I've found myself relying on my ARC team less and less. The reality is, I tend to get enough quick reviews as it is from my regular readers. And, to be perfectly honest ... might just be me being jaded in my old age and all, but I've grown skeptical of books that launch and immediately have 300 "Best book ever!" reviews.

 

I agree Rick. I have found that i get enough reviews from my regular readers. They come in slower but its not affected my bottom line. I also do think age plays a role I see a lot of books get 100 reviews within 3 days and you know that these folks are just doing it to get more free stuff LOL

I just prefer to keep a lower day 1 price on launch and let my newsletter subscribers know that it's available for them to grab. I just tell them "buy it NAAAW before it becomes expensive and read it whenever!" Some of them read it and the reviews or ratings start appearing. I tried an ARC for one book and it was way too much work and almost no reward.

That is what I have done and it does help a lot. Nice to see someone else doing it. That to me I think is the best incentive for those who are on the fence.

I'm with Rick on this one.

I used to fret about Arc teams, and have spent time building and maintaining them. USED to. Now? No. I just release the book and let people leave reviews organically. I get what I get, and I don't worry about it.

It saves you a lot of headache, and I think people trust non Arc reviews much more.

If you do the basics: Write an entertaining book, build a mailing list of true fans who buy your book when it comes out, Manage your ads and keep the book selling, etc. The reviews follow naturally.

I agree. I dont bother with them. Like I said at the start. I tried it once and it fell on its face. Those same people used to buy the books so i just reverted back and that was fine.

I don't have an ARC list myself, but I'm trying to understand how this works. If someone doesn't like an author's books, why would they want to receive more ARCs from said author?

Yeah its weird but it happens. I prefer to just go low out the door on the first in a series 99 cents or 1.99 then raise it to 2.99 or 3.99 a week later then stick to 3.99 or 4.99 out the gate on books after that.

 

I’ve always found ARC reviews problematic. Since the authors themselves control the ARC list and kick off anyone that leaves any critical reviews, it borders on unethical in my eyes.

 

Absolutely. Having lost a few reviews from not very many because of alleged 'bias', seeing these well-oiled operations where books appear with scores of five star reviews on the day of release is depressing. Not that I blame the writers - they're just making good use of their fanbase.

 

I just prefer to keep a lower day 1 price on launch and let my newsletter subscribers know that it's available for them to grab. I just tell them "buy it NAAAW before it becomes expensive and read it whenever!" Some of them read it and the reviews or ratings start appearing. I tried an ARC for one book and it was way too much work and almost no reward.

 

I'm with Rick on this one.

I used to fret about Arc teams, and have spent time building and maintaining them. USED to. Now? No. I just release the book and let people leave reviews organically. I get what I get, and I don't worry about it.

It saves you a lot of headache, and I think people trust non Arc reviews much more.

If you do the basics: Write an entertaining book, build a mailing list of true fans who buy your book when it comes out, Manage your ads and keep the book selling, etc. The reviews follow naturally.

 

Never used one, obviously, and I would wager that a large plurality, if not a large majority, of authors on KB don't use ARCs either.

 

I don't use them for my self-published stuff, mostly because I don't do pre-orders on my self-published books and basically put them up for sale as soon as they're ready, but I have used them for the stuff I have put out through indie publishers. It's a pain in the butt, but it did work for me to some extent. I had 200 ARC readers for one of my books and wound up with over 80 reviews the first day.

 

My email list is still growing—only 900–but I’ll usually send out an email a month before and ask for advance readers, but also say it’s $.99 and it really helps to buy it too. Some readers will support me and some will just never buy books, but will review. What I say is, “what do I have to lose because it’s not like they’ll buy the book anyway.” I typically get 50 to 70 that agree to review it; if that, about 20 to 30 will leave reviews. One month out, it usually has enough reviews for BookBub to say yes to a feature deal—But it’s Christian nonfiction, which isn’t the most competing genre.

 

I use them but I don't set requirements other than a request for an honest review and a time for posting. I accept that freeloaders are part of the risk. And I don't filter out non-five star reviewers for future ARCs. I think it can still be done the right way.

ARCs are alive and well. Just look at Hidden Gems that has a one year wait.

I think review quantity is important and I think it's harder to get organic reviews and have a successful launch otherwise. But, as so many other things here, it probably depends on genre and lots of other factors. They're probably not needed if you're the kind of author spinning out a lot of books or who has developed a large fan base.

 

I don't really police my ARC team. I certainly don't remove people for leaving low star reviews. Low quality reviews, maybe ("loved it" or "hated it"), but still... Too lazy. All I really do is ask people to resign up with proof they've left a review every two years or so.

