Making Progress

Porch with rocking chairs, hanging baskets, and columns.I spent much of the last day in synagogue, because it’s Yom Kippur, better known as “The day of atonement,” and known in my house when “the day you spend a lot of time in a big room with people who didn’t brush their teeth that morning.”

Apparently, Emily VeingloryMrs. Giggles and Kate Garrabrant think that there’s something I ought to have been atoning for.

The short story is, I am part of a small consulting company called Simple Progress. Simple Progress was originally Mollie Smith’s company, and she’s brilliant at web management, design, and author website administration. Most of the client list she built herself. She’s pretty badass. Recently she invited me to join her company because over our semi-regular breakfast meetings (we are also neighbors) we would discuss social marketing needs for her clients, and I’d pitch ideas that would work for the authors to run for themselves or for Mollie to administer with programming, plugins and other magical things.

We think of it like languages. Mollie is extremely fluent in technology and in author promotion needs, especially since authors need to take on more of their own marketing responsibilities. I’m pretty fluent in social media and in how campaigns might effectively reach readers online in a way that isn’t an aggressive hard sell.

In other words, I speak social media and reader and author interaction; Mollie speaks tech and author, and the two of us work together to come up with social media campaigns that speak as many of those languages as possible, and that an author can run on her own. Most of what we do is web administration, mailing list management, and a small amount of consulting. 

Given the accusations about my integrity, I want to make a few corrections:

We did not come up with or administer in any way the recent JD Robb New York to Dallas Facebook scavenger hunt. If we had, I wouldn’t have participated. That campaign was concocted by some really smart marketing folks, including the marketing and publicity team over at Penguin, and run by Nora’s team – and it was pretty freaking spiffy. I think it was brilliant in the way that it involved readers and visited so many diverse web sites.

Another point: it seems that my involvement with Simple Progress has caused festive accusations to fly that I must be being paid by my clients to promote them here.

At no time am I paid to promote authors in reviews here on this site. What appears in this space is my opinion.

In fact, in our proposals and contracts, we state the following:

Promotion on any website owned or operated in whole or in part by Mollie Smith or Sarah Wendell is not included in the scope of this project.

I am not ever paid or compensated for my opinion here. I don’t know how to say that more strongly.

There are authors on the client list whose books I really, really enjoyed, and there’s books by those authors that I haven’t liked as much. But it’s an insult to them and to me that they’d need to pay for mention here or anywhere else.

It hasn’t escaped my notice that the people who have the most interest in my ethics and morals are other bloggers, bloggers with whom I thought I was on good terms. Honestly, that makes me ineffably sad. I wish that if someone had a problem with me, they’d have brought it to me, rather than talk about me online or obliquely on Twitter (hell, Katie is my neighbor, too. She’s been invited into my home and met my family. She could have rung my doorbell to talk to me).

Everything is changing online and off: agents are publishers. Bloggers, like me, are authors. Bloggers are freelancing for publishers and media outlets. Readers and reviewers are in all sorts of different roles, from copyediting to critiquing to beta readers for publishing houses. We all switch places when we ring the bell, I think. The online community is a pretty close and intermixed neighborhood, and we’re all doing new and different and amazing things – sometimes hourly.

If my involvement with Simple Progress has caused you to doubt my truthfulness or to doubt my honesty in my opinions about books, that really sucks and I’m sorry to hear it. But the good thing is, there are so many amazing romance review blogs now, there’s no shortage of opinions about the novels we love, and I hope you find excellent books to read in every genre you like.

But I also trust that if you personally thought I was up to something funny, that I was trying to pull the wool over your eyes and deceive you, you’d call me on it here so damn fast my head would spin.

I presume that’s still true. I hope it is, anyway. If I wrote a review or a comment in favor of a book that you thought was incentivized in any way, I trust entirely you’d call me on it immediately. But I would never do that to you because I value your opinion and your presence here.

There are few things I am more in awe of than the community of readers at this site. You’re as honest with me as you are with each other, and I value that more than I can say.

 

Categorized:

General Bitching...

Comments are Closed

  1. Katherine C. says:

    And please don’t take that last sentence to mean I don’t believe she is consistent in how she handles reviews now, or that I think she should have to convince anyone of her honesty.

  2. Maili says:

    I just caught up with the whole thing. So late to the party. 😀

    Please note my response to Jane is not about Mrs Giggles, SBs and such. 

    @Jane

    The only way a blogger maintains a readership or grows one is by having an authentic and consistent voice and that authentic and consistent voice cannot be maintained if is is purchasable by contracts or friendships.

