The Ethics of Product Reviews

It's no secret that my allergy list is longer than some students' homework lists. I also happen to mix my own homeopathic anti-allergy capsules (for regular maintenance) and can't use medicines like Claritin* because I develop a tolerance after a week.

Would it be ethical for me to review Claritin?

I've tried it, and it didn't work for me, so I have that personal experience to draw from for my review. I also know plenty of people who use it and are happy with it, so while that's not needed to review something, it can help a reviewer balance their review.

However: I mix my own anti-allergy capsules.

Does that make me a competitor? Would it be unethical for me to review a medication because I make an equivalent home remedy for my own personal use?

No? Okay. What about if I start selling my recipe?

…

Now, if I were given a free sample of Claritin to try and review, most folks would deem that acceptable.

But what if the company heard that the medication didn't work for me and gave me compensation for my trouble, like a $10 gift card to buy something that'll work for me? Would it be ethical for me to review the medication then?

Yes? No? I seem to be getting conflicting answers, there, and the compensation wasn't even directly for the review. I can imagine it would be sharper if I were paid for a review.

What about if I knew the company's CEO?

Hmm… Answers also seem to be conflicting there. Some folks assume that knowing the person would make you more likely to give a good rating, while others insist that knowing the person doesn't have to affect the rating whatsoever. And a few up here in the rafters with me say that knowing the CEO would make us more critical in our reviews.

You might or might not have heard the recent hullabaloo about people paying for product reviews, including John Locke of How I Sold 1 Million eBooks in 5 Months fame. (And for the record, I do still believe his book can be useful as a reference for some marketing techniques, or at least for nudging your imagination into ideas for further ways to market something.)

And then J.A. Konrath went investigating fake reviews and had so much fun reading them that he posted some himself, for fun.

Any argument about ethics appeals to morals—but it also relies on assumptions.

• Someone who says it's never ethical to review someone you know assumes that knowing someone means you won't say what you actually think.
• Someone who says it's never ethical to review a product for which you receive compensation assumes that compensation necessitates a positive review.
• Someone who says it's never ethical to receive money for a review assumes that money is compensation for the review.

Depending on the situation, any of those can be incorrect…or correct. ^_^

Have I ever paid for reviews? No—as long as you don't consider a copy of the story to be "payment".

Would I ever be willing to pay for reviews? Theoretically—because someone who writes a review has spent their time on the product, so the payment would be reimbursement for that time. But I'd have to 1. have a budget for that and 2. find reviewers I could trust to list what they actually think, rather than cater to what they think I want to hear…and I'd have to do damage control for folks who assumed the reimbursement was necessarily for a positive review… Really, my time's better spent elsewhere. ^_^

In the latter situation,would I be willing to rehire someone who posted a negative review? If they supported their complaints, sure! (That would, of course, be dependent on their willingness to work for me again.) I mean, if you're squicked by first cousins as spouses (which is perfectly legal in most municipalities and actually not all that unusual), then a paragraph or two in "The Corpse Cat" will turn your stomach. By all means, put that in your review so others like you will be warned.

Notice, though, that I'm saying I have no problem with reviews by friends or relatives or employees as long as they're honest.

And it's entirely possible to be honest when reviewing someone you know, are related to, or have been paid by.

Ergo, calling one of those things necessarily unethical is missing the point about what makes that something unethical.

(Note: Fake reviews are honest, too, because they're obviously jokes. Don't believe me? Check out some of Konrath's.)

Now, such reviews might still be good to avoid, to avoid the appearance of dishonesty, but that's an entirely different matter.

Do you agree with me? Why or why not?

—Misti

*I'm not saying there's anything wrong with Claritin. I know some folks who've used it for years, and it's still working great for them. I mention it specifically because it's a well-known antihistamine medication, at least in my area.

Yes, You ARE That Stupid (and so am I)

Even if you haven't heard about the agent Pam van Hylckama's carjacking by a rejected wannabe client, you've doubtless heard of the ill-informed mob swarming to take down the perfectly legal LendInk, or some other incident that makes you wonder "How could they have been so stupid?!"

