Karen Scott links to a post by Lee Goldberg who linked to a post here at Dear Author. Certainly that is some kind of circle jerk, but on an interesting and important topic.
Apparently Affaire de Coeur has a policy of providing positive reviews and articles to publishers based upon the amount of page space that is purchased. Additionally, and possibly more damning (I know! what could be more damning) is that according to Goldberg:
I’ve just discovered that their advertising director, Bonny Kirby, co-owns the disgraced Light Sword Publishing company with Linda Daly (a court recently fined Kirby and Daly thousands of dollars for defrauding authors). This explains why Light Sword titles consistently got positive reviews from Affaire De Coeur and why Daly was the subject of a cover story. No reputable magazine would review books published by their advertising director…or feature her partners on the cover. It’s a sleazy, unethical conflict-of-interest.
I’ve not ever read/purchased/seen an Affaire de Coeur magazine but I have seen them quoted multiple times in books and have been in business for over 26 years. It seems that the paid review is becoming more and more commonplace. I know that even Kirkus offers a pay review service.
Kirkus Discoveries, rolling out later this year, will allow self-published authors, long ignored by the trade journals, to buy a Kirkus review for $350.
The second new product is Kirkus Reports, set to appear early next month. It highlights titles that the editors feel are the best lifestyle books (health, parenting, personal finance). But to be included in this free e-mail newsletter for magazine and newspaper journalists, publishers must pay $95 per title.
It’s one thing, of course, to have advertising and still another to accept payment for the review itself or inclusion in a magazine or newsletter. What’s ethical?
Updated on September 2008. I’m closing the comments.
The Affaire de Couer situation is completely unethical. No comment needed.
Now, about Kirkus: My question is, are these reviews guaranteed to be positive, or are they going to be based on impartial consideration?
As for the inclusion in the newsletter, that bothers me. It sounds like paid endorsement, not common advertising. I like books to earn that sort of recognition, not for it to be bought.
Steph
This is exactly why I trust so few reviewers anymore. Are they on the payroll or are they just doing their job for an accredited magazine, newspaper, website, etc.? Sometimes it’s very hard to tell the difference.
I like what you do here at Dear Author. No one gets an A(B,C or D) if they don’t deserve it. Unfortunately, that’s only good for the romance books I read, but not other genre’s.
If you have to pay to get your book reviewed, you probably shouldn’t be an author.
I think it just goes to show how many people think that reviews are merely promotional tools and not part of an important cultural discourse about books and about the importance of reading more generally. IMO it doesn’t even matter that the reviews themselves might be authentic, the moment money is being paid to secure a review the process itself becomes degraded and ultimately inauthentic.
For a breakdown of one issue re: ads and content see: http://www.erecsite.com/2007/11/some-thoughts-about-affaire-de-coeur.html
In AdC as in RT I notice MM ads but not reviews. In AdC as in RT I notice the small press books reviewed are almost entirely linked to ads. More equal than others, etc.
The Kirkus situation is also despicable…but at least they have the good sense to NOT include those paid reviews in their regular magazine. They are published separately under the Kirkus Discoveries banner.
This is why I so rarely read reviews that aren’t by people that I know or authors that I read.
I don’t like spoilers, and many reviews these days are. Is the reason for writing such detailed spoilers because the reviewer is being paid?
I look at how many paragraphs there are, and if there’s more than a few, I just read the first paragraph to get a feel, then skip to the last paragraph to see how the reviewer felt about the book.
Kinda puts into perspective all the sneering I read (and have had directed at me and others like me) about only being an ‘amateur’.
Because doing it for love - the literal meaning of the word - is such a bad thing?
Many folks in the business have learned that there are many, many, many, MANY desperate authors (self-published, mostly, or those with small presses) who will pay for anything and everything. They pay to get published, which is fair enough if they know what they are getting out of it, but most don’t, assuming instead that you *have* to pay to get published. Or that you *have* to pay an agent to look at your works, you *have* to pay a publisher to edit your books, et cetera. And, of course, paying for a review. I’ve seen many websites offering “speedy review services” ranging from $10 to $50 targeted to authors because there are enough authors who will pay while hoping that somehow with their latest payment they will hit some kind of career jackpot and become a bestselling author.
Paying for reviews is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to a booming industry that takes advantage of authors.
I guess there’s some benefit to being broke as hell. Even if I hadn’t known better, I’ve never had enough money to pay anybody for anything. I certainly encountered more than my fair share of ‘pay to play’ promos, but I’ve never been tempted because I simply couldn’t afford it.
I was reviewed in ADC years ago (maybe 10 years?) and I didn’t pay or pay for an ad. However, I was a subscriber for a few years prior to my book coming out and I believe that was why I got the review. It wasn’t a great review, by the way, just average.
I also was part of an anthology for charity and the ADC owner/editor (Louise?) donated the entire back cover to advertise the book. I thought that was very nice.
I would say like most other issues, it’s possible and then there are other instances where that is not true.
I used to never write reviews with spoilers, but I only posted to places like Amazon where it’s against the rules anyway. Since starting a blog though, I will discuss spoilers in my reviews, although if it’s an ARC, I try to only do mild ones if any at all. If the book has already been released, there may well be some and it’s because that book was so dang good that I felt the need to discuss it in a review style whereby it’s more than just a glossy, surface opinion of a book. There’s nothing wrong at all with a review containing no spoilers of course, but I always warn ahead of time when there are some. Some readers really like spoilers, some don’t. Personally I don’t think either way is wrong, as long as spoilers are labeled.
On the subject of payment, some folks think simply getting an ARC to review is payment and therefore subject to the same kind of suspicion as those that receive money or other favors for writing reviews.
