# Julie's End-All, Be-All Post on Paid Reviews!



## Guest (Jan 13, 2016)

Because there have been an excessive number of threads on paid review services as of late, bookmark this thread for quick reference!

*What does the Amazon TOS say about paid customer reviews?*

LINK to the TOS



> *Promotional Reviews* - In order to preserve the integrity of Customer Reviews, we do not permit artists, authors, developers, manufacturers, publishers, sellers or vendors to write Customer Reviews for their own products or services, to post negative reviews on competing products or services, or to vote on the helpfulness of reviews. For the same reason, family members or close friends of the person, group, or company selling on Amazon may not write Customer Reviews for those particular items.
> 
> *Paid Reviews* - We do not permit reviews or votes on the helpfulness of reviews that are posted in exchange for compensation of any kind, including payment (whether in the form of money or gift certificates), bonus content, entry to a contest or sweepstakes, discounts on future purchases, extra product, or other gifts.
> 
> The sole exception to this rule is when a free or discounted copy of a physical product is provided to a customer up front. In this case, if you offer a free or discounted product in exchange for a review, you must clearly state that you welcome both positive and negative feedback. If you receive a free or discounted product in exchange for your review, you must clearly and conspicuously disclose that fact. Reviews from the Amazon Vine program are already labeled, so additional disclosure is not necessary. Read more about promotional content.


ADDITIONALLY:



> To help illustrate, here are a few examples of reviews that we don't allow:
> 
> A product manufacturer posts a review of their own product, posing as an unbiased shopper
> A shopper, unhappy with her purchase, posts multiple negative reviews for the same product
> ...


*Why does Amazon even care about paid reviews?*

Ethical issues aside, Amazon cares about paid reviews because it is a matter of federal law.

The primary issue with paid reviews is not that money changed hands. There are of course ethical issues at play, but the legal issue is one of disclosure.

The Federal Trade Commission, in the interest of truth in advertising, began cracking down on paid endorsements through social media several years ago. _This is not new law._ The FTC has ALWAYS expressly prohibits paid endorsements from being disguised as anything but ads. Commercial speech, which is any speech in which the endorser is being compensated by the manufacturer, must never been presented in a way that hides the fact that it is commercial speech. This goes all the way back to the days of infomercials. Is you ever watched an infomercial and saw the big "This is a paid placement" message at the beginning or the scroll that says "paid endorsement," that was why.

The purpose of the FTC disclosure laws is to make sure that the average consumer knows when they are reading a paid endorsement and not organic, neutral news. With the rise of social media, many unscrupulous companies began to pay celebrities and bloggers to Tweet or blog about their products, but they never disclosed that these endorsements were being paid for. The FTC thus clarified the law several years ago regarding disclosure of paid reviews and endorsements.

If the relationship between the endorser and the product is not clear to the average consumer, the relationship must be disclosed. Period. Full Stop. End of discussion. Commercials and print ads, for example, don't require special disclosure, because the average consumer understands that these are paid placements. If, on the other hand, a company buys three column inches in a newspaper and runs an "ad" that looks like a news article, the ad MUST state somewhere on the ad that it is a paid ad.

*How come Amazon allows [Insert Name of Review Site here] to have paid reviews on Amazon but not me!?*

There are two types of reviews that appear on Amazon: Editorial Reviews and Customer Reviews. Do not confuse these two as they serve completely different purposes. And the difference is pertinent to the question.

CUSTOMER REVIEWS:

People who buy your book or you give a copy of the book to in exchange for a review. Anyone with an Amazon account can post a customer review. These are posted directly to Amazon by the Amazon users and include a star rating. Customer reviews are very important to readers who want to get a feel for what the "average" reader response is. They serve the purpose of providing a gut reaction to a book.

EDITORIAL REVIEWS:
Reviews from newspapers, book bloggers, magazines, book critics, and other third-parties. These can be added to a book's listing through Author Central. And they are supposed to be from recognized, valid third party sources. Editorial reviews tend to be more critical and often focus on the actual craft of the book. Editorial reviews are important because they are often used by libraries, schools, and other distribution services to determine whether or not to stock or shelf a book.

With Editorial Reviews, the average consumer understands that there is a relationship between the reviewer and the publisher. Even if they don't know whether or not money exchanged hands, it is clear with editorial reviews that, for example, the New York Times didn't buy the book, but was given a copy of the book for review. Reviews cited under Editorial Reviews are from known, established sources that, if a consumer wanted to, they could Google and find and learn more about. The average person understands that professional reviewers are generally, at a minimum, provided with a free copy of the book for review. The sources of Editorial Reviews can be verified as real entities and consumers can make informed decisions whether or not the review has merit.

With consumer reviews, because anyone can review a book anonymously, the average consumer has no way of knowing if there is a relationship between the reviewer and the publisher unless it is disclosed. The average consumer may simply assume anything posted as a customer review is, in fact, a real customer. Because it is almost impossible for a consumer, on her own, to verify the identity of a customer review source, disclosure is required by law. The relationship between the publisher and reviewer is not clear.

The reason why Amazon specifically prohibits paid reviews and friend/family reviews in customer reviews, but not editorial reviews, is because of the lack of enforced disclosure. In fact, many of the paid review services that sell customer reviews jump through hoops to specifically hide the fact that a review is paid for. They will include the cost of the book in the price of the review, for example, then buy the book to get the "verified purchase" title. In contrast, a company like Kirkus, which sells reviews but does not post them on Amazon as customer reviews, doesn't masquerade or disguise their reviews. (please note, this does NOT give Kirkus a pass! Again, the act of paying for reviews has a host of ethical issues. But right now we are only discussing legal issues).

As the FTC clarifies:



> The issue is - and always has been - whether the audience understands the reviewer's relationship to the company whose products are being recommended. If the audience understands the relationship, a disclosure isn't needed.
> 
> If you're employed by a newspaper or TV station to give reviews - whether online or offline - your audience probably understands that your job is to provide your personal opinion on behalf of the newspaper or television station. In that situation, it's clear that you did not buy the product yourself - whether it's a book or a car or a movie ticket. On a personal blog, a social networking page, or in similar media, the reader might not realize that the reviewer has a relationship with the company whose products are being recommended. Disclosure of that relationship helps readers decide how much weight to give the review.


If a review seller takes ANY action to hide the fact that the review is paid for, or fails to disclose payment in any way, the review seller is violating the law. Both the seller and buyer can be fined if caught. And the FTC has been aggressively going after review sellers. Most of their recent focus has been in the areas of OTCs, hotel, and restaurants, but really it is only a matter of time before they start targeting book review sellers.

*So why doesn't Amazon allowed paid reviews if they are disclosed? Couldn't they allow paid reviews so long as there was a disclosure?*

Logistically, it is hard enough for Amazon to police the customer review sections. Do you really expect them to spend the resources differentiating between "valid" paid reviews and invalid ones?

Realistically, people who buy reviews aren't going to buy reviews that say "I was paid for this review."

Seriously, customer reviews are supposed to be customers. This isn't complicated.

*But I didn't pay for the review! I just paid for an expedited service to get the review posted faster!*

ANY payment in exchange for a review is a violation of the FTC regulations if not disclosed. And in reality, most of the "expedited" services are merely a thinly-veiled workaround to give the impression of ethical behavior when in reality they are still just paid reviews. If you think it through it makes little sense. Legitimate review sites only have so many reviewers. If the reviewers are not being paid, how can giving the site money "guarantee" that a review will be ready in two weeks if they can't even promise a non-expedited review will ever be written?

*But I see reviewers through NetGalley that post customer reviews. They are in violation, aren't they?*

No, because NetGalley does not sell reviews. NetGalley performs the administrative function of finding potential reviewers and making your book available to them, but does not promise any number of reviews. Using NetGalley is no different than paying a secretary or publicist to manually track down reviewers for you and ask them if they are interested in reviewing your book. Netgalley is essentially just doing the legwork of identifying reviewers and making your book available. They are not guaranteeing reviews, or a fixed number of reviews, or a specify rating, or specify where the review will be posted, or anything else.

Netgalley reviewers, however, are required to disclose that they received a free copy of the book in exchange for the review. The actual reviewer received nothing other than a free book.

