How to use this Page

It’s important to note that the FTC didn’t determine so much that the Kickstarter *failed* – lots of Kickstarters fail. What they found was that the Kickstarter was *fraudulent*.

Failed = the campaign’s creator legitimately tried to create the thing they said they’d create, & through one mishap or another it didn’t work out. Having backed a number of Kickstarters & Indigogos, the most common outcome seems to be late or sometimes incomplete delivery. The lateness has been pretty significant for things like games, dolls & software. Lots of things can go wrong, & it seems that most people whose Kickstarts I’ve encountered are excellent pitch people – they can make a case for their art, clothing, book, etc – but they might never have run a business. Therefore they haven’t accurately planned for snafus. A comic creator friend ran a pretty successful campaign for his book but found himself waylaid by overseas shipping costs. So delivering that part of his books took extra time & money, a problem he addressed in his next campaign. Another comics creator pal was very upfront about how part of the Kickstarter cash was going to fund his living expenses while he worked on his project. People knew about that going in, & had no problem supporting this creator while he worked.

Chevalier claimed he’d told people where the money was going, & he hadn’t. That’s not a failed campaign, that’s straight-up fraud & that’s why the Feds busted him.

As Kickstarter matures as a platform, people will grow more wary & likely back less stuff on impulse. If the story of the Feds going after this fraudulent Kickstarter gives someone pause about launching a campaign – maybe that’s not a bad thing.

We’re glad someone is trying to protect consumers, but it would be nice to know that Kickstarter did something more to protect its members, particularly where it has been proven that a scam took place at kickstarter’s site.

I’m not saying they are responsible to making the backers whole, I’m saying they should do more to make their backers happy.

Eva is correct, the Kickstarter campaign wasn’t a failure, in fact the campaign was a roaring success, it was the post campaign follow-up that was the failure.

Just another online fraudster, luckily his victims are getting justice.

Really sad that amount should have been way more than enough to create the product he describe. A board game for Christ’s sake….. This guy was an outright fraud and is glad someone is doing something. Hopefully kickstart aided the FTC with the prosecution of this scum.

Have you never noticed that the only time the FTC makes the news is when they do something stupid?

Great post!

Well said, Liz. I posted a response to the madness at Color Online.

I'm still just listening in to all of this. Your response is one of the best so far.

Here's another thought. What about all the review copies I'm receiving for NCTE's Notable Children's Books in the Language Arts? Are those outside the regulations as long as I don't blog about them?

Ryan, this is just baffling to apply to artistic reviews. Either they don't understand the business -- or, the paranoia approach that they do and this is a way to bolster traditional, dying media (newspapers & magazines).

Susan, I saw your response, and so true for the different motivations etc for blogs & reviews. Plus, one of the points of Color Online is to promote those who may not (or not yet!) be in libraries/bookstores, and the FTC seems to ignore that aspect, also.

Mary Lee, yet another example of the FTC not fully knowing the industry, because that is true for the NCTE committees and ALA committees, also. I think if you disclose "copy from publisher" you're on the safe side. But does the FTC really want to tell bloggers, "if you can be in NCTE/ALAN/ALA and get on a committee, or go to a conference and get stuff off the exhibit floor, you don't have to disclose"? Because then it's priviliging people (I obviously include myself!) who have those connections/time/money/employers who allow us to do that. So because LittleWillow doesn't have that, she has to put a disclosure down but I don't if I'm blogging about a book I get from being on a committee?

I'm going to ALAN, not NCTE, but expect to be in Philly on Sunday. If you'll be around, let me know!

This has to be the best response I've seen.

Mo & webcast- YAY! So much fun to watch with the family who either wasn't there or couldn't see from the side of the stage!

Booklights- nice job!

FTC- Headache central. Still not sure how we at 5M4B will be affected-- I've heard there's something about a 'third party entity' clause, but I'm unclear about how we fit in.