You might've even been one of those "stupid" people and are therefore now kicking yourself for that stupidity.

If you are—whether you're sniggering or embarrassed about the stupid—stop. Stop being embarrassed if you did something dumb, and stop sniggering at those who did something foolhardy.

Because every one of us is just as stupid.

Our individual types of "stupid" just show up in different areas.

I wasn't one of the fools who helped take down LendInk or who lashed out at those folks who helped take down LendInk…but you do not want me in an argument with someone who's upset and not saying what's really bothering them. It takes me far too long to catch on when someone's being roundabout or figurative, and I therefore am gasoline on their indignation.

Yet every so often I forget and try to jump in and diffuse a situation.

Since it's never worked, expect me to know better.

You have your own areas where you do something that you know—you know—is foolish.

And if you put any of us in an echo chamber about one of our "hot button" topics, we'll be just as likely to do something dumb…because all we're hearing is "This is okay, not stupid."

(By "echo chamber", I mean a place where you only hear one opinion about what's "right" to do or say, with any problems with that opinion and alternatives to that opinion being non-existent or squashed whenever they're brought up.)

For example, take KindleBoards. If you're a self-publisher, common advice there is to go exclusive with the Kindle Select program and to price low-low-low, get as many readers as possible, as fast as possible. While that model fits some folks' publication goals, it doesn't suit everyone.

But considering the overall tone and population in the Writer's Café on KindleBoards, a writer could easily be convinced to do something that goes against their goals—like, for example, giving their book away for free. And that website isn't an echo chamber.

Oh, KindleBoards sometimes sounds like one or acts like one, but it isn't a literal echo chamber. (Ah, on most topics, anyway.)

All of us have our hot buttons, topics that bypass our analysis and get us riled. Put us in an echo chamber that appeals directly to one of those hot buttons, and…

We'll be just as stupid as those featured in our favorite "I can't believe he did that!" stories.

Do you agree with me that everyone's that dumb? Do you have any "dumb" stories to share?

—Misti

Playing to Your Strengths – Writing to Hide Your Weaknesses

I promise I had this post in the queue before Red Tash guest posted over on Let's Get Digital (blog of David Gaughran). I also had it planned before Bob Mayer posted on his blog.

Ah, well.

Still, they spoke of making sure the first story or stories you write are simple enough for you to pull off. So they were talking specifically to newer writers.

Whereas I believe that everyone should make sure their project of choice is something they can pull off.

Don't get me wrong—writers should always seek to stretch themselves. But if you struggle with organizing plot logically and always have to go back and make sure you didn't overthink something and turn it into nonsense, well… As much as you might long to try your hand at writing cozy mysteries, you probably aren't ready for that, yet.

This is where self-editing comes into play. Ideally, you should do this before writing a story: sit down with all your story ideas and consider how they fit your abilities. What do you struggle with? What are you good at? What will each book require?

Struggle to write realistic dialogue, but your action scenes are killer? Then that character-driven drama with nuanced conversations probably isn't the best choice, right now. But lonely assassin story might work.

Do you have a hard time writing distinct voices for your different POV characters, but your humor scenes can make readers laugh out loud? Hm, then that multigenerational southern Gothic one probably won't work, but a lighthearted story limited to 1 POV, maybe 2, might work well.

Does plotting make you whimper and rip your outline to shreds and go back to the emotional arc outline? Then that plot-heavy spy novel probably won't work, unless maybe you could make it character-oriented… Hm. That might actually work.

See what I mean?

Now, don't neglect stretching yourself; but don't stretch yourself in every area at once. That way lay frustration.

Get fairly comfortable with what you're doing, then experiment. Always write in 3rd person limited? Try 1st person or omniscient POV. Always use present tense? Try past.

If you're feeling really adventurous—and are willing to produce something you probably won't be able to sell—try second person POV or one of the forbidden verb tenses (future, present perfect, past perfect). Those things aren't used for a reason, so trying to produce something that works despite that reason can be quite a valuable exercise.*

Are your stories always dialogue-heavy? Make yourself write a story that's description and monologue.