I don't send a ton of ARCs but they remain a main source of reviews. US readers just don't leave reviews IME. In some regions, Amazon allows ratings only, and those come in pretty fast. My French bestseller has 700 ratings. I only have one English book with that many reviews and it's sold 10x as much. (It does have 900+ reviews though).

In the brief time I had a permafee, I got a lot of reviews and they were more positive than I expected. I'm not sure if free runs yield end same results.

 

I distribute ARCs and never cull anyone from the list, unless they go a long time without opening emails. I send out an advance copy, say I hope they'll consider reviewing it, and leave it up to them if/when/how/where they choose to review. That gets weaker results than a tightly run list but it avoids any appearance of interference or manipulation. Plus, it takes less time to manage. I'd say I have about 40 - 50 % response rate usually, although some of my books interest more reviewers than others.

 

That's a good question, @estelle. This topic has come up a few times and we always focus on author's pruning their lists for positive reviews, but it also makes sense that their people stick around and the not-for-me people take off.

 

Those are my thoughts too. I know if I got an ARC and thought the book was a dud, I wouldn't be lining up for the next one. Life's too short to read and review books you don't enjoy.

 

I can tell you that if you write for Amazon Publishing, they will be sending out ARCs as well as posting the book on NetGalley, and they also encourage an author to use their own ARC team. Audible also encourages review copies. (Promo codes.) If you assume Amazon and Audible know what they are doing as far as customer reactions and behavior, yes, ARCs are helpful.

To address the tangential point, an author’s early reviews, if they are a popular author with a devoted fan base, are likely to be largely positive, whether they come from ARC copies or not. Those are people who waited eagerly for the book and read it right away. I have heard anecdotally that some authors remove low starring reviewers, but do not know anybody who does that. I believe that is more something that is done by the shadier sort of author. Personally, I have books with no ARCs and others with ARCs. I have never seen a difference in review average between ARC reviewers and others, unless it is a free book or a book that Amazon promoted heavily, something where a lot of people will pick it up even if it is not their normal read. Those tend to come in a little lower on average, understandably.

 

I can tell you that if you write for Amazon Publishing, they will be sending out ARCs as well as posting the book on NetGalley, and they also encourage an author to use their own ARC team. Audible also encourages review copies. (Promo codes.) If you assume Amazon and Audible know what they are doing as far as customer reactions and behavior, yes, ARCs are helpful.

Please, let’s not pretend that a publisher sending out ARCs is the the same as an author sending out ARCs to their own curated list of readers. One obviously has a much wider reach of readers than the other. Amazon has this program called Vine and those in the program can choose any book that interests them that’s offered by the publishers. All they ask in return is an honest review. Comparing that to an author trying to get as many positive reviews as possible to launch a new book is ridiculous.

When an author curates their own ARC list, the potential for abuse of the system is much greater. Anyone that looks at the reviews for these books can see what’s going on. Now the question is, why are some trying to pretend that it’s either a) not happening at all, or b) happens very rarely? 🤔

 

I’m not even sure what the fight is about, LOL. I haven’t seen anybody suggesting that only allowing reviews or reviewers that praise you effusively is OK. What did I miss?

I also don’t see how anybody would know whether a large number of authors are doing that, so I can’t see that there’s anything to argue about. It’s not like there’s a survey out there.

 

Energy vampires. Can't live with them, can't live without them.

 

cest la vie: Still adding nothing to the discussion, I see. 😂

Thank you for being so predictable! 😅

 

To get back on topic, always verify. The search engine is also your friend if you want to see how the ARC issue has been discussed previously and who said what.

Don’t take my word for it. Next time you see a new release with a large amount of reviews, read them for yourself and come up with your own conclusions.

 

I think we all have mixed feelings about the reader review system.

Amazon should have a channel for reporting books that are scammy and/or shoddily edited. Other than that, I would love to see Amazon remove reader reviews from books altogether---trad- as well as indie-published.

Most reviews/ratings on fiction (like movies) are based on the reader/viewer's taste. In all cases, YMMV. We've all gotten 1-star reviews juxtaposed with 5-star reviews. They can't both be right. There is no way of objectively validating either one.

It seems that for most of us, reviews have become just something else that we have to "buy". I'm not talking here about paying for positive reviews, but paying to get reviews---whether through expensive ARC services, or giveaways.

It has become one of the least-value-added portions of the entire process.

 

I think the bigger problem is how unhelpful most user reviews are, ARCs or otherwise. The star rating isn't helpful. Most reviews themselves fail to describe the book in a way that tells me if I'll like it or not. Most people do not know how to review or recommend.

Compare the average user reviews on Rotten Tomatoes to the "Critical Consensus." An average person has bad taste. Or mediocre taste. More importantly, they review based on how something meets their taste/trope preference. It's rare to see a user review that says not my taste but the dialogue is sharp and the pace is quick.

