On Bibliobloggers, Review Books, and the FTC

As others have already noted, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced yesterday that it has adopted a series of revisions to its Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising which seek to apply existing laws on the subject to, among others, bloggers who receive cash or “in-kind” compensation for publishing a product review. Broadly according to the revised Guides (which are, however, to be applied case-by-case), these are now formally considered to be “endorsements” by the FTC. Given this, such bloggers are expected to fully and unambiguously disclose any compensation they receive from an advertiser in order to feature their product, and failure to do so may result in a fine of up to $11,000 per violation, as well as mandated reimbursements to consumers who may have been misled by deceitful and irresponsible endorsements from those who failed to disclose their material connection to the advertiser. This seems entirely fair to me.

The obvious concern here for bloggers on the Bible and Theology is the matter of the review books that many of us have received from academic publishers. Since these are sent at no charge, they may be construed under certain circumstances as “in-kind” compensation for an endorsement. Fortunately, I am unaware of any biblio- or theobloggers who fail to disclose the source of the books they review when these have been sent directly by publishers at no charge. Here at The Voice of Stefan, a complete listing of such may be found in the Books Received page, a practice also adopted by our good friend and reviewer extraordinaire Nick Norelli. Others, while lacking a full listing like those just linked, invariably acknowledge whether the book they are reviewing was received from a publisher, and this usually in the very first line of their review.

Of course, there is a long history of academic publishers sending review books to peer-reviewed journals at no charge. These titles are usually listed in a “books received” section in the journal in question (whence the name of my above linked page), and then are distributed to scholars and graduate students for review. In the end, reviewers usually either keep these books or else dispose of them according to their better judgement (and indeed, during my days at Baker Book House, I came across several books marked “For Review” by a number of journals, some of which now grace my bookshelves). Needless to say, these reviews can be alike positive, negative, or somewhere in between, and the fact that the book was received for free plays no part in the reviewer’s assessment.

It stands to reason that the practice of sending books to bloggers for review is an extension of this long-standing practice: as a matter of fact, review books sent by publishers started to appear in the biblioblogosphere among established scholars. Later the practice spread to graduate students, and later still to non-specialists, whether trained to a certain degree or with no formal training at all, but all interested (and often widely read) in the subject matters these books address.

Somewhere along the way (rather early on, if my cynicism may be trusted), some publishers realized that, since many of us turn to the internet to search for reviews of books we do not know, this was a very effective marketing strategyparticularly in view of the fact that many bloggers, unaware of the long history of journal reviews described above, feel that it is their bounden duty to speak of the books they have received only in glowing terms. Some have gone so far as to hastily review books they have not read (!), while others have resorted to writing two-paragraph “reviews” that amount to little more than a glorified blurb. In these cases, the haste is usually related to a misplaced desire to comply with the time limits of a marketing campaign, while the invariably positive review is tied to misguided gratitude for the free book received. In these cases, one might indeed say that an advertiser has effectively bought a glowing endorsement for the measly price of book production and shipping.

Of course, many publishers send bloggers their books in good faith, and many of us receive them on the same terms. But I encourage those who have fallen into the trap described above to realize that when a publisher sends you a book, they are taking a risk. While it is often true that many of us request books that we assume to be excellent treatments of their subject, it no less true that in more than one occasion these same books are a disappointment. Do not hide that fact out of a false sense of duty. A negative or mixed review is the risk that publishers take when they send along a book for critical examination. What you truly owe to them, to yourself, and to your readers is to produce a review that evinces critical engagement and that does not shrink from making criticisms, even pointed ones. Haste is not a help in this endeavor, but rather a pernicious foe. In all these respects, the example of our friend Nick Norelli is a fine standard against which other reviewers in biblioblogdom would do well to measure ourselves: note, for example, his recent two-part review of John J. and Adela Yarbro Collins’ King and Messiah as Son of God.

Returning to the revised FTC Guides, another concern for biblio- and theobloggers relates to the rather widespread use of link-based rewards programs such as Amazon Associates and the WTS Bookstore Blog Partners. This is more clearly an instance of a “cash” compensation for advertisement, and again, I believe that the FTC does well to expect from bloggers full disclosure of their participation in these programs. I myself decided to sign up for both of these programs earlier this summer. I do not, of course, place gratuitous links on this blog to earn rewards of any sort, but given that I often mention books here for which I invariably provide links, I decided to give these programs a try. In the meantime, be at peace: I have earned exactly nothing thus far towards a purchase at either retailer!

20 responses to “On Bibliobloggers, Review Books, and the FTC

  1. Esteban:

    Some have gone so far as to hastily review books they have not read (!), while others have resorted to writing two-paragraph “reviews” that amount to little more than a glorified blurb.

    Surely these are the words of truth (!), words that many of us think but have failed to articulate!

    Jason: Link to more books in your posts. Remember, most folks read your blog through feeds so they won’t see the WTS banner on your blog and click it.