    That’s true, but I need to address one thing about that. Or three, rather.

    a) Transparency. That means disclosing your relationship with an author (or CP, or agent, or publisher, or printer’s dog). It’s not about reviewer’s integrity, or whether she’s consistent with her views. It’s about respecting a reader/potential customer’s right to know in context of assessing the value of a reviewer. Each reviewer is a brand in their own right after all.

    It still doesn’t matter because what matters is the value of each review to each reader, regardless whether it’s a rave review or not. A disclosure would be appreciated (I always appreciate it), but not everyone gives a fuck because they can either figure it out themselves in the end through other means – let it be finding out from other readers, comparing it with other reviews or reading books themselves – or ignore it in favour of detailed information about the reviewed book. 

    b) It IS possible to have an authentic and consistent voice whilst promoting a book or author in form of a review. It’s called awareness. I know some reviewers strongly disagree with this, but in my view, each time we review a book, we’re raising readers’ awareness of said book. That’s promotion. We however have to offer something in the review to keep readers coming back for more. We do that by providing, as you say, an authentic and consistent voice – as well as having our own reading taste. You know that’s called stickiness.

    c) “[…] that authentic and consistent voice cannot be maintained if is is purchasable by contracts or friendships.”

    I call BS on that. There are some reviewers who do let friendship affect their reviews without sacrificing their authentic and consistent voice. Some did it subtly, and some did so awkwardly that it had a flashing neon arrow sign pointing at it. But I’m not talking about the “I wanna be your friend so will you let me if I write positive reviews of your books?” extremity. We all know who those are, so they don’t count (rude of me, I know, but I can’t stand ra-ra reviewers).

    I’m talking about wording a review in a way that it wouldn’t affect friendship without compromising so much that regular review readers would notice. Again, it’s not about integrity. It’s about our desire to show respect – especially if the author is widely regarded and well respected – and we have been victim of that sometimes, right or wrong.

    Not all were aware of doing it, though. Some reviewers trusted certain authors to be sincere when interacting and they reacted accordingly, including taking more care with writing reviews of those authors’ books, negative or positive. They found out too late that they were used. In other words, they were purchased without their knowledge. We all have been there. What I’m saying is that there are many forms of purchases and with or without our knowledge. Not so black and white, I’m thinking.

    Overall, my view:
    The romance community is so incestuous that it’s rather impossible to have strict boundaries like the so-called professional reviewers have in that big bad world. So we rightfully allow certain compromises – such as reviewers hanging out with authors and readers with reviewers – but IMO, reviewers still need to disclose their friendship or relationship (the “I’ve roomed with this author at this convention” or “I’m a CP of this author” kind) in reviews for the sake of transparency. Not essential, but it would be nice.

    Back to the Mrs G / SB thing:

    Come on, there are people here who have been around long enough to know that there’s an invisible law that there are always consequences when one “hides” something (whether it’s “I didn’t think it was that important” or “it has nothing to do with with what I do here”). This happened how many times last fifteen years? 100s of times, I’m willing to bet.  It’s a tired old song.

    Both Mrs G and Sarah know this. They should if they didn’t. Sarah should have disclosed at the start but she didn’t. Mrs G should have been less coy about it all but alas, she couldn’t resist poking a stick at a hole Sarah left behind. She’s the watchman of the watchmen after all, so we shouldn’t be surprised that she would take this opportunity to check a major blogger like Sarah to make sure all’s in the order. Naturally, Sarah isn’t happy to have her integrity questioned. No surprise there, both ways.

    I do think it’s healthy to have this kind of thing, though, because it can help us all not to be complacent and be pro-active by recognising, acknowledging and highlighting the changes we make along our journey from what we were to what we are now, and what we will be. And why not?

    While Mrs G’s handling is very Mrs G, it’s still a fair call. (Ideally, Mrs G would be less coy but alas.) Sarah still has nothing to worry about because, as she says, her conscience is clear. Mrs G questioned. Sarah explained. End of the story. Let’s move on. No need for anyone to get upset, is there? 

    Sorry for being so long-winded and for being such a black sheep. Thanks, Sarah, for letting me have this space to ramble without you being so ready to shove this keyboard into my face. 😀 Cheers.

  3. Aloha, Sarah!  It’s still early in Hawaii so I hope this is coherent (I am sipping caffeine as I write).  After skimming your post, my first thought was, “OMG, is she from Krypton?”  Because you seem to have super powers to accomplish so much more in the same 24 hour day than I do! 

    After rereading your words (and the links), these random thoughts came to mind:

    – It may seem personal but don’t let it get personal.  The authors of the three links had something to say, you responded to them, and now it’s out in the open.  Perhaps we can all learn from each other’s perspective.