*Helpful Checklist to differentiate legitimate services from paid review services*

Does the site guarantee a review or a fixed number of reviews?

Does the site guarantee a review of a specific star rating, or promise to only post reviews of a specific star rating?

Does the site guarantee the review will be done in a specific period of time?

Does the site promise that reviews will be "verified."?

Are the identities of reviewers hidden or difficult to find? (Note, a legitimate administrative service should be able to tell you the identities of their reviewer or provide information on the reviewer, such as blogs or book sites where they post reviews.)


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Thanks, Julie!

For those who want to bookmark it, did you know you can bookmark KB threads here in your KB account?  So you can find them no matter what computer or device you use?  Just click on "ADD BOOKMARK" at the top of the thread.  Then, to look at your bookmarks, go to "My Bookmarks" in the top menu.

EDIT:  And, as Ann reminded me, is a perfect addition to our "Tips, FAQs and Useful Threads for Authors" sticky post.

Betsy


----------



## Rick Gualtieri (Oct 31, 2011)

Bookmarking is great, but I want a Like Button, a Thumbs-up icon, and a +1000 google thingee for this too.

Nicely said.


----------



## Jim Johnson (Jan 4, 2011)

Great stuff, Julie; thanks for posting it.

*A shopper posts a review of the product, after being promised a refund in exchange*

I'm guessing this means that participating in a 'review swap' sort of thing is verboten.


----------



## Guest (Jan 13, 2016)

Glad folks find it useful! I just noticed a flurry of threads recently on the subject so instead of repeating myself over and over thought it would be a good idea to put it all in one place.


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> Glad folks find it useful! I just noticed a flurry of threads recently on the subject so instead of repeating myself over and over thought it would be a good idea to put it all in one place.


Absolutely! And Thanks!

We'll be linking to this thread as one of the 'helpful' ones in the pinned post at the top of the WC.


----------



## Annette_g (Nov 27, 2012)

Very useful, Julie, thanks!


----------



## KGorman (Feb 6, 2011)

Thanks! It's good to get it all centralized in one thread for reference.

I did have a question, though: A while ago (probably a year or more), I heard someone say "Hey, we need more reviews for Book 1. If you show us your review of Book 1, we will give you Book 2 for free in gratitude!"

Any idea where that stands?


----------



## Sonya Bateman (Feb 3, 2013)

Great post, Julie.


----------



## Taking my troll a$$ outta here (Apr 8, 2013)

Great post, Julie. Glad it's now a sticky.


----------



## Guest (Jan 13, 2016)

KGorman said:


> Thanks! It's good to get it all centralized in one thread for reference.
> 
> I did have a question, though: A while ago (probably a year or more), I heard someone say "Hey, we need more reviews for Book 1. If you show us your review of Book 1, we will give you Book 2 for free in gratitude!"
> 
> Any idea where that stands?


It is a paid review. The ONLY thing you can get in exchange for a review is the actual product to be reviewed. Now if they said, "If you enjoyed Book one and are interested in reviewing book 2, we'll provide a comp copy" then that is a different story. You are offering a sample of the product to be reviewed. But if you offer ANYTHING that is not the actual product to be reviewed, it is paid.


----------



## 75845 (Jan 1, 1970)

Jim Johnson said:


> Great stuff, Julie; thanks for posting it.
> 
> *A shopper posts a review of the product, after being promised a refund in exchange*
> 
> I'm guessing this means that participating in a 'review swap' sort of thing is verboten.


Yes, but wrong example it is listed as the last example:

*An artist posts a positive review on a peer's album in exchange for receiving a positive review from them*

That would in my view also rule out author review clubs because even if you are banned from reviewing the book of someone who reviews your book you are in the club to guarantee getting a review and the membership rules require you to be providing reviews for others. For the full skinny this is my response to one such club.


----------



## Dale Ivan Smith (Oct 13, 2015)

Thanks for posting this, Julie! Lays out the issues in fine fashion.


----------



## Guest (Jan 13, 2016)

Mercia McMahon said:


> Yes, but wrong example it is listed as the last example:
> 
> *An artist posts a positive review on a peer's album in exchange for receiving a positive review from them*
> 
> That would in my view also rule out author review clubs because even if you are banned from reviewing the book of someone who reviews your book you are in the club to guarantee getting a review and the membership rules require you to be providing reviews for others.


Exactly. Again, if you get ANYTHING in exchange for a review other than the product to be reviewed, it is a paid review. This includes review swaps where you are being "paid" with a review of your own book.


----------



## lyndabelle (Feb 26, 2015)

Thanks Julie. This helps a huge amount. I know it's been a slippery slope while review practices have been switching to digital. 

I was thinking about the fact that authors have reviewed other books. I mean the traditional publishers have done this for years. They get a comment or ARC comment from an author and include it as back or front matter. I know it's been discussed about how authors have been reviewing each others books, and then give a valid comment. But with the new generation of reviewing, ALL AUTHORS seem to be banned from making comments about any author, esp. if you know them. 

I know I read several of the authors on this board, and I've reviewed them because I like the book. Many of the times I've read it on my own. I have gotten ARC copies from authors too, and still reviewed them. I also review on my blogs, posting the review there. Sometimes I've been skipping putting it on Goodreads or Amazon to not deal with the hassle of their website rules. 

So, the whole exchange ban between artists and authors has always perplexed me. Is it that if an agreement is specifically agreed on that it is a problem? I read. I often feel my reading rights are violated. I have freedom of speech to my opinion about the books I read, correct?


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

lyndabelle said:


> Thanks Julie. This helps a huge amount. I know it's been a slippery slope while review practices have been switching to digital.
> 
> I was thinking about the fact that authors have reviewed other books. I mean the traditional publishers have done this for years. They get a comment or ARC comment from an author and include it as back or front matter. I know it's been discussed about how authors have been reviewing each others books, and then give a valid comment. But with the new generation of reviewing, ALL AUTHORS seem to be banned from making comments about any author, esp. if you know them.


I don't read it that way.

If you buy or borrow and read someone's book and like it, and leave a customer review on Amazon, there's no problem with that in and of itself.

If that person decides, because you said nice things, to read your book, and leave a nice review, that's not a _technically_ problem either.

BUT . . . if these reviews are posted close in time to one another they may very well get someone's attention and both be removed because they _appear_ to be a review swap.

But THAT SCENARIO is different to you communicating with another author and asking them to say nice things that you can put in your advertising or as front matter in your book. As long as they don't also post that as a 'customer' review, it's not an issue. 'Cause the folks who do those endorsement blurbs have usually received a free copy of the book as well.



> I know I read several of the authors on this board, and I've reviewed them because I like the book. Many of the times I've read it on my own. I have gotten ARC copies from authors too, and still reviewed them. I also review on my blogs, posting the review there. Sometimes I've been skipping putting it on Goodreads or Amazon to not deal with the hassle of their website rules.
> 
> So, the whole exchange ban between artists and authors has always perplexed me. Is it that if an agreement is specifically agreed on that it is a problem? I read. I often feel my reading rights are violated. I have freedom of speech to my opinion about the books I read, correct?


As I understand it, the only issue you have is if you get ARC copies and post the review to Amazon you're supposed to disclose that you got the book free. You should do the same if you review on your blog. If you bought the book, obviously that disclosure isn't needed.

But, again, if the author responds by reviewing one of your books positively, it might _look_ shady, even if it's not.

Which is why the usual advice is not to do 'customer' reviews. The other reason, of course, is that if you don't like the book and say so, there are elements of society who might decide to retaliate.

I expect Julie can explain it much more clearly, though. . . and/or clarify if I'm reading something wrong. Which is certainly possible; as I'm not an author it doesn't impact me in the same way and I could be missing nuance.


----------



## Rick Gualtieri (Oct 31, 2011)

Ann in Arlington said:


> But, again, if the author responds by reviewing one of your books positively, it might _look_ shady, even if it's not.


People like each other's books naturally is fine. However, reciprocal review agreements are where things get dodgy. Some will be straight up and do the whole "I'll give you a five star review if you give me one". Those are the worst. However, even in cases where there's an agreement to give a honest review, there's an issue because there's the implied pressure to give a good review. What if you give a less than stellar review? Will the other author respond honestly, or will they skewer you with a revenge review?