Gauging the “postiveness” of a review with how much advertising dollar spent is just sleazy. May as well just hang a red light outside your publication and be done with it.
I don’t even give good reviews to authors I like as people unless the book deserves it. How smarmy would I have to be to write a purposefully good review for a book I didn’t like.
Ick. Gives me the heebie-jeebies just thinking about it.
Good grief, this is getting out of hand.
As someone who has worked for several prominant publishers that get lots of trade and mass market titles reviewed in this magazine, and tons of positive reviews no less, I can safely say that paying for advertising has never had anything to do with those reviews.
My current publisher has NEVER bought advertising–and we had one of our authors featured on the cover, and my former publishers buy very infrequently, if ever anymore. But the reviews don’t seem to be drying up.
I can’t say whether or not buying ads will save you from a bad review or not, but I know you can get a good one without paying a dime.
Look, all I’m saying is please investigate all sides of a story before you go slamming peoples names and livlihoods into the dirt.
Thanks.
Thing is, I had a subscription to them a while ago and it never arrived after the first installment. When they asked to renew I told them why I would not do so.
They apparently gave me another year free because of the first issue, but I didn’t want it.
The production quality is awful and the reviews often, after I’ve read the book, seem to have been written without the reviewer ever opening a cover. That’s just an impression. But whether the reviews are tainted or not, they are VERY poorly written and seem very detached from the source material.
At this point I throw it away without opening the envelope most of the time.
*shrug*
APP, so you wrote for a large press then? Because really the 1:1 correlation between ad space and review space for large presses really speaks for itself to anyone. Blaze etc get a free ride, the little guys don’t. And as for the cover, if the cover isn’t an ad space why are is “full cover front page and back page ads available for each issue.” It really doesn’t take much digging to see what is going on. It just, apparently, took a while for anyone to built up to giving a damn.
It is really unfortunate that Affaire de Coeur is being tried and convicted in a public forum. What happened to journalistic integrity and checking of facts? I have been a reviewer for AdC for eleven years and have never seen anything that was not on the up and up. I personally know the editor and her integrity has never been in question. If I thought there was the least amount of impropriety going on, I would disassociate myself from the magazine. I have never been instructed or dictated on how to rate a book and I would be willing to bet the other reviewers will concur. An ad does not guarantee a good or favorable review; I know because I have written some reviews for books for ads that were just okay and my review reflected so. If you count the number of ads against the number of reviews every month, it can be seen that we are not giving favorable reviews to those who do pay for ads. We review dozens of books that have never bought ad space; all they get is an honest review. Again, I ask, what about checking the facts before trashing and slandering an entity or persons on a world wide venue?
@ KMont:
“Personally I don’t think either way is wrong, as long as spoilers are labeled.”
I agree, and hope to see more spoiler alert reviews labeled. That way both sides would be happy.
For what it’s worth, and it probably ain’t much, I’ve never advertised in AdC and I know they’re reviewing my upcoming release. *shrug*
RT has been doing it to e-publishers for years.
Having received ad/review information from AdC, I can tell you the following:
Requests for free reviews must be received by AdC at least 90 days BEFORE a title’s release. AdC will not consider a book for free review after that time.
If a book is being released in less than 90 days, or has already been released, AdC will only consider it for review if the author/publisher purchases an ad package.
Although I find the practice of what is essentially selling reviews not so good, I do believe the proof is in the pudding. So, I’d suggest that some industrious soul who has access to back issues of the magazine run though it and examine the book reviews of those books also being advertised. That would give one some idea of what is being provided. If it shakes out that AdC is providing fair, unbiased reviews–that those reviews run the gamut from ‘man this is awful’ to ‘I want 7 copies and here’s hoping you get film rights’, then, in my opinion, anyway, the charging for those reviews is immaterial, and someone, somewhere will need to print that AdC CHARGES for reviews in some circumstances, but those reviews are fairly and honestly completed.
ok, normally I don’t do things like this but I feel as a reviewer for AdC, I have been insulted.
I have never been paid for a review. I am not told who pays for advertising and I am not told how to write my reviews or what my opinion should be.
I do know that those particular reviewers who were not on the up and up are no longer reviewing for AdC.
I do know that any business would be hard pressed to succeed without advertising.
If this particular reviewer had her palm greased (which is against company policy) to give Goldberg his 5 stars, I doubt she will be reviewing much longer, at least not with AdC. If she didn’t get paid, someone has a serious slander issue and a possible lawsuit pending against him.
And if the reviewer was paid as Goldberg claims, I’m not sure I quite understand Goldberg’s point. Is he upset because he found out his publisher has to pay someone to get him good reviews?
Or that he doesn’t believe his publisher should pay for any advertising for his books at all because his name should carry its own weight and sell millions of books?
Since my curiosity was pushed, I looked to see if his book was advertised. It was not. I looked. I didn’t even see Obsidian advertised in the issue at all.
I did, however, go through three AdC magazines to see if there appeared to be any truth to the man’s accusations.
This is what I found:
From what appears to be advertising (since I am far from expert on the idiosyncrasies of advertising/some may not be paid advertising but had a book cover on it) I mean … really … if it received a five star shouldn’t it have a picture of the book cover on it? I don’t know. I’m just a reviewer.
Out of the 3 magazines that I checked
Berkeley, Tor, Kensington, Zebra, Medallion, Cerridwen, Parker, Harlequin, Griffin, Changeling all appeared to have advertising
4 books had 5 stars
5 books had 4 1/2 stars
6 books had 4 stars
1 book had 3 1/2 stars
1 book had 3 stars
2 books had 0 stars
a handful of books had no reviews although there were advertisements
Well, people are going to believe what they want. My reviews are exactly that. Mine and no one else’s. And I don’t get paid for it but I do love the books I receive and try my best to be objective even though it really is subjective to each particular person’s tastes.