    – I don’t know what was the intent of the bloggers who posted the link or the commenters who responded.  It’s easy to jump on the bandwagon and assume that they intended malfeasance.  But let’s remember that they, too, are romance readers.  Per your new book, romance readers are awesome.  But they are also human and speak their mind.  Something about your business relationship and/or your blog success bothers them.  I think it is healthy to explore what bothers them rather than dismiss them.

    – Dr. Sarah Frantz defended Sarah W. at the other links, “Can we perhaps trust that Sarah, who has done more for the reputation of romance than most anyone else and is one of the most ethical people.”  Trust is a two way street – if you want it, give it.   

    – I would agree that you have become a significant influence in promoting romance.  But that makes you a bigger target, no matter how unjustified.  It is what it is.

    – I have no doubt of your integrity.  I believe you still write like a grass roots blogger.  Likewise, I believe you (and others) can have personal relationships and business enterprises with authors, editors, and publishers without compromising integrity.  But this issue has been debated here, there, and everywhere.  Clearly, direct communication is preferable to making assumptions. 

    I end with a Hawaiian proverb:

    He lawai’a no ke kai papa’u, he pokole ke aho; he lawai’a no ke kai hohonu he loa ke aho.

    Translation:  A fisherman of shallow seas uses only a short line; a fisherman of the deep sea uses a long line.

    Explanation: You will reach only as far as you aim and prepare yourself to reach.

  4. riga says:

    I don’t know about the other two, but Mrs. Giggles’s raging hateboner for apparently everyone who has anything to do with SBTB and DA has made me discount almost everything coming out of her mouth these days. Kind of a shame because I found a lot of keepers from her reviews, since her taste in books is very similar to mine.

    She does love criticizing other bloggers, doesn’t she, but when people disagree with her or just ask her to back up her claims and insinuations, she frequently responds with nothing more than a “LOL.” Yes, that certainly is thought-provoking commentary you’re providing there. Very convincing stuff.

  5. Vicki says:

    A couple things: First, I’m sure I heard about simple consulting from Sarah, maybe on twit or somewhere, and maybe without the name. She just mentioned that clients were referral only. Didn’t bother me enough to even remember the context, just an, oh, yeah, she’s a busy woman.

    This has come up in my (completely different) line of work. People will suggest I am doing something (often something I am not actually doing) due to a conflict of interest. Generally, I invite them to take their business elsewhere. I am not the only game in town.

    I read this blog because it is entertaining and, over the last several years, has proven reliable. If someone feels elsewise, no one is holding a gun to their head to make them read it. Read another blog. If you have questions about conflicts, you can ask Sarah. It turns out that there’s a contact link at the top of this page. It works. I know. I’ve used it.

  6. Terrie says:

    I think comments here have covered most of what I would want to say on the issue: that perhaps disclosure up front could have prevented this hoo-ha and Sarah herself has responded to note that might have been best.  Comments about the blurring of lines in the industry make good points. 

    That said, I think the creation of this drama (“Hmmmm”) was snide and unattractive.  No, Mrs. G is not a journalist, and I don’t hold her to journalistic standards.  She is a blogger, and I do have standards that I expect from bloggers who will earn my (precious) time. She doesn’t meet them. 

    And I just think it’s a shame that in the excitement and thrill of having a new book out, this muddies the waters.  So, I really hope for Sarah’s sake that this brouhaha disappears quickly and she can go back to enjoying the heady experience of having a new book out herself.

    So, thank you, Sarah, for shaping a community that is a consistent pleasure to visit.  You have created a dynamic, fun, thought and grin provoking website that cheers on a genre that is dear to my heart.  I appreciate it.

  7. Melanie says:

    @riga

    a little off topic here, but you make me so happy. LOL is NOT a response/rebuttal to someone’s argument; and in my world, if you don’t actually respond to the argument, you concede the argument. I will end rant now.

  8. tc says:

    she is an author now , dont that make a difference too? i think it does.  to me it a conflict of interest , but i still read here mmm. oh well there goes the blurring .

  9. sweeks1980 says:

    While this kerfuffle hasn’t made me question Sarah Wendell and Smart Bitches, it has made me reevaluate some of the bloggers I follow. Mrs. Giggles – I’m breaking up with you. And it’s not me – it is all you.

    It always annoys me when someone stirs the pot (so to speak) and then tries to backtrack and proclaim innocence. I have read and enjoyed Mrs. Giggles’s reviews for years, and I deleted her from my bookmarks (and shook the virtual dust from me feet) after reading her posting on this topic, her asinine defense of her actions, and her nonsensical (and vaguely insulting) “LOL” responses to readers who disagreed with her. If she had been more upfront with her original post OR admitted that she could see how the original post might have been interpreted as passive-aggressive sh*t stirring OR had the civility to concede that readers who disagree with her have a valid point, I might have let this go. However, her lack of grace and her inability to take any responsibility (or even acknowledge that this issue has more than one side) was too much for me to handle.