  2. Thanks for this article…While I don’t review or sell items on my blog, and have tried to remain fairly commercial free, except for a few graphics I have used, that link back to the artists site, I decided after reviewing the information here provided to make a few changes. Sometimes free isn’t exactly free…


  3. Pingback: New Rules About Advertising « Green Baggins

  4. I’ve received plenty of books for review, but I don’t think a single one of those have been ones that I’ve reviewed. Well, and one magazine, which didn’t get off so easily (it didn’t help that the functionary who elicited the review kept bugging me for it).

    I’ve always preferred to buy my books. They’re mine free and clear, and I don’t feel any obligation to review, either glowingly or scathingly. My reviews, some quite lengthy, are without strings attached.

    There was one book that I received for review that in all good conscience I could not review. I won’t say which one (I think we’ve talked about it, Esteban), but I found it poorly (if at all) researched, superficial, and uninformed. This is not surprising, as it was written by a journalist. But the errors of fact were egregious. Errors, spelling and otherwise (to call them typographical is to blame them on the ersatz professional typesetter; these were solely the responsibility of the rather dim writer) were too numerous to bear. My review would have been a far too lengthy list of errors. In the end, the book was without substance. Such books are the waste of the death of trees.

    In the end, I decided to follow the maternal maxim: “If you can’t say anything nice, then don’t say anything at all.”

    But thanks for the warning Esteban. It’s good to know that the authorites are so concerned about fairness in book reviews. Hope and change!


  5. Kevin: I’ve been hounded for reviews before, and it’s not pleasant. As a matter of fact, I was sent a book for review (unsolicited mind you) from an author and I informed him that it was not a priority and I didn’t know when I’d get around to reviewing it. A few months later I was sent an email that had a less than cordial tone asking where the review was. I explained once again that it was not a priority and I’d get to it when I could. I ended up contacting the author last week to inform him that I will not be reviewing the book and that I’d like to send it back. He told me to keep it, but truthfully it’ll go to waste.


  6. Pingback: I Am an Amazon Associate | Scripture Zealot

  7. Looking at this more closely, it doesn’t sound as goosesteppingly bad as I first thought. First, in order to review a book, one generally has either bought it or received it as a review copy. The terminology of this new law deals with receipts of materials after that, rewards perhaps for a nice review. I’ve never heard of such cases, actually, where someone writes a good review and gets any more than a thank you from the author and maybe quoted as a blurb for a reprint’s cover (if they’re lucky). So, this may be a case of legislating against the imaginary fiend, or “boogeyman legislation”–mythical abuses are now legislated against, but haven’t occurred to any noticeable extent anyway, so it’s all rather a waste of time and money and only serves to ennervate.


  8. Jason> Well, I’m hoping that if enough people choose to click the links, I will accrue enough in the way of certificates to obtain some of the lectures by the infallible Moisés Silva that they have available at a significant discount!

    Nick> Such a practice is wholly reprehensible, and deserves nothing but exposure and condemnation.

    Kevin> I quite understand your sentiment about not having any strings attached to review books! But even though I constantly keep in mind that I must review the books I have requested, I am in no particular hurry to publish my reviews: I have about 10 of them basically finished, but I refuse to post anything that I have not thoroughly edited and rewritten to my complete satisfaction. I wish I had enough time accomplish this task more quickly, but I make no apologies for the delays.

    As for this being “boogeyman legislation,” I’m afraid that’s not the case: a number of “mommy bloggers,” for example, have indeed received further compensation from advertisers after they posted positive product reviews (now “endorsements”) . To my knowledge, this has not happened with review books in biblio- and theoblogs, but it has happened elsewhere.

    Aaron> Хвала, брате, и слава Богу!


  9. well, not all negative or fair critical reviews remain neutral with the publisher – i did a somewhat negative review of a certain Bible a while ago and hence missed out on the mosaic deal. i guess it depends on the nature of the criticisms.


  10. Brian> It does, but you are right, of course, that some publishers have the unnerving expectation that every review will be sterling. This is something that makes me nervous about publishers that have established “blog networks,” like Tyndale and Nelson. In general, I find that publishers who focus on academic works are less likely to have such an attitude. But in any case, if a publisher refuses to send review books after a negative review, good riddance to them: your integrity is not for sale.


  11. Brian: I highly doubt that your previous review had anything to do with your missing out on the Mosaic. I slammed their Soul Infinity New Testament (and I mean SLAMMED it) and I got a Mosaic. I suspect it was more an issue of timing than anything else, and I’m willing to bet that plenty of people who haven’t reviewed anything for Tyndale missed out on it too.


  12. I don’t think Tyndale would do that either (I don’t believe that Laura Bartlett has a mean bone in her body), but again, if a publisher were to do that, you’re better off not having any dealings with them.


  13. Pingback: On Blurbs | Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s