Monday News: Comic sales up, new flack over Amazon reviews, a Hugo puppy primer, & the marginalized power of Black Twitter
Publishing NewsAmazon / Black Twitter / Comic books / diversity / Hugo Awards / print sales / Race / reviews / social media / Twitter14 Comments
Comic Book Sales Hit 20-Year High in 2014, Says Report – Good news for Comic-Con this year – Comic book sales in 2014 were at $935 million, seven percent more than in 2013 and the highest since the mid 1990s. $835 million of that was from print sales.
*Digital sales actually experienced a decreased growth rate from 2013 (11 percent to 29 percent), though they did surpass the $100 million milestone.
*The only actual sales decline came in newsstand sales of periodical comics, which fell by $5 million, largely as a result of Marvel pulling out of the market.
Marvel’s Amazing Spider-Man (Vol. 3 No. 1) was the best-selling comic of the year, with The Walking Dead (No. 132) second. For those who like their information in picture form, this infographic provides a neat summary of 2014 sales. –Paste Magazine
Furor over Amazon review policy probably signifies nothing – I’ve been seeing authors complain for a while now about having their reviews removed on the basis of personally knowing the author whose book they’re reviewing. How does Amazon determine this? They’re not saying. But as Tele Read’s Chris Meadows points out, Imy Santiago isn’t saying, either, which makes the complain equally opaque. It seems to me that Amazon is between a rock and a hard place with this. If they do nothing, then purchased reviews will remain on the site, but if they aggressively try to keep the rules in place, they will likely over-reach on occasion. Not sure what the solution is, frankly.
As posted on her blog and recounted in a Gizmodo story, writer and blogger Imy Santiago bought an independent novel, read it, and tried to post a review of it to Amazon. But Amazon rejected her review, and held firm on the rejection through two rounds of appeals. Amazon said that they had looked at Santiago’s account activity and from it determined Santiago actually personally knew the author of the novel she was trying to review. Hence, Amazon rejected the review on the grounds that there could be a conflict of interest. This seems to be part of a new change in the way Amazon is considering its reviews—probably part of the same changes that have also altered the way aggregate review scores are calculated. . . .
You see, Santiago firmly refuses to identify the author or title of the book she was attempting to review—nor has she divulged the nature of their relationship. She simply says that as an independent author herself, she moves in the same circles as a lot of other independent authors—but she has not even hinted at the precise nature of the relationship between her and the unnamed other novel’s author. Are they in fact best buddies? Does Santiago follow her on Twitter and occasionally retweet her posts because they’re funny? Does she not even really know the person but just happened to reply to one of her posts once to answer a question? No way to know, because Santiago’s not saying. –Tele Read
Eight Books You Need To Know About To Understand The Hugo Awards Snafu – If you’re not completely burned out by the Hugo disaster already, or if you’ve been ignoring the whole thing and want a crash course, this isn’t a bad way to study up. And it features actual books!
This year’s Hugo Awards controversy is confusing. There are two kinds of puppies! Are the puppies against diversity, or literary snobbery? And so on. But really, this is all about books, and particularly what kind of books we’re supposed to celebrate. So here are eight books that can help you understand the Hugo mess.–i09
The Power of Black Twitter – A great piece by Stereo Williams on the growing influence of Black Twitter, and the simultaneous appropriation of its voices by white media, without proper attribution or the promotion and elevation of those who are making the actual contributions. April Reign, who created the hashtag #OscarsSoWhite, talks about the marginalization of black voices via the mainstream dominance of white media outlets and voices:
“We’ve really had to create our own spaces all too often—and I think that’s a problem,” Reign explains. While acknowledging that even black online media doesn’t seem to maximize the talented and influential persons who have gained recognition on Twitter, she also believes that white media prefers hearing black stories filtered through the lens of white observers. “I think that they’re still hiring white people to tell our stories and saying, ‘Go out there and live among the natives and come back and tell us what you’ve found,’ instead of hiring the natives,” she says. “There are those who would love to tell the story from a first-person narrative and who have the skills to do so, but our work is being appropriated all too often.”
“How many black people does HuffPost have?” Reign continues. “Are they all centered in HuffPost BlackVoices? Are they recent hires and people you would recognize as someone who’s created something recently? Or are they writers from something else who have been stuck in the ‘black section’ because they’re black?”–The Daily Beast
Re the Amazon reviews thing. A few of us were chatting about this on Twitter yesterday. In the comments the blogger/author has posted the review she wrote but with the name of the book and the author redacted. (Google the quote the review opens with, the book and author name comes up first thing.) IDK for sure but the context seems to indicate they were redacted at the time she posted the comment, as opposed to later. I can’t be sure of that of course. Later in the (long) comment thread, she says she redacted those names at the author’s request because she (the author of the reviewed book) didn’t want to be involved in the issue.
