More on Reviews

I spent some time thinking up catchy titles for this post, but I’ve decided to forego the license. A helpful member of Goodreads posted a comment there, regarding my previous article and supplied a handy graphic stating Goodreads’ stance on reviews. It’s about what one would expect. I have included said handy graphic in this post, and I will deal with it in due time.

First, a few points to be clear on what the point is:

I’m discussing reader reviews, not editorial reviews.
Observe the distinction between organic reviews and solicited reviews. [See my previous post regarding that if the terms are unfamiliar.]
I am speaking of fiction, not non-fiction.
The question is not: “Do reviews influence readers’ buying decisions?” Yes, they do. Let’s move onto the real question.

Below is a screenshot that states, in bold print Goodreads’ stance on reviews. Let us consider it carefully. Indeed, allow me to dissect it line-by-line. That will Step 1. Step 2 will put this in a broader context.

So, first line: “Goal should be. . .” Note the imperative tone, and the bold text. This a call to action. And “especially early. . .” This is specific to a new book.

What does this mean? Why should getting reviews be a goal? Note that Goodreads does not say in this statement that it is because “reviews sell books.” But by using the imperative tone, Goodreads clearly means they review benefit us and I doubt very much that they just mean striking our egos here. I invite the individual in charge of Goodreads to personally clarify this if I am mistaken, but my assessment is that Goodreads is stating this in support of the belief that “reviews sell books.”

Next, this does not apply to organic reviews. It can’t. No author can have as a goal getting organic reviews, that is simply impossible. Organic reviews happen, or they are not organic. We can have as a goal getting editorial reviews, but those are different. Moreover, they have nothing to do with Goodreads (which arguably matters). We can have any number of goals that might, in time, increase the chances that we will garner some organic reviews as a result of selling some books. But in these case, selling books is the goal, not getting reviews.

Yet, authors swapping reviews and soliciting reviews from readers are against Goodreads’ TOS. Goodreads discourages in its “best practices” that authors contact readers is a poor practice. So, in this call to action, any direct action an author would take to satisfy this goal is frowned upon.

Already, the whole statement is in trouble. In a practical sense, this devolves to authors asking other authors to review their work, or giving away their work “in exchange for an honest review” which requires a disclaimer which, in turn, damages the legitimacy of the both the review and the author in the view of some number of readers, especially when those form a large portion of the book’s reviews.

Even if reviews given in exchange for a free book do some good, organic reviews will do more good. Amazon supports my view on this by deemphasizing the former in their rating calculation.

But let’s move on.

This deserves a brief mention: “especially early. . .” Why? Ebooks do not go out of print. There is no time urgency, no deadlines, nothing. Nor have my investigations shown any support for notion reviews are especially helpful for new books. Plenty of new books sell best before they get reviews.

If Goodreads has proof that reader reviews are a sales driver for new books, and not a result of new books selling for other reasons, they need to present that proof, clearly and unambiguously, not imply it.

This problem lies at the heart of their other statements. Let’s consider them:

“Reviews help readers discover your book . . .”

I’m not going to deal with this statement here because it relates to visibility, the subject of my previous post. Suffice to say that a positive review, spread by word of mouth (which is what this amounts) will sell books. But, per the above, getting said review cannot be an author’s goal. Our real goal is to write a book someone enjoy enough to merit such a review.

“They help reader decide. . .” Yes, reviews may help readers decide to try your book or avoid your book. Positive reviews can harm your book’s sales potential and negative reviews can help it. See my previous post on this for more detail.

Bottom line: “help readers decide” does not equal “sells books” and it is irresponsible to imply that, as this point seems to.

Next point on this: “they are less likely to add your book. . .” This an unambiguous claim. I would like to see it support with data. But the real point is the implied claim that adding a book to someone’s list on Goodreads have sales value. I see no evidence of this. I see the reverse: “to read” lists on Goodreads appear to be something of a joke. In general, they do not appear to show any serious intent of ever purchasing the book, and I believe readers looking for new books to buy do not, as a rule, consult them.

Here, again the argument is “increased visibility” but I argue this visibility is of no practical worth as a sales driver, especially for new books. And—to repeat myself—this is neither amenable to, or justifies, making reviews a “goal.”

Finally: “Goodreads reviews harder. . .” Note the sales tone, it’s important. Harder than what or who? That’s the sales pitch—a statement of no value that sounds “catchy.” But examine what comes next.

The bit about many Goodreads members posting their reviews on Facebook and Twitter: what is the point here? That is unrelated to Goodreads. Goodreads cannot plausibly take credit for what their members do elsewhere. Making this claim is disingenuous.

But I’m more concerned with this part: the statement that Goodreads’ reviews are syndicated to USAToday, etc. Who’s reviews are syndicated? Yours? Mine? Or Stephen King’s?

The point here is that Goodreads does not state their policy on syndication. If they impose criteria related to a book’s sales record, then they are simply agreeing with others who use reviews as a proxy for past sale success. That destroys their argument that getting reviews should be a goal, as it shows Goodreads understands what reviews actually mean, and it’s not what that graphic implies.

The time has come to wrap this up. Last question: what is the purpose behind Goodreads’ stance as expressed in that graphic?

Consider this: Amazon is very stringent about reviews. They have evaluated what lends credibility to reviews and they actively and vigorous defend it, much to the annoyance of some authors.

Note to Authors: when Amazon pulls a review, you should thank them! They did you a favor. That review was harming your book’s sales potential. Amazon wants to sell our book more than we do. Very few of us earn our living by selling our work. Amazon does. They know more about it than we do. Trust them on this one.

Moving on: Amazon knows just what role reviews play in selling books, and Amazon’s depends on selling products. Amazon is, as I said, careful about reviews.

Goodreads is not. My family and friends can review my book. Even I can review my book, although Goodreads will state that. Amazon does not allow any of this. Amazon also does not have a rating system that allows “drive-by” ratings: a reviewer has to write something, so visitors can evaluate it.

Why the difference? I cannot say, but I will make this observation: Goodreads does not sell books. Goodreads sells advertising. The number of reviews and ratings on Goodreads are one of the things that make it more attractive to advertisers.

Getting reviews posted on Goodreads is of material benefit to Goodreads. It may be slight, but it is there and it is always positive. From the point of view of Goodreads, thinking “our goal should be to get reviews” makes good business sense.

Whether those reviews benefit us, as authors, is much more problematic, as explained in my previous post.

That statement by Goodreads in the graphic above is using bad logic and irrelevant points to exhort you and me to have as a goal something that may harm us, will usually do nothing for us, and will only benefit us when we’re already being successful.

But it will always benefit Goodreads.

I will leave it at that. The rest is up to you.