Critics have their own issues, yes, but they're much better at describing the quality of the storytelling.

I am curious why some here have so much faith in user reviews. Maybe one in ten is helpful. ARCs give authors the opportunity to get more helpful reviews. Yes, most authors will pick readers who will give positive reviews. Many will pick readers who give positive, unhelpful reviews. But those are just as unhelpful as random reviews. "Loved it" and "hated it" are equally useless reviews.

Fleabag only has four stars on Amazon. Two and a Half Men has five stars. Need I say more?

(Based on apparent star rating last time I scrolled by the show on Prime and just checking the first bad sure could think of now, respectively).

 

While getting negative reviews as an author is certainly not the most pleasant experience, I do happen to love them as a reader. Especially the longer ones. They tell me a lot more about the book than the positive ones do, and they’re often far more entertaining! So I definitely love reading the three stars and below reviews. Sometimes, what the review is complaining about is exactly what I’m looking for as a reader, so it’s not like it dissuades me from actually buying the book. I wouldn’t do away with the review system, no matter how flawed. It’s still better than nothing.

As for critic reviews, especially when it comes to movies and TV, I take their reviews with a huge grain of salt. Maybe it’s the system that spits out the average, but I find a lot of mediocre stuff getting praised to high heavens. I watch a lot of indie movies in the horror and sci-if genres and those rarely get good reviews (or no reviews at all when it comes to critics). If a movie sounds interesting to me, I’ll watch it no matter what the reviews say. I’ve found a lot of hidden gems this way.

I think the saddest thing for me to hear is when people rely exclusively on critic reviews to tell them what to read or watch. Or that they won’t try anything below a certain rating average. There’s a lot of interesting stuff out there. A lot of interesting stuff that’s not produced by Hollywood or has big-name actors in it. That doesn’t mean it’s not worth your time. But I guess at the end of the day a lot of people are pretty basic, just like the entertainment that’s geared toward them. I’d rather watch a quirky indie sci-fi/horror movie with no-name actors and an interesting concept than a high-budget superhero movie with big-name actors.

Or let’s turn our eye to literature. Most people have heard of Jack London. The Call of the Wild is considered a classic but I’ve never read it. I did read Martin Eden and quite enjoyed it. I have no interest in reading White Fang, but I might check out The Star Rover, because that book sounds much more interesting to me. Or I might choose a book by an author no critic has ever read or even heard of. I don’t need others to choose my reading material for me. I’m more than capable of doing it myself.

 

Physical ARCs are worth printing in certain situations. The year isn't relevant. The main reasons and recipients are as follows:

• Reviewers and BookTubers with large followings.
• Magazines and newspapers.
• Authors with a big enough name to influence a reader's choices.
• Pre-release promotional material

Not all will ask for a mechanical copy. But you should have them available. If they're not on the list I just gave you, and you want to offer an ARC, an ebook should do fine.

 

I just don't think it's true there are a lot of good movies with "rotten" scores. Interesting movies? Maybe. But they're usually missing some craft or narrative element.

I occasionally watch a "rotten" film or TV show. I almost never enjoy it. I don't enjoy plenty of well reviewed work too. But I find the movies and TV poorly reviewed by critics almost always have serious structural or narrative flaws.

I find it's the opposite. A lot of movies with high critic reviews and lower audience reviews are interesting and bold. But they don't appeal to the masses enough.

Don't get me wrong. Critics have their issues. Most of them are men of a certain age who, like most of us, enjoy media aimed at them. I'm not a man of a certain age. I'm a woman in my thirties. There's a gap there. Critics can be pretentious. And unfairly harsh to trashy movies aimed at women while praising trashy movies aimed at men. But they're also more interested in new, original, format pushing, and/or especially stylish content. (Sometimes too much with the stylish content).

We're talking averages of course. Even when I roll my eyes at critic tastes (really, neo noir...), I can tell if I'll like a movie based on good critic reviews. Not so with user reviews.

Also... I went to film school. Most people have no idea how bad a film can truly be. When we think bad, we think bad acting and plot holes, not out of focus shots or incomprehensible audio. We are used to a certain level of basic craftsmanship that is not always in amateur work.

I'm not sure there's a book equivalent.

I actually find TV criticsm to be well balanced, in general. Compared to film criticsm, it gives more weight to entertainment value. (Sometimes too much). User reviews give too much weight to entertainment value IMO. Entertaining is good! But not if it's incoherent.

 

Also, I’m not really convinced that ARC reviews are worth the effort.

I’ve seen plenty of new releases with a 100 five-star reviews languishing in the millions in the store. Readers are savvier than some authors think.