So, two thumbs up, and one very large and irritated thumb down.

:)

Thanks for the link to the Boston Bibliophile conversation. While it still leaves questions, it was very helpful. There is still plenty to figure out ... including how to manage affiliate links on sites like Goodreads, that let you link the books on your shelves to your vendor account.

Thanks for the link to the webcast - your daughter is a NATURAL!!

Thanks for this very illuminating post. While I did not like the fact that bloggers were being specifically targeted, as opposed to print or TV media, I didn't think that it really mattered.

I already have a statement on 5 Minutes for Books that is clear that most of our copies are from PR firms or publishers, and I thought that would still be enough.

But your commentary makes me realize that it could mean something more.

Thank you. From a Librarian's perspective, it would be a waste to loose all of the reviews out there now. Especially as more bloggers start blogging.
Thank you for all you do.
I know I can look up an add. for FTC.but it might be helpful to post that add. too?

Jennifer, it may be that stating where books are from may be enough - or it may not. It's unclear. As it is unclear whether it will need to be revealed in every single post, as opposed to a blanket statement. The clue to this development lies in comments made about how individual tweets (!!!) could be part of this regulation.

Penny, I have a call in to the numbers given at the FTC website to find the best place to address our questions and concerns. If and when I find out, I'll add it to this post.

Thank you for this post. I tried to read the FTC regulations as proposed and frankly, all I got was a headache as opposed to clarity. I agree that everyone involved - publishers, authors, bloggers and us publicists, too - need to make our voices heard. Ed's interview with Richard Cleland of the FTC was an eye-opener, and not in a good way.

It's frustrating that the FTC wants to lump book bloggers in with the mommy bloggers, but such is the nature of a government agency. Fighting back -- or in this case, educating the FTC on the nature of book blogging -- is an option, but I'm also afraid that we're just going to have to wait and see how this all shakes out.

It may change the way we do things, but it also may amount to not much.

I am just so confused by this. I'm reading so many tweets and blog posts about it, and it seems like there are many different perspectives on what it all means. Clearly, the FTC still has some clarifying to do!!

::turning on sarcasm:: I don't see why everyone is so upset about this. We can still review books from the library and those that we purchase ourselves, right? Leave those new release reviews to the people who get paid to write reviews! We should be satisfied with the *old* Pooh stories ... after all, we're not real reviewers, just bloggers. ::sarcasm off::

I will definitely be writing to someone about this.

As you say, this is going to be an interesting 45 days. The FTC hasn't a clue ... and to split hairs between books sent to print magazines - who also have online versions of their reviews - and online reviewers is nuts. One of my questions is the effect on authors using a reviewer's comments on their blog or website. Will they have to disclose that they gave/lent the book to that person to review?

I really like this post and I think you sum up a lot of the issues very well. (disclosure: I'm one of the originators of BWI.)

But I do take issue with: For the most part, blogging should be approached as a creative outlet, writing practice, or networking opportunity.

I don't think any of us have the right to say what blogging should or shouldn't be. It's evolving faster than we can define it! But I will say that the most successful blogs are about the author's passions, and if you are not truly passionate about your content (say, a free jar of applesauce?) you can't expect to really connect with your readers. Without readers those freebies will dry up soon enough. I have to believe it will all sort itself out to some degree.

Thanks Mom101. It was hard to get the complex points down to a sentence or two, and some of them suffered more than others.

My point is that bloggers aren't somehow "owed" for their time, and they wouldn't expect it in any other "hobby." I'm trying to convey that the approach, the intent in blogging (especially in books, which is My Community) can't be with the expectation or sense of entitlement to getting free stuff and making money. Opportunities often present themselves to bloggers who focus on their passion and prove themselves over the long run.

Thanks for coming by.

Well-said, Pam. I know that I purchase far more books in a year than I ever receive as review copies, but I should do a better job of indicating the origin of any books I review here (purchased, review copy, or library book). I happen to agree with the assertion that Mom101 took issue with - it's a cogent articulation of what most kidlit blogs ARE, therefore saying that's how they ought to be approached is a bit of a tautology (and yet worth repeating).