There was mixed opinion in my twitter convo but I thought it was weird there was contact with the author if they didn’t know each other. Either she contacted the author about it. Or the author contacted her about it. It seemed to me that there was an indicator that they *did* know each other, at least a little.
For myself, I found it unbelievable that she would contact the author about it if she didn’t know her at all. It wasn’t a review book so it couldn’t be said there was any kind of obligation (not that I feel there would be one anyway). The blogger/author said she bought the book herself so it didn’t seem to me the issue really had anything to do with the author of the reviewed book, particularly. But then, I was putting myself in the shoes of the blogger and I tend to be reticent about such things at the best of times.
One of the Twitter convo participants suggested maybe there was a Google alert the author had set up and that may have prompted the contact. So maybe it happened that way?
Of course there is a vast divide between “occasionally casually interact with” and “know” or even “is good friends with”.
It seems a bit creepy that Amazon has the time or algorithm to trawl through account information to determine that two account holders know each other personally.
In any event, I’m extra glad I don’t post reviews at Amazon. I already agonise over at what point I need to disclose in a review that I know the author a bit without Amazon chiming in too. LOL
I didn’t realize Imy Santiago was a writer.
I haven’t been able to review any books on Amazon for a long time (years, I believe). I’m completely fine with this because, when they put this unwritten policy in place, many of my troll-like reviews on my own books were removed (the sales killing ‘this isn’t a romance’ reviews when the stories clearly were, etc.)
Many writers in Romanceland DO know each other. I know my regular readers also. And many reviewers. Oh heck, I try to know everyone. Romanceland isn’t that large.
So it sounds like my books, in the future, will have very few reviews.
If you google Imy Santiago and [redacted] author’s name (which you can easily acquire by searching a sentence of the excerpt in Santiago’s comment, as she herself points out so helpfully), the first result is a post on Santiago’s blog titled “Happy Cover Reveal Day, [redacted author]!” They also follow each other on Twitter, Santiago participated in a book release party for the book in question, and the redacted author recommended Santiago and her series on her Facebook page. Since Santiago has an author page at Amazon and her Twitter feed is linked to her blog and FB posts, Amazon wouldn’t have had to do much to see a connection. I have no idea if the authors have a quid pro quo, but Santiago has 5-starred all three of the books in the series at her Goodreads account. as well as her own books.
Re. the comic book resurgence, that’s not surprising given how popular superheroes, zombies, etc., are at the movies and on television these days. It seems like almost every month, a new superhero film is released, and many of them are blockbusters.
@Janine: And comic/graphic novels such as SAGA, MS. MARVEL (or any from Willow Wilson) and THOR all have drawn me into both print and digital editions. So glad to see this news.
@Sunita: Well, that’s interesting.
@Kaetrin: She starts her reviews of authors with whom she has engaged in shared promotion this way: “This is a peer review.” I can’t help but see Inigo Montoya when I read that sentence. “You keep using that word …”
As I expressed in my blog post, I am a published writer AND blogger. In the blogger side of my work, I read and review books. In the case of the author whose book I reviewed, it is not secret I LOVED what I read in this series. I heard about the author in a release day party on Facebook. The book’s blurb intrigued me.
I reached out to the author after reading the first book in the series, and “fan-girled” over the author’s work. I started following them on social media. That does not mean I know the author personally. In a digital era where we have “friends” on social media platforms, it can be easily misconstrued that just because there are social media interactions does not mean two people are “friends in real life,” and if you are focusing your efforts on the validity, or honesty of my reviews, then the premise of my blog post is lost on you.
I reviewed the author’s books just like I do with any other (peruse Goodreads, the you will be able to read ALL of my reviews). I rate them based on how a book makes me feel, if the author’s writing transports me to a different place and time, if the heroes and antagonists, as well as plot line sell me the story as a whole. The author in question met all of my reviewer requirements to EARN a five star rating; not because of an underlining friendship as it has been hinted above.
In regards to writing my own reviews, let me point out that I do not accept all social media requests. Readers have questions about my work, therefore I compiled about one hundred or so emails about my books, and addressed each one on a public forum (Goodreads). If you’ve read the reviews I wrote for both of my books, you will clearly see that.
As soon as the author saw my post on Twitter (my website automatically tweets any blog postings there), the author messaged me, and asked me to keep their name private, as they are legitimately concerned that Amazon could revoke their ability to publish in the future. As you can see, that is how the author in question came to know about my blog post: Twitter.