It's reasons like that why I'm happy to review books or arcs upon request (if it's something I read), but I never ever accept a "Oh, and I'd be happy to review yours too" offer. Just not worth the hassle from many different angles.


----------



## JLCarver (Sep 13, 2015)

Great post, Julie! It clears up a lot of questions. Thank you!


----------



## Dom (Mar 15, 2014)

I still think it's funny that, technically, digital (ebook) ARCs are not valid compensation for a review. Amazon's wording specifically specifies "physical product."

*The sole exception to this rule is when a free or discounted copy of a physical product is provided to a customer up front.*

Which means even NetGalley reviews break the rules!


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

ebbrown said:


> Great post, Julie. Glad it's now a sticky.


Well, technically, it's part of a sticky. 

Betsy


----------



## Guest (Jan 13, 2016)

lyndabelle said:


> I was thinking about the fact that authors have reviewed other books. I mean the traditional publishers have done this for years. They get a comment or ARC comment from an author and include it as back or front matter. I know it's been discussed about how authors have been reviewing each others books, and then give a valid comment. But with the new generation of reviewing, ALL AUTHORS seem to be banned from making comments about any author, esp. if you know them.


Remember, the FTC concern is strictly about consumer reviews. In the case of a publisher putting a quote on the back matter of a book, it has always been understood that there is some relationship between the person providing the blurb and the publisher. Otherwise, the blurb wouldn't exist. This is NOT, and has never been, the same thing as posting a CUSTOMER REVIEW. The average consumer assumes customer reviews are, in fact, customers. People draw false equivalencies to these all the time, but they are not remotely the same thing.



> I know I read several of the authors on this board, and I've reviewed them because I like the book. Many of the times I've read it on my own. I have gotten ARC copies from authors too, and still reviewed them. I also review on my blogs, posting the review there. Sometimes I've been skipping putting it on Goodreads or Amazon to not deal with the hassle of their website rules.
> 
> So, the whole exchange ban between artists and authors has always perplexed me. Is it that if an agreement is specifically agreed on that it is a problem? I read. I often feel my reading rights are violated. I have freedom of speech to my opinion about the books I read, correct?


"Freedom of speech" is a Constitutional issue that prevents the government from restricting your speech. Nobody in government is restricting your speech. This is not a freedom of speech issue. There is nothing, absolutely nothing, to stop you from reviewing books on your own site. There is nothing to stop you from reviewing books on Goodreads. The only thing you are required to do, by law, is disclose if you were compensated or got a free copy. Otherwise, review all you want.

Review exchanges, however, are not honest reviews, no matter how much people claim otherwise. They are by their nature inherently problematic. But from the purely legal perspective, they are in fact paid reviews. You are being paid to review Book A in exchange for a review of Book B. Remember, if you are given anything OTHER than the product to be reviewed, it is considered paid. Getting a review of your book as payment for reviewing someone else's book is payment.

If you want to review books by your peers, do so on your website. Your peers can then, if they chose, include those reviews under the Editorial Reviews section of their listing.

To the larger issue of Amazon removing reviews, this is solely due to the fact that Amazon does everything with a chainsaw, not a scalpel. They simply are not going to engage in the deep, labor-intensive 9and thus expensive) work of trying to manually figure out which reviews are "good" and which are "bad." So they are going to use broad chops. Sometimes, good reviews get lost in the mix. But that is a different problem than the actual legalities of reviews.


----------



## Guest (Jan 13, 2016)

Thanks. Good post.


----------



## benwest (Oct 22, 2015)

Every author who posts a thread about being successful hammers home the importance of reviews, reviews, REVIEWS. So new authors show up and read all these threads ("Get reviews! Get reviews!" they're told over and over again) and so they go looking for reviews however they can. Some don't know any better, others do and don't care. Similar to how people stuff keywords into their book titles. You got guys going on podcasts and writing blog articles telling people to stuff, stuff, STUFF!

I think it's pretty common sense that it's not very ethical to buy reviews or to swap reviews with fellow authors in an attempt to grease your book's sales. It's also not very ethical to put a bunch of random keywords into your book title, so much so that your title ends up being 3-4 rows tall. But desperation makes people do desperate things, and I seriously doubt any of them will suddenly stop doing it because of this thread.

I don't know why writers get so bent out of shape about what other writers do. If it's jealousy, why be jealous? Most of these books don't sell anything or very little, otherwise they wouldn't be driven to this place of desperation in the first place. The ones that do find success, I think, would have sold anyway without the extra shenanigans. 

Bottom online: Amazon is a multi-billion dollar company. If they REALLY want to enforce their own rules, they'll enforce it. They don't need indie authors to go on crusades for them...or start threads to demand everyone follow the rules. Are you concern Amazon might implode and leave us without a storefront if too many people break these cosmetic rules? Don't be. They'll be just fine.


----------



## Rick Gualtieri (Oct 31, 2011)

benwest said:


> , and I seriously doubt any of them will suddenly stop doing it because of this thread.


No, but somebody new who doesn't know any better might walk away better educated.



benwest said:


> I don't know why writers get so bent out of shape about what other writers do. If it's jealousy, why be jealous? Most of these books don't sell anything or very little, otherwise they wouldn't be driven to this place of desperation in the first place. The ones that do find success, I think, would have sold anyway without the extra shenanigans.


It's because of the whole concept of a few bad apples ruining it for everyone else. Many blogs, for example, won't review indie authors because of bad experiences.

I couldn't care less if someone wants to run their own business into the ground, but I care a whole lot more when people start to lump my business in with them by way of association.


----------



## Guest (Jan 13, 2016)

benwest said:


> Bottom online: Amazon is a multi-billion dollar company. If they REALLY want to enforce their own rules, they'll enforce it. They don't need indie authors to go on crusades for them...or start threads to demand everyone follow the rules. Are you concern Amazon might implode and leave us without a storefront if too many people break these cosmetic rules? Don't be. They'll be just fine.


Not sure what you are getting at. Over the last week or two there have been a bunch of threads asking about paid reviews and discussions about it. This is an informational post that explains the legal framework regarding the issue of paid reviews. Because it is not a "cosmetic" issue. It is a matter of federal law. The FTC has begun cracking down on paid reviews. To date, most of the enforcement has been in high-visibility areas such as pharmacuticals (due to the obvious dangers therein of false endorsements) and the hospitality industry (and if people think ebooks have a problem with paid reviews, they should read up on what has been happening in hospitality for over a decade now!). But seriously, it is only a matter of time before the FTC starts sniffing around on Amazon and such. It is no coincidence that Amazon recently announced that they were suing several review sellers over the practice. Yes, Amazon is actually instigating civil suits and pursuing criminal charges in some cases. This is not merely cosmetic, and there is a lot on the line.

I've been doing this since 2004. The industry has changed fundamentally over the last decade plus, but not all of those changes have been for the better. We've loss a ton of flexibility and functionality with Amazon and across the board due precisely because of unethical and/or illegal behavior hitting a critical mass.

In 2004, the only requirement for leaving a review on Amazon was creating an account. But then people abuse that, so Amazon added the stipulation that you had to purchase something first. But then people abused that by sending their fake accounts gift certificates in order to "buy" an item. So Amazon added the stipulation that only purchases from a credit card counted. But then the review sellers simply started to use disposable debit cards.

As people continue to engage in the behavior, Amazon tightens its grip more. Today, Amazon is using algorithms to actually determine who knows who on Facebook. Think about that for a minute. Amazon is actually tracking if reviewers "know" an author through author Facebook pages. This is not a cosmetic issue. It is a very real issue that authors are losing their accounts over. My concern is not that Amazon will close. My concern is that innocent authors will get caught up in their net and hurt. My concern is that they will continue to make life hard for honest authors in their pursuit of the dishonest ones. So if we can educate people on the actual how and why of these rules, they will have the information they need to make informed decisions.

