Some thoughts on this issue:
The evidence was in on the book well before I sent out that email - 10 of 12 Amazon reviews were positive! I wasn’t pissed at that - that’s a damn good approval rating for those who chose to post.
So why the email? Well, here’s how the free market works - people need social proof before making purchases. They want to know others like them have done what they’re considering and that those people turned out ok.
Since I have been getting at least 20 positive mails (with results and pics) regarding the book every day since it came out, to me, that’s some pretty good social proof! So I wanted to encourage these folks to make their opinions heard too.
I’ll never apologize for asking my readership to say something positive about my work or anyone else’s that they enjoy. That’s my bias - if someone’s doing something excellent, share it with everyone you know. Excellence needs to be rewarded.
Now, up to this point, I?d imagine you see nothing wrong with this? Yet here’s where the ethical question comes in.
THE ETHICAL IMPLICATIONS
Quite frankly, I wonder how many of the posters here have ever walked through their logical positions on any topic. This isn’t a dig - rather, it’s a simple comment that’s very relevant as we are talking about ethics and ethics are based on logical systems and analysis.
Before making decisions I draw a logical chart to investigate the implications of my actions. Don’t doubt for a second that I neglected this before sending my email.
Here’s the ethics/logic chart I drew up including my premises. If you’re going to criticize my conclusions you might as well first see my premises and then share yours. Here is where I began:
**Books sell well when people say good things about them. People say good things about books that are good. Therefore books that sell well are good books.
**Books don’t sell well when people say bad things about them. People say bad things about books that suck. Therefore books that don’t sell well suck.
(These represent the prevalent theory on sales ? social proof drives sales ? as discussed above).
As I feel pretty strongly that my book is good and have heard a large majority of people saying good things, I surmise that my book should be selling well (which it is).
Of course, additional premises include:
**People say bad things when they have a negative experience.
**People say good things when they have a positive experience.
**More people say bad things when they have a negative experience than say good things when they have a positive experience.
So here’s my next line of logic:
**When more people say bad things when they have negative experience than say good things when they have a positive experience, the average response is artifically skewed toward the negative.
From this:
**When positive feedback is encouraged, the average response better reflects public opinion.
Now, this is where objections are currently being raised. In other words, you’d have no beef if I just suggested opinions be shared. Yet you do think it’s unethical for me to offer reward for those opinions. Here’s your beef (your premises, a take off of what I posted above):
**Books sell well when people say good things about them. People say good things about books that are good OR WHEN AUTHORS BRIBE PEOPLE TO LIE AND SAY THEY’RE GOOD. Therefore books that sell well are good books OR THEY’RE BAD BOOKS THAT AUTHORS BRIBED PEOPLE TO SAY GOOD THINGS ABOUT.
So, if I?m not mistaken, this is where you object. You believe I bribed people to say good things about my book and that tampers with the natural, objective order of things, artifically skewing the results of opinion toward the positive.
You were ok if the mean response is skewed toward the negative. But you?re not ok if the balance is swung toward the positive ? especially if the balance was swung thru a bribe (which we can all admit is ethically questionable).
So the true issue becomes this ? was it a bribe?
Let?s define bribe: A bribe is payment made to a person in a position of trust to corrupt his judgment.
Therefore, here is the next premise:
**For my actions to be unethical, my offer would have to be a payment significant enough to corrupt one’s judgement.
I may be wrong, but I never considered a mere book chapter adequate to corrupt the judgement or integrity of man. Seriously, maybe I think too highly of fellow man. I never for one second considered my email as a bribe.
To be honest, perhaps this is where I went awry. Perhaps people can be bought with a book chapter. I never thought that would be the case.
So, here’s the logic:
**JB offered a book chapter for positive comments about his book. Offering a book chapter constitutes a bribe. Offering bribes is unethical. JB is unethical.
So, if you believe a book chapter is enough payment to corrupt individuals then, logically, my actions were ethically questionable.
My premise is that this was not significant enough a reward to have someone compromise their integrity. Therefore I don’t consider this ethically questionable. So here’s my logic:
**JB offered a book chapter for positive comments about his book. Offering a book chapter does not constitute a bribe. Offering bribes is unethical. Yet JB didn?t bribe anyone so his actions are ok.
Listen, if we come to a stalemate, at this point, it?s ok. I mean, people don?t always have the same premises. I?m comfortable with mine at this point especially because I don?t think man can be bought for a book chapter when I was asking for positive reviews regarding a book.
Remember, I was asking for positive reviews for some writing of mine. The reward was more writing of mine. A bribe has to be something of value. To someone who dislikes or is ambivalent about my work, this chapter would have little value - certainly the value wouldn’t force the person to corrupt their judgement. Again, raising the question - is this a bribe at all?
If you still think it’s a bribe - then I can see your ethical position and respect it.
If not, you can’t maintain that my providing a book chapter in exchange for a positive review unethical unless there?s some other premise you object to prior.
Ok, to wrap up - my email was carefully considered based on certain premises I hold to be accurate. Therefore I feel no remorse in my actions. If you hold a different ethical position, I can appreciate that. Yet, as I encourage my students, so I’ll encourage you - be sure your positions are based on logic not on gut feelings. Ethics reside in the brain, not the gut.
If you don’t get it, would you mind emailing me instead? Thanks.