How Harriet Klausner's Amazon reviewing scam works.

Jamesaritchie · Oct 12, 2012

Snuggles said:
I have only received ARC's from Bantam Books and they always have "This copy is for review purposes only. Not to be sold," written all over the first page and sometimes on some pages in between too.

Plus, the cover is always different, usually just the name of the book and author on it.

I've also had the publisher call for some of the older books they sent me back again.

It's a surprise the publishers weren't suspicious of HK.

Snuggles

I've never had a publisher call for any books back, and it wouldn't do any good, anyway. I don't have room for books I'm not going to read again, so older books go straight to Goodwill.

And publishers often send out hundreds of ARCs. There's no way to keep track of them, and really no need to do so.

And it's the fact that ARCs aren't suppose dto be sold, and that relatively few of them are printed compared to the actual released book, that makes many of them so collectible. When something is collectible, money will change hands.

Jess Haines · Oct 12, 2012

benbradley said:
It's illegal to sell BEFORE THE TRADE BOOK IS PUBLISHED, but afterward "First Sale Doctrine" goes in to effect and it's legal to sell. We've had threads on this topic before.

But selling the ARC before publication takes away from a trade sale, and that's why it's illegal.

Any idea where it says this in the CP codes? Curious, because I hear people argue about it over Twitter and elsewhere, but I have yet to see an actual legal code which addresses the issue.

Jamesaritchie said:
There's no way this violates FTC rules, except in spirit, but I do wonder if she's accurately reporting her income to the IRS?

Actually, it does. I'll do some digging to find it for you, but you're required by FTC rules to disclose where you got a product from. The FTC can fine both the reviewer and the company for not disclosing an arrangement where the company compensates the reviewer for a review, positive mention, or sponsored post.

veinglory · Oct 12, 2012

Indeed. I review online for various companies and middlemen and these days they all insist on a disclosure.

IceCreamEmpress · Oct 12, 2012

I don't take physical copies of books for review on the Twitter anymore for this reason (which means less reviewing of small press books that are print-only, but there it is). According to the FTC, an e-galley isn't "compensation" because it presumably can't be resold (and indeed, the NetGalley ones expire after 30 days or something).

The FTC isn't going to go after Harriet, though.

Filigree · Oct 12, 2012

Klausner provides an illusion of objective distance.

Indeed, Amazon and its authors have a vested interest in keeping Klausner and other robo-reviewers around and active. They may not be that ethical, but their reviews at least have less stigma than authors self-rating their work. Or creating sock puppets to hype books with a 4 to 6 million rank and probable sales histories of one or two copies.

I hate to be that cynical, but several months of watching author clubs glad-handing each other to get reciprocal likes, tags, and reviews have left me feeling a bit bruised.

Those 4 and 5-star Klausner reviews, even if they are basically cloned from jacket copy, are strong currency in the struggle to get books noticed. The more notice books gain, the more they sell, and both Amazon and its authors benefit. Much like lobbyists in Washington, no one is going to push to change the system too much.

I think the new Author Rankings are a step in the right direction, because they can highlight an author's full backlist instead of providing an echo chamber for a few bestsellers.

CheshireCat · Oct 12, 2012

I've been complaining about HK's so-called "reviews" for years, but not because I suspected she was selling the ARCs she received (I was fairly certain of that), or even that she "regurgitated" back cover copy rather than bothering to construct an actual review.

What maddens me to this day is the fact that she often posts "reviews" that mix up character names and plot points, sometimes giving away spoilers -- and other times very obviously mixing up actual books.

It's like somebody else is copying down the back cover copy onto index cards, and sometimes she gets them mixed up.

No writer I know takes her seriously, but at the same time she gets her faux reviews out there instantly, so it's usually the first one you get, and never mind how many stars she gives the book; if she screws up the plot you could turn off a reader who otherwise might read your book.