The thing is, lots of these review sellers have created faux credibility around themselves. It is very easy for an author who doesn't understand the full scope of the law to get caught in the web. There is a ton of misinformation that gets spread. And a lot of these review sellers leverage the anti-publisher mantra that permeates self-publishing to their advantage. Much like lynnabelle's innocent false equivalency earlier, these sellers basically play it off like "everyone does it" and therefore it is okay. And if you are coming into self-publishing with no actual trade publishing background, you might believe that. It fits into the anti-publishing narrative.


----------



## spellscribe (Nov 5, 2015)

I personally found this very valuable. Somewhere on one of the more legit podcasts or books I've read I was told you can offer a free copy of book 2 for readers who have reviewed book 1. I was all set to do this and even have that listed in my marketing plan.

I only started to realise this *may* not be allowed in one of the very recent posts. A lot of other review questions here haven't touched on that specific point. If it weren't for the recent thread and now this very clear post I would have been doing the wrong thing, without having any idea.

Thank you x1000 for this. You definitely did stop one little prawn from unintentionally gaming the system  

Sent from my SM-G900I using Tapatalk


----------



## Guest (Jan 13, 2016)

"Promotional Reviews -- In order to preserve the integrity of Customer Reviews, *we do not permit artists, authors,* developers, manufacturers, publishers, sellers or vendors to write Customer Reviews for their own products or services, *to post negative reviews on competing products or services,* or to vote on the helpfulness of reviews. For the same reason, family members or close friends of the person, group, or company selling on Amazon may not write Customer Reviews for those particular items."

I've never seen this before and it's really interesting. Does it mean that if an author in our genre leaves a negative review on one of our books, Amazon will remove it if we flag it?


----------



## Anarchist (Apr 22, 2015)

Great write-up Julie.

My feeling is that folks should do whatever they want, but be ready to deal with the consequences. Sort of like doing a rolling stop at a stop sign. Or pushing 85 on the freeway. Or tossing a cigarette in the gutter.

Wanna buy reviews? Go for it. It's a terrible idea these days, but it's your account and your career. Manage both as you see fit.


----------



## Taking my troll a$$ outta here (Apr 8, 2013)

benwest said:


> Every author who posts a thread about being successful hammers home the importance of reviews, reviews, REVIEWS. So new authors show up and read all these threads ("Get reviews! Get reviews!" they're told over and over again) and so they go looking for reviews however they can. Some don't know any better, others do and don't care. Similar to how people stuff keywords into their book titles. You got guys going on podcasts and writing blog articles telling people to stuff, stuff, STUFF!
> 
> I think it's pretty common sense that it's not very ethical to buy reviews or to swap reviews with fellow authors in an attempt to grease your book's sales. It's also not very ethical to put a bunch of random keywords into your book title, so much so that your title ends up being 3-4 rows tall. But desperation makes people do desperate things, and I seriously doubt any of them will suddenly stop doing it because of this thread.
> 
> ...


No one is on a crusade, nor is anyone demanding anyone follow any rules. This is an informational thread by a member of the community that has been around a while and knows her stuff. It's also timely considering the number of questions lately on this topic from new authors. Although you may know everything, there are plenty of newbies who do not. No, this post isn't a huge revelation for some of us, but it's great info for those who are new.

Now I'm going back to answer an email from a new author who doesn't understand why I can't give him the emails off my mailing list & how people have to opt-in because of those crazy little CAN-SPAM laws.  (Because I was new once, too, and I am happy to pay it forward and & help a newbie out)


----------



## Adair Hart (Jun 12, 2015)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> Thanks, Julie!
> 
> For those who want to bookmark it, did you know you can bookmark KB threads here in your KB account? So you can find them no matter what computer or device you use? Just click on "ADD BOOKMARK" at the top of the thread. Then, to look at your bookmarks, go to "My Bookmarks" in the top menu.
> 
> ...


Awesome Betsy, I never used that before. This is my first KB bookmarked thread.  Thank you for the informational post, Julie! *bows to Julie's royal sithiness*


----------



## Guest (Jan 14, 2016)

SummerNights said:


> I've never seen this before and it's really interesting. Does it mean that if an author in our genre leaves a negative review on one of our books, Amazon will remove it if we flag it?


Amazon can remove anything at any time for any reason.

But this is the thing: understand WHY that statement exists. The review guidelines were not written specifically for books. They were written for all products. It is specifically designed to stop company A from badmouthing company B. Amazon is referring to products that are in direct competition with each other. i.e. You don't want someone who works for Coke leaving negative reviews about Pepsi. These are companies that are in direct competition with each other. Direct competition is a condition where consumers buy in an either/or situation. If I buy a Ford truck, I'm not also going to buy a Toyota. I'm buying one or the other.

Authors are not in direct competition with each other. If someone buys my book, that doesn't mean they won't also buy your book. Being a fan of mine doesn't prevent someone from also being a fan of you. We may "compete" insofar as rank, but we aren't in an adversarial direct competition.

Amazon has no issue with an author leaving an honest review of a book he or she purchased. What Amazon does NOT want is someone willfully badmouthing another author. The clause exists to give Amazon the flexibility to remove a review if they feel it is abusive.

Does that mean you should run around flagging negative reviews? Ethically, no. Unless you know for a fact the author left the review out of spite, don't flag it. Because now YOU are the one trying to manipulate the review system by getting critical reviews removed on a technicality. If a review is abusive, or if you know for a fact the review was vindictive, report it. But if you just got your panties in a knot because someone left a critical review, no, you should treat it like you would any other customer review.


----------



## Guest (Jan 14, 2016)

Tulonsae said:


> In the meantime, I'm a reader and a customer of many authors. Does this mean that if I write reviews now for books I've purchased and read, and then later (after I've been published) become associated with an author because I've met them through a writers' group or on Facebook or something - that my author account would then be in danger because of the reviews I wrote before I published?


I can't speak for Amazon. My advice, in all things, is always this: Always act in good faith. If you act in good faith and disclose when necessary you shouldn't have any problems. I've been reviewing books on Amazon for years. I've never had a review removed by Amazon. I've reviewed books in my genres. I've reviewed books and then became friends with the authors later. I've never had Amazon remove a review.

Despite my sithiness , I have always believed that if you are acting in good faith and following the SPIRIT of the TOS and not looking for ways to circumvent the TOS, you'll be fine. Where people get in trouble is where they start looking for loopholes or trying to see how far they can push the letter of the law to do what they want.

The goal of the TOS is to encourage a healthy and vibrant review community where readers can get information about our books. We should all want that community to be healthy. If you are reviewing in good faith, I seriously doubt you need to worry about anything down the road.


----------



## UnicornEmily (Jul 2, 2011)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> For those who want to bookmark it, did you know you can bookmark KB threads here in your KB account? So you can find them no matter what computer or device you use? Just click on "ADD BOOKMARK" at the top of the thread. Then, to look at your bookmarks, go to "My Bookmarks" in the top menu.


 I did not know that, Betsy. That's a great tip! Thanks!


----------



## Guest (Jan 14, 2016)

spellscribe said:


> I personally found this very valuable. Somewhere on one of the more legit podcasts or books I've read I was told you can offer a free copy of book 2 for readers who have reviewed book 1. I was all set to do this and even have that listed in my marketing plan.


If it's the same podcast I'm thinking of (SPP), what they have said they do seems to be okay by Amazon's guidelines. It's not "offer a free copy of book 2 FOR reviewing book 1", rather there are two things they do. One: considering whether to put someone on their ARC team, they see if the person has already reviewed at least one of their books. Basically are you an active reviewer, because they want ARC readers who actually will follow through on the reviews. I think it was one on of the Ask Us Anything's where they clarified it in more detail because someone had asked the same question. The second is something I've seen recommended regularly by multiple successful indies that also is within the TOS: contacting people who already reviewed one of your books and offering them a free copy of the next. It's generally offered as a review copy (with the reader then also reminded to do appropriate notice that it was free for a review).

They key difference is they aren't offering someone a free copy of the book in exchange for they're agreeing to review another or as a pre-arranged award, rather they are choosing to contact people who reviewed before and seeing if they will review again.


----------



## benwest (Oct 22, 2015)

Rick Gualtieri said:


> No, but somebody new who doesn't know any better might walk away better educated.
> 
> It's because of the whole concept of a few bad apples ruining it for everyone else. Many blogs, for example, won't review indie authors because of bad experiences.
> 
> I couldn't care less if someone wants to run their own business into the ground, but I care a whole lot more when people start to lump my business in with them by way of association.