    I would have posted all of this on her blog, but I knew that if I received an “LOL” response from her, I would throw my computer through the window. Thanks for letting me rant here!

  10. it’s a very slippery and very tricky subject. That’s why, when I decided to review, a slot kindly offered by Sybil, I decided I wouldn’t review books put out by any publisher I write for, or any writer I consider a friend.
    That’s where it gets tricky. Because when is a friend a friend rather than an acquaintance? So I decided subsequently that I’d mention my relationship with the author, if there was any.
    But how far do you go? For instance, I’ve met and like Miranda Neville, and we’ve even done some joint promo, but I loved her book when I was sent it for review. What to do?
    It’s slippery. And I agree – full disclosure is always the safest way. if you can.

  11. jody says:

    For crying out loud. The heavy hitters on Simple Progress’s client list need no pimpage from SBTB. 

    I don’t know of any other blog not subsidized by a publisher or a bookseller that does so much to promote obscure and lesser known authors, as well as informing and protecting authors and readers alike. 

    Thank you, Sarah, for all you do.  Congratulations on the book.  Let the rabble eat cake. 

    Maybe it would be more productive to make wine from those sour grapes, hmmm?

  12. kkw says:

    I suspect that I’m lacking integrity myself. I don’t see a problem. Even if Sarah were being paid to write the reviews here I’d say good for her. I just can’t see how it would ever damage me any. So I read Bitten and did not care for it in any fashion, at all, even a teensy bit. Whether the delightful review of it was motivated by errant taste on Sarah’s part (which I’m sorry to say I’m quite certain it was) or because she was being paid to advertise it seems irrelevant. I found the review thought-provoking and inspiring. I’m glad it existed even if I didn’t have the same reaction to the book that she did. I enjoyed being witness to the exchange of ideas the post(s) provoked. I consider this website a public service. If she was paid to bring Loretta Chase to my attention, then everyone wins even more than I knew. If somehow everything she’s writing is a tissue of self-serving lies I still hope she never stops.

  13. Magsg says:

    @sweeps 1980:  Good post. You said everything I was thinking.

  14. Merry says:

    @sweeps 1980, I agree with Magsg. That was what I was trying to get at, only the way you wrote it was much clearer and more forcefully put.

  15. sweeks1980 says:

    @Magsg – Thank you!

    @Merry – I think you put it very nicely as well!

  16. Pam says:

    This whole business really saddens me.  I don’t really want to restate the arguments in support of Sarah that others have presented so well.  Suffice it to say that if there was an error on Sarah’s part, it was not so much an ethical issue but more a case of underestimating the persnickety nature of some members of this neighborhood in the online community.  Success breeds jealousy, sad to say, no matter what kind of sly self-righteous tone it takes.

    Unfortunately, the elephant, no matter how petty, is still swinging its trunk pretty wildly.  And no, I don’t think that’s feigned surprise in Sarah’s post; I think it’s tightly restrained hurt, because it hurts like hell when someone, apparently out of malice, grabs ahold of a tiny thread and attempts to unravel years of hard work.  And, yeah, she covered the relevant points, and that should be the end of it, but I think, as a reader, I have an obligation to respond.

    I only know Sarah from her online persona; she has a voice and vision that seems crystal clear to me.  I am less a consumer of reviews than a fan of her hard work, great humor, humanitarian values, and excellent writing.  Anyway, Sarah, I just want to offer my whole-hearted support and thanks for all the wonderful things that you do.

  17. Elyssa Papa says:

    Hindsight is always 20/20. I mean, if I could go back and change some things (what was I thinking applying to colleges as a pre-med when I didn’t like cutting up things?!) I so would.

    But here’s how I look at it. I’ve never met Sarah in real life. But from what I know of her online—on this blog and on Twitter, she’s pretty damn awesome. She’s been my gateway drug to some authors and books. (Jennifer Estep, Sherry Thomas, and Jo Bourne, I’m looking at you.) She’s also been one of the best advocates for romance. And I so would hire her in a second if I ever sold. Sarah, I could pay you with my first born book, right? Damn, I didn’t think so. 😉

    And, you know, I’m still not sure if I brushed my teeth before falling asleep last night and it is bothering me.

    Regardless, Sarah, despite all the hoop-la there are a ton of people who support you. This venture sounds fabulous and totally something you’d rock at.