Not that I expect that number to be a large one. Still. These days, every sale counts, and it irks me to have her carelessness cost me a potential reader.

benbradley · Oct 12, 2012

Jess Haines said:
Any idea where it says this in the CP codes? Curious, because I hear people argue about it over Twitter and elsewhere, but I have yet to see an actual legal code which addresses the issue.

The what codes?

I recall hearing of some court ruling years or maybe decades ago - a publisher sued someone for selling ARCs. The ruling was that they were legal to sell AFTER the book was first published, based on First Sale Doctrine.

Here's something:
http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm01854.htm
The third paragraph says:

Further, the privileges created by the first sale principle do not "extend to any person who has acquired possession of the copy or phonorecord from the copyright owner, by rental, lease, loan, or otherwise, without acquiring ownership of it."

The publisher did not SELL the ARCs to the reviewers, but is claiming to have loaned them, thus (the argument goes) it did not transfer a licensed copy - it only "licensed" ARCs for reading, and the publisher retains (or at least claims to retain) ownership. Thus it's technically illegal to give away an ARC.

It has certainly been a legal question, though this second link seems to say (for CDs) it is NOT illegal, but doesn't seem to address selling the item BEFORE the publication:
http://www.linkedin.com/answers/law-legal/corporate-law/contracts/LAW_COR_CON/153893-3412433
https://www.eff.org/press/archives/2011/01/04-0

Rhymes with Clue · Oct 12, 2012

I don't think you can actually call this a scam, although it's...something.

HK's review (posted on a listserv and on amazon) was the very first review I got after the book came out (I had a PW review a couple of months before), and my editor actually sent it to me. Of course it was a wonderful review and I very nearly framed it, until I realized she thought EVERY book was just the best book ever written. (And she got the character's name wrong, and wasn't exactly on-topic with the plot--but hey, five stars!)

The sad thing is that a lot of publishers actually quoted her reviews on the back covers of the next book, or they used to. This is kind of like saying, "No one else even gave this book a good review."

This was ten or so years ago. I assume the publishers are onto her now, but maybe not--she's still giving good reviews, so they must still be sending her review copies.

I never heard it was illegal to sell the review copy, though. I also think a disclaimer saying "I got this book for free" is a relatively new thing, because everybody knows that a written review in, say, your local newspaper is from a book provided free by the publisher.

BethS · Oct 13, 2012

Rhymes with Clue said:
everybody knows that a written review in, say, your local newspaper is from a book provided free by the publisher.

Actually, I don't think everybody knows. I suspect a lot of people, if they even bother to think about it, assume the reviewer bought the book like everyone else.

Stacia Kane · Oct 13, 2012

CheshireCat said:
What maddens me to this day is the fact that she often posts "reviews" that mix up character names and plot points, sometimes giving away spoilers -- and other times very obviously mixing up actual books.

It's like somebody else is copying down the back cover copy onto index cards, and sometimes she gets them mixed up.

No writer I know takes her seriously, but at the same time she gets her faux reviews out there instantly, so it's usually the first one you get, and never mind how many stars she gives the book; if she screws up the plot you could turn off a reader who otherwise might read your book.

Not that I expect that number to be a large one. Still. These days, every sale counts, and it irks me to have her carelessness cost me a potential reader.

Yes, one of her reviews for one of my books was barely even in English, and had nothing to do with the actual plot (except for the spoiler she managed to include).

Kindness · Oct 13, 2012

Meh. Can't say this bothers me very much. It's really just a minor annoyance for readers, publishers and authors, as far as this kind of thing goes (seeing as she's only ever sold 1 of each ARC. People seem to skip her reviews anyway, and that's not anything new, considering how common unhelpful reviews are either way) and it's easily solved.

I hope she doesn't get in too much trouble. I'd rather publishers were alerted so they can warn her to straighten up and/or stop sending her ARCs than this get dragged out into something huge. We don't know her situation...