Oh please. There are a few thousand blogs out there, they're not all going to stop reviewing indies because of "a few bad apples." I know, I used to run blogs. A lot of them. They're a dime a dozen. And what 5 or 5,000 indie authors do isn't going to affect your business in any way. Amazon is massive.

_Edited. PM me if you have any questions. --Betsy/KB Mod_


----------



## spellscribe (Nov 5, 2015)

Anma Natsu said:


> If it's the same podcast I'm thinking of (SPP), what they have said they do seems to be okay by Amazon's guidelines. It's not "offer a free copy of book 2 FOR reviewing book 1", rather there are two things they do. One: considering whether to put someone on their ARC team, they see if the person has already reviewed at least one of their books. Basically are you an active reviewer, because they want ARC readers who actually will follow through on the reviews. I think it was one on of the Ask Us Anything's where they clarified it in more detail because someone had asked the same question. The second is something I've seen recommended regularly by multiple successful indies that also is within the TOS: contacting people who already reviewed one of your books and offering them a free copy of the next. It's generally offered as a review copy (with the reader then also reminded to do appropriate notice that it was free for a review).
> 
> They key difference is they aren't offering someone a free copy of the book in exchange for they're agreeing to review another or as a pre-arranged award, rather they are choosing to contact people who reviewed before and seeing if they will review again.


I think it was them, in conjunction with an author email I recently got doing exactly what I said, then my brain mushed them together  either way I now know it's bad.

Sent from my SM-G900I using Tapatalk


----------



## Flurries Unlimited (Jan 24, 2012)

Rick Gualtieri said:


> Bookmarking is great, but I want a Like Button, a Thumbs-up icon, and a +1000 google thingee for this too.
> 
> Nicely said.


Me too!


----------



## Flurries Unlimited (Jan 24, 2012)

Domino Finn said:


> I still think it's funny that, technically, digital (ebook) ARCs are not valid compensation for a review. Amazon's wording specifically specifies "physical product."
> 
> *The sole exception to this rule is when a free or discounted copy of a physical product is provided to a customer up front.*
> 
> Which means even NetGalley reviews break the rules!


Good point!


----------



## Flurries Unlimited (Jan 24, 2012)

benwest said:


> Oh please. There are a few thousand blogs out there, they're not all going to stop reviewing indies because of "a few bad apples." I know, I used to run blogs. A lot of them. They're a dime a dozen. And what 5 or 5,000 indie authors do isn't going to affect your business in any way. Amazon is massive.
> 
> _Edited. PM me if you have any questions. --Betsy/KB Mod_


And the Netgalley thing seems to suggest a bit of a "do as I say, not as I do" from Amazon--since they accept Netgalley reviews. No wonder people get confused!


----------



## Guest (Jan 14, 2016)

Flurries Unlimited said:


> And the Netgalley thing seems to suggest a bit of a "do as I say, not as I do" from Amazon--since they accept Netgalley reviews. No wonder people get confused!


I posted this in the _original post_:



> *But I see reviewers through NetGalley that post customer reviews. They are in violation, aren't they?*
> 
> No, because NetGalley does not sell reviews. NetGalley performs the administrative function of finding potential reviewers and making your book available to them, but does not promise any number of reviews. Using NetGalley is no different than paying a secretary or publicist to manually track down reviewers for you and ask them if they are interested in reviewing your book. Netgalley is essentially just doing the legwork of identifying reviewers and making your book available. They are not guaranteeing reviews, or a fixed number of reviews, or a specify rating, or specify where the review will be posted, or anything else.
> 
> Netgalley reviewers, however, are required to disclose that they received a free copy of the book in exchange for the review. The actual reviewer received nothing other than a free book.


I addressed the NetGalley issue in the original post. PLEASE READ WHAT I WROTE.

A service like NetGalley is absolutely no different than if you hired a publicist or an administrative assistant to contact potential reviewers for you. All they do is facilitate contact. There is no guarantee you will get reviews. There is no guarantee reviews will be posted on Amazon. There is no guarantee that reviews will be posted in a specific time period. There is no guarantee that reviews will be positive. ALL they do is facilitate communication between publishers and reviewers.

_Edited. PM me if you have any questions. --Betsy/KB Mod_


----------



## Guest (Jan 14, 2016)

Anma Natsu said:


> They key difference is they aren't offering someone a free copy of the book in exchange for they're agreeing to review another or as a pre-arranged award, rather they are choosing to contact people who reviewed before and seeing if they will review again.


Exactly. If a reviewer gives you a good review of book one (and, more importantly, is open to being solicited for reviews), there is nothing wrong with offering them an ARC of another book.

Though it does become sticky if there is an implication that a reader can get free books indefinitely so long as they are leaving positive reviews. It is very easy to cross a line if such a review arrangement becomes permanent and a reader can get an unlimited number of free books so long as the reviews are positive, Even if the fan genuinely likes the books, you have to consider the Court of Public Opinion. When the same person is leaving five-star reviews on every book and noting that they got the book for free, it creates the impression that this person is an employee or contractor.

And this is often the difference between an editorial reviewer and a customer reviewer. I'm auto-approved with Oxford University Press through NetGalley to review their books. But because I am an editorial reviewer, I'm not necessarily inclined to just give them positive reviews out of fear of losing my status (and I've panned a couple of titles but not lost my auto-approved status). A FAN, however, will be far more likely to inflate reviews or only give positive reviews so as not to lose access to more books. Particularly, because while an editorial reviewer and publisher will see their relationship as a business relationship, a fan will often see their relationship with an author as a personal one. The NYT pans plenty of books, yet publishers don't "cut them off." Because they have professional relationships. But the dynamic between indies and their fans is very different, and thus you need to be more careful.

Which, again, is why it is so important to understand the difference between editorial and customer reviews and why Amazon separates the two. The relationship between an editorial reviewer and a publisher is fundamentally different than the relationship between a customer and a publisher. They are not the same thing and they do not serve the same purpose, so we can't continue to act as if they are the same thing.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Folks, I've edited a couple of posts.  Let's not make personal comments.  If you want to discuss my moderation, please PM me.  Yadda, yadda, yadda.

Betsy
KB Mod


----------



## AmorBooks (Jan 13, 2016)

Thank you Julie, great post!


----------



## Lisa Blackwood (Feb 1, 2015)

Rick Gualtieri said:


> Bookmarking is great, but I want a Like Button, a Thumbs-up icon, and a +1000 google thingee for this too.
> 
> Nicely said.


This.


----------



## Word Fan (Apr 15, 2015)

Just to be picky:

It's _be-all and end-all_.

You have it reversed.


----------



## Sarah Shaw (Feb 14, 2015)

benwest said:


> I know, I used to run blogs. A lot of them.


You may have. Most of us haven't, and are very interested in and grateful for the information here. I really don't understand your issue with it.


----------



## Guest (Jan 14, 2016)

Word Fan said:


> Just to be picky:
> 
> It's _be-all and end-all_.
> 
> You have it reversed.


As a Sith, I am by nature contrary lol


----------



## Rick Gualtieri (Oct 31, 2011)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> As a Sith, I am by nature contrary lol


Wait, you mean you're not a Ren yet?


----------



## Guest (Jan 14, 2016)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> Exactly. If a reviewer gives you a good review of book one (and, more importantly, is open to being solicited for reviews), there is nothing wrong with offering them an ARC of another book.
> 
> Though it does become sticky if there is an implication that a reader can get free books indefinitely so long as they are leaving positive reviews. It is very easy to cross a line if such a review arrangement becomes permanent and a reader can get an unlimited number of free books so long as the reviews are positive, Even if the fan genuinely likes the books, you have to consider the Court of Public Opinion. When the same person is leaving five-star reviews on every book and noting that they got the book for free, it creates the impression that this person is an employee or contractor.
> 
> ...


From what I understand, that's how most successful authors work. They have robust ARC teams that receive every new release and I'm pretty sure people who don't review or start giving negative reviews get kicked out. I'm not saying they are told to give only positive reviews but it makes sense that once a reader stops liking your writing, you wouldn't keep providing them with free books. What would be the point of that?