APP writes:
“As someone who has worked for several prominant publishers that get lots of trade and mass market titles reviewed in this magazine, and tons of positive reviews no less, I can safely say that paying for advertising has never had anything to do with those reviews.”
As another poster wrote earlier, that comment said it all. Nothing against APP, but let’s face it. The larger publishers are going to get more consideration for review space than the self-pubs or independents, whether the review is positive or negative.
There are publications out there (Romantic Times, for one) that will run a review without the author/publisher paying for an add. But it takes a lot of arm-twisting for them to do so — they’ll review books from their advertising clients first, then, if there’s space and a book catches their eye, they’ll do something else.
But something else to consider — I’ve been following charges against Amazon (and others) in recent months regarding manipulation of reviews on their sites. I’ve asked readers, in the wake of all of this, how much stock they put in reviews when it comes to buying books. Unsurprisingly, the answer is very little. Recommendations and previous experience with the author are the two main things that sell books. Reviews, positive AND negative, are being ignored — at least on Amazon.
BTW, some readers also won’t buy from authors who are arrogant or who have a bad attitude toward fans or their audience.
For reasons unknown, Mr. Goldberg has been attacking anyone who is in some way associated with Light Sword publishing and denigrating everyone including authors. His facts are flimsy. Now, he’s attacking ADC, doesn’t the poor man have some positive things to do?
My Book, KINGMAKER was reviewed by ADC, no payment was ever made nor advertising solicited.
Mr. Goldeberg’s allegations would have never been published in a newspaper. But on the internet slanderous allegations are tolerated.
I always get annoyed when I see arguments like this since it being into questions to integrity of the reivewers and Ms. Calder has all reason to be insulted. Just for fun, I check the July RT and magazine which I’ve been reading for years and never say any proof of this. In the July RT, I noticed that reviews range from 2 star to 4+ star. Books which have ads range are in that range and book without ads are also in that range. I’ve even found a book with a full page ad which received a 3-star rating. RT reviews the Harlequin Kimani Romance novels each month and I’ve seen 4+ rating and I’ve seen a 1-star rating. All the other Harlequin lines are reviewed and I’ve seen 4+ star ratings and I’ve seen 1 and 2-star. I write for Kimani romance and I’ve received a 4+ rating and I’ve received a 3.
So what’s the point!
I really can’t deal with people who bring this up each time and question the integrity of those who review.
wj
wj
Wayne Jordan
Mr. Goldberg,
At first I was not going to address you at all because you really aren’t worth my time. But in spite of your claim to be from a family of journalists, none of it apparently rubbed off on you and you really do need to be educated.
I have never seen or heard of anyone evaluating a product they openly admit they have never seen, but then I’ve never seen or heard of anyone getting a superb review free of charge, with no strings attached then lambasting the person who gave it to you. Neither one of these actions are smart. Moreover, I must dispel your and Veinglory’s notion of being clairvoyants—that you can look at an ad and tell whether it is a paid ad. You don’t know me; you don’t know that for whatever reason, I may have given a free ad someone. One of your bloggers told you that—that I give them a free cover ad for a charity, but you ignored that. It’s not an uncommon practice with me, but it’s also not everyone’s business whether an author is paying for their ad. Occasionally, I get stiffed by an author for an ad. It goes with the territory.
Let’s take the current issue. Out of the 60 pages, there are nine ads, only six of the paid for. St. Jude Hospital has a free full page inside front ad from me that they didn’t ask for. Why? You shouldn’t even have to ask. I volunteered as a Registered Nurse through the Department of Public Heath following Katrina. Hence, the 3 page spread on New Orleans. It’s my second one on that devastated city, and there will be more until they’re back on their feet. Slam Jam article—AdC was the catalyst and remains a strong supporter of African-American romances being in print. Did they pay for this 3 page coverage? No. And they won’t next year either. There are over 100 reviews. Do the math if you can. There is no way six ads are going to pay for this magazine. I pay for it. Why I do it is not your business. I pay for sending galleys like yours to reviewer; I pay the cost of publication; I pay for my web site. Instead of going off half cocked, poll the authors we’ve reviewed, you’ll learn that they and their publisher contributed nothing to their being reviewed by AdC.
I had to draw the line somewhere; we attempt to do simultaneous reviews—that is do the review at the same time the book is released. It doesn’t matter to us whether you’re big publishers or small; it doesn’t matter the genre. If you send your galley in 3-4 months prior to its publication date, we review it. However, if your send your galley to us in less that 3 month, we have to overnight or fed-ex it to the reviewer who has to rearrange her schedule to read it and get it reviewed; we often pay to change the layout so we can accommodate the late review. These represent costs I’m not willing to absorb on top of everything else. So, I openly say if you want us to review your book and you’ve sent in less than 3 months before pub date, you need to do ad to help us allay the expenses we will incur because you sent it late. Nowhere else do we say that ad is necessary.
I determine editorial content. It’s interesting that on one hand you condemn us for not dealing with small publishers but if I offer them a chance to explain who they are and what they do, you slam that, too. Some magazines charge for this. I don’t. And, again, just because you seen an interview (oops, you’ve never seen an issue) doesn’t mean someone paid for it. Sandra Brown, who has both the cover and a 3 page interview, paid us nothing. Readers want to know about her. Jim Butcher paid us nothing. Neither did his publisher.
How does a small publisher, a mid-list author ever break through if no one allows them to write about themselves without charging, if no one reviews their books without an ad? This is a service, not a fault. Is it your expectation, then, when someone does take out an ad with me that I don’t review their books? That’s just crazy. Does it mean they’ll get five stars because they took out an ad? No.