Are your stories always description-heavy? Try writing a story of pure dialogue.

If your experiment flunks, then you aren't as comfortable with your writing as you thought. Keep going. Keep practicing.

And don't tackle too many experiments at once unless you're willing to risk biting off more than you can chew.

For a writer to have novel or story ideas that they can't yet write is normal. I have one, myself, that I try to tackle every so often, only to sigh and lament "Not yet." Others that I stir, say "Hmm…", and nudge a little further back on the stove to keep simmering.

And the fun thing is, waiting to tackle the "hard" stuff will make it easier, because you'll have less to tackle at once. I struggle with transitions; I don't think with them—which even confuses me, sometimes—and therefore have had to really study when they're needed. I realized that it would be better for me to focus on stories with a limited timeline. But—

Even those limited timelines need transitions at every scene shift. So I was practicing the transitions, getting better at using them—and my ability to write a first draft that'll be coherent to someone other than me has increased dramatically.

What are your thoughts?

—Misti

P.S. April 2012 Update: Jami Gold's addressed this on a different tack over on her blog. Worth reading. ^_^

Editing Ability, Muphry's Law, and the Overconfidence Effect

Okay, for two weeks now, I've been addressing self-editing. First, I asked "Is Self-Editing Unprofessional?"; then I asked "Must Writers Be Professional?".

I admit that I hadn't heard of Muphry's [sic] Law before I went searching on Wikipedia for the name of the concept I'm actually wanting to bring up, but this one also works.

Muphry's Law

"if you write anything criticizing editing or proofreading, there will be a fault of some kind in what you have written"

Source: Wikipedia

Nobody's perfect. For everything, there's a point where you have to say "It's good enough" and let it go.

But is that thing actually good enough for general consumption?

I noticed something, even as a teenager when I was hanging out on fan fiction sites (…and learning how to balance critique with praise).

As a general rule, the more confident someone was about her writing, the more her writing sucked. (Saying "her" because so many fanfic writers are female.)

The less confident someone was about her writing, the better it tended to be—until it plateaued at a point where someone was fairly confident that they could put a sentence together without being convinced that "My writing is the bestest thing evah!" Those coolheaded ones were the fantastic ones, mind you, but they didn't realize that or even believe it of themselves.

The tendency to overstate your ability in a subject has actually been researched. I thought there was some "law" about it, but what I'm finding is the term "overconfidence effect."

Overconfidence Effect

The less you know about a subject, the less you assume there is to know, and the more you overestimate your knowledge of that subject

Source: Wikipedia

So let's try a quick quiz to test if you might be able to self-edit your own work. Answer honestly, now.

1. You know everything there is to know, everything you need to know, and everything you should know about editing.
2. You know a little, but you know that there are many things still need to learn.
3. You know some, but you're not sure you know everything you should.
4. You know a fair bit, though you're sure you don't know everything.
5. You know a lot. You're sure it isn't everything, but you know where to look things up.

Now let's rate your score:

• If you answered 1: forget it. You have a long way to go before being able to edit your own work—and event that can't start until you have an attitude change.
• If you answered 2: keep heart. You have a way to go, but you're on the right track!
• If you answered 3: keep at it. You're getting there…
• If you answered 4: try it out. You might be ready; at any rate, practice will do you the most good, now.
• If you answered 5: get to it. You're a good candidate for self-editing; at worst, you'll clean up your strong points to make it easier for someone else to identify your weak points.

I'm not going to gracefully bow out of this one. I'm an editor for my "day job", so of course I consider myself a 5. But in my own writing, my weakest points are transitions and plotting. I brain functions in odd, transition-less ways that loses folks who know me well, so I have to focus to make sure I connect the dots. I can also produce individual characters, situations, and scenes that make a pre-reader plea for more, but stringing them together into a plot? That's harder for me. (That's part of why I have so many WiPs—some are only characters and situations, right now; no plots.)