----------



## Guest (Jan 14, 2016)

SummerNights said:


> From what I understand, that's how most successful authors work. They have robust ARC teams that receive every new release and I'm pretty sure people who don't review or start giving negative reviews get kicked out. I'm not saying they are told to give only positive reviews but it makes sense that once a reader stops liking your writing, you wouldn't keep providing them with free books. What would be the point of that?


Again, we need to go back to the difference between customer reviews and editorial reviews. I cannot stress this enough because the point continues to get lost. If your ARC team are bloggers and book critics that review books on their own sites, then those are editorial reviews. The typical reader understands that there is a relationship between the publisher and the reviewer. There is no issue. You put those under the editorial review section of your listing, plug them as blurbs on the back matter, use them in ads.

But if your ARC team is comprised of fans just posting customer reviews on Amazon, we now have a problem. Because the average reader assumes "customer reviews" are, in fact, average customers and not volunteers helping market your book. We now have disclosure problems because it isn't just a matter of "I was given a copy of this book for review." It is now a matter of "I am a rabid fan and member of the publisher's promotional team who is paid in free books and access to the author."

If you are in ANY WAY coordinating review efforts with your ARC team, you are moving into dangerous territory. An ARC team of fans posting customer reviews on Amazon is no different than getting family and friends to post reviews on Amazon. They have too close of a relationship with you, they are not disclosing the full status of the relationship, there is no way to confirm who they are as nuetral third party reviews, and there is no way the average customer can differentiate them from actual buyers.

Having a list of potential reviewers for ARCs is, by itself, perfectly ethical and legal. But it goes back to the disclosure issue. Customer reviews are supposed to be from customers. The average Amazon buyer doesn't know what "ArC teams" are or that this stuff goes on. They have no way of differentiating an ARC team review from a regular customer. You have a disclosure issue that isn't easily addressed by just saying "I was given a copy of this book for review" because the relationship between the publisher and the ARC team is much more than that.


----------



## Guest (Jan 14, 2016)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> Again, we need to go back to the difference between customer reviews and editorial reviews. I cannot stress this enough because the point continues to get lost. If your ARC team are bloggers and book critics that review books on their own sites, then those are editorial reviews. The typical reader understands that there is a relationship between the publisher and the reviewer. There is no issue. You put those under the editorial review section of your listing, plug them as blurbs on the back matter, use them in ads.
> 
> But if your ARC team is comprised of fans just posting customer reviews on Amazon, we now have a problem. Because the average reader assumes "customer reviews" are, in fact, average customers and not volunteers helping market your book. We now have disclosure problems because it isn't just a matter of "I was given a copy of this book for review." It is now a matter of "I am a rabid fan and member of the publisher's promotional team who is paid in free books and access to the author."
> 
> ...


I'm not arguing with what you're saying, but we both know nobody cares for editorial reviews. I'm not even sure anyone reads them. Authors want customers reviews and that's what they get with the ARCs from readers and bloggers and book sites alike. It is what happens, especially with the most popular genres, so much so that I find it impossible that Amazon doesn't know of the practice.


----------



## Antara Mann (Nov 24, 2014)

Great article! I will never do review-swaps. I have my own ART but I netted 5-6 reviews from there. 
the other thing is to pitch reviewers or bloggers but it's very time-consuming.


----------



## Guest (Jan 14, 2016)

SummerNights said:


> I'm not arguing with what you're saying, but we both know nobody cares for editorial reviews. I'm not even sure anyone reads them. Authors want customers reviews and that's what they get with the ARCs from readers and bloggers and book sites alike. It is what happens, especially with the most popular genres, so much so that I find it impossible that Amazon doesn't know of the practice.


Amazon cares enough that they are running algorithms to find out who your "friends" are and removing their reviews.

Amazon has been actively removing reviews from people they determine to be friends for at least the last year. We've had multiple discussions on this forum about review purges and how would Amazon even know who knows who. I have my suspicions regarding the how, because Amazon has much more data on its customers than people realize and they can connect-the-dots.

I started this thread to provide context and background in regards to the number of threads about reviews. If folks want to ignore the facts of the discussion, that is their right. I have no actual authority. This was an informational thread to help folks who may not understand a lot of the nuances and legal background regarding reviews. But it is disingenuous to claim Amazon "doesn't care" and isn't doing anything when we all know they are. A couple of months ago they announced that they were suing in court a number of review sellers. They are actively and regularly removing reviews from those they deem to be 'friends" of the author. They are blocking author accounts. Are they doing so consistently? No. But that doesn't mean they aren't doing anything. We have evidence that they take their review community very seriously.

Yes, I am perfectly aware that there are some bestselling authors who engage in shady behavior. And no, I have no delusions that they will stop doing so simply because ***** shared a post. But the poor behavior of one person, no matter how popular or rich, never excuses the poor behavior of another. That isn't how I was raised. For people who did not know the law and the background, hopefully, this thread will discourage them from engaging in bad behavior. I wrote this thread for people who care about doing the right thing and perhaps don't know how. There is so much misinformation out there and, more dangerously, so much _apathy_ regarding this issue, that too many new authors really don't understand what the issues are.

So yeah, I know "authors want reviews." But wanting something doesn't excuse obtaining it illegally or unethically. This thread was written for those who want to act within the law and act ethically. others will simply continue to do whatever they want.


----------



## Carol M (Dec 31, 2012)

Very useful information.Thank you!


----------



## thesmallprint (May 25, 2012)

Thanks, Julie.

Could you offer some guidance on this being published by a reviewer: "I am a member of this author's ARC group. All group members receive free copies in advance of publication"

I'm building a group of ARC readers. My intention was to send a note with each ARC saying something like, 'Here's your copy. Thanks for being a member. No review is necessary, but should you make an individual choice to review the book on Amazon, please end your review with the following statement: (the one above)"

The critical factor here, imo, is that the phrase "in exchange for a review" does not appear.


----------



## Guest (Jan 15, 2016)

thesmallprint said:


> Thanks, *****.
> 
> Could you offer some guidance on this being published by a reviewer: "I am a member of this author's ARC group. All group members receive free copies in advance of publication"
> 
> ...


There is nothing wrong with saying "I received a comp copy of this book for review." Because that is what you are doing, and that is what Amazon's TOS allows. And despite attempts by some people to make this a big deal, the majority of readers understand that publishers send out review copies. This is not some huge surprise to rational thinking people. I personally avoid loaded words, such as "in exchange for an honest review" because "honest" is a loaded word in the context. It brings up images of the slimy salesman that says, "I'll be honest with you..." just before spewing a lie.

But as I said upthread, I have serious reservations about "ARC teams" of reviewers reviewing as _customer reviewers_. There is no way this passes the sniff test, because you are building a personal, long-term relationship with these readers. As EDITORIAL reviewers, people who might be reviewing on their own blogs or book review sites, it is different (as I already spelled out above). But if these people are going to be posting just as _customer reviews_, I think you are going to end up with the reviews ultimately removed.

You have to disclose the relationship. THIS IS THE LAW. But Amazon's TOS (which is actually more strict than the law) does not allow friends, family, and people with a vested interest in the book to leave reviews. As members of a designated "ARC club" that you run, their reviews are going to get you in trouble eventually with Amazon, because Amazon's system is eventually going to assume they are "friends" or associates.

To be clear, your disclosure statement is perfectly fine for posting reviews ANYWHERE other than Amazon. That disclosure would be fine through Goodsreads, for example, or other sites that allow users to post reviews. Your disclosure is legal.

But your relationship with your reviews runs afoul of AMAZON's TOS. Your disclosure, on Amazon, is essentially waving a red flag and telling Amazon you have a long-term relationship with these reviewers.

What I would say is this:

Stop referring to these reviewers as "a team." That implies an organized group working for you. They are not your team. You do not direct what they post, or when, or how (at least, I pray you aren't...because that is another problem now!). You have to make a clear line of demarcation between you and the reviewers. You do not have an ARC team that is posting customer reviews on Amazon. You have a contact list of potential reviewers.

