Search News


Browse Archives

News

Elsevier Won't Pay for Praise

June 23, 2009

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

As if the textbook industry didn't have an image problem already...

Elsevier officials said Monday that it was a mistake for the publishing giant's marketing division to offer $25 Amazon gift cards to anyone who would give a new textbook five stars in a review posted on Amazon or Barnes & Noble. While those popular Web sites' customer reviews have long been known to be something less than scientific, and prone to manipulation if an author has friends write on behalf of a new work, the idea that a major academic publisher would attempt to pay for good reviews angered some professors who received the e-mail pitch.

Here's what the e-mail -- sent to contributors to the textbook -- said:

"Congratulations and thank you for your contribution to Clinical Psychology. Now that the book is published, we need your help to get some 5 star reviews posted to both Amazon and Barnes & Noble to help support and promote it. As you know, these online reviews are extremely persuasive when customers are considering a purchase. For your time, we would like to compensate you with a copy of the book under review as well as a $25 Amazon gift card. If you have colleagues or students who would be willing to post positive reviews, please feel free to forward this e-mail to them to participate. We share the common goal of wanting Clinical Psychology to sell and succeed. The tactics defined above have proven to dramatically increase exposure and boost sales. I hope we can work together to make a strong and profitable impact through our online bookselling channels."

The e-mail message was not intended, of course, for potential purchasers of the book. But one of the contributors -- George Tremblay of Antioch University in New England -- e-mailed his friends and colleagues his response, which isn't what Elsevier's marketing division was looking for:

"As a contributor to an Elsevier textbook, I received the invitation below," he wrote (above the text of the e-mail from Elsevier). "You might want to reconsider any weight you accord to those Amazon reviews, considering the probability that at least some of them are being bought. I told them this one backfired, as I'd be forwarding it to a listserve of academic psychologists -- the very potential audience for the book (which I hasten to add, I actually do hope will succeed, but Elsevier should be ashamed of themselves)."

Tremblay said he has received two calls from Elsevier officials telling him that the e-mail did not reflect company policy and that the officials were "eager to appear responsive."

Cindy Minor, marketing manager for science and technology at Elsevier, said that the e-mail did not reflect Elsevier policy. She called the request for five star reviews "a poorly written e-mail" by "an overzealous employee." Minor said that the concerns over the marketing pitch have been discussed "at the highest levels" in the company and that nobody favors paying for good reviews. The situation "is not being taken lightly," she said.

"We want unbiased, honest reviews," she said.

Tom Reller, director of corporate relations for Elsevier, issued a statement distinguishing between what was and was not acceptable under company policy. "Encouraging interested parties to post book reviews isn't outside the norm in scholarly publishing, nor is it wrong to offer to nominally compensate people for their time, some of these books are quite large," he said. "But in all instances the request should be unbiased, with no incentives for a positive review, and that's where this particular e-mail went too far."

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on Elsevier Won't Pay for Praise

  • Immoral? Of course. Unusual for Elsevier? Mmm...
  • Posted by Sherman Dorn , Professor, Psychological and Social Foundations of Education at University of South Florida on June 23, 2009 at 9:30am EDT
  • After hearing of fake journals for pharmaceutical companies and annually seeing thousands of dollars in jacked-up subscriptions for journal "package," should we be that surprised at news of anything uncovered about Elsevier?

  • Posted by G. Tod Slone on June 23, 2009 at 10:45am EDT
  • Interesting report... on yet another aspect of academic corruption. Grazie molto! I've added the Elzevier quote to my essay on the need for counterfriction reviews.
    G. Tod Slone
    www.theamericandissident.org

  • "Why, it was only a minor employee..."
  • Posted by So Sorry on June 23, 2009 at 11:30am EDT
  • Caught in their crass scheme, the company now is shocked, just shocked, that a "minor employee" wrote the "poorly-worded e-mail." Don't they realize that employees work within a company culture and act within that framework of values?

  • Posted by Stephen Downes on June 23, 2009 at 2:30pm EDT
  • Pretty misleading headline. At the very least, it shoudk say that they won't pay *any more*

    Also, when they say it was a "mistake", what they mean, of course, is that it was a mistake to do it in such a way that they would be caught.

  • Shocked, shocked.
  • Posted by Mr. Asif on June 23, 2009 at 3:15pm EDT
  • As if people aren't doing this on their own all the time. Or profs are asking their friends or their junior colleagues to post favorable reviews (as other authors use their networks too).

    Amazon ratings would be pretty useless for evaluating a textbook. A much better method is to look over the textbook.

  • Only $25?
  • Posted by Matt Doar on June 23, 2009 at 7:30pm EDT
  • Should have been at least $100 ;-)

  • Amazon ratings are very useful
  • Posted on June 23, 2009 at 7:30pm EDT
  • It proves that there is no good ratings system that cannot be corrupted by those so uncaring and unethical that they willfully aim to corrupt it for their own gains.

