I can see how the tone of my first couple of posts was strident enough to elicit some defensiveness. My apologies if I was too aggressive. And though I know Mr. Oakes is your friend, please don’t confuse the tone of my response to him as being intended for you.

Thanks for the thoughtful exchange…

I never said the system exists to benefit the reviewer. The practice exists because it is mutually beneficial to both publisher/label and critic.

And you can’t dismiss the “semantics” of the debate when you fail to see the difference between a “gift,” a “bribe,” and a “review copy.” The person Johanna took to task OBVIOUSLY did not see it as a gift, and his view is not anomalous, as has been amply demonstrated by both my examples (from lots of experience on both sides of this exchange), and a handful of others in this thread (e.g., Nat Gertler’s post on Feb. 8, 2007). No publisher/label/whatever would ever call this a gift. Take, for example, industries that send out stereos or even cars for review. They ask and expect for those items to be returned. And the professional publications employing the critics also demand them to be returned to protect themselves from being accused of being shills. They don’t give the reviewer a $500 product and say, “hey keep it! And while you’re at it, feel free to sell it to your neighbor and pocket the money.” When it comes to a CD or book, the cost to have it returned might not be feasible to publishers (who already work with sliver-like profit margins), but that isn’t the same as tacit permission to sell it on Amazon.com.

That’s also why an organization like “Consumer Reports” exists. They completely insulate themselves from the ethical dilemma by *purchasing* all items they rate and review.

Despite your insistence, selling of advertising space on a television network is not an equivalent analogy. Publishers aren’t buying advertising when they send review copies. TV networks, to use your frequent example, make a product, and then to make money off of that product, they sell air time to advertisers. Companies know they are buying a slot of time, not a guarantee of increased revenue. The business model for newspapers/blogs/magazines isn’t one that relies on revenue generated from selling discarded review copies on the secondary market. Your analogy is reductivist and simply doesn’t work.

You can try to dismiss this as a semantics debate or “ethical posturing” (which I found personally insulting), but the practice of sending review copies is not the same as bribes, gifts, or “buying air time on ‘Friends.’”

You might also want to read the followup to this post, which addresses some of your complaints, or my much more recent post on the subject in response to reader questions.

If you think that the system exists to benefit the reviewer, I really don;t know what else to say…

As Johanna points out, she did buy her own books, and still does. And it was only after she had built a reliable audience that was interested in what she had to say that people gave her freebies, *in an attempt to co-opt that audience to their product*. All semantics and ethical posturing aside, it is no different than buying ad time during “Friends”.

Except that NBC is allowed to take the money. And reviewers are expected to “remain pure”, I guess, so as not to taint the sacred Creator/Critic bond with the taint of Capitalism. As bad as it is for Publishers to split hairs bewteen Advertising and Marketing, Critics would be delusional to think that they are somehow apart from the Marketing of the product as well.

The “ethics” here seem to boil down to the reviwer getting something for nothing, making money off of a gift. But the Publisher is asking for free advertising. (And no, no matter how many times you invoke “symbiosis” or “the System”, the Publisher benefits more than the Critic ever could. No one ever became famous as a result of being allowed to review “Batman”.) And when the Publisher starts taking the Critic for granted, then yes, I think Johanna has a legitimate gripe.

That’s a good question, and I thank you for not reflexively being combative in your response.

I think giving review copies away to a library is a common and acceptable way of disposing of the material. First, any revenue from the sale of the book goes to the public good. Second, anybody who picks up a graphic novel at a library sale for $3 probably was never going to buy the book under most other circumstances. Other options would be to give stuff to a local school or maybe even a battered women’s shelter. Hell, giving the stuff away to friends would be less questionable than selling it on Amazon and pocketing the money yourself.

Ultimately, in the grand scheme of ethical dilemmas, I don’t want to pretend you’ve committed some mortal sin. But you did publicly take somebody to task when you yourself weren’t on very defensible ground…I also want to say that, as a reviewer myself at various times in my life, I understand the temptation, even the need sometimes, to find ways to increase our compensation. Writers/reviewers generally make squat. And that sucks.

And you’re assuming too much. Even with all the stuff I’m sent, I still spend more of my own money on buying comics than the value of what I’m given. So your snide comment about fewer reviews > lower audience isn’t true either. (Especially considering that non-review posts, like this one, get more response and more traffic.) I reviewed for years before I got on any comp lists, and if everyone stopped sending books tomorrow, I’d keep doing it.

Are you going to answer my question about what I should do with these books to meet your standards of ethical behavior? I am still curious.

“The book/CD/whatever was sent as a bribe…”

No, David, review copies are not bribes. A bribe would be if they slipped a fifty dollar bill into the review copy. I think the missive Johanna quotes in her post makes it very clear that when review copies are sent out, they are not intended to be traded in for cash by the reviewer. If Johanna didn’t like the “guilt trip,” she shouldn’t have crossed that ethical line. No publisher/label ever includes a little note with the review copy saying, “Hey, please feel free to dump this on Amazon and undermine my potential sales.”