When you communicate with them, again, avoid telling them they are on your team. This creates the appearance of a closer relationship than it should be. And I KNOW we all want to have these fluffy bunny close relationships with our fans. But save the fluffy bunny stuff for giveaways on your Facebook page and exchanging funny Tweets. Remember, Amazon is LOOKING for reviews to remove! Don't give them ammo!

Keep instructions professional and neutral. "We appreciate your interest in reviewing [insert title here.] Should you post a review online, please remember that the FTC requires reviewers to disclose that they received a free copy of the book."

Leave it at that.

And I KNOW this flies in the face of all the advice the bestsellers give. I get it. I do. But again, how many threads do we need to see about Amazon deleting hundreds of reviews because of "friends" before we wake up and realize these type of arrangements are part of the problem? If you are going to go to all of the cost and effort of getting reviews, you want those reviews to stay up! So you have to make sure your review program does not create an undue appearance of impropriety. Often it is not what we do, but how we do it, that gets us in trouble.


----------



## thesmallprint (May 25, 2012)

Julie, many thanks for your detailed and helpful response


----------



## Guest (Jan 22, 2016)

Just seen the following posted in KDP forums and wondered what the feeling was.

http://www.ebookreviewexchange.com/how-it-works.html


----------



## Duane Gundrum (Apr 5, 2011)

benwest said:


> I don't know why writers get so bent out of shape about what other writers do. If it's jealousy, why be jealous? Most of these books don't sell anything or very little, otherwise they wouldn't be driven to this place of desperation in the first place. The ones that do find success, I think, would have sold anyway without the extra shenanigans.


I think they get bent out of shape because if people observe bad behavior from independent book people, they're going to cast negative thoughts towards everyone in that business. So, if someone is out there writing his or her own reviews and doing all sorts of bad behavior to get his or her books sold, it's not hard for a writer who is doing none of those things to be seen as being just as guilty, because that's generally how people think.

To me, that's probably why, especially being one of those people trying so hard to make it without doing any of the bad stuff.


----------



## Guest (Jan 25, 2016)

Richard Murray said:


> Just seen the following posted in KDP forums and wondered what the feeling was.
> 
> http://www.ebookreviewexchange.com/how-it-works.html


Again, to clarify, in regards to Amazon's TOS (Which is stricter than the law) this service would be a violation. The reason is that you are being "paid" for the review you write by getting a review for your book. The Amazon TOS stresses that the ONLY thing you can provide a reviewer is a free or discounted copy of the book. THAT IS IT. You cannot offer them coupons on future purchases. You can't offer them prizes. You can't give them credits toward something else. If you are being "paid" with a review of your book in exchange for leaving a review, it violates the TOS.

Just to keep it simple, any service that is essentially a "quid pro quo" or promises you get a review if you review is going to fail the TOS.

Now so long as those reviews are clearly disclosed, then there is no issue with those reviews being posted on Goodreads or a blog or other locations. As long as there is a disclosure made, the review is legal. But insofar as the Amazon TOS, the service doesn't fly.


----------



## noirhvy (Dec 29, 2015)

You seem to be saying that a newspaper's reviewer is a God Who Walks the Earth while a blogger who reviews books is a slime-covered scum and a criminal.


----------



## Kevin Lee Swaim (May 30, 2014)

noirhvy said:


> You seem to be saying that a newspaper's reviewer is a God Who Walks the Earth while a blogger who reviews books is a slime-covered scum and a criminal.


All Julie did was offer an explanation of the Amazon TOS and how this impacts reviews.


----------



## Guest (Jan 25, 2016)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> Again, to clarify, in regards to Amazon's TOS (Which is stricter than the law) this service would be a violation. The reason is that you are being "paid" for the review you write by getting a review for your book. The Amazon TOS stresses that the ONLY thing you can provide a reviewer is a free or discounted copy of the book. THAT IS IT. You cannot offer them coupons on future purchases. You can't offer them prizes. You can't give them credits toward something else. If you are being "paid" with a review of your book in exchange for leaving a review, it violates the TOS.
> 
> Just to keep it simple, any service that is essentially a "quid pro quo" or promises you get a review if you review is going to fail the TOS.
> 
> Now so long as those reviews are clearly disclosed, then there is no issue with those reviews being posted on Goodreads or a blog or other locations. As long as there is a disclosure made, the review is legal. But insofar as the Amazon TOS, the service doesn't fly.


Thank you, I suspected as much but thought I would ask.


----------



## Flurries Unlimited (Jan 24, 2012)

Good to see acknowledgement that Amazon is not the law  

Well done.


----------



## JLCarver (Sep 13, 2015)

Deleted. My words are not yours.


----------



## Lisa Blackwood (Feb 1, 2015)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> In 2004, the only requirement for leaving a review on Amazon was creating an account. But then people abuse that, so Amazon added the stipulation that you had to purchase something first. But then people abused that by sending their fake accounts gift certificates in order to "buy" an item. So Amazon added the stipulation that only purchases from a credit card counted. But then the review sellers simply started to use disposable debit cards.
> 
> As people continue to engage in the behavior, Amazon tightens its grip more. Today, Amazon is using algorithms to actually determine who knows who on Facebook. Think about that for a minute. Amazon is actually tracking if reviewers "know" an author through author Facebook pages. This is not a cosmetic issue. It is a very real issue that authors are losing their accounts over. My concern is not that Amazon will close. My concern is that innocent authors will get caught up in their net and hurt. My concern is that they will continue to make life hard for honest authors in their pursuit of the dishonest ones. So if we can educate people on the actual how and why of these rules, they will have the information they need to make informed decisions.


I wish there was a 'LIKE' button.

But what I'd like more?

For scammers to stop trying to cheat the system. ::I know. How very naive of me. There will always be scammers.::


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Folks,

Locking this while I do a read through.  From the reports, it may have gone astray.  Thanks.

Betsy
KB Mod

Edit:  Unlocking thread.  Let's keep it civil and not put words into people's mouths.  I see nothing about newspaper reviewers being God or bloggers being criminals.  Let's move on from that.

And please remember, not every post needs to be responded to.  Let's keep this very useful thread on track.

Betsy
KB Mod


----------



## HillOnLong (Oct 11, 2014)

SummerNights said:


> Does it mean that if an author in our genre leaves a negative review on one of our books, Amazon will remove it if we flag it?





Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> But this is the thing: understand WHY that statement exists. The review guidelines were not written specifically for books. They were written for all products. It is specifically designed to stop company A from badmouthing company B. Amazon is referring to products that are in *direct competition* with each other. i.e. You don't want someone who works for Coke leaving negative reviews about Pepsi. These are companies that are in direct competition with each other. Direct competition is a condition where consumers buy in an either/or situation. If I buy a Ford truck, I'm not also going to buy a Toyota. I'm buying one or the other.
> 
> *Authors are not in direct competition with each other*. If someone buys my book, that doesn't mean they won't also buy your book. Being a fan of mine doesn't prevent someone from also being a fan of you. We may "compete" insofar as rank, but we aren't in an adversarial direct competition.
> 
> *Amazon has no issue with an author leaving an honest review of a book he or she purchased.* What Amazon does NOT want is someone willfully badmouthing another author. The clause exists to give Amazon the flexibility to remove a review if they feel it is abusive.


I wholeheartedly disagree with this.

The meaning of "direct competition" as you portray it is the narrowest possible form one could give to it. On top of that, since it's not even mentioned in Amazon's ToS for leaving reviews, it's based on your own conjecture that that's what the ToS really means, not to mention negative reviews are explicitly forbidden on competing products, even for authors. Let's take a look at what the actual wording is (stylizing mine to help understand what the prerequisites are), and since the ToS is the only thing Amazon has given us, we have no choice but to trust the wording of it.



> Promotional Reviews --
> In order to preserve the integrity of Customer Reviews,
> we do not permit
> artists, authors, developers, manufacturers, publishers, sellers or vendors
> ...