I'm shocked to learn, however, that I missed out on free book shelves. I could use some more bookcases. (I am kidding, really - not about needing them, but about wanting freebies.)

Pam, I'm with you 100%. I still do think longingly of not accepting review copies any more. But it's not because I don't think that it's ethical to accept them. It's just because I kind of feel like I already have a lifetime's worth of books piled up, and it would simplify my life to just review books later in the cycle, and request the ones that I want from the library. I can't quite do it, because I DO like getting new books earlier, and I do discover books that I would have missed otherwise. But some days...

Terry Doherty wrote a post recently that I liked, where she equated blogging with integrity with blogging with authenticity. I kind of like that as a personal litmus test. Am I authentically excited to write about this? Or am I doing it because someone else wants me to do it for some reason? The latter is a very slippery slope, and I'm working on concentrating on the former - only writing about things that I really care about.

Thanks for giving us all the opportunity to think about these issues. Can't wait to talk more about some of this at the conference.

I decided that for me, it was better to avoid the possibility of anyone feeling deceived or like I was less than forthcoming so I am now clearly stating where books come from. I've seen bloggers who don't like that practice, but I'd rather be upfront about it and annoy a few people than seem like I have something to hide.

I can't imagine a product review would ever feel like it was worth the time and effort (a jar of applesauce? too much work! Just buy it!) unless it was an ereader or something.

Sometimes I see a hot title another blogger gets and feel a stab of longing, but really I don't feel any jealousy over the good fortunes of other bloggers. But that's just me.

Thanks for this thoughtful post. One thought on paid blogging: I no longer take review copies, but I do get paid (some, not a lot) to blog on a children's publisher's website. I've struggled with this issue--can I really blog with integrity when I'm paid by a publisher?--and have not come to a solid conclusion, but take some consolation in the fact that my connection with the publisher is quite obvious, not hidden or disguised in any way. My editors have told me multiple times that I'm free to write about any books I choose, and I've done so, but have shied away from posting about at least one controversy centered on a book from that publisher. What I'd like to do, and meant to do originally, is keep up an independent book blog as well, but have found that I just don't have the time to keep it up.

Kelly,
For that one concept, my trigger event was ARC-gate, in which Justine got so many direct requests for Liar that she had to write a post saying that she didn't have any ARC's, and then people got snippy about that. I also have seen statements around like "I work hard on my posts, why shouldn't I get free stuff?" It's the idea that going into blogging somehow entitles one to freebies or payment - not something you'd see with any other hobbies. I could use better wording on that thought, for sure. Any suggestions?

(Oh, and I was a bit jealous of the bookshelves myself. It's natural to feel that way, and that's one of the things that can spur on the drive for more stuff. Like, well she got free stuff, where can I get something?)

Jen,
I don't take many review copies anymore. Like you, I don't think it's an ethical issue but it feels like more pressure than I need. Another down side to the free stuff is the obligation and extra time involved. That's been another issue for mommy bloggers some of whom get 70 pitches a day. It can really turn a blog into work - and not the fun kind of work either.

I like the idea of authenticity, and I'll head to Terry's post.

Amy,
Several kidlit/YA folks here have been listing the book source for years. I haven't done it, but it didn't bother me either. With the recent developments though, I think it's a good idea.

One of the great things about book blogging, is that generally when I see a good title my response is more excitement to put it on my TBR list than jealousy that someone got it first. The reviews are what makes us excited about a new title, and with blogs we can share that excitement with the reviewer. I couldn't say that about a jar of applesauce.

Anonymous,
I don't think anyone takes issue with folks who get paid to blog. Congratulations, in fact, because it's so rare. As you say, your relationship with the publisher is obvious and you can choose what books to review. If you were being pressured to write something good about a book you couldn't stand, that would be a problem. When I talk about not having an expectation for making money, it's less about the opportunities that may come along - like getting a paid position - and more about going into blogging with the idea of what can I get.

