Comments on: FTC’s forthcoming blogger crackdown: The ethics of product reviews in blogs http://www.teleread.com/robert-nagle/cracking-down-on-bloggers-the-ethics-of-blog-reviews/ News & views on e-books, libraries, publishing and related topics Wed, 15 Feb 2012 08:05:45 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Gwen Dawson http://www.teleread.com/robert-nagle/cracking-down-on-bloggers-the-ethics-of-blog-reviews/comment-page-1/#comment-1090244 Gwen Dawson Sun, 28 Jun 2009 15:17:07 +0000 http://www.teleread.org/2009/06/27/cracking-down-on-bloggers-the-ethics-of-blog-reviews/#comment-1090244 RJN-- Good point about ebooks. Ebooks have lots of benefits, but I've never considered the additional benefit of keeping recipients of review copies honest. RJN–
Good point about ebooks. Ebooks have lots of benefits, but I’ve never considered the additional benefit of keeping recipients of review copies honest.

]]> By: Mitch Ratcliffe http://www.teleread.com/robert-nagle/cracking-down-on-bloggers-the-ethics-of-blog-reviews/comment-page-1/#comment-1089621 Mitch Ratcliffe Sat, 27 Jun 2009 23:03:48 +0000 http://www.teleread.org/2009/06/27/cracking-down-on-bloggers-the-ethics-of-blog-reviews/#comment-1089621 The hypothetical is ethical if and only if the reviewer discloses they received the books and the Kindle <b>at no cost</b>. Disclosure makes these relationships ethical. The requirement that one do reviews to keep the device is not necessary, as Amazon should be picking active reviewers for this kind of program. I'd drop the requirement that the reviewer write at all to remove the condition that makes this appear to be a quid pro quo. Book reviewers have received books at no cost for years—in some cases, selling those books after finishing the review is a reviewer's only writing income. It's not going to change. The difference today is that "word-of-mouth" is so pervasive that customers should have all the information about why a reviewer choose to write what they do, even that they chose to write a review at all, including the fact the reviewer didn't incur the same cost a reader would when buying the reviewed book or device. Elsevier's recent admission it had offered $25 Amazon gift cards for positive reviews of its academic books was clearly over the line, but the company also insists that it is appropriate to compensate a reviewer for any review they write. I don't think that's ethical, as it links pay to performance. As an example, I've recently launched a blogger advisory council for Lenovo, which wants to learn more about bloggers, who represent an interesting new kind of computer user that is becoming increasingly common the world over. The company needs to be in dialog with these users and offers free systems for a year without requiring any blogging, though the bloggers are free to blog positively or negatively if the choose to do so. Members, such as Susan Polgar, who <a href="http://susanpolgar.blogspot.com/2009/06/lenovo-blogger-advisory-council.html" rel="nofollow"> discloses her relationship with Lenovo here</a>, could go all year without blogging and remain in the program if they have only shared their feedback privately about the product with Lenovo. Lenovo's blogger advisory council agreement requires disclosure, so that customers can factor in the potential influence of "free stuff" on the opinions expressed. With full information, readers can make their own judgments about the reviews they read. No matter how ethical any blogger is, it is best to be completely transparent about any potential conflict of interest. The hypothetical is ethical if and only if the reviewer discloses they received the books and the Kindle at no cost. Disclosure makes these relationships ethical.

The requirement that one do reviews to keep the device is not necessary, as Amazon should be picking active reviewers for this kind of program. I’d drop the requirement that the reviewer write at all to remove the condition that makes this appear to be a quid pro quo.

Book reviewers have received books at no cost for years—in some cases, selling those books after finishing the review is a reviewer’s only writing income. It’s not going to change. The difference today is that “word-of-mouth” is so pervasive that customers should have all the information about why a reviewer choose to write what they do, even that they chose to write a review at all, including the fact the reviewer didn’t incur the same cost a reader would when buying the reviewed book or device.

Elsevier’s recent admission it had offered $25 Amazon gift cards for positive reviews of its academic books was clearly over the line, but the company also insists that it is appropriate to compensate a reviewer for any review they write. I don’t think that’s ethical, as it links pay to performance.

As an example, I’ve recently launched a blogger advisory council for Lenovo, which wants to learn more about bloggers, who represent an interesting new kind of computer user that is becoming increasingly common the world over. The company needs to be in dialog with these users and offers free systems for a year without requiring any blogging, though the bloggers are free to blog positively or negatively if the choose to do so. Members, such as Susan Polgar, who discloses her relationship with Lenovo here, could go all year without blogging and remain in the program if they have only shared their feedback privately about the product with Lenovo.

Lenovo’s blogger advisory council agreement requires disclosure, so that customers can factor in the potential influence of “free stuff” on the opinions expressed.

With full information, readers can make their own judgments about the reviews they read. No matter how ethical any blogger is, it is best to be completely transparent about any potential conflict of interest.

]]>