I will not engage in a personal attack on anyone, not even you. I have reviewers who have jobs outside AdC and who may review for another site. I have nothing to do with what they do outside of AdC. The same is true with Bonny Kirby and Lightsword Press. I have no personal knowledge of their machinations. I don’t want to know. However, they came to me as a legitimate small press, one of hundreds, whose authors needed publicity. They purchased one ad, and I gave them multiple free ads and let them do articles. I probably would do the same thing tomorrow.
I would love more paid ads. I would love to stop paying out of my own pocket, but I’m not willing to become RT and do the exact thing you accused me of. There are many who are furious with you—authors, publishers (including your own), readers who know who we are and what we stand for. They are looking at you—a man who made horrendous accusations on hearsay without ever having seen the product he’s criticizing, a violation of any edict of journalism. (e-mail me, and I’ll send you a PDF for this issue) I’ve received tons of support from many sources who know the truth and who don’t want to have anything to do with your blog. Oh, and can somebody please learn how to spell Coeur?
Louise Snead
Publisher, Affaire de Coeur
Louise wrote: ” I have reviewers who have jobs outside AdC and who may review for another site. I have nothing to do with what they do outside of AdC. The same is true with Bonny Kirby and Lightsword Press. I have no personal knowledge of their machinations. I don’t want to know. However, they came to me as a legitimate small press, one of hundreds, whose authors needed publicity. They purchased one ad, and I gave them multiple free ads and let them do articles. I probably would do the same thing tomorrow.”
That’s sad, Louise. Light Sword didn’t come to you as “one of hundreds” of small presses whose “authors needed publicity.” It came to you from your advertising director, who co-owns Light Sword and who profits from the success of the publisher and its books. That is an outrageous conflict-of-interest and the fact that you “don’t want to know” even now says a lot about your ethical standards (or rather your complete lack of them).
The same goes for your astonishing lack of interest regarding potential conflicts-of-interest among your reviewers. Let’s say, for example, that one of your reviewers is also a publicist for Harlequin. It wouldn’t bother you to have her reviewing Harlequin books that she’s been hired to publicize? You wouldn’t care? You wouldn’t consider that an unacceptable conflict-of-interest?
You’re a magazine publisher, Louise. You have a responsibility to your readers to assure that your reviews and coverage are free from bias. The fact that you don’t care about that is shocking.
Louise writes: “So, I openly say if you want us to review your book and you’ve sent in less than 3 months before pub date, you need to do ad to help us allay the expenses we will incur because you sent it late. Nowhere else do we say that ad is necessary. I determine editorial content.”
That’s not what you offer your advertisers. On your site you say:
“To compliment your ad and review we also offer interviews or articles. If you would like an interview let us know 3 months in advance so it will go in the same issue as your review and ad. We accept articles at any time, we need articles 3 months in advance. All articles must receive approval on subject matter.”
So what is the truth, Louise? What you offer to your advertisers or what you are telling me? But, for the sake of argument, let’s say you don’t offer articles, interviews and reviews in exchange for advertising. It’s still a breach of ethics to ask publishers to buy an ad in exchange for reviewing a book that is submitted late. Here’s a simple solution: if the publisher misses the deadline, don’t review the book.
I think it’s terrific that you give free ads to charities. Good for you. But that has nothing to do with your total disregard for basic ethical conduct in your editorial practices.
Lauren,
If you read my blog post, then you would know what my issues are. But to summarize:
I don’t think the five-star review of MR. MONK GOES TO GERMANY was the result of my publisher taking out an ad (they didn’t). I am sure the reviewer genuinely liked my book.
The reason I have refused to acknowledge the praise, or allow the blurb to be used in any advertising or promotion for my book, is because I don’t want to be associated in any way with a magazine with such horrendous ethical standards (which is practically no ethical standards whatsoever). I don’t want to lend them any professional credibility or implied endorsement that might come from being associated with me or my book. It’s a matter of principle for me.
I don’t begrudge the magazine for having advertisements — no magazine can survive without them.
What I find objectionable and highly unethical is that the magazine offers publishers and authors reviews, articles and interviews in exchange for buying advertising. It isn’t a rumor that they are dong this, it is a fact, one confirmed by their advertising director Bonny Kirby in comments on Writer Beware and in the description of the various advertising packages/services offered to publishers (as detailed on the Affaire de Coeur website):
“To compliment your ad and review we also offer interviews or articles. If you would like an interview let us know 3 months in advance so it will go in the same issue as your review and ad. We accept articles at any time, we need articles 3 months in advance. All articles must receive approval on subject matter.”
“We will not accept submissions less than three months prior to the date of publication unless it is associated with an ad. We do not review books after publication unless it is done in association with an ad”
In other words, if you buy an advertisement with Affaire de Coeur, they will “compliment” it with articles and reviews.
And, as Bonny Kirby herself wrote on Writer Beware:
“Any books that show up for review after the 3 month deadline, like the one that is discussed here has to have special treatment all the way through the process. This does in fact require an ad to expedite it.”
So they will gladly review your book after publication, or if you submit it late, if you will buy an ad. There’s clearly a connection between buying ads and getting coverage. They aren’t even subtle about it.
Reviews that appear as a direct result of paid advertising should be clearly labeled as such, whether the reviewer in question knew the review was purchased or not. That is a basic tenet of ethical journalism (see the Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics, which are adopted by virtually all reputable magazines and newspapers).
There should be NO RELATION between editorial and advertising content…and if there is, it should be CLEARLY DISCLOSED on the articles, reviews, etc. that were bought. A high school journalism student could tell you that.
What I find abhorrent and highly unethical is that the magazine also published reviews, cover stories, and articles about books published by Light Sword, a company co-owned by their advertising director. It is not my opinion, it is a fact. It is also an egregious and outrageous conflict of interest and should have been disclosed in the reviews, articles and cover stories…it was not. And that’s shameful.