Mom101, I agree that there is such a diversity in blogging that it is hard to write absolutes. That said, I've seen something in some blogs/comments that I've seen in fandom when it comes to fanfiction and fanart: "I put a lot of work into this so I should get paid." There are a lot of instances were hard work doesn't mean getting paid, and people should know that going in. A person who wants their work to be something they can get paid for should really look into the various areas and fields and do their homework to see if that expectation is realistic.

I find the MomBlog information fascinating, and agree with MR that I see similar things happening in the bookblogosphere, with the exception that for the most part review copies arent' an issue because they are such a standard part of traditional book reviewing. That said, with people reading blogs and not knowing about the supply of review copies, I think transparency and disclosure is important.

Most book bloggers start because they love books and talking about books. Things start getting more gray as blogs go beyond what they started as, and suddenly, it's not a handful of friends you're talking with but a few thousand. Amy did an experiment with a book to see the impact of a blog on book purchases in a positive way; if the argument is book bloggers can have a positive influence, then the argument also exists that the opposite is true. Look at Liar and the posts that had begun about boycotting the bloomsbury edition. I have a hard time with arguments that on one hand say "I don't have to do x because I'm just talking about books I love" and at the same time hearing "but we influence people more than traditional media". I'm not saying blogs don't influence; it's that with that role, responsibility includes considering things like ethics, standards, etc.

I also believe that discussion of these things can be as important as any decision, and we have to remember the blogosphere is huge. as Pam points out, the kidlit world has the "do i disclose" discussion years ago; but we shouldn't say "we discussed this already" because the world is bigger than "we." Some people did, but not everyone, and discussion should not be shut down by saying "we did this already."

I've bookmarked this so I can come back later & either reply in more depth or write another post on the subject. Great post.

What annoyed me about the bookshelf thing (and I've never posted on this anywhere) is that your average person can not judge if a bookshelf is really well made. I mean you put books on it and say they fit, you shove it up against the wall and it looks right and....well, you're done. Until the thing collapses (in one month or a year or whenever) you don't know much. Now get a carpenter in the room and he will tell you a million things about how it is constructed, is it a particle board design or not, is it screwed together or does it use fasteners, what kind of finish does it have, etc. (This is stuff my husband is throwing at me from across the room.)

I don't know this stuff - I can't review furniture and from the post on the free bookshelves it doesn't look like she knew much specific either. That wasn't a review in my opinion - it was publicity, plain and simple.

As for me, well I created my blog purely for connecting with folks and having a more informal place to talk about all kinds of books rather than my column which is much more regimented. I've always fallen into a weird place on these arguments because of Bookslut and the review copies generated by my association with it. To me the internet is all about the connections I've gotten in the literary world - getting into Booklist, meeting and signing with my agent and being able to do amazing things for teens in need via Guys Lit wire. I get a paycheck elsewhere - the blog is all about a longterm place in the literary world.

MR, right on. Posts like this remind new book bloggers especially to take their cues from people other than publishers and publicists--not that I have anything against publishers and publicists, as Seinfeld would say.

Sometimes bloggers look to publishers or other companies, say manufacturers of bookshelves, to tell them what to do, but I think that is due to naivete and inexperience. So educating yourself is very important. That applies to "old" bloggers, too. It's a continuing process.

cheap cigarettes


Nike Dunk shoes

Great Stuff... Thanx for Sharing.....

Pam,

Thanks for highlighting this issue.

It makes me laugh to think that anyone (except, as I've learned!, the creator/publisher) would consider a free review copy "payment" in any way.

I need new children's books like I need more dust bunnies and with the many unreviewable books that we receive, we are often in a quandry about which local charity would actually accept and use our many boxes of giveaway books. Not to mention that all these unreviewable books take up valuable reading time with my children, that could be spent reading high quality books of my own choosing.