Having read the ToS, everyone can see that authors are specifically mentioned as a group that is forbidden from leaving negative reviews on *competing products*. Secondly, there is no added requirement of the review being "willfully badmouthing" since there's no qualification on intent, just that the review is negative. In addition, there is no reference anywhere in the entire Amazon reviews ToS to "direct competition" but to "competing products" and therefore it can't be used as a justification to override the actual wording of the rules (unless you perhaps have some travaux preparatoires you wish to share with us?)
If an author leaves a negative review on a competing product, it's against the ToS. Period. The only thing in question after that is whether books can be competing products or not, or whether the review is negative.

Now, why would Amazon specifically mention authors in the rule if it didn't think authors could even leave negative reviews on competing products? That doesn't make a lot of sense, does it? I mean, why even mention authors in the first place? The reason authors are included is because other authors can in fact have competing products, and I don't think we have to look at the definition of competing products to understand that. You're right, the entire Kindle store might not be considered as competing products, but books in the same genre most definitely are and hence the rule in the first place. (I think we can skip the issue of what makes a review negative since it only further qualifies the rule, and we have already established the main rule that authors can't always leave reviews.)

Based on the explicit wording of the ToS, I can't for the life of me understand it to mean anything else than that authors are not allowed to post negative reviews on books that are competing with their books. Therefore Amazon most definitely has an issue with authors posting negative reviews on competing products, whether the reviews are honest or not.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

KDP and Audible do not appear to have any problem with authors sending out ARCs to readers for review. In fact, my Audible review group was set up at the suggestion of . . . Audible. (That is one reason they give you all those free codes.) As long as the reader discloses that they received a free copy in exchange for a review, this does not violate TOS in any manner. (Per KDP and Audible personnel.)

If the person is your personal friend or a member of your family? Yes. If it's a reader who loves your stuff and is thrilled to get an advance copy in exchange for a review? No. 

Giving a reader the book in exchange for a review, and having them disclose that you did so, is not a violation. Even if it's an "ARC team." A term I've heard used by various Amazon personnel without any stigma.

Could it change? Sure. Lots of things can change, especially if Amazon perceives abuse. But that's how it stands now, according to what I have been told.


----------



## PJ_Cherubino (Oct 23, 2015)

I've been reading over this entire thread. There is a lot of heat and light in the form of passion and well-reasoned positions. It all makes my head spin, but I've finally summed it up with something that is easy for me to understand.

Play nice. Don't worry.

People will play games to get ahead. They will be nasty and underhanded and go to great lengths to rationalize crappy behavior. There is no stopping it. I won't play any games. The best I can do is keep writing and give my best effort to producing a quality product. 

Amazon owns the market. It is not public. It is a service provided by a company that exists to make profit. I in turn can make a profit by participating in that market. All I have to do is follow the terms and conditions clearly established by the owner of that market.

All I need be concerned with is my own ethical behavior as defined by the TOS. It is difficult and scary and crazy-making, but I will publish, promote and wait for reviews for better or worse.

That being said, I wish the best for my fellow authors.

Good luck everyone.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

SummerNights said:


> From what I understand, that's how most successful authors work. They have robust ARC teams that receive every new release and I'm pretty sure people who don't review or start giving negative reviews get kicked out. I'm not saying they are told to give only positive reviews but it makes sense that once a reader stops liking your writing, you wouldn't keep providing them with free books. What would be the point of that?


To maintain the credibility of your ARC process, the same way you don't get bent out of shape about getting negative reviews via NetGalley? If every review on your new book is 5 stars--readers aren't stupid. By the same token, most early reviews on a popular author's books, ARC or not, are likely to be positive. Why? Because the people who rush to read the author's books will be fans.

When I did do ARCs, I got two- and three-star reviews. I tend to write quite different tones and types of books, and not everybody will love every book. Sad, but true. Some people will downright dislike a book. However, readers who stop liking the way you write aren't going to keep reading and reviewing, free book or no. Most people aren't masochists.


----------



## Guest (Jan 26, 2016)

C.S. Longhill said:


> I wholeheartedly disagree with this.


Actually, Amazon HAS explicitly clarified this point.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/community-help/customer-review-guidelines-faqs-from-authors



> 2. Are authors allowed to review other authors' books?
> Yes. Authors are welcome to submit Customer Reviews, unless the reviewing author has a personal relationship with the author of the book being reviewed, or was involved in the book's creation process (i.e. as a co-author, editor, illustrator, etc.). If so, that author isn't eligible to write a Customer Review for that book. Please review our Customer Review Guidelines for more information.


This is part of their FAQs from Authors and it is a point Amazon has explicitly stressed over and over, and this statement from their site is consistent with the guidance they have given authors directly on the matter (it is one of the few things in which the answer doesn't change from customer service person to customer service person!). Amazon does not prohibit authors from writing reviews of other books. Nor does it prevent authors from writing reviews in the genres they write. What they DO prevent is malicious or deceptive reviews.

Keep in mind with the TOS that Amazon wrote the TOS to give THEM flexibility in dealing with potential issues. The verbiage is written in such a way as to give them the flexibility to remove reviews when they believe there is malicious behavior involved. For example, an author who wrote a self-help book on low-carb diets leaving negative reviews on another book promoting low-carb diets. The issue is much more of a "direct competition" issue in non-fiction than it is in genre fiction. But Amazon has explicitly said there is no issue with authors reviewing books from other authors.


----------



## HillOnLong (Oct 11, 2014)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> Actually, Amazon HAS explicitly clarified this point.
> 
> http://www.amazon.com/gp/community-help/customer-review-guidelines-faqs-from-authors
> 
> ...


Amazon's answer you linked first states the principal rule that authors can leave reviews subject to there being no direct link between them and the book they are reviewing. This was already deductible from the ToS since it doesn't forbid all reviews from authors.

However, the answer then goes on to qualify the rule of thumb by saying that the Customer Review Guidelines might have exceptions to this, i.e. that unless the ToS states otherwise, the answer applies but you should check the ToS for further information. Hence, their answer to whether authors can review the books of other authors remains the same as previously: "Yes, authors can review the books of other authors so long as they don't violate the ToS". Therefore the CS answer doesn't add anything new to the discussion because it only asks you to refer to the ToS.



Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> Amazon does not prohibit authors from writing reviews of other books. Nor does it prevent authors from writing reviews in the genres they write. What they DO prevent is malicious or deceptive reviews.


I never claimed that authors are not allowed to leave ANY reviews. I merely stated that the ToS doesn't allow negative reviews on competing products. It's obvious that any review which falls outside of that scope is therefore allowed.



Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> For example, an author who wrote a self-help book on low-carb diets leaving negative reviews on another book promoting low-carb diets. The issue is much more of a "direct competition" issue in non-fiction than it is in genre fiction. *But Amazon has explicitly said there is no issue with authors reviewing books from other authors*.


To sum it up, the ToS states that authors can leave reviews that are 
a) positive, if they are of competing products, or 
b) positive or negative, if they are not of competing products.

The CS answer you provided doesn't change the situation in any way.


----------



## Taking my troll a$$ outta here (Apr 8, 2013)

C.S. Longhill said:


> Amazon's answer you linked first states the principal rule that authors can leave reviews subject to there being no direct link between them and the book they are reviewing. This was already deductible from the ToS since it doesn't forbid all reviews from authors.
> 
> However, the answer then goes on to qualify the rule of thumb by saying that the Customer Review Guidelines might have exceptions to this, i.e. that unless the ToS states otherwise, the answer applies but you should check the ToS for further information. Hence, their answer to whether authors can review the books of other authors remains the same as previously: "Yes, authors can review the books of other authors so long as they don't violate the ToS". Therefore the CS answer doesn't add anything new to the discussion because it only asks you to refer to the ToS.
> 
> ...


Are you arguing just for the sake of arguing, or is there a point you are trying to make? I'm totally lost as to what you are trying to clarify here. I think Julie has made it pretty clear, and you are pretty much just supporting what she has said (repeatedly) in this thread.


----------



## HillOnLong (Oct 11, 2014)

ebbrown said:


> Are you arguing just for the sake of arguing, or is there a point you are trying to make? I'm totally lost as to what you are trying to clarify here. I think Julie has made it pretty clear, and you are pretty much just supporting what she has said (repeatedly) in this thread.


You should read the Julie's message which I first answered to. That was incorrect information and got this thing started.

But I agree, there's no point in continuing it.


----------