If you visit my site, you will see a link to the EREC blog which studied a recent issue and saw a direct correlation betweens ads purchases and space devoted to those advertisers’ books in the magazine:
“Light Sword Publishing
* 3 pages of advertising
* 6.5 pages of content (3 being an article that is clearly self-promotional, aimed at authors not readers and available for free on their website)
* 1.5 pages of book review space
Medallion Press
* 2.5 pages of advertising
* 2.5 pages of book review space
Parker
* 0.25 pages of advertising
* 0.75 pages of book review space
Dafina
* 0.25 pages of advertising
* 0.75 pages of book review space
Torquere Press
* 1 page of advertising.”
Light Sword books, authors, and editors weren’t featured in the magazine on the basic of merit, or their interest to the readership, or their newsworthiness, but because the advertising director had a personal, financial interest in the publishing company. That is a huge disservice to the magazine’s readership, an extreme example of conflict of interest, and it reflects negatively on everyone associated with the publication.
I don’t blame you for being pissed off, Lauren. But I’m not the one who cast shame and doubt on your objectivity as a reviewer …it is the highly unethical practices of your employer that have done so.
Lee
Alexey wrote: “My Book, KINGMAKER was reviewed by ADC, no payment was ever made nor advertising solicited.”
That’s not entirely accurate. The co-owner of your publisher is the advertising director of ADC. Is it any surprise that the books that she published get favorable treatment and wide exposure in the magazine? Or that her partner was profiled in the magzine?
Your book may or may not have deserved the positive review…but as long as this conflict-of-interest exists, the objectivity of the review will always be in question. You have been harmed and the sad thing is that you don’t even realize it.
Alexey wrote: “Mr. Goldeberg’s allegations would have never been published in a newspaper. But on the internet slanderous allegations are tolerated.”
Bonny Kirby is advertising director of ADC and co-owner of Light Sword. That is a fact. That such a relationship is considered a conflict of interest under the Code of Ethics adopted by most magazines and newspapers is also a fact. ADC also gives reviews in exchange for ads in some cases. That is a fact. Stating those truths isn’t slander.
Lee
Mr. Goldberg, FYI…Ms. Kirby is no longer affiliated with Light Sword Publishing and has not been for several months, so stop slamming both “Affaire de Coeur” and Light Sword. Maybe it you spent more time on writing books and less on slamming magazines and publishers, you’d get somewhere and not have so many enemies. Get a life!
But Kirby *was* affiliated with Light Sword while the company, and her then-partner Linda Daly, enjoyed positive press and considerable coverage from the magazine where she served as advertising director. It’s that conflict of interest and ethical breach that we are discussing.
The fact Kirby has since parted ways with her partner doesn’t change the fact that a conflict-of-interest occurred…and that the publisher of ADC doesn’t give a damn. (And let’s not forget that a court recently determined that Kirby and Daly, while partnered at Light Sword, defrauded an author).
That is why I have rejected ADC’s positive review of my book and asked my publisher not to use it in any promotional materials. In my opinion, the magazine engages in unethical behavior and I don’t want to be associated with them. I think it’s a good thing that a wider audience is now aware of those questionable practices.
Goldberg, quit your whinning. Read Kingmaker, where you will learn how to be a man of honor.
I guess the question about all this after hearing from Louise Snead is this: if AdC provides free advertising and reviews for huge names like Sandra Brown, who actually no longer needs a review for any book and sells on name-recognition, alone, then why on earth would AdC demand payment from new authors from small houses who can barely afford paper, much less advertising? If altruism is your strong-suit, as you’ve suggested, Louise, why are you making back your kindnesses from the hard-working new authors who need a review?
I haven’t seen a thing anywhere that says reviews completed must be done within a certain time frame. Doesn’t it seem reasonable that AdC might want to consider offering free reviews for anyone willing to wait? Without offering that option, this seems like a money-grab to me.
As to Mr. Braguine . . . Sir, you might want to consider that dozens of potential readers see these posts and make judgements about the people who write them. At this point, I wouldn’t pick up your book if it was free.
Loise Snead wrote, concerning Lee Goldberg:
Lee, I’d be asking my publisher about this. If your house is gossiping about you with Ms Snead. . . not good!
Don’t worry, my relationship with my publisher is as strong, healthy and supportive as ever. They’re terrific. I have two more books in the pipeline (MR. MONK IS MISERABLE in December, MR. MONK AND THE DIRTY COP in July 2009) and I’ve just accepted a three-book contract from them for more MONK novels that will continue our relationship well into 2010. Contrary to Louise’s comments, my criticism of Affair De Coeur’s unethical editorial practices has had no impact whatsoever in my life, professionally or otherwise.
(I do find it amusing, however, to see Louise accusing me of violating an “edict of journalism” considering that she unapologetically runs articles about books published by her advertising director, requires that some publishers buy ads in exchange for reviews, and doesn’t want to know about any potential conflicts-of-interest among her reviewers).
Well, I echo Unrequited Writer. It seems to me that for the most part, AdC could put a stop to all this if it offered free reviews, period, unless a house or an author demands immediate service. Then the cost for the review could be justified as ‘expedited service’. I just don’t get the nexus between paying for advertising in order to be reviewed later than the time period specified by the magazine’s policy. Unless a house or an author DEMANDS speedy service, there should be no monetary onus on AdC in the completion of a review. Clearly a shell game and totally unnecessary.
It is good to know that AdC reviewers are unaware of who has paid for what; but I have to wade in with Lee, AdC’s review policy is a problem.