Also, as a blogger, it is my volunteered duty to participate in cover reveals, release day blitzes, blog tours, release day parties because that’s what bloggers do. Just because I’m also a writer doesn’t mean I can’t wear two hats, and much less diminishes my right to review books I legitimately purchased.
The point of my blog post was to make a call to action, to raise awareness that Amazon is data mining our accounts via the use of social media interactions, and that is a valid concern. Whether or not the review is posted is irrelevant. What matters most is Amazon’s failure to be transparent when it comes to determining whether or not a person knows an author personally, because guess what? I don’t know the author whose book I reviewed personally, and their failure to address my concern is wrong.
@Imy Santiago:
You also participate in release-day parties on Facebook with this author and with other authors whose books you review. You do not disentangle your author persona from your blogger-reviewer persona, and you do not disclose your author-circle connections.
The internet is real life. Real life is no longer limited to face-to-face interactions (if it ever was). People can be friends with those they’ve only had online interactions with, and obviously we have plenty of face-to-face interactions with people we’re not friends with. “Personally” does not mean face-to-face only.
The premise of your post is not lost on me. But it’s not the only thing your post communicates, and I’ve chosen to address both the premise and the other aspects.
I’ve read the two 5-star reviews you’ve written of your own books. Nowhere in those reviews are there links to these hundred emails, or any information other than your own reasons why people should read your book. To the contrary, you say “It would sound a bit unusual for me to write a review on my own novel, but the truth is, as a writer, you have to pride yourself in your work because if you don’t believe in it, who will, right?” That has nothing to do with readers or their emails.
Yes, but the author already knew about you from your cover reveal of her book and the joint FB release party (at a minimum; that’s just what I found in a quick search). So you had a pre-existing set of communications.
I’m a blogger. I review books. I don’t participate in any of those things. It’s a choice, not a duty. Unless you’re in a quid quo pro relationship, in which case it could reasonably be described as a duty.
Are you unaware that your Twitter account is displayed on your Amazon author page? Amazon doesn’t have to go outside its own site to see the connection. You brought the information to Amazon.
And of course Amazon is data-mining whatever personal information you bring to them. That’s what they do. That’s what Facebook does. And Google. And Instagram. And pretty much every other site you can think of.
You define “personally” differently than Amazon does (and differently than a lot of people who study online social interaction, for that matter). Amazon has made it clear since at least mid-2012 that it will not look kindly on reviews posted by family, friends, or people who have material connections to the author of the reviewed book. Your profile and activity provide evidence to suggest that you are in author circles with the author of the book you reviewed. They have considered that a material connection in many cases. They’ve deleted those reviews in the past and they’ll undoubtedly delete them in the future. This is not about Amazon wandering the internet to find connections between books and reviewers. This is Amazon applying its own rules to its own site.
@Imy Santiago I agree with what Sunita said entirely but wanted to add my two cents as well re the following:
You said in your comment:
The author’s name and the name of the book did not appear in that blog post. How did the author know it was about *her* book?
You also said:
The point of your post was not lost on me at all. What stood out to me however is that clearly you do know the author, at least on some level, and you were vague about the extent of that relationship. Ultimately, in any text, the reader decides on interpretation, not the author. Regardless, I chose to respond to what interested me most about your post, which is what I do about anything I comment on really.
Further, my comments weren’t really about the validity or honesty of your review. I was querying your denial of having a “knowing the author personally”, because I found that difficult to reconcile with the information in your own post and you comments to that post. Further information only makes me question that aspect more, frankly. Maybe that’s none of my business, but you opened the door to those queries with your post. You wanted me to be outraged that Amazon had treated you unfairly. My first response is to ask “well, was it unfair?” I’m still caught up on that question actually.
I have no problem believing that your review was genuine. But if Amazon choose not to post reviews by authors of books in their same (sub)genre, that’s their right to do so. Whatever they base it on. Clearly you do have some kind of relationship with this author. And, you and she are both authors in the same genre. That last is enough to make Amazon query whether the review is genuine. Their policy is clearly to err on the side of caution.
You said in a comment you made on your blog post that maybe Amazon would have posted it if the review been negative but I think the same thing would have occurred. As many people post fake negative reviews as post fake positive reviews. In trying to weed out the fakers, inevitably some of the genuine reviewers will be included in the sweep. I’m sorry if that was you but you haven’t been censored. You are free to post the review, just not at Amazon.
You said:
I’m a blogger and I don’t do any of those things (except for very very rare occasions when I want to, but never out of obligation/duty). People blog in different ways and I don’t see there being any kind of duty, volunteered or otherwise, to participate in author promo.