Hmmmm....

Interesting stuff...

Here in Rhode Island, and a couple of other states, we have been cut off by Amazon from their Affiliates program because of tax issues. So that's one thing less to worry about for me. Sigh.

Amazon has cut off North Carolina as well (but I hadn't made any commissions in years). I'll be curious to see if Powell's and IndieBound follow suit.

I always disclose the source of the book, and I try to remember to include a note that something is an Affiliate Link. I feel like it's good practice. That way everyone knows exactly what I'm getting, if anything.

Great post. Thanks for talking about this issue, always difficult and controversial. I do think that a lot of what we do as reviewers is like doing unpaid publicity. It's hard to know where to draw the line. I know when I accept a book for review I'm giving ad space to a product and a business. I'm an IndieBound affiliate so I have the same issues that you have with Amazon- except I never make any money! :-)

Thanks for the thoughtful post, MR. I recognize that much of what book bloggers to is free publicity... one part of me feels like it's an inevitable part of the business of books. And the other part remembers that it's just my opinion, and no free book sent to me by anyone (okay, well, if it's a really nice author -- especially first time -- I try not to be too harsh) will affect the way I react to a book.

Honesty is a double-edged sword, though.

Thanks for this, Pam. I agree that this is important stuff to think about. As a result of these articles, I've tweaked my "review policy" a bit. And I'm thinking seriously about putting a note about the Amazon Affiliate relationship into the footer of every post (or at least the review posts). I have been good about indicating where a review book comes from, but this is further reinforcement to keep that up, too.

Definitely food for discussion at the conference!

Great post, Pam. Important things to think about for sure. Thanks.

Thanks for these links, Pam. I'd read the NYT one today but not the others. I've got a small pile of children's music CDs that have been sent to me for review (though I emphasize that getting a CD does not guarantee a review). While I'm glad to give a small artist some measure of free publicity, I realize more and more that what I do with my time has to make sense financially or creatively-- and it's great when I can combine both.

Hmm... Guess I should probably shelve my idea about a "WILL BLOG FOR BOOKS" t-shirt...

(Nah, I still kinda want one...)

Thanks for posting, Pam.

VERY interesting post! I may start disclosing where my reviewed books come from as well. Hm.
e

Fascinating, all of it.

(as always)

From the author's perspective - I REALLY don't want a pretty review that's been "bought and paid for". I want honest responses; if some of them are less than stellar that's okay, too, different people like different things and I've picked up a book of which I'd read a negative review BECAUSE of that review, not once, because it highlighted something for me that I thought I would like as much as the reviewer disliked it. But at least I TRUST that kind of review, something that somebody who READ THE BOOK had to say about it, freely, without being beholden to anyone for the opinion.

As an author, reviews which are in any way "bought and paid for" scare me. Rather a lot.

Great post. I'm going to link to it.

In the end I think that all reviewers, whether they are paid in cash or just in a "thank-you" note from an author, are open to the temptation of not being truthful.

The reviewer is working for the consumer, not the author or publisher. If he consistently lies, he'll lose his audience.If he's a good reviewer, his audience will find him. And they'll listen to him.

Whether he is paid to write reviews or not, doesn't really matter. Writers should be paid. They are creating content, they are providing entertainment or valuable information. Why should anyone complain when they are paid for their work?

If they are lying and rah-rah-rahing books that stink don't read them. Read someone else who is honest. It's not like there aren't a whole slew of blogger reviewers to choose from.

I do think it's a great idea to say where we get the books, though, and whether we are paid to review them.

Anyway, thanks for the thought provoking post!

That was a really interesting post! I hadn't heard much about it so far. My book blog is in it's infancy, but I am occasional sent products to try out for my food blog. I am upfront about trying out products and try to give an unbiased review, but I will be thinking more carefully about it next time.