It astounds me how Goldberg continues to draw attention to himself and continues to get people to respond to him when he clearly has no clue as to what he is talking about either with the Light Sword issue or much more importantly the Affaire de Coeur issue.
He has clearly not had any first hand information, nor has he ever seen a magazine. He clearly considers the idea of a magazine selling advertisements some sort of ethics issue. My question would be to him as follows: Do you think that the layout people, printers and such provide any magazine for free just for the pleasure of people? Is it possible that such things as postage, paper, layout, printing and such has to be paid for in some fashion?
Reviews in AdC are now, have always been and will continue to be given without cost to the author or publisher. All they have to do is work within the very reasonable time constraints to get the magazine out on time to be of benefit to all of the authors, reviewers, advertisers and writers involved. This has been stated way too many times, but as in all things in these sorts of discussions, those who don’t follow guidelines and expect special treatment, hear what they want to hear instead of what it really said.
Mr. Goldberg is clearly an ameteur with a serious love of listening to himself talk and it matters not at all whether he makes sense, insults people, commits slander or just makes himself look sad and unreasonable. He just likes to hear himself talk.
As for me, I will gladly answer anyone truthfully regarding my actions. I have done nothing wrong. I answered Goldberg once on another blog, and since I refused to commit to an ongoing, repetitive, bottomless pit of Goldberg BS, he continues to listen to himself incoherently yammer on. Good for him. What I will not do is engage in an ongoing dialogue regarding something that is quite frankly none of anyone’s business. The people I have worked with and currently work with know my character and what I am made of, self serving blow-hards such as Goldberg just don’t interest me.
Hello, Ms Kirby and thanks for offering to answer some questions. I have been following the posts online on these issues and have a handful of questions that might clear things up a bit.
1. It is my understanding that you are no longer associated with Light Sword Press. Were you still associated with them when AdC featured Light Sword authors and apparently the CEO of the company?
2. Since your disassociation with Light Sword Press (if that is the case), how many of Light Sword’s books have been reviewed by AdC and have any of their staff been featured in articles or interviews?
3. Your comments seem to suggest that AdC charges fees to authors and publishers who are late requesting reviews, punitively. Please explain AdC’s rationale for their fee schedule and please explain why AdC forces everyone submitting late to purchase an ad in exchange for a review. I’m really not prying, here. I just do not understand why it costs AdC more to do a late review when no burden is placed on the magazine by those requesting the review.
As I said before, thanks for offering to answer questions.
Bonny,
Selling ads is not unethical. It’s how a magazine makes money. No one questions that.
Selling ads in exchange for reviews, however, is unethical under any circumstance.
I notice you still don’t address the blatant conflict-of-interest regarding ADC’s coverage of Light Sword, a company that you co-owned at the same time that the magazine, where you work as advertising director, was running positive articles, reviews and interviews about their books.
You honestly don’t see the ethical problem with not that?
You say these ethical breaches are nobody’s business. I disagree. It’s the business of your readers. You have a responsibility to them. They need to know when there is a potential bias and undisclosed conflict-of-interest in the articles and reviews that you publish.
Lee
“Mr. Goldberg is clearly an ameteur with a serious love of listening to himself talk and it matters not at all whether he makes sense, insults people, commits slander or just makes himself look sad and unreasonable. He just likes to hear himself talk.”
He’s not an ameteur(correct spelling is amateur, btw). I’m surprised you think this.
His ethics are commendable. My impression is he’s interested in looking out for the readers as well as writers who are being harmed by bad practices.
I’ve seen him present facts, not slander.
“What I will not do is engage in an ongoing dialogue regarding something that is quite frankly none of anyone’s business.”
Oh, but this does matter to anyone who buys books–or writes them.
Dae
I don’t understand either. Bonny, care to answer any time soon?
I will give direct answers to all of these questions, this one time only.
In response to PenWriter:
1. I was never, nor did I ever want to carry the title of CEO of LSP. I owned substantial interest in it and in fact still do but only on paper until I can get the proper releases through the court system. Linda Daly understands that when I accomplish this that I am coming after my money so she wants to block me on that front. I will get released, I have no desire to affiliate myself with Linda Daly. I have done nothing wrong, nor will I continue ownership of a company where a partner clearly gets worse ethically.
When Light Sword received coverage from and reviews from AdC, I removed myself from the entire process both at LSP and AdC. Louise Snead would not have allowed me to be involved if I had wanted to be, she is a very straightforward and ethical person, as am I. LSP purchased advertising and received the same courtesies regarding articles and such that anyone receives, no more, no less. The reviews were done by staff reviewers and I had nothing to do with them.
The reason LSP has not recently had books reviewed is because they have not sent them in, early, late or otherwise. I have no idea what is currently going on in the day to day world of LSP, nor do I have any desire to. I want my name off of everything and my money returned.
Question number 2 was answered in the previous one with one exception. ANY author under ANY publisher can submit to write an article with AdC. Only one of the LSP authors has done that, she was approved but the article has never been received. AdC will not chase her down for it, there are many authors who want to be featured and do their part to make it happen.
3. Assume you are a subscriber to any magazine. When someone does not follow the guidelines by their own fault or circumstances it can and does require special handling to get their review in the appropriate magazine. The reason that reviews are not done after the release of the book is obvious even to a lay person.
Taking that into account, when a galley is prepared at the publisher, it then has to be sent to the office at the magazine, where it is then logged, assigned and AdC assumes the costs of sending them to a reviewer. They then read and review the book and it is then put into the appropriate place to be laid out in the magazine. All of this takes time and money if it is on time. Assume that the galley hits the office after the deadline and the author really wants it in the magazine. That happens more often than you can imagine. Who then should assume the costs of overnighting books to reviewers? What motivates a reviewer to set aside a particular time in exclusion of all else to get this done? How does the layout guy continue his job without materials in place on time? How can it get to the printer and back in order to reach the subscriber on time?