Even in day-to-day life, I have a tendency to think too hard. That's part of why I've been making myself write so many short stories; they're making me focus on Ockham's Razor, to produce plots that fit in about 3k words.

Might you be an exception to the above rules of thumb? Possibly. But I can't think of one exception that I've ever encountered in more than 5 years of working professionally—if you count my time as a hobbyist, we're entering two-digit territory—so forgive me for being dubious.

Now that you have some idea of if you're a good candidate for self-editing or not, this series will continue, addressing issues like the different types of editing and tricks to help yourself see what's actually on the page instead of what you thought you wrote.

How'd you score on the quiz? What are your thoughts on Muphry's Law and the Overconfidence Effect?

—Misti

Happy Thanksgiving, fellow USians!

Must Writers Be Professional?

As a recap from my post last week, let's look back at Merriam-Webster for a some pertinent definitions (according to the unabridged online dictionary):

professional

participating for gain or livelihood in an activity or field of endeavor often engaged in by amateurs (definition 2a)

professionalism

the conduct, aims, or qualities that characterize or mark a profession or a professional person" (definition 1a)

Ergo, if you're seeking financial return from your writing, you're a professional. If you're not seeking financial return, you're not.

Notice that there's no time limiter in there. Someone who has a plan for financial return in the long run despite a plan for no financial return in the short term would still count as a professional.

But must writers be professionals?

In self-publishing, in freelance writing, there's a common attitude that you must be professional, else you shouldn't be writing.

Funny. It was my dabbling (for fun) as a teenager that gave me the skills to be what I am now: author, proofreader, tutor, etc. I didn't even know freelancing existed at the time, but I unprofessionally wrote articles to help friends, critiqued their papers (and they mine), and proofread everything I saw or heard. (There's a reason my mother adds "Do NOT proofread this!" to notes she leaves around the house for me.)

I would spend hours teaching basic grammar to fellow fan fiction writers. Some of you readers even know me from way back when. I remember reading comments on someone's story, to see someone respond to my comment: "Oh, don't mind her; she's rude and a little mean." I remember the time I spent a good hour per (short) chapter, critiquing someone's story per that author's request, and the author having to defend me publicly when her other readers came after me.

Any hobby has its dabblers. The artist who takes a year to make a painting for a friend. The sculptor who produces clay objects now and again when she wants them. The knitter who makes toys to give away. The poet who only bothers to write poetry if she forgets to buy a card for a friend's wedding. (Only those last two are me.)

Okay, so others might tell such creative folks that they should sell their work, but if they don't want to, nobody will flip out and ask them why they even bother with their hobby.

Whereas a writer who insists on being "unprofessional" and giving their work away for free gets insulted and pressured to stop writing.

Why?

Okay, so I suspect I know why. Writers are generally under-appreciated and underpaid. Look at how often writers are pressured to accept "exposure" as appropriate payment for something. (Dude, if I want exposure instead of payment, I'll make that call, thanks.) Newbie freelance writers, seeking work online, are often pressured to take paltry amounts of a few cents per word—

And I bet that paltry amount, offered to freelance writers, stems from fiction markets. See, magazines and e-zines are deemed as "pro" 'zines if they pay a minimum of 5¢ per word for fiction. A would-be freelancer (or someone looking to hire freelancers) might see that, not realize the distinctions between fiction and nonfiction—or between FNASR and "all rights"—and therefore offer something that seems reasonable to them… with it actually being a fraction of standard freelance rates.

Many types of freelancers give up all rights to what they produce. Add a "0" to the end of what's generally offered for fiction, and you'll be closer to hitting a standard freelance rate.

That difficulty many writers have finding respect and appropriate payment probably makes them a wee sensitive when someone waltzes in and says, "I don't care about the money! I just want to be read!"

You know, there are music artists who offer their music free, too, as downloads or just for streaming online. Maybe it's just where I hang out online, but I haven't heard anyone accusing such artists of devaluing music.

Not everyone's trying to write for their "day job", just like not everyone's trying to paint or sculpt or knit or sing as a job. They might do it for fun and share it for fun.