I don't think anyone's concerned about reviewers being paid for their work -- it's *who* is paying them that's at issue. If that payment comes from authors or publishers, then there's a pretty clear conflict of interest. Yes, the idea of free review copies being akin to real "payment" seems over-the-top, but at what point beyond that does it become a legitimate conflict? Or worse, payola?

I'm reminded of movie reviewers like the notorious Earl Dittman -- or worse, the (nonexistent) David Manning. Reviewers whose sole purpose is to provide positive blurbs for advertising purposes. At a certain point, it becomes a matter of consumer protection law (as was the case when Sony was sued for making up "Manning" entirely).

If bloggers want to be taken seriously -- as more than just hobbyists -- then it's something they're going to have to think about very carefully. If you want to play with the big boys, you've got to follow the same rules (or at least the major ones).

Just my reaction, anyway.

Good stuff, Pam. Thanks.

I always note where I got a book from, because I think it does matter. Is it as big a concern as, say, someone who receives a Thing that has safety issues, perhaps? No. Well, unless it's a type of book that could have safety/health implications, such as a DIY book or something about food or diet or health.

But it is still a concern to reveal what link, if any, a reviewer has with a publisher, author, or publicist, especially when it is in a forum like blogging. A review journal, for example, isolates, to a degree, that reviewer from the process/interaction with the soliciting and marketing.

It is also important not because someone will "play nice" to get the ARC (I've read those blogs and don't read them anymore) but how it shifts what the blog does and ultimately controls what the content of a blog is. A blog that is suddenly all about Publisher A and never Publisher B because Pub A gives books. Or, because only blogs about the books Publishers send, is never about other book by other publishers and is never about older books. Or contains the same. language. as every other blog because they use canned interviews and plot description, the same word for word that is found on other blogs. At that point, I feel like I'm reading publisher blogs or author friend blogs, not blogs for readers.

There is also the question of contests and giveaways, where the item is supplied for and paid by someone else, including postage and handling. Without touching on existing laws for such contests, here is an area where an item is not being supplied for review, good bad or indifferent; it's closer to book promotion (different when a person gives away their own stuff at their own cost, where it is blog promotion, but they should still be aware of laws). It's also closer to something of real value passing thru peoples hands, and for those of us who have considered the tax questions involved here -- well. It's just another layer of things that are serious, that a blogger should consider, and if they aren't considering and being transparent about, I wonder why.

And I think that letting someone know where you got the book (whether for review or contest) and who sends you books helps that process, that transparency, for the casual reader and the long term reader. I've read some interesting misunderstandings about how things work with reviews & ARCs & newspapers etc; how to keep that misunderstanding from blogs? BE TRANSPARENT. It shouldn't be up to the reader to read a year's worth of blog posts to discover this about a blog.

As a blogger who is not nearly high-profile enough to warrent review copies sent to me by publishers or authors (except in one case--and I was so flattered :)this is not yet an issue for me. However, it is good to keep on my radar as I work towards increasing my profile and readership, so thank you for pulling the three articles together and bringing it to our attention.

This is a really intriguing issue - but more than calling the integrity of book reviewer blogs into question, it seems to me that it's an outgrowth of governmental interest in regulating the internet. If the FTC can weasel in on bloggers, it's a foot in the door for further regulation. I like the way that blogs are basically regulated by readers - if you feel a reviewer is untruthful or uninteresting, you find other blogs to follow. We don't need the FTC telling us which bloggers to read and which to shun, because they're "promoting" (writing reviews about) certain publishers who "pay them" (give them free books or ARCs to review). Back in the days of print only, I always believed that any ink is good ink. I still think that any mention by a blogger is good PR, even if the writer has something negative to say, and I stand by their right to blog whatever they like, by whatever criteria they choose.