I'm not condoning what she does (did?) but I don't exactly think it's horrifying either.

jaksen · Oct 13, 2012

Just want to point out that for some people, 20K isn't much. It's pocket change. (So it is for my older sister, but not my younger.)

20K for some people is paying the mortgage - or not. Owning a second car - or not. Paying off part of a college tuition - or other large bill.

For me it's about five years of property taxes, so yeah, it would be an important chunk of change.

jjdebenedictis · Oct 13, 2012

jaksen said:
20K for some people is paying the mortgage - or not. Owning a second car - or not. Paying off part of a college tuition - or other large bill.

For me it's about five years of property taxes, so yeah, it would be an important chunk of change.

Yeah, this occurred to me too. We don't know why she does this. If she is mobility impaired or has sketchy health, it might be very hard for her to hold down another job. $20,000 a year might be a reasonable living, and she can do it from home on her own time.

That said, I think it's fraud and I think every publisher should henceforth stop sending her any books. I don't necessarily think she should go to jail or be fined, however. Just shut it all down, now that it has come to light.

IceCreamEmpress · Oct 13, 2012

jaksen said:
Just want to point out that for some people, 20K isn't much.

Over ten years, though, not all at once. $2,000 a year can definitely make a difference in most people's lives, but it's not enough for Harriet to be living high off the hog on her (creepy and inappropriate) proceeds.

But I definitely think it's about the attention for her, not about the extra $2,000 a year. IIRC she lives a comfortable middle-class life in the suburbs because her spouse has a well-paying job.

(I'm kind of amused that I [and seemingly a lot of other folks here] think it's kind of embarrassing that she'd sell out for so little. I would want to make Kardashian-style bucks if I was going to throw ethics to the winds myself! But sadly, book reviewing isn't a hot reality show topic...)

meowzbark · Oct 13, 2012

jjdebenedictis said:
Yeah, this occurred to me too. We don't know why she does this. If she is mobility impaired or has sketchy health, it might be very hard for her to hold down another job. $20,000 a year might be a reasonable living, and she can do it from home on her own time.

That said, I think it's fraud and I think every publisher should henceforth stop sending her any books. I don't necessarily think she should go to jail or be fined, however. Just shut it all down, now that it has come to light.

If I could make 20k working at home, I would. She could be a stay at home mother like me.

aruna · Oct 13, 2012

jjdebenedictis said:
28000 / 10years * ~$7 per book = $19,600 per 10years = $1960 per year.

?

jaksen said:
My math comes out closer to 20K a year, or $19,600.

Disclaimer: I wasn't a math teacher, only science.

IceCreamEmpress said:
Over ten years, though, not all at once. $2,000 a year can definitely make a difference in most people's lives, but it's not enough for Harriet to be living high off the hog on her (creepy and inappropriate) proceeds.

But I definitely think it's about the attention for her, not about the extra $2,000 a year.

No, it's approx. 20 k per year. See above!

Bogna · Oct 14, 2012

IceCreamEmpress said:
The FTC isn't going to go after Harriet, though.

I wouldn't be surprised if they do. She's pretty well known and someone is bound to report her or the publishers.

leahzero · Oct 14, 2012

She's not just profiting off selling the ARCs--people are alleging that she's paid by review sites, too.

https://twitter.com/inkognitoh/status/257475829691473920

It's possible she's making much more money off this than $20k/year.

BenPanced · Oct 14, 2012

IceCreamEmpress said:
The FTC isn't going to go after Harriet, though.

Bogna said:
I wouldn't be surprised if they do. She's pretty well known and someone is bound to report her or the publishers.

$20,000 a year is squat compared to what the FTC is normally used to going after. If she'd managed to come up with a $2,000,000 a year empire, yeah, they'd be knocking on her door by now. It's like when the RIAA were going after people for downloading music files from sharing sites like Limewire. Somebody who downloaded two or three files didn't have a thing to worry about compared to the ones who'd downloaded 200,000.