  18. SB Sarah says:

    @Pam: “Suffice it to say that if there was an error on Sarah’s part, it was in underestimating the persnickety nature of some members of this neighborhood in the online community. “

    YES. That is my error. If there is a lesson here, I have learned it: never, ever underestimate the “raging hateboner” to find something to kvetch about.

    @riga I will love you for the rest of my life for that phrase. Thank you.

  19. Las says:

    Good grief. Criticizing one thing about a person doesn’t mean that she’s being called a horrible person. I find all these “We know what a wonderful person you are Sarah!” and “They’re all just jealous!” and “I’m on your side on this blogger war that I’m imagining!” responses over-the-top. How about discussing the actual issue at hand instead of getting offended that you’re “leader’s” honor has been impugned. You don’t think Simple Progress is a big deal from a blogging standpoint? Say that, and argue why you think that’s so. But please don’t accuse others of being mean girls (and that’s some rich irony right there) because they have some legitimate questions/criticisms.

  20. Theo says:

    @las

    You’re right about legitimate concerns/questions, but they should have been brought to Sarah, not aired in innuendo and veiled criticisms on a blog since these people were supposed to be more than a passing acquaintance in at least one instance. Had it been done that way, we might have simply seen a disclaimer go up somewhere on this blog and that would have been the end of it and I doubt most of us would have even notice.

    No, I’m sorry, but I have to agree with the others. There are far deeper motives here than just bringing this to light. If these bloggers were in fact journalists, this would flash a bright yellow in my book.

  21. snarkhunter says:

    I’m with kkw and mssarahb. I honestly do not get what the big deal is. And, actually, I’m confused on two fronts. First: I just resurrected myself here a few weeks ago after a 2-year hiatus, and I swear to God I knew Sarah was part of Simple Progress. I don’t know HOW I knew that, but I knew. So I figure it must’ve been disclosed somewhere. Second, and more important: even if Sarah was being paid to give good reviews to “bad” books…I wouldn’t see the problem. As we all may have noticed when we had the “it didn’t work for me” thread a few weeks ago, people’s tastes differ. A delightful, wonderful book to one person is a piece of crap to another person. Sarah gave Midsummer’s Moon an A review. I hated that book. Yet I didn’t assume Laura Kinsale paid her for the rec.

    As for subconscious bias…um, yeah? And you’re likely to be gentler on an author whose first six books you liked when their seventh turned out to be crap.

    I don’t know. I think this is yet another manifestation of the notion that all blogging/art must be done for loooooooooooove, and woe be upon you if you accept payment for it, you whorey little sellout.

    (Psychic captcha is “money44.”)

  22. snarkhunter says:

    Just to clarify—the reason I don’t see a big deal about paid reviews? Is because at the end of the day reviews are purely subjective. And I try to bring enough awareness of my own taste (and, if possible, of the reviewer’s likes, dislikes, and biases) to decide whether that means the book is worth reading for me or not.

    So even if there is a conflict of interest here, and I’m honestly not seeing one, it doesn’t matter to me. I’m genuinely confused by the kerfuffle. Paid to give a good review? That’s fine with me. As far as I’m concerned, free copies of books (even ARCs) are practically payment anyway, but that’s because my money is usually converted into book form quite quickly, so books are rather like currency to me.

  23. JaniceG says:

    I think there are two issues being conflated here: whether there is indeed a conflict of interest, and how people raised this issue.

    Las said:

    How about discussing the actual issue at hand instead of getting offended that you’re “leader’s” honor has been impugned.

    The fact that some people are bothered more by the nature of the accusation than its truth doesn’t mean that they don’t think the truth is important.

    Maili said:

    Mrs G questioned. Sarah explained. End of the story. Let’s move on.

    The problem as I understand it is that Mrs G didn’t  question Sarah directly: she chose to make public accusations without first trying to get a response directly. That’s not good “journalism” and it smacks more of witch-hunting than concern for the truth. The way to handle this would have been to directly question Sarah, get an answer, and then, if necessary, report on that answer.

