The grapevine is ablaze with rants, raves and debates about the discovery of unethical product reviews, in particular the one to five-star book reviews at Amazon.
These shenanigans are often referred to as “sock-puppet reviews,” and shouldn’t come as a big surprise to any writer. Whoever has published a book must have had his share of friends, family and close acquaintances that would praise the story and award five stars to anything; literary masterpiece or trash, simply because there’s a strong emotional bond that supersedes objective criticism.
Although such a practice is not ethical—in a strict sense—we wouldn’t be human if we didn’t side with our loved ones, regardless of their merits.
Many babies could be described as downright ugly, but civility, manners and utter compassion, prohibits voicing such opinions, even by strangers. Isn’t she lovely? And the passer-by smiles and nods to the beaming grandmother, uncle or drooling father. As I stated earlier, it’s only human, and we should be proud of our humanity.
The problem arises when the drive behind our opinion is not loving but mercenary.
There’s nothing new under the sun, as the adage goes, and sock puppet reviews are as old as marketing, which is akin to say: as old as civilization and mercantilism.
Unethical criticism used to be complex, costly, and usually involved large numbers of people sharing a common goal; the history of statutory religions and politics brim with countless examples. In addition, the speed of communications was a drawback.
Mass publications—such as newspapers and magazines—radio, and then television, provided a fertile ground for marketers, always weary to run afoul of the Federal Trade Commission’s inquiring eyes.
The Internet—or the Wild West Web if you like—opened an uncontrollable space where unscrupulous peddlers could use any means to manipulate the market.
But there’s nothing new in the preceding paragraphs. Several years ago, Myle Ott, Yejin Choi, and Claire Cardie from the Department of Computer Science and Jeffrey T. Hancock from the Department of Communication; all from Cornell University, published “Finding Deceptive Opinion Spam by Any Stretch of the Imagination,” a seminal paper on unethical reviews, which you can read here.
The paper focused on the hospitality industry, but by extension touched Internet marketing in general.
To expect that such practices wouldn’t taint book promotion is naïve. Anyone with a computer and Internet connection knows that to create five, ten, fifty or hundreds of identities only requires a database—to keep tabs on addresses and passwords—and time to spare. Yes, I know there are ways and dedicated software to make the process faster and more efficient, but this is not the time or the place to review wholesale schemes or mob practices.
A few days ago, Dianna Dilworth posted at Mediabistro an article about a group’s efforts to fight the practice:
Now a group of writers (along with the Society of Authors) are teaming up to swear off of this bad practice. The group — which includes authors Linwood Barclay, Tom Bale, Mark Billingham, Ramsey Campbell, and David Hewson, among many others.
In a group statement posted online, they called out Stephen Leather, John Locke, and RJ Ellory for messing with the user generated review process and called for Internet users to fight back. Here is an excerpt:
…the only lasting solution is for readers to take possession of the process. The internet belongs to us all. Your honest and heartfelt reviews, good or bad, enthusiastic or disapproving, can drown out the phoney voices, and the underhanded tactics will be marginalized to the point of irrelevance. No single author, however devious, can compete with the whole community.
Though the initiative is commendable, I fear it doesn’t take into account the desperate millions out there who will do anything to improve their chances in the ghastly rat race to achieve significance, however ephemeral it might be, and regardless of the means.
The writers’ group has posted a manifesto here, inviting any scribe who feels strongly about sock puppets to make his name count.
These days more and more books are bought, sold, and recommended on-line, and the health of this exciting new ecosystem depends entirely on free and honest conversation among readers. But some writers are misusing these new channels in ways that are fraudulent and damaging to publishing at large. British author Stephen Leather recently admitted that he used fake identities online to promote his work. The American bestseller John Locke has revealed he has paid for reviews of his books. The British author RJ Ellory has now confessed to posting flattering reviews of his own work and to using assumed names to attack other authors perceived to be his rivals.
These are just three cases of abuse we know about. Few in publishing believe they are unique. It is likely that other authors are pursuing these underhand tactics as well.
We the undersigned unreservedly condemn this behavior, and commit never to use such tactics.
These are fine intentions and deserve support, but I am of the opinion that ethical standards or the lack of them is an intrinsic part of our persona and the root of our character. If people see nothing wrong in writing fake reviews, buying votes or indulging in self-delusion, no amount of words—however fine and well-intentioned—will change their behavior.
The grapevine is ablaze with rants, raves and debates about the discovery of unethical product reviews, in particular the one to five-star book reviews at Amazon.
In a group statement posted online, they called out Stephen Leather, John Locke, and RJ Ellory for messing with the user generated review process and called for Internet users to fight back. Here is an excerpt:
We the undersigned unreservedly condemn this behavior, and commit never to use such tactics.