This is the response to the individual author who thinks it is all about their one book when the big picture is really of more importance. The only solutions are:
a. Make the author pay a flat fee for the inconvenience and hold up for which they only get a review.
b. Refuse to take anything late, no matter what.
c. Give the author the choice of buying an ad which will cover the costs of the lateness and still allow them to get something out of it.
There is your “rationale” for fee schedules. AdC is a business, that is it. Do you ask the grocer to rationalize charging for groceries? This has gone way out of bounds and needs to go into perspective.
When they are received on time, there are no costs to the author and/or publisher.
Response to Lee Goldberg:
I answered all of that, twice now. Perhaps Mr. Goldberg should read the responses instead of listening to himself talk about companies and situations he has no firsthand knowledge about.
Mr. Goldberg has attacked me and never once spoken to me about any of this. I will and have answered any questions truthfully and clearly. There is such a thing as someone who stirs unnecessary controversy for their own benefit and that is what I see here. If I am wrong, show me.
I am not an unethical person and I have not and will not participate in unethical practices, that is why LSP and I have separated. In the manner in which Goldberg has approached this, he has given half information, untrue information and assumptions based on his own opinions. I am not hard to get ahold of, he has not even tried. It wouldn’t suit his purposes to deal in truth, based upon his approach this far. If I am wrong, he can certainly look at that and adjust his dealings accordingly.
When he stated he had not even seen a copy of AdC magazine, a FREE download of the magazine was offered to him which he did not take advantage of. This would have required a few minutes which would have helped him get his facts straight. As I stated before, it does not suit his PERSONAL hate monging, half truths and garbage to educate himself on a subject that he has decided he is an expert on. Had he downloaded the magazine or gotten a copy, he would have then been able to speak somewhat intelligently and truthfully. The problem is at this point, he would have to backtrack on much of what he has said and people who take the road he has seldom if ever correct themselves when it comes to the truth.
Response to DaedalDoll:
I clearly responded to this when I responded to Goldberg himself. How do you know he is presenting facts? Where did the information come from? What is his point?
If you believe he is somehow protecting the writing and reading public, then part of that should be dealing in the truth, not assumptions and the garbage he has thrown about without any kind of verification or comments from the parties involved. Back in the beginning of this, he stated that “journalistic integrity” was important to him. The way I was taught is by verifying, receiving comments or at least asking for comments and if you don’t get them, you state that the party would not comment. You wouldn’t slam a magazine you have never seen, nor would you turn down a free chance to see that magazine.
I do agree that an unethical publishing company should be cited and publicized to writers. That is why I am no longer with LSP and I will state clearly, based upon first hand knowledge and FACT that authors should steer clear of this company. I will also say that several LSP authors have approached me recently to assist them in finding a new publisher, I have refused for obvious reasons. I have however, told them to continue in their search and get free as soon as they can. I also told them how to get out of the contracts they signed without going to court.
If you think in any way I have been unclear, you should read it again.
Bonny Kirby
Bonny,
Thank you for addressing some of the issues that I, and other people, have raised regarding ADC’s editorial practices. You wrote:
If that is the case, did ADC print a notice with the reviews, articles and interviews about Light Sword that disclosed that the magazine’s advertising director owned a substantial interest in the publishing company? If not, perhaps you could explain the reasons why.
But those “courtesies,” as detailed in the advertising packages you offer on the ADC site, includes reviews, articles and interviews tied to the advertising. Did LSP receive articles, reviews and interviews as a result of the amount of advertising they purchased…or because of your position with the magazine? If not, perhaps you could explain the disproportionately high amount of editorial space LSP received compared to other publishers (as detailed in the EREC analysis of a recen ADC issue).
And have any Light Sword books ever received a negative review in ADC?
The correct answer is B. There is no excuse for taking payola in return for a review. If you and Louise are as concerned about ethics as you claim to be, that should be obvious to you.
You aren’t a grocery store, or a shoe store, or a car dealership. You aren’t selling individual products. You are a magazine, and that’s a very different enterprise, as you should know.
A magazine has a responsibility to its reader to be free from the perception of bias. That is especially true of a magazine that reviews products which, in your case, are books. Your readers need to know that the opinions expressed by your reviewers aren’t influenced in any way by the authors or publishers of the books they are reviewing. Your readers need to know that no author or publisher received “special treatment.” Obviously, if you require a publisher to pay for an advertisement to “expedite” a review, or in exchange for other kinds of coverage, you are creating a conflict of interest and a perception of bias.
These are basic, ethical rules taught in every high school journalism class in the country. AdC owes it to its readers, reviewers, and authors to conduct itself according to the highest ethical standards to avoid just this kind of controversy.
My advice to you and Louise would be to no longer accept payment, under any circumstances, in exchange for editorial coverage. Or, if you choose to continue this unethical practice, run a disclaimer with each article or review disclosing that it was published as the result of some form of payment. Something like this, perhaps:
Louise should also make sure that none of her employees has a conflict of interest that would raise the question of bias (ie a reviewer who reviews books from her own publisher, the magazine reviewing a book written by another ADC reviewer, running articles about books published by an ADC executive, etc).
And when there is a bias that can’t be avoided, the potential conflict of interest should be fully disclosed to readers. For instance, if there are any reviews or articles from companies in which her employees have a financial interest, it should be disclosed with something like this:
Lee
I disagree. If the author/publisher wants a premium service above and beyond what other authors/publishers get, why should they not have to pay for it? The magazine isn’t a charity. Of the options offered by Ms Kirby, I personally thought they took the best one.
