It would be unethical for me to keep the book-purchasing requirement or the discount that goes with it out of my first communication with the author. I don't see a problem with honestly sharing this information. As I explain in detail in the longer response I posted today, I do everything I can to sell books through various channels and with all sorts of marketing efforts. The market is tough today with the top 4 publishers eating up most book sales. Kickstarter and other platforms where authors or contributors push their projects out there are successful today more so than other independent efforts. The titles I publish do sell copies through distributors, so I'm selling to them and to authors. There is no difference between having authors profit from reselling their book, and publishers also making a profit from this exchange (unless you are on some kind of a quest to bankrupt all small publishers). Making a profit is the only way for a publisher to stay in business. If there are clients who want to buy their own books for resale, then it's ethical to meet this demand at a low cost and with a great deal of other added values.
It's not unethical for you to tell people that you expect the writers you publish to buy their own books: but that requirement does make you a vanity publisher, rather than a reputable trade publisher, because you're making money out of the writers you publish rather than out of selling to new readers.
Kirkus is only one of the reviews I posted. How do you know which of their reviews is paid for unless you've used this venue yourself.
Kirkus publishes two distinct categories of reviews. One category is paid for, and is ignored by most people in the book trade; the other category is not paid for, and is used by book shops as a purchasing guide. The paid-for reviews don't have the same clout at all.
Most reviews posted in major publications are paid for - sometimes directly, and at other times via ad purchases.
No, they're really not.