupulous behavior of a few.

Still, this doesn't sound like much of a witchhunt to me. Maybe the _real_ witchhunt is toward the supposed witchhunters themselves!

Okay, I'm just messing around at this point. I'm not sure what you think I'm saying that is so out of line you don't want to revisit the thread, JR. Some people are doing some scummy things. I think it's okay to call them out on that. That's about it, really.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

> I mean, besides the entire indie community that's now under increased scrutiny due to the unscrupulous behavior of a few.


Under scrutiny by whom? Who cares enough to scrutinize?


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

JRTomlin said:


> Missouri consumers are expected to receive up to $1.1 million, and Illinois consumers are expected to receive more than $2.7 million in proposed antitrust settlements between 55 states and U.S. territories and three of the nation's largest publishers.


My biggest problem here is the imprecise headline. We only have 50 states, which aren't even ID'd as US states, so the other 5 have to be territories...

"...between all 50 US states and 5 territories..." would have been FAR better...

Speaking as a former journalist... I hate the media, sometimes...


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

CraigInTwinCities said:


> My biggest problem here is the imprecise headline. We only have 50 states, which aren't even ID'd as US states, so the other 5 have to be territories...
> 
> "...between all 50 US states and 5 territories..." would have been FAR better...
> 
> Speaking as a former journalist... I hate the media, sometimes...


You're right. That was piss poor writing and the editor should have caught it. Journalism these days...

None the less the settlement is a major feat. Gah. (no more agreeing with Craig)


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Edward W. Robertson said:


> Okay, I'm just messing around at this point. I'm not sure what you think I'm saying that is so out of line you don't want to revisit the thread, JR. Some people are doing some scummy things. I think it's okay to call them out on that. That's about it, really.


I didn't mean that you were doing something out of line, Ed. I am just tired of this discussion and, yes, it does feel like a witch hunt to me so I'm not comfortable with it. John Locke did some things that left other authors feeling lied to and that he did us some PR damage. That doesn't make him a criminal or a monster though. I am not discussing John Locke further.


----------



## Lummox JR (Jul 1, 2012)

Edward W. Robertson said:


> Reasonable people can disagree on which of those things are unethical, and if so, how dirty they really are. But buying hundreds of reviews--with the intent of deceiving prospective readers into thinking a book has been vetted and enjoyed by huge numbers of readers before them--that's just flat-out dirty. Repeatedly buying batches of fifty reviews isn't an innocent mistake anyone can make. I don't think this horse is very high. I might have to kneel to mount up. Somebody needs to feed it better because man this horse is short.
> 
> Anyway, the other thing that bugs me about it is it casts a kind of retroactive dirt back on all those reviews that _are_ legitimate gray areas. Not to mention all the reviews that look dirty but are in fact perfectly legit. It makes the environment worse for everyone else.
> 
> I might have some motes in my eye, but I'm comfortable judging this particular log.


Your short-horse metaphor made me laugh.

I'm exactly with you on this. There are practices that we may see to varying degrees as questionable or shady, but then there's outright wrong. Buying fake reviews, whether for Ellory's reasons or Locke's, is simply detestable; the former more so, obviously. Eisler's idea that having family or friends review a book is somehow similar to ginning up (positive) sock puppets is a poor comparison at best. It's merely a possible step on a possibly slippery slope that could lead to someone like Locke rationalizing what they do. Yeah, encouraging reviews from people you know are favorably disposed toward you is on the borderline, but it's not moral rocket science to see Locke crossed that line pretty badly. And Ellory, well, the words most appropriate to describe his behavior are inappropriate for the KB.


----------



## Guest (Sep 5, 2012)

GlennGamble said:


> Whether or not John Locke buys reviews is his business, not ours. Don't like the way he does business then do business differently. Like I said months ago, I see nothing but jealousy at the forefront with the self-appointed review police force --the aim of protecting readers is a farce. This reminds me of politics:


Morality and ethics are not interchangeable. Something can be immoral but still ethical. Morality is relative to culture. It is immoral for Jews and Muslims to eat pork. But there is nothing unethical about it. It is immoral, according to certain relatives, for me to be living with my boyfriend outside of wedlock. But there is nothing unethical involved. Morality is a personal matter. Ethics concern how your actions relate to the larger society.

In Locke's case specifically, he went beyond even buying reviews. He defrauded consumers by selling a "how-to" book that lied about how he obtained his reviews. People wouldn't have bought his book if it included "I bought 300 positive reviews from various review sellers to artificially boost my ratings."

And my reason for protecting the review system is purely selfish. Reviews sell books. If customers stop trusting the review system, we lose a tool in our arsenal to sell books. This isn't some philosophical discussion. This is a serious business issue that can hurt my bottom line.Every time it comes out that an author bought reviews, whether it is indie or trad, it hurts the credibility of the review system and risks costing me money,



> I also find it interesting that major publishers have bought reviews for DECADES,


And the day someone actually produces a credible link that proves this I might consider it something other than a strawman. People always SAY this, and yet nobody has ever produces anything other than some third-party blogger citing another blogger who cites a blogger who knows a guy who works in the industry.

