Mr. Monk and the Affaire De Coeur

POST DELETED.

I have removed the positive review that MR. MONK GOES TO GERMANY received from Affaire de Coeur from this blog because I don’t want to lend the sham publication the slightest shred of credibility.

I’ve just discovered that their advertising director, Bonny Kirby, co-owns the disgraced Light Sword Publishing company with Linda Daly (a court recently fined Kirby and Daly thousands of dollars for defrauding authors). This explains why Light Sword titles consistently got positive reviews from Affaire De Coeur and why Daly was the subject of a cover story. No reputable magazine would review books published by their advertising director…or feature her partners on the cover. It’s a sleazy and highly unethical conflict-of-interest.

I also learned that advertisers get positive reviews and articles written about them depending on the amount of page space they purchase. That, too, is sleazy and unethical.

I’m notifying my publisher that I don’t want the review quoted on my covers nor do I want any of my books sent to the magazine. They aren’t a legitimate publication. They are sleaze bags.

UPDATE 7-27-08 It turns out that Romantic Times engages in unethical behavior as well, but not as outrageously as Affaire de Coeur. The Romantic Times will only review small-press books that advertise in their magazine. Editor Carol Stacy tells the Dear Author blog:

This has worked very well for small press/e-book authors who, for a
few hundred dollars, can get their name in front of our readers and
have a review of their book in the magazine. This may explain why there are so many Ellora’s Cave books reviewed
in our magazine. It’s because their authors do many group ads and in
turn they get reviewed.I want to reiterate that this small press/e-book review policy IN NO
WAY AFFECTS THE RATING of a book. It only ensures a review. 

Whether that’s true or not, the practice is highly unethical and creates an unacceptable conflict of interest. It’s shameful. Advertising should never have any influence over editorial content. That’s a basic tenet of ethical journalism.

22 thoughts on “Mr. Monk and the Affaire De Coeur”

  1. No, it’s a “five star” review. What is the difference between that and a “reviewer’s choice?” I am not familiar with this magazine.
    Lee

    Reply
  2. I’m not sure what the difference between the two is either. But, the gal that you took to task in your Friday post received a “Review’s Choice” from Affaire de Coeur for her book according to the excerpt of her email.

    Reply
  3. I didn’t take her to task for her Affaire de Coeur review…I chided her for touting her five positive reviews on Amazon.

    Reply
  4. This made me curious about Affaire de Coeur, so I went to the website. It appears to be a romance-oriented review magazine, in which publishers or authors need to buy an advertisement to get a review. Only advance reading copies submitted four months prior to publication get a free review, which leaves out nearly everyone.
    The Monk series is so excellent its publishers don’t need to buy reviews.

    Reply
  5. I just visited their site and you’re right, Richard…I found this nugget among their advertising packages:
    “To compliment your ad and review we also offer interviews or articles. If you would like an interview let us know 3 months in advance so it will go in the same issue as your review and ad. We accept articles at any time, we need articles 3 months in advance. All articles must receive approval on subject matter.”
    And I saw this in their FAQ:
    “We will not accept submissions less than three months prior to the date of publication unless it is associated with an ad.
    We do not review books after publication unless it is done in association with an ad”
    I also noticed that Bonny Kirby is their advertising coordinator…and did a double-take. Is this the same Bonny Kirby who was one of the owners of Light Sword…and was ordered to pay damages to an author for fraud? IF so, what a sleazy and astonishing conflict-of-interest…one that would explain how Light Sword publisher Linda Daly ended up on the magazine’s cover a few months back…and why Light Sword titles always get positive reviews.
    Then again, maybe I’m wrong and it’s two different Bonnys…
    Lee

    Reply
  6. Well, whatever journalistic credibility Affaire de Coeur might have had (assuming they had any at all) has been shot to hell. Bonny Kirby, their advertising director is, indeed, the same Bonny Kirby who co-owned Light Sword
    (see http://www.myspace.com/freakishreader)
    How could any ethical, legitimate publication review books published by their advertising director?
    Is it any wonder that Light Sword books received positive reviews in the magazine…or that Linda Daly got a cover story?
    I will be asking my publisher NOT to use the Affaire De Coeur review on my books…I wouldn’t want to lend them the slightest shred of credibility. I will also ask them to stop sending them my books for review.
    Lee

    Reply
  7. This is why people need to be very careful about internet reviews. Without knowing the source of the review, how can we lend it any credibility? Does it even have any meaning if we don’t know the credentials of the people involved?
    There are some very talented people reviewing books on the internet. There are also a lot of morons and some outright frauds. So it’s good to look at these things with a skeptical eye.

    Reply
  8. Lee, your web log continues to perform a valuable service in exposing those who exploit the hungers of aspiring writers. There seems to be an endless supply of people craving to succeed as authors. These people scarcely know a critical review from publicity, and that is where the sharks are swimming. Keep up the good work.
    This ravenous hunger has been noted in academia, where English faculties are scrambling to add MFA programs in creative writing. It has also been noted by at least one genre literature guild, which opened its membership to vanity-published or self-published authors, and has increased its awards to seventeen as part of a feel