To provide a counterpoint (or maybe just to add more fuel to the fire), legal precedent has shown that commercial speech is not afforded the same First Amendment protections as noncommercial speech. Listerine ads used to claim that the product prevented the common cold -- resulting in a $10 million false-advertising judgment. When Nike's sweatshop production practices were exposed -- though Nike had been publicly denying them -- Nike's defense (Nike vs. Kasky) was that as a corporate "person," they had the First-Amendment right to lie; the Supreme Court didn't buy it (though technically, the case ended up being settled before they could render a definitive precedent). Modern-day snake-oil salesman Kevin Trudeau has been repeatedly convicted of lying about various cure-all products -- though notably, he can continue to publish books so long as they do not promote any particular product. And it's that last point that probably holds the closest parallel to this situation.

If bloggers are receiving payment for writing reviews, then their conduct may fall under the definition of commercial speech. At issue is not whether speech on the Internet should be held to a different standard, but whether it should be held to the same standard as other speech. To date, I have seen no credible argument proffered to show that speech on the Internet is somehow special. What is different is that a substantially larger segment of the population -- a segment unaccustomed to the intricacies of commercial-speech law -- is suddenly finding itself confronted with such liability.

And here's where it becomes a question of perception. So long as bloggers are content to be viewed as the equivalent of casual chatters -- simply speaking their mind to their friends -- then yes, this sort of scrutiny might be unnecessary. But if -- as I suspect -- bloggers want to be considered in the same category as legitimate print reviewers and other media outlets, then they should seek to hold themselves to the same standards before they can expect anyone else to.

this is so interesting.

But the bloggers aren't like the snake oil salesmen. They aren't saying if you read this book it will cure what ails you. They are giving their opinions on books. And who is to say they are lying.

That's why we all have favorite movie reviewers and book bloggers. I know which bloggers share my taste in books and I listen to them and buy books they recommend.

The others, the ones who love Twilight, for instance are not lying. They simply don't like the same books I like. I don't think they need to be sued and held accountable for lying.

Oh, I certainly don't mean to imply that bloggers are snake-oil salesman. Just that laws exist to prevent deliberate falsehoods from being passed off as fact in a commercial context, and to require disclosure of any commercial relationship that may not be readily apparent. (And there's certainly a significant difference between matters of fact and matters of opinion.)

Let's assume a worst-case scenario -- a blogger is paid to write a favorable review of a book, regardless of the blogger's actual opinion (a la the aforementioned Earl Dittman). Does that run afoul of the law? I don't know. (Though since Dittman still writes movie-poster blurbs, probably not.) But if the payment relationship is hidden, it certainly pushes an ethical boundary, IMO. (For example, infomercials are required to be identified as such.)

And again, in the amounts we're dealing with here -- a few prize books or review copies -- it's at most a gray area. But good to keep thinking about.

[Had to fix a couple of typos. Sorry!)

Interesting post. My attention was drawn to it by a publisher's rep who thought I had written it or commented on it (which of course I hadn't). But now that I'm here, I will say that anyone who thinks books sent out for review constitute some kind of payola for reviewers is pretty silly. How else can books get reviewed? If reviewers are honest, and all they receive from publishers are the books they're reviewing, then wherein lies the problem? Cheers, Elizabeth Bluemle (blogger for PW's ShelfTalker)

Great conversation here. I'm glad we're talking.

Elizabeth, it's less a matter of a free book being "payment" for a good review - though that said, there was an internal kidlit controversy about that issue a year or two ago - but having more transparency in what we are doing and who is funding it. There are publisher funded giveaways and even talk around about seeking publisher sponsorship/ads. There's a diet book group competition where the books were sent to the bloggers. Many book bloggers are Amazon Associates because it's an easy place to link to and to use the book pics. And the big difference between bloggers and print pubs is that the people who write reviews aren't the same people who take the money/get the ads/benefit from publicity.

Could the FTC track down and stop an overly proud and zealous 70-something mother from leaving anonymous blog comments about her unnamed (embarrassed) daughter's books?