So no, I don't think writers must be professional, whether they write fiction or non-fiction.

What's your take?

—Misti

Is Self-Editing Unprofessional?

There are two main schools of thought in self-editing:

1. Nobody can adequately edit themselves.
2. Everybody can (learn to) adequately edit themselves.

My "day job" is as a freelancer. I proofread, write, edit, and write—for small businesses, with small businesses, for individual entrepreneurs and self-publishers, etc.… My first freelance job ever as an 18-year-old college chick was writing online articles, and I was expected—required—to adequately edit my own work. But as an editor for self-publishers, I'm expected to insist that everyone needs an editor.

I can't be the only one who sees the inconsistency there.

Business writers, students writing term papers and test essays, professionals writing their own e-mails—all of them must edit and proofread their own work. Okay, in some cases, editing can be outsourced, but on a test essay? My best essay grade in college was one where I was given the topic and had an hour time limit to produce that essay. My teacher gave me a 99% and later apologized for not giving me 100%, because she hadn't found any errors and the essay still resounded with her.

(Anyone thinking "But wait! Freelancers go through editors, too!" Yeah, for some types of writing, but in my experience, those are acquisitions editors; their job is to make sure you nail the tone and angle that the publication wants, not to play English teacher for you. And I know of one university that doesn't allow undergraduate students to get help beyond "You have comma splices in your paper.")

Self-publishers, though, are often told that they're being "unprofessional" if they don't hire editors and proofreaders for their manuscript. While I agree that most writers need or can benefit from a good editor, and a proofreader's often a good idea, I disagree that hiring an editor makes someone professional.

Hiring an editor doesn't do you diddly squat if you don't understand what that editor's supposed to be doing—and if your editor doesn't actually do her job. (Saying "her" because so many of us are female.)

A (near-)"flawless" manuscript isn't what makes you a "professional," either.

Look at Amanda Hocking. She's a nice girl, polite and treating her writing like the business it is. But all the editors she hired—and there were more than one—evidently didn't catch something in her My Blood Approves series that struck me as a large plot hole, which probably could've been fixed with little tweaks. (I still read all four and don't mind recommending them to people who enjoy that kind of paranormal romance.) Am I to consider her "unprofessional" because her works aren't "flawless"?

Look at Dean Wesley Smith and Kristine Kathryn Rusch, pro writers who probably have more stories under each penname than I have ideas. They know what they want to do with their writing, and they're more concerned about getting quality stories out there in enjoyable form than flawless form. Rusch has been an award-winning short story editor. Am I to consider these two "unprofessional" because they don't even aim for technically "flawless" stories?

Merriam-Webster is the dictionary of choice in US publishing, in my experience. The pertinent definition of professional (2a) is "participating for gain or livelihood in an activity or field of endeavor often engaged in by amateurs" (according to the unabridged online dictionary).

Professionalism is "the conduct, aims, or qualities that characterize or mark a profession or a professional person" (same source, definition 1a). So it's how you behave and what you want out of your chosen profession.

That makes "professional" a matter of attitude, an attitude of seeking financial return from your chosen profession. (You don't have to be "professional" and seek financial return from your writing if you don't want to—but I'll get more into that in a later post.)

A professional freelance writer, one who wants to make money at writing, must self-edit and self-proofread to get assignments, unless they seek clueless clients. (I'm sure this happens, and I feel sorry for the deluded clients.)

A professional author, on the other hand, can hire a pro editor or self-edit, depending on what they need. I find many more typos in, for example, work by another author I like who's a NYT bestseller and gets edited and proofread by one of the so-called "Big 6", then particular self-publishing authors I enjoy, some of whom I know don't hire out.

Now, notice that I'm not saying "You must self-edit your story" or "You must hire a pro editor."

I'm saying your choice on whether to self-edit or hire out editing does not have any bearing on being a professional author.

(Yes, I intend to return to the topic of self-editing next week.)

What are your thoughts on (self-)editing and professionalism?

—Misti