I've noticed a couple of discussions on AW lately about paid-for reviews, and I think it's a subject worth investigating more fully. I know it's been thrashed out before, here, for example, and here; but we seem to have only talked about it in relation to specific publications, or specific services, and if possible I'd like to avoid such specifics and instead consider if paying for reviews can ever be a good idea, and if so, under what circumstances.
As I see it, paid-for reviews are not impartial, and so can't be trusted to be a fair analysis of the books under discussion. If you pay for a review, the person who reviews your book has a vested interest in pleasing you, and what better way to please you than to write a glowing review of your book?
Looking at the transaction from the other side: when you buy something, you have certain expectations and rights--you don't just ask a shop for a pair of trousers and happily take home whatever style, colour and size the shop wants to give you. Not only would this be unreasonable, you have legal protection to prevent that happening; so if you buy a review, it could be argued that it should be the sort of review you want.
However.
The number of established venues which review books for free is decreasing, while the number which offer paid-for reviews seems to be increasing, and writers are buying those reviews.
Reviewers do have to earn a living; it costs money to run any sort of publication, even if it's a blog which is ostensibly run for free. I know how much work reviewing is (check out the link in my signature). I have more review requests than I can cope with, and I'd be able to review a lot more books if I earned money from doing so which would benefit (I use that word loosely--again, check out my link) more writers in the long run.
Is paying for reviews an effective use of our money? Is it an ethical way to proceed? And would you do it? Discuss.
As I see it, paid-for reviews are not impartial, and so can't be trusted to be a fair analysis of the books under discussion. If you pay for a review, the person who reviews your book has a vested interest in pleasing you, and what better way to please you than to write a glowing review of your book?
Looking at the transaction from the other side: when you buy something, you have certain expectations and rights--you don't just ask a shop for a pair of trousers and happily take home whatever style, colour and size the shop wants to give you. Not only would this be unreasonable, you have legal protection to prevent that happening; so if you buy a review, it could be argued that it should be the sort of review you want.
However.
The number of established venues which review books for free is decreasing, while the number which offer paid-for reviews seems to be increasing, and writers are buying those reviews.
Reviewers do have to earn a living; it costs money to run any sort of publication, even if it's a blog which is ostensibly run for free. I know how much work reviewing is (check out the link in my signature). I have more review requests than I can cope with, and I'd be able to review a lot more books if I earned money from doing so which would benefit (I use that word loosely--again, check out my link) more writers in the long run.
Is paying for reviews an effective use of our money? Is it an ethical way to proceed? And would you do it? Discuss.