So you're published. And you didn't have to self-publish, you found a traditional, if small, publisher. Your book shows up on Amazon and in the little review section, eventually, appears your very first review...from your publisher.
You are excited to have the praise you deserve. But what do the readers think? Do they put any credence in a review written by the person(s) who published the book? Or is the review largely ignored because of the assumption that the publisher loves the book or they wouldn't have published it in the first place?
After my last poll revealed that reviews, for the most part, are at least moderately important to a reader when considering a purchase, I thought to go a little deeper than that and ask about some specific reviews. That is the subject of my next blog poll.
Publisher Reviews: Do They Matter?
Again, to the right you will see the little poll box. Select your answer. Do you always trust publisher reviews? Or do you read them with a grain of salt, simply scanning for additional information about the book? Do you ignore them completely, assuming the publisher would be too biased in the author's favor to offer any helpful information?
If you have a reason for your vote that you would like to share, by all means do so. Comments are always welcome.
Thanx for visiting. As always, happy reading, writing, and blogging!
8 comments:
Quite frankly, I pay no attention to Publisher reviews. They have a vested interest in the work and therefore (in my opinion) very much biased.
I don't believe that there's any such thing as a publisher 'review', when it comes to publishers recommending the books they've got a financial interest in. They should call it what it really is... advertising. Of course the publisher will say it's the best thing since sliced bread... they have money tied up in it. To say otherwise would be foolish, from a business point of view. Not everyone checks who the publisher is, when they're looking at buying a book, and the fact that a review was written by the publisher and not a complete stranger might be overlooked... which makes these 'reviews' potentially very misleading. I would question the integrity of a publisher who does this.
Very good points, Ross and Gina. Thanx for commenting. :o)
I agree that Publisher reviews, to me, are not much good. I will say that when I was just a regular reader and not a writer the reviews sounded good. I never thought about who wrote them. I think other readers are like that also.
Davilbob2 is Robert Lee Thompson. Sorry about that.
I agree with Robert. As a writer, I'm much more discerning, but years ago as a reader? I took everything at face value. So I would say that publisher reviews probably do help the book a bit.
I don't remember feeling any differently before being published. I remember thinking that even the blurbs on books that were written by professional reviewers or published writers were unreliable... the whole 'you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours' thing that goes on, so that a publisher that buys a lot of advertising in a specific magazine is sure of a good review from that magazine's book reviewers.
At signings, I get so many people comment on the dubious nature of reviews. I've been quite surprised. They don't trust The Times, but they might listen to Richard and Judy on morning television... go figure.
agree with the majority. Publishers' reviews are bound to be slanted in praise of the work they're publishing. One might also add that forewords, or reviews by famous authors are actually paid for by the publisher, so again, they must be regarded with suspicion.
Only reviews from people who have shelled out their hard-earned cash to buy a book, or who have no financial stake in writing a good review can be relied upon.
And sometimes, you have to wonder about them - what axe do they have to grind? :)
Post a Comment