  24. JaniceG says:

    SB Sarah said:

    the day you spend a lot of time in a big room with people who didn’t brush their teeth that morning

    Actually, that doesn’t bother me nearly as much as the women who douse themselves with perfume in the morning because they can’t shower! Had a nightmare YK one year in an unairconditioned synagogue due to this phenomenon, and I’m not fond of strong perfume at the best of times…

  25. Elisa says:

    Wow, sadness.  Part of why I read romance is to get away from petty bullshit.  I am definitely not someone all in the know of bloggers and reviewers and promotions and all that stuff, I mostly just like to read spicy books and laugh until I pee my pants which is why I am a big fan of SBTB.  However, I do have a big problem with people trying to “innocently” smear another’s reputation with oblique accusations of impropriety.
    I know I would be pretty offended and hurt if someone I considered a colleague implied that I had no ethics.  I mean if I had recommended a student for an award, I would be mighty pissed if another teacher went around saying you couldn’t trust anything I said because I was paid $15/hour to tutor the kid on long division laat summer.  I would also hope that my other colleagues would respond with a resounding WTF?!?
    I am sure this is very flawed analogy, but I would like to say that I for one am saying, WTF?!?  REALLY???
      Also, in the interest of the “full disclosure” so necessary these days, I did enter into the drawing for the super amazing prize Sarah is giving away, but the random number generator made me no promises in exchange for this post.  Or did he? Hmmmmm . . .

  26. sweeks1980 says:

    @Las – I see your point and agree that this is an issue that should be addressed (and some people have eloquently voiced their thoughts regarding this issue in the comments). I am all for raising questions and engaging in civil debate on an issue, and I am a big supporter of full disclosure.

    However, what I find troubling is not the fact that the other bloggers brought the issue up (the concerns are legitimate and should be addressed) but the way they choose to broach the subject. Rather than raising some questions in a straightforward way and inviting an explanation or further information, they opted to address it in a passive-aggressive and indirect manner, which can certainly be interpreted as juvenile.

  27. darlynne says:

    Criticizing one thing about a person doesn’t mean that she’s being called a horrible person.

    No, but her credibility, ethics, reputation and fairness are being called into question with nothing more than a link and a “hmmm.” It is the glee with which this has come about that I find so unsavory; piling on through innuendo—and then acting surprised at the fallout—isn’t the same thing as looking someone in the eye and asking the hard questions.

    For the record, I don’t see a conflict. Sarah has responded. That’s enough for me.

  28. Billie D says:

    I don’t have a dog in this race, but I think it could have been
    handled in a much more up front manner.  I have never read
    a review here that I found suspect or wondered about the
    source. 
    Mostly what I find hard not to suspect is the timing of the
    questions.  If no jealousy of Sarah’s book is present it sure doesn’t
    look it.

  29. Las says:

    Can you tell me why the other bloggers should have contacted Sarah first? I’m not trying to be difficult, I just really don’t understand why that seems to be the bigger issue for so many. I understand why Sarah would be upset about that (and I would be, too, in her shoes), especially if she considers those bloggers friends, but what does that have to do with us, the readers, and why should that affect how we view this?  And why are we being pulled into this personal conflict? This is personal for Sarah, sure, but not for us. Am I just overly compartmentalizing this?

    For the record, while I’m fine with Mrs. Giggles’ initial “Hmmm,” I think it’s ridiculous for her to claim that she’s just putting up a link without comment. As ridiculous as Sarah claiming that she’s shocked that people think there’s a conflict of interest with Simple Progress. I don’t think either of them is that naive.

  30. Melanie says:

    The reason that people would have liked for the bloggers to question Sarah first has to do with doing research to make the post more than rumor-mongering. As others have mentioned, if someone would have contacted Sarah, she would have said, ‘huh, I didn’t think it was an issue but let me post a disclaimer on my site.’ Also, I think the reason Mrs. G has gotten the most backlash in this discussion is because she was most vague about her purpose. While I think attempting research is still the best first approach, if that failed, using your blogs to ask questions, instead of casting vaguely concealed aspersions would be the “right” thing to do. Just my perception on the problem.

  31. ChrisZ says:

    We come to SBTB to be part of a community of similar interests.  It’s not our job, it’s not our life, it’s our entertainment.  Sometimes reviews are positive, sometimes the reviews are negative, always the reviews are entertaining.  If we have the time, we read all the comments.  People from all over the world chiming in to agree, disagree or just commiserate over the brilliance of the sentence structure.

    Sara has chosen to live a portion of her life on the public stage.  The majority of us are very grateful for that decision and the talent that keeps us coming back for more.  I don’t think that people are defending their “leader” when saying that they support Sara.  It seems that she feels her integrity has been questioned and she has decided to defend herself to her community.  Sometimes we get a false sense of familiarity by reading the words of someone else in this community-like setting.  I want to defend her.  She doesn’t need for me to defend her.  After reading a review, I am not in any way obligated to purchase something.  I generally go to other sites and compare reviews before deciding on a purchase.  If I don’t enjoy the book, I don’t blame Sara or any other reviewers.