Alessandra Kelley · Oct 14, 2012

BenPanced said:
$20,000 a year is squat compared to what the FTC is normally used to going after. If she'd managed to come up with a $2,000,000 a year empire, yeah, they'd be knocking on her door by now. It's like when the RIAA were going after people for downloading music files from sharing sites like Limewire. Somebody who downloaded two or three files didn't have a thing to worry about compared to the ones who'd downloaded 200,000.

So ... is this the sweet spot, where one is making enough money off a scam to seriously improve one's life, but not so much as to trigger legal action?

Because that seems really revolting, somehow.

Torgo · Oct 14, 2012

Alessandra Kelley said:
So ... is this the sweet spot, where one is making enough money off a scam to seriously improve one's life, but not so much as to trigger legal action?

Because that seems really revolting, somehow.

Apropos of this, the guys who tampered with an ATM and got my card and PIN off it last month got themselves about £1,000, and the bank doesn't actually bother passing the case along to the police. So if that's your grift, it's very sweet, because nobody will come after you.

G. Applejack · Oct 14, 2012

Alessandra Kelley said:
So ... is this the sweet spot, where one is making enough money off a scam to seriously improve one's life, but not so much as to trigger legal action?

Because that seems really revolting, somehow.

Yup. That's why I'm sure to only shoplift items totaling under $25 from Wal-Mart.

:sarcasm

BenPanced · Oct 14, 2012

BenPanced said:
$20,000 a year is squat compared to what the FTC is normally used to going after. If she'd managed to come up with a $2,000,000 a year empire, yeah, they'd be knocking on her door by now. It's like when the RIAA were going after people for downloading music files from sharing sites like Limewire. Somebody who downloaded two or three files didn't have a thing to worry about compared to the ones who'd downloaded 200,000.

Alessandra Kelley said:
So ... is this the sweet spot, where one is making enough money off a scam to seriously improve one's life, but not so much as to trigger legal action?

Because that seems really revolting, somehow.

I don't know, really. I'm just speculating that depending on the depth/scope of this, the FTC must just figure it's really not worth the time and bother. A lot of times, agencies like this might just decide to shake The Stern Finger of Authority in the offender's face and make them promise it'll never happen again.

strictlytopsecret · Oct 15, 2012

My suspicion is that the publishers would stop sending her ARCs if they were unhappy with the "product" she's offering (i.e., 4.5-5 star Amazon reviews consisting of regurgitated back cover blurbs). It seems unlikely that they are unaware that the ARCs are being sold. What she's offering seems to works for them. At least for now. Why would they file suit in a situation that is working to their (mutual) advantage?

Sadly, what this accomplishes is degrading the public's confidence in book reviews posted on Amazon.com . It probably won't be long before this sort of thing is no longer a benefit to publishers. When we reach that point, that's probably when Klausner's gravy train will come to a grinding halt.

~STS~

willietheshakes · Oct 15, 2012

strictlytopsecret said:
Sadly, what this accomplishes is degrading the public's confidence in book reviews posted on Amazon.com . It probably won't be long before this sort of thing is no longer a benefit to publishers. When we reach that point, that's probably when Klausner's gravy train will come to a grinding halt.

Wait - there was public confidence in the reviews posted on Amazon?

How Harriet Klausner's Amazon reviewing scam works.

Boldly going nowhere in particular.

volitare nequeo

Hapless Virago

Mildly Disturbing

Mostly purring. Mostly.

It's a doggy dog world

Trying to be mysterious

Girl Detective

Back From My Self-Imposed Exile

Caped Codder

is watching you via her avatar

Hapless Virago

On a wing and a prayer

The colors! THE COLORS!

THE BLUEBERRY QUEEN OF HADES (he/him)

Sophipygian

Formerly Phantom of Krankor.

Write faster! FASTER!

THE BLUEBERRY QUEEN OF HADES (he/him)

practical experience, FTW

Gentleman. Scholar. Bastard.