In light of recent events by Avalanche Press (Company bashing not desired)

[Dragongirl]

I think some people are missing the point. Does a publisher have the right not to send free samples to reviewers who generally give them bad reviews? Of course. But all the "hoopla" is about what else they said and (intentionally or not) inferred in their letter. If indeed this was a response to Simon Collins asking for a free copy of something to review it (as has been suggested, either in this thread or the one in meta) they simply could have responded with "I am sorry, but we must declice your request." and left it at that.

They did not need to go on about expecting better reviews from people who get free copies. Much less infer that other review sites are more cooperative in this regard.

Edit : Glares suspiciously around for the typo demon.

 

[Khan the Warlord]

Maybe you didn't read my entire reply.

Here, I will say it again in bold.

Well, to use the same amount of sarcasm that you displayed above...

Let me offer my apology for not also quoting your words from an earlier post here (and I'll be nice and use pretty bold text as well:

I cannot believe the level of hypocracy, or naïveté, exressed in this thread.

Take down any single sci-fi or fantasy novel on your shelf. EVERY SINGLE ONE YOU TAKE DOWN WAS SENT FOR FREE TO A REVIEWER WHO WAS KNOWN TO GIVE GOOD REVIEWS TO THAT AUTHORS PRODUCTS. When a reviewer gave a bad review to one of those authors products, they were taken off the "free copy" list.

Maybe you didn't know that before (though it is not a hidden fact). But you do now.

Will you be now not buying any more sci-fi or fantasy novels? Or is it somehow okay in that industry, but not in the RPG industry?

In fact, with very rare exception (like Consumer Reports), that is the standard in MOST industries. I'm sorry you guys find that shocking, or unethical. But that is how free products sent out for reviews usually works, and I think you guys are hypocritical if you stop buying avalanche press books simply because of their new free-copy policy, but you don't take the same action when it comes to sci-fi books, fantasy books, most computer and electronics products, and most movies and TV shows even.

That post, combined with the post that I *did* quote before, hint that you presume to know the standards of various industries when it's obvious that you do not. What you state above *does* happen, but certainly isn't the norm of these industries. I happen to subscribe to a number of magazines of all industry types and watch television shows dedicated to reviews -- and I see the same companies sending the same products to the same people that give the same unfavorable reviews time and again. THAT is the norm of most every industry.

In other words, don't state that you know something unless you really, truly know it.

 

[ColonelHardisson]

Also, the subject matter of Avalanche's covers isn't the issue for me; it's that the art just isn't very good. The cover of an average issue of Heavy Metal is orders of degree better. Either do it well, or do something else, like the cover of Last days of Constantinople.

What's especially bad about all this is that Avalanche had been improving in its content quality. The last few books, like I, Mordred, is actually pretty good, with an interesting premise.

 

[ColonelHardisson]

4) I do not support the contention that reviewers should only be allowed to give good reviews. But that was expressly NOT their point. Here is what they said: "A customer who has paid for the product has every right to complain as much as they want about the product, and its value. Someone who got it for free does not reserve such judgement.". That statement was coupled with a refusal to continue to send FREE products to reviewers who slam them. It isn't a prior restraint. In fact, it isn't a restraint at all. Its a refusal to send free products to people who slam them. That is not the same, at all, as not allowing reviewers to give bad reviews.

Yes, but what is implicit in that statement is that they had been assuming that they should have been getting good reviews all along for sending review copies, and had finally gotten "fed up" when the other end of the "bargain" was not kept. But, that's just what I took away from my reading of it, and I could very well be making too great an assumption. I don't feel I did, but I'm open to the possibility.

 

[Mistwell]

Well, to use the same amount of sarcasm that you displayed above...

Let me offer my apology for not also quoting your words from an earlier post here (and I'll be nice and use pretty bold text as well:



That post, combined with the post that I *did* quote before, hint that you presume to know the standards of various industries when it's obvious that you do not. What you state above *does* happen, but certainly isn't the norm of these industries. I happen to subscribe to a number of magazines of all industry types and watch television shows dedicated to reviews -- and I see the same companies sending the same products to the same people that give the same unfavorable reviews time and again. THAT is the norm of most every industry.

In other words, don't state that you know something unless you really, truly know it.

I think, to avoid an inappropriate flame war, that we should take this portion of the thread off-line to email.

