Reviews and Remuneration
There's been a bit of furor online recently about reviewers who get paid (due largely to BBAW and the folks who were appalled to find a site where the reviewer got paid for reviews was nominated alongside the others). Being paid for review seems to be a phrase open to interpretation, since for some it includes reviewers who accept ARCs for review as well as those who charge money for book reviews on their site. Which is all very interesting when you consider that not so long ago, there was much discussion about bloggers who felt entitled to receive ARCs.
Back on topic, though, King Rat (and I'd assume there are those who agree with him) considers an ARC as payment, of sorts, to the blogger which changes their bias. After all, if a blogger wants to continue getting ARCs, why would they jeopardize that by saying the book was sub-par?
I find this thinking flawed. Most publishers understand that no one book is going to be loved by everyone, and as long as the reviewer is being honest and not going out of their way to slander the book and/or its author, there isn't a problem. Jane of Dear Author addresses this, and how most bloggers don't feel a free book makes them any more inclined to give a positive review.
Really, it comes down to the blogger. Most of the ones I follow are outspoken and opinionated, not afraid to say things as they see them whether that be good or bad. (Which, y'know, is why I follow them.) This attitude is the same whether the book was free or they paid 30$ for the hardcover. And while we're on it, I'd like to point out that if there's a book I'm willing to pay 30$ for, you can be a lot more sure I'm going to give it a favourable review than an ARC I received in the mail. If I'm going to be putting up that much cash, I'm going to be 99% sure ahead of time it's going to be something I love.
Back on topic, though, King Rat (and I'd assume there are those who agree with him) considers an ARC as payment, of sorts, to the blogger which changes their bias. After all, if a blogger wants to continue getting ARCs, why would they jeopardize that by saying the book was sub-par?
I find this thinking flawed. Most publishers understand that no one book is going to be loved by everyone, and as long as the reviewer is being honest and not going out of their way to slander the book and/or its author, there isn't a problem. Jane of Dear Author addresses this, and how most bloggers don't feel a free book makes them any more inclined to give a positive review.
Really, it comes down to the blogger. Most of the ones I follow are outspoken and opinionated, not afraid to say things as they see them whether that be good or bad. (Which, y'know, is why I follow them.) This attitude is the same whether the book was free or they paid 30$ for the hardcover. And while we're on it, I'd like to point out that if there's a book I'm willing to pay 30$ for, you can be a lot more sure I'm going to give it a favourable review than an ARC I received in the mail. If I'm going to be putting up that much cash, I'm going to be 99% sure ahead of time it's going to be something I love.