And BTW, yes, he did commit a crime as per the FTC rules (title 16 Part 255 regarding disclosure of endorsements). It is a violation of the law to present something as an "actual consumer" which is not a consumer. It is also a violation of the law to not disclose the relationship betweeen the endorser and endorsee. A lot of big companies have been hit with huge fines over this sort of stuff. Legacy Learning was fined $250,000 for posting fake reviews. Lifestyle Lift ended up with a $300,000 penalty for fake reviews. An ad company called Reverb got his with a $250,000 fine for posting fake reviews for clients. Anyone who thinks this is a minor matter of conscience hasn't been paying attention to the case law.


----------



## David J Normoyle (Jun 22, 2012)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> And BTW, yes, he did commit a crime as per the FTC rules (title 16 Part 255 regarding disclosure of endorsements). It is a violation of the law to present something as an "actual consumer" which is not a consumer. It is also a violation of the law to not disclose the relationship betweeen the endorser and endorsee. A lot of big companies have been hit with huge fines over this sort of stuff. Legacy Learning was fined $250,000 for posting fake reviews. Lifestyle Lift ended up with a $300,000 penalty for fake reviews. An ad company called Reverb got his with a $250,000 fine for posting fake reviews for clients. Anyone who thinks this is a minor matter of conscience hasn't been paying attention to the case law.


Sweet. It's be great if he did get a big fine. What he did doesn't seem minor at all to me. Even better would be a suspension or banning from Amazon.


----------



## MeiLinMiranda (Feb 17, 2011)

Nah, he's made them too much money.


----------



## David J Normoyle (Jun 22, 2012)

MeiLinMiranda said:


> Nah, he's made them too much money.


I'm sure the money they made from Locke isn't a big deal to them. Plus, if he wasn't there readers might have bought different books, maybe even more expensive books.

But I'm sure Amazon don't want to get into the headache of policing reviews.


----------



## Jan Hurst-Nicholson (Aug 25, 2010)

Another backlash.

I was looking through the posts on Amazon's 'Meet the Authors' thread and noticed that many of the authors have posted, "X title has Y number of 4 and 5 star reviews ". My reaction is now, Yeh, Right. 

Perhaps we should now post with the rider: My title has Y number of UNSOLICITED reviews  .


----------



## Joebruno999 (Oct 20, 2010)

And I'm one of the dopes who bought Locke's  "How I Sold A Million eBooks."

I could be wrong, but I don't think he mentioned paying off 300 people to write good reviews for his books. For $4.99 at least he should have come clean as to his trickery.

Time for a martini.


----------



## RuthMadison (Jul 9, 2011)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> And my reason for protecting the review system is purely selfish. Reviews sell books. If customers stop trusting the review system, we lose a tool in our arsenal to sell books. This isn't some philosophical discussion. This is a serious business issue that can hurt my bottom line.Every time it comes out that an author bought reviews, whether it is indie or trad, it hurts the credibility of the review system and risks costing me money,


Exactly. Reviews are so, so important and the integrity of that system is crucial. I don't know how I'll convince anyone to buy a book if they feel they can't trust the people who reviewed it!


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

> Exactly. Reviews are so, so important and the integrity of that system is crucial. I don't know how I'll convince anyone to buy a book if they feel they can't trust the people who reviewed it!


Prior to the internet, people regularly browsed bookstores. Reviews aren't at their fingertips when they pick up a book. I'd say a huge percentage of those purchases did not benefit from reviews. I suppose they could rely on the integrity of the endorsements from other authors on the back of the book.

Today, we don't know what percentage of Amazon books are purchased by consumers who use reviews. I buy lots of fiction and never use reviews. Never. There might even be one or two others like me out there. A few have even admitted it here.


----------



## RuthMadison (Jul 9, 2011)

Okay, well I know that I use reviews.

I find them critical to my buying decisions. Shrug.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

I look at reviews when I'm buying but they're not essential to me. I often glance at a few 3 and 4-star reviews to see what they say, then I read the sample. If that is good, the chances are the novel will be at least acceptable. It may disappoint at some point but that is true of any novel.


----------



## GlennGamble (Sep 15, 2011)

Terrence OBrien said:


> Prior to the internet, people regularly browsed bookstores. Reviews aren't at their fingertips when they pick up a book. I'd say a huge percentage of those purchases did not benefit from reviews. I suppose they could rely on the integrity of the endorsements from other authors on the back of the book.
> 
> Today, we don't know what percentage of Amazon books are purchased by consumers who use reviews. I buy lots of fiction and never use reviews. Never. There might even be one or two others like me out there. A few have even admitted it here.


My knee jerk reaction would be to say that Amazon needs to get rid of the review system altogether, but there are so many independent review sites now. Taking my knee jerk measure wouldn't eliminate the problem of those sites' review system being gamed as well.



> And BTW, yes, he did commit a crime as per the FTC rules (title 16 Part 255 regarding disclosure of endorsements). It is a violation of the law to present something as an "actual consumer" which is not a consumer. It is also a violation of the law to not disclose the relationship betweeen the endorser and endorsee. A lot of big companies have been hit with huge fines over this sort of stuff. Legacy Learning was fined $250,000 for posting fake reviews. Lifestyle Lift ended up with a $300,000 penalty for fake reviews. An ad company called Reverb got his with a $250,000 fine for posting fake reviews for clients. Anyone who thinks this is a minor matter of conscience hasn't been paying attention to the case law.


Major publishers are already paying $79 million in fines, what's a few hundred grand to them? Pocket change


----------