As Ms Kirby already made all her points in a comment on your original post, I’m surprised you’re arguing with her here. Of course, I’m glad you have, since your post comments are heavily moderated, and I doubt any one disagreeing has much of a chance of getting their comment approved.
Mr Goldberg, I’ve very much disliked the personal attacks against you in this post, but I also very much dislike your highhanded and hectoring tone. Your ‘journalistic’ ethics aren’t exactly anything to write home about, since you frequently use your blog for very personal attacks on fellow authors. Your lecturing others in such a manner grates considerably. You have been told repeatedly that the reviewers aren’t paid to review, and they aren’t involved in the business side of this magazine. Your attacks on the reviews and reviewers are grossly unfair.
Wow, this is simple to respond to, much easier than I thought. As I stated before, Mr. Goldberg will not retract, nor apologize for any of his untrue or unsupported comments. His personal attacks will continue simply because people who crave this kind of attention will fight for it and never go back even when wrong.
Journalistic integrity is not an issue I will address with him again. Had he possessed that, he would have at least responded to the part where he did no fact checking or verifying at all. That speaks more to his methods than anything I could say. The offer of a free downloaded magazine is still on the table and still has not been collected.
Payment for services rendered is not “payola”, again you are making yourself look ridiculous.
Ms Sommerville, thank you for your comments. I tend not to go into personal attacks and I did go there in this post. I shouldn’t have. My only excuse and it is an excuse is that I have been under personal attack for three weeks from a man I had never heard of with lies, innuendo and garbage. You can see for yourself the positive solutions were not what he addressed, it was only something he could stake his very shaky opinion on since retracting where he was wrong will not be done.
Mr. Greenberg, if you choose, since this is America and AdC and other magazines like it are private enterprise, you can publish your own magazine. Interestingly enough, you would have learned that in the case of Kirkus Reviews and countless others, the ONLY way to get reviewed is by making payment. Many won’t review small presses at all, others with payment only and only on a limited basis. AdC reviews everything possible without prejudice to any of those facts as well as no prejudice on genre. Taking all of that into account, you own no part of AdC so you have no business attempting to make policy. However, since it is America, you don’t have to read it….wait, you never have. All you have done is attack.
Since you feel you can give me advice unsolicited, let me give you some. Inform yourself with the facts, then speak to me and I will answer, if you choose not to do that, my advice is to shut-up.
That isn’t true. You are perpetuating a falsehood to justify unethical conduct.
You can’t buy a review in Kirkus Reviews. And contrary to your implication, you can’t buy reviews in Publishers Weekly, the Los Angeles Times, The New York Times, or countless other reputable publications. Those publications never, under any circumstances, accept payment for reviews.
You are confusing Kirkus Reviews with Kirkus Discoveries.
Kirkus Reviews is a respected publication and website that does not ask for, or accept, payment for reviews.
Kirkus Discoveries is an entirely separate web site in which ALL the reviews are paid for by authors or publishers. (And, as a result, it is not respected by booksellers, publishers, editors or agents). A simple visit to the Kirkus website would have made that clear. Here’s an excerpt from their main page:
While I think Kirkus is preying on the desperation and gullibility of aspiring authors with their new “service,” they have, at least, made it absolutely clear that the reviews in Kirkus Discoveries are bought. When ADC requires the purchase of advertising for a particular review, they do not disclose that fact in the review.
I hope this clears up any confusion.
Lee
Actually, Ms Kirby, I wasn’t thinking of you at all when I referred to personal attacks, but other people further up the thread such as Alexey Braguine.
When ADC requires the purchase of advertising for a particular review, they do not disclose that fact in the review.
If they give the same review regardless, and the payment is not for the review but the expediting, why should they? The reviewers have repeatedly said - and the evidence would appear to clearly support it - that they don’t alter the stance of a review according to administrative issues. Good reviews are not tied to advertising, period. The speed of a review is. So what?
You know, Mr Goldberg, I feel really sorry for the person who read your authorised Mr Monk fanfiction and gave you a fair and balanced review, only to have their integrity smeared and their hard work wasted. I honestly don’t give a damn about the other issues you’ve brought up, because from the start, you’ve victimised someone completely innocent, and for that reason, nothing else you say carries any weight with me. Since you didn’t fact check before launching your attack, I will give Ms Kirby the benefit of the doubt simply because I prefer the cut of her jib over yours.
Thanks for answering questions, Ms Kirby. Although I still tends to agree with Mr. Goldberg, I appreciate you taking the time to join this exchange.
As I said in an earlier post, I’ve been following this situation pretty closely. To Ms. Kirby, if you can, please clarify the following information off of the Writer Beware website:
Have you, or do you, intend to file an appeal in this matter? From what I’ve been reading, a whole lot of people feel victimized by this Light Sword Press. Are you able to make any comments at this time?
To Ann:
“If they give the same review regardless, and the payment is not for the review but the expediting, why should they?”
Do we know they gave the same review? Ms. Kirby was an active co-owner of LSP. She was also in charge of advertising on AdC at the same time. You don’t find that a conflict of interest that readers should have known about?
Also, I’d like to see those reviews (I looked, but I didn’t find them on the site) because I’ve purchased some of their books. Many of the problems come from poor formatting and lack of professional editing, but some of the writers weren’t skill-ready to be published and weren’t given the opportunity to improve that a pro gives. If I were AdC, I couldn’t in good conscience suggest to readers the products were worth buying.
“The reviewers have repeatedly said - and the evidence would appear to clearly support it - that they don’t alter the stance of a review according to administrative issues.”
Are the reviewers who posted on here the same ones who reviewed Light Sword Publishing’s writers? If so, I’d like to know if they were put off by large spaces between words, inferior graphics, words bleeding into the spine, making them hard to read,