    I think what is more important here is that Sara, who is not my leader but rather a very talented writer who brings laughter to the lives of many, has been made to feel like she must defend herself.  She is a human being.  If someone you think is your friend dangles bits of your private life in front of a crowd and says “look, look!”,  it is upsetting.  While we sit over our daily caffeine and debate who was right, or what should have been done, this person who has spent a lot of time trying to make our days brighter is having a seriously craptastic day. 

    I’ll paraphrase here because I know if I go look it up I’ll delete everything else I’ve typed but in the FAQ area of this site one of the topics is Will you review my book?  Sara’s response is yes but be prepared because even famous writers get bad reviews.  We don’t take it easy on anyone.

    I have found this to be entirely true and frankly get the most enjoyment out of the bad reviews and general WTFery that follows.

  32. eggs says:

    Good gravy, talk about a storm in a tea cup!  I agree that it was kind of dumb to not have a link on the SB site to the new promo business, for what are now obvious reasons.  That being said, I would not have expected Sarah to make a specific “coming out” post about the new venture unless/until a conflict of interest presented itself.  That would seem to be the natural progression of things to me, and that is how I’ve seen it done on other book blogs where a conflict of interest arose. 

    Expecting every book blogger to declare any conflicts of interest that may (or may not) arise at some unspecified time in the future seems a little ludicrous to me.  This is especially true of publishing where the readers, publishers, editors, bloggers and authors often change hats.  I would expect a heads up in instances where the hat change actually takes place, but not before.  They say you can’t ride two horses with one arse, but I see it done every day of the week in publishing.  At this point, Sarah seems to be riding three at once – spectacular achievement, Sarah!  I hope you have some tiger balm handy. 

    I read a lot of publishing blogs by authors, agents and editors where they regularly pimp out books they have a commercial interest in, and also many, many more books that they have no connection with what-so-ever.  And guess what?  I still only buy those books where the review/promo sounds like a book I would like, no matter how much I love reading the blogger, and no matter how high (or low) a grade they give a book.  For example, I love Janet Reid’s blog, but our book tastes are completely divergent and I’ve never bought a book she’s recommended. 

    Mostly, I read book blogs as a form of entertainment in and of itself.  The fact that it might lead to a purchase, is neither here nor there to me.  Frankly, this whole thing sounds like a case of sour grapes.  It would be nice if everybody would just remain calm and carry on – but I guess there’s no fun in that!

  33. becca says:

    A good review, to me, doesn’t only tell me whether the reviewer liked the book, but why or why not, and gives me enough information that I can figure out whether *I* will like the book,  I trust the reviewers her and at Dear Author to do just that. Some of my favorite books only merited Bs; some of the A books just didn’t seem like my cuppa.

    So I don’t really care whether the reviewer is being paid or not. If it’s a good review (by my above definition), then I’ll follow the review site.

    I trust the reviewers here and at Dear Author. The jury is still out for Heroes and Heartbreakers. Generally I don’t find the reviews at ARR useful, so I don’t go there any more. When/if the reviews here stop being useful (and loads of fun to read), I’ll stop visiting here.

  34. M says:

    I am ordinarily a lurker on all the mentioned blogs, but in this instance I have to post a word of support (sorry to be anon, but these are still issues I’m coping with.) I don’t know Sarah and had never spoken to her until just a few months ago when I had to discuss a business matter via email. The discussion necessitated bringing up painful personal matters, something I didn’t like having to do with a stranger, no matter how well I feel I’ve gotten to “know” her from reading her blog. She responded with more sympathy and understanding and kindness than you would ever expect from someone you didn’t know, and certainly more than I’ve experienced before in similar interactions online.

    Her actions speak loud and clear of her character.

    The same might be said of the three bloggers on the other side of this issue. When you decide to publicly post information that you know perfectly well might be damaging to someone’s reputation, as opposed to seeking that person out and privately asking for an explanation, your motivation is crystal clear to everyone.
    Mrs. Giggles et all might consider that if you sling mud hard enough, a lot of it tends to splatter back in your face.

    Mrs. G and the other two owe Sarah an apology for not being upfront with her privately before posting. You don’t question someone’s integrity publicly without first getting all the facts.

    Well, you don’t if you’re a mature, reasonable, fair-minded adult.

    I think someone’s integrity *is* lacking here, and it isn’t Sarah’s.

  35. Ann Bruce says:

    For the people who are questioning Mrs. G’s timing: I ASSUME she learned of Sarah Wendell’s connection to Simple Progress because Jennifer Crusie recently disclosed it on her web site where she interviewed Wendell about her upcoming book.