“If the Critic didn’t already have a ready made audience for them to present to, they would be of no value to the Publisher.”

No critic is born with a ready made audience. If Johanna was forced to only review the books she had to go out and spend her own money on, then I’m venturing that she’d review a lot fewer books, and thus have a lot less interesting blog (and thus a smaller audience).

“And any Critic that thought they needed a Publisher would be too biased to be of any value.”

It’s not that they need or are beholden to a particular publisher, it’s that they need or rely on a *system* in which publishers furnish — gratis — products for review (see my response to the above point).

“…They are no different from a sample given to a shop owner in an attempt to get them to buy, or a sweepstakes prize given out to promote public awareness….don’t complain about what happens to your product once you give it away.”

They aren’t “giving the product away” to potential customers when they send out review copies, they are furnishing critics with a copy of their product for review consideration. That is a difference that seems lost on you, so I really don’t know what else to say…

If the Critic didn’t already have a ready made audience for them to present to, they would be of no value to the Publisher. (Except perhaps as a singular focus group.) You talk about a symbiosis, but in the end no Publisher as ever made a Critic. And any Critic that thought they needed a Publisher would be too biased to be of any value.

They may come from a different line item in the budget, but they *are* advertising. They are no different from a sample given to a shop owner in an attempt to get them to buy, or a sweepstakes prize given out to promote public awareness. If these efforts don’t generate future sales, then don’t repeat them. But don’t complain about what happens to your product once you give it away.

After visiting Forbidden Planet, I actually spent three hours browsing in the Strand last Saturday afternoon and didn’t come across a single advance review copy. But that’s neither here nor there — I’m well aware that review copies get sold on the secondary market all of the time. That doesn’t make it “accepted practice,” but rather indicates that many reviewers have no compunction about rationalizing the choice to sell this material provided to them for review consideration. I’m sure no publisher/label would find it “acceptable.” The book/CD/whatever wasn’t sent to you as a “gift,” and for a writer to think otherwise suggests an unwarranted sense of entitlement.

I said the same thing in the original post, over a year ago. If the thought concerns those who submit review copies to me, they’re welcome to send galleys or mark books Not for Resale.

But if you think it’s not an accepted practice, you’ve never seen how many ARCs are in stock at the Strand (a big NYC used book store).

“But in the end I think the point is completely moot. You only send out review copies in an attempt to get your name heard. It is part of your advertising budget, period. You send it out, you hope for the best, and you get what you get. (And if you don;t like what you got, you don;t have to do it next time.) Asking for anything more is like demanding that CBS refund the cost of your Super Bowl ad because you didn’t see an increase in sales for February.”

You are mistaken, David. Review copies are not “comps” and they don’t get budgeted under advertising, but rather marketing (of which advertising is a subset). There are distinct ethical rules for the use of review copies. This is a symbiotic relationship between publisher and reviewer, and both get something out of the relationship (publsher/label gets new potential customers, blogger/writer/newspaper gets readers and thus revenue). Part of the bargain is not, and never has been, supplemental income for writers in the form of selling review copies.

Ms. Carlson can do what she wants; she’s an adult and has to live with her own choices. But she can’t pretend that this is either accepted practice or ethically defensible.

[...] ever made. Remember last year when we had lots of discussion about whether or not I should sell review copies? One of the two books that emailing creator was understandably upset about has been listed since [...]

[...] copy, it’s theirs to do with as they like.  The real interesting part for me is back in the original post the guy says: I know you’ve never been a fan of my work…but despite that…I took my marketing [...]

[...] blog seems to the center of a lot of controversial subjects lately. Her first post in response to having too many free comics to review led to a response from NeilAlien in the comments. Then Johanna pulls the blog equivalent of [...]

1) The paper needs to impresion of impartiality. If the reviewer is making money “on the side”, they lose that appearance. (Same reason food critics can’t announce who they are in a restaurant.)

2) The objects for review were sent to the reviewer because they work for the paper, or sent to the paper itself. Hence they are the property of the paper. The paper already gives the reviewer just compensation for their work, and they are not entitled to more. (As on the recent “Dirt”, such objects – and even more direct bribes – are often given away as incentives to employees. Not that companies don’t get pissy about that, too, as witnessed by “Comp-gate” at DC.)

Since most blog reviewers are self-employed (at best), both of these are impossible. Any “gift” will be of greatly more value than any money they are making for the review, calling it into question. Even if they throw the items out afterwards, it’s still more money than it costs them to maintain their site. And since they are both reviewer and publisher, there can be no “firewall” bewteen their commerce and their credibility.

But in the end I think the point is completely moot. You only send out review copies in an attempt to get your name heard. It is part of your advertising budget, period. You send it out, you hope for the best, and you get what you get. (And if you don;t like what you got, you don;t have to do it next time.) Asking for anything more is like demanding that CBS refund the cost of your Super Bowl ad because you didn’t see an increase in sales for February.

[...] In a comment on my post on review copies, Neilalien provides a counter-opinion: I think that you do sound a bit ungrateful here at times, [...]