No reason to apply more heat to an already spicy subject.

 

[ColonelHardisson]

Somewhere along the way I almost used the term a priori, but I made my Will save...

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

I think some people are missing the point. Does a publisher have the right not to send free samples to reviewers who generally give them bad reviews? Of course. But all the "hoopla" is about what else they said and (intentionally or not) inferred in their letter. If indeed this was a response to Simon Collins asking for a free copy of something to review it (as has been suggested, either in this thread or the one in meta) they simply could have responded with "I am sorry, but we must declice your request." and left it at that.

They did not need to go on about expecting better reviews from people who get free copies. Much less infer that other review sites are more cooperative in this regard.

Edit : Glares suspiciously around for the typo demon.

Yeah, thos typo daemons are irksum.

I don't think many of us have actually missed the point, Dragongirl. If I were a reviewer, I'd be frothing at the mouth. If this were a company with a record of putting out tasteful, quality products, I'd be stunned and mortified.

As it stands, it's tough to make me less impressed by the company than I already was, but they did it. If the good Colonel is correct that their content has been on an upswing, that's too bad. Not going to change my mind at this point.

Also, I wasn't suggesting that the covers were in any way material. I was making light of the whole matter, and the covers were FAR too easy a target. I was aiming at the content and STILL ended up hitting the covers.

Like the broad side of a barn. But I digress.

As someone said earlier, Avalanche shot themselves in the foot here. I don't know about the rest of you, but this is one of maybe 3 places where I trust the reviews. Too often I find that reviews from other sources bear little resemblance to the books in the store. Part of that is people selling good reviews. Part of that is ridiculously poor reviews given to books that compete with a book the review author has contributed to.

With reviews of their products not appearing here, I'm just about guaranteed not to be exposed to their product. Heck, even if I was so inclined I couldn't thumb through the book in a store because the local gaming store stopped carrying their stuff entirely. (That might have something to do with the fact that it's entirely run by women now, or it might be because they sat on the shelves until a 50% off sale finally thinned the herd)

 

[jgbrowning]

But, that's just what I took away from my reading of it, and I could very well be making too great an assumption. I don't feel I did, but I'm open to the possibility.

No, you didn't. Almost all of us here understand the reprehensibility of the post. A few are simply poking from the other side.

free copy doesn't equal good review.
free copy doesn't equal no right to place a negative review.

they just made a mistake to send out what they really think about the review process. They should have just said, "sorry, no thank you." instead we all know that they do NOT want anything negative said about their products to such an extent as to stop sending free stuff to one of the largest board populated by their target audience.

call me bitchy, but when i read the news my first instinct was to go to the boards they mention, sign on as a member and post the message just so the people over there who dont also come here would know what avalance press thinks about those boards. this is of course unfair to the guys running those boards and i dont want to raise any slander towards people i have never met or interacted with, but there is an implied statement that those guys DO do what ENworld doesnt.

if anyone here DOES know the other board moderators they might want to drop them a line and let them know that avalanche has basically (and publicly) said that they dont give honest reviews when the review product is a "freebie." that insinuation may piss them off as well....

humph.... makes me grumpy thinking about it. ah well, i never bought, never even picked up, one of their cheesecake covers out of a missplaced feminist morality..

and now i just have another reason.

joe b.

ps. i hope this doesn't count as company bashing. I am just saying what i think, and hopefully in a sane/non-ranting manner.

edit: one day me right gud.

 

[Mistwell]

With reviews of their products not appearing here, I'm just about guaranteed not to be exposed to their product. Heck, even if I was so inclined I couldn't thumb through the book in a store because the local gaming store stopped carrying their stuff entirely. (That might have something to do with the fact that it's entirely run by women now, or it might be because they sat on the shelves until a 50% off sale finally thinned the herd)

I'm confused. I have posted a review here, and I didn't get the product for free. In fact, I always assumed that most reviews here did not involve the reviewer getting the product for free. Am I mistaken?

 

[ColonelHardisson]

Also, I wasn't suggesting that the covers were in any way material. I was making light of the whole matter, and the covers were FAR too easy a target. I was aiming at the content and STILL ended up hitting the covers.

Like the broad side of a barn. But I digress.

I saw this before you edited it; I just wanted you to know I wasn't commenting on anyone else's stance; I was just saying that I had another stance than some that I've seen.