@Kaetrin:
“You said in a comment you made on your blog post that maybe Amazon would have posted it if the review been negative but I think the same thing would have occurred. As many people post fake negative reviews as post fake positive reviews.”
YES. This is exactly why I was thrilled this ‘rule’ was created in the first place.
I had one troll (a competing writer) who would post a 1 star review as soon as one of my erotic romances released with the review “This is NOT A ROMANCE NOVEL.”
As you can imagine, this killed my sales.
When Amazon created the ‘writers can’t write reviews’ rule, all of these reviews magically disappeared.
This rules has made Romanceland a much more pleasant place. I support it completely.
@Cynthia Sax: It so often happens that a small minority ruin things for the majority but I completely understand why Amazon went that way. Authors can still review of course – I’m all for authors reviewing. Just not on Amazon, which is their right as it’s their site to do with what they will.
@Kaetrin: Amazon seems to be doing away with their top ranked lists (replacing it with Most Wished For) and I’m very happy about that also.
That list was useless for me as a reader (because I don’t trust books with all 5 starred reviews, especially knowing how many writers pay for reviews) and it drove quite a bit of bad author behavior (like going after readers for leaving 1 star reviews).
Most Wished For can (and will) be gamed also but, at least, the gaming authors will be concentrating on their own books and not other authors’ books AND they’ll (hopefully) be kinder to reviewers.
I truly love your dissertations ladies. You can sit there and dissect my blog post, written reviews, replies to comments made on my blog, and even go as far as visiting my author page on Amazon, and guess what? It doesn’t change the outcome.
Why?
In the Romance World, particularly on Facebook, it is a rather small community, and everyone knows everyone. Having said that, while I have participated in Cover Reveals, Release Day Blitzes, Blog Tours, and release day/promotional parties for authors whose work I’ve read and reviewed, it doesn’t mean we know each other on a personal level. Do you want to know why?
It’s called networking. You do it. I do it. We ALL do it.
We foster positive interactions to promote ourselves, and the work of others on social media. We participate in our colleagues’ Facebook parties because we all believe in each other’s work, plus there is always empty time slots that need to be filled. We are not in the business of sink, or swim. We are supportive of fellow indies. That is how the romance world truly is. Yes, there are a few bad apples like in any good family, but for the most part, we Romance Indies stick together, and if we all knew each other personally, hell, that would be an AWESOME Christmas party! But I digress.
That doesn’t mean we grab a drink every weekend, or call each other, and speak of our personal lives with one another. You are desperately trying to make a connection where there is none, just like Amazon is. You can sit there and type your ever eloquent responses, but at the end of the day, you are just as presumptuous as Amazon.
The authors (yes, plural) whose work I’ve read and supported are not part of a review swap, or a quid pro quo relationship. Since you’ve been doing some investigative work of your own, you can plainly see many of the books I’ve reviewed, the authors haven’t reviewed mine, and that’s fine because I read for myself, and review out of enjoyment, not because I’m expecting anything I return… Imagine the likes of the greats taking a moment of their day to read my silly writing! But I digress.
Review swaps are a double-edged sword, and at times, a highly unethical practice. I’ve seen it happen. I don’t agree with them. You can reach out to all those authors whose work I’ve read and reviewed, and none of them will tell you it was part of a review swap, or because we know each other personally. But I digress.
Why do I use “This is a peer review” in my written reviews? Well, I thought I would make it obvious to the reader that a fellow writer is writing a review. Honesty is transparency, right? Is that what we are advocating here?
At the end of the day, I can rest my head on my pillow and sleep well at night knowing I have said the truth. I would have no problem sharing the author’s name, but when the author whose review is in question contacted me, in fear that their publishing future with Amazon could be in jeopardy, I cannot, in good conscience, forego their request. Being vague and hinting that I’m not being truthful are two different things, ladies.
And you firmly believe the Internet is real… Hmmm. Okay.
You can continue with your investigative work in regards to me, and in the end you’ll only exhaust yourself because I stand firm in what I believe in. And 33K people behind me, and a petition with almost 10K signatures on a petition created by a peer whom I’ve never met is a solid indicator that Amazon’s practices are wrong. But wait, you must think the petitioner is also a personal friend of mine…
I’m all about integrity and honesty, but you wouldn’t know that because you don’t know me personally. You don’t know what I believe in because why should you? We aren’t friends, you haven’t spent a minute with me other than here, debating the merits of my integrity by throwing words at me and seeing what sticks.
But wait, didn’t you say internet is real?
I guess our online interaction here has transmutated a casual conversation to a full-blown relationship in which I now know all of you personally. <—Do you see how ridiculous that claim is? And yet you're probably going to sit there and type a rebuttal.
It's cool. Go at it. We will continue to agree to disagree.