    Frankly, I think people, especially the conspiracy theorists, need to take a breather.  Go outside, take a walk, decorate your house for Halloween.  For my fellow Canadians, remember that it’s Thanksgiving.  There are more important things in life, such as the prospect of Rick Perry being the next PotUS, that require attention than this kerfuffle.

  36. Caitlin says:

    I don’t know that it’s “bad journalism” so much as it is lazy.
    Presumably, the process that led up to the assorted posts made by bloggers on this subject went something like this.

    1. Find out that Simple Progress exists.
    2. Notice “Sarah Wendell” is listed as a principal.
    3. Make the connection to SBTB.
    5. Post, with or without insinuation.

    It seems to me that there’s a missing step 4: send Sarah an email that says “Hey, is this you?”

    I’m guessing this would take about 5 minutes tops (assuming a dial-up connection and only the big toe used for typing). The main problem I see here is that there was no email or other contact. What if there was another Sarah Wendell? Possibly even an evil twin Sarah Wendell? Then, not only do we have insinuation, but we have incorrect insinuation. If, like most bloggers, at least one of your priorities is accurately informing your readers, that seems like a potential problem.

    As a blogger, why not send that thirty-second email? Wait a bit. Find out whether that’s really Sarah. Then, if you have honest concerns, write about them. (Better yet, talk to Sarah, then start a conversation about the “lines” between author, blogger, etc.)

    Of course, if it’s not laziness that prevented that 30-second email from happening, then it’s something else, as other posters have suggested—jealousy, etc.

    Full disclosure: I’ve won one of Sarah’s faboo contests before, I’ve purchased books based on her recommendations, and sometimes I eat ice cream out of the box with a spoon.

  37. Kristi says:

    I love reading Sarah’s views on romances. It’s one of the first sites I open up in my Reader every morning along with DearAuthor.

    I think this (seems like) such a small community so it would have been nicer for Sarah to be asked about it first. Yes, there is potential to be conflict. I personally don’t think there has been at all. Along with the crazy kooky disclaimers at the end of so many of her posts, it should have been added in, or at least to the official page.  It wasn’t. She said that. Done. Mrs G totally was snarky in her ‘hmm’ and should reflect that, but I don’t know her.

    Anyway. I think it shows how loved Sarah is by all these people
    coming in to comment and show their support.

    I don’t have much to input in this post but I WANTED to post to at least show that little insignificant me who loves to read this site, thinks that Sarah is the bomb and her voice screams out of every post she writes, and I totally trust her input on what she is reading. I do SEO and SEM for a living and I think it’s great that she has also moved into that business, I’m sure she is doing an awesome job for her clients.

  38. Kelsey says:

    The issue at hand does not seem to be about a conflict of interest.  People who come here to read the reviews also are aware of the plethora of advertisements on the right side of the page.  If you believe Simple Progress is a conflict, why not the ads that have been around for a while? There is a call for disclosure, but the people mentioned in the post above have no intention of doing this.  From what I read over at Mrs. Giggles’ blog, I discerned that she believes this all to be one big farce and herself as the person who has removed the wool pulled over our eyes.  I do not believe this is true.  Bloggers have a lot of influence when they have large readerships, but it is a choice whether to read the posts or not.  Sarah represents herself here as a reviewer of romance novels.  She never hid that she had some relationships with the authors mentioned.  The fact that she is being paid to consult for some of the authors and the correlation between those names and some positive reviews means nothing.  As scientists like to say, correlation is not causation.

  39. Hey Sarah,

    I can kind of see how all of this happened, but at the same time if any of the people who have read Smart Bitches for any amount of time, they should know that you don’t pull punches….so for them to automatically assume that you endorse the authors that you represent with the consulting firm, is frankly absurd in my opinion.

    I was watching a TV show recently and it was talking about Hollywood celebrities and how once you achieve any sort of fame that other people try to cut you down, and unfortunately by making so many assumptions about your involvement as well as your success, I think that is what is unfortunately happening.

    I for one could really care less.  Even if you give a book a rave review, I don’t automatically go out and buy it.  Honestly, I read your reviews more for the voice of your review, than your opinion about it 🙂  They are fun, amusing, and often similar to my own tastes.  I say keep up the good work, love Smart Bitches, so don’t let them get to you!

  40. EbonyMcKenna says:

    I’ve been reading this blog since the days of the black footed ferret and I haven’t seen any evidence of advertising encroaching on editorial.

    Lines are blurring all over the place. People perceive conflicts where none or plenty may exist.

    I can understand some people thinking your opinions could be bought. Maybe you’re getting too famous and people want to bring you down?

    Hang in there.

Comments are closed.

By posting a comment, you consent to have your personally identifiable information collected and used in accordance with our privacy policy.

↑ Back to Top