    Amazon customer ratings are very useful when done legitimately. It might be a good idea as a final exercise to assign students to rate their textbooks at Amazon and to have professors write reviews of any texts they use. The volume of legitimate reviews would then overwhelm the illegitimate reviews that are written for hire.

  • Oh dear.
  • Posted by jenjen on June 24, 2009 at 10:00am EDT
  • Oh dear. They should ask the good folks at Belkin how the strategy of buying Amazon reviews helped their reputation after they were caught out doing it earlier this year.
    http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09%2F01%2F17%2F166226

    At least Elsevier was a little more respectful of their potential reviewers - Belkin only paid people 65 cents per review.

  • There's more to it than this
  • Posted by for_Sceiece! , CogSci at UCSD on June 24, 2009 at 1:30pm EDT
  • If you really think this was a minor employee's idea and not an executive mandate then you don;t know how the corporate mentality works.

  • No textbooks
  • Posted by arif jinha on June 25, 2009 at 5:15am EDT
  • Please, professors, don't assign any more textbooks that bankrupt the students. They are too expensive and when they contain errors or out of date info, these are passed on as fact. Just assign keywords and teach us how to evaluate sources, and we will learn the most current information on the subject, and learn how to learn critically (the most valuable part). Or write an open textbook under creative commons, available for the whole world to benefit abd to evaluate, not just the rich. Put integrity back into academia, stop sellling out for money and prestige.

  • Wake Up! All Publishers Pay for Reviews...
  • Posted by AlwaystheCynic on June 25, 2009 at 5:15am EDT
  • While it's always fun to bash the big bad publishers, paying for reviews has been going on forever. This week it's Elsevier, don't kid yourselves, the only difference was they got caught. Other publishers are probably breathing sighs of relief. Get over yourselves, a review for anything on Amazon or other retail site is to be taken with a grain of salt, subjective anyone?

  • do you really expect everyone to be honest
  • Posted by Murtaza on June 25, 2009 at 7:00pm EDT
  • The system of reviews lends itself to abuse, one way or another. There is no justifying what Elsevier or anyone buying reviews has been doing but can't we just think of a way to make the whole system better? For one thing, the number of people who find a review helpful usually makes a real review stand out from a fake one..

  • Posted by Suzanne on June 26, 2009 at 8:45pm EDT
  • Reviews are always subjective. They're not always corrupt.

    I am a frequent & highly-rated reviewer at Amazon despite the fact that when I don't like a book, I say so and the number of 'unhelpful' votes pile up.

    If I'd been offered this kind of deal I would have said no thanks -- and 'outed' them on an Amazon board.

    I hope that people who read Amazon reviews actually read them and don't just react like sheep to the number of stars. It's not that hard to distinguish a good and thoughtful review by someone who has read the book from a perfunctory one written by a friend of the author's or by someone else who just can't be bothered to invest the time and energy.

    And yes, the hapless employee was just trying to make his/her boss happy; this is a sign of corporate culture, not some maverick minion.

  • Reality
  • Posted by Jeff , Editor at Publishing on June 28, 2009 at 9:30am EDT
  • Elsevier's PR spin is stopping well short of the truth. This campaign email is part of a bigger marketing campaign orchestrated by the entire marketing team for every publication. At minimum, there's a marketing manager who manages the list, a marketing director that s/he reports to, plus a marketing assistant who makes the coffee and sends out these emails based upon the decisions the other two make. These marketing assistants have absolutely no say-so in budgetary matters; they are junior employees learning the ropes and doing what they're told. So there's no way this marketing assistant just up and ran a $25/review campaign without sign-off from above. Despite what Elsevier is saying here, this trail leads all the way up to the Marketing Director, who certainly was happy to NOT take responsiblity on this and instead push it off on a "rogue employee." Folks, this is like the head basketball coach who lets the $25k/year assistant take the fall. It's a shame Elsevier not only won't own up to this, they continue to propogate lies ...

  • integrity
  • Posted by Pam , Reference Librarian at Tredyffrin Library on June 29, 2009 at 11:00am EDT
  • I was pleased to see that the whistleblower in this case is an Antioch professor, living up to the old Horace Mann ideals. Go Antioch!!

  • action at odds with Elseviers own policy
  • Posted by Nick , University of Bristol at University of Bristol on June 30, 2009 at 12:45pm EDT
  • Well agree with others that this goes on, and most informed buyers know, so are not solely reliant on over zealous reviews on Amazon.com.

    However, what is disturbing, and I agree here with others that this action goes up the chain to senior managers whoi should no better and are not following there own "what we stand for policies". A PR spin of wordcraft that does not reflect at all what this corporation do and how they act.

    Its worth browsing the spin in light of this..

    http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/intro.cws_home/mission

  • I guess it depends on how much you value teaching....
  • Posted by Sue on July 6, 2009 at 5:00pm EDT
  • How lazy do you have to be to pick out your textbooks based on Amazon reviews?

  • In real world
  • Posted by Solmon at UCEA on July 8, 2009 at 2:00pm EDT
  • Actually the "mistake" what they say mean absolutely is that it was a mistake to do it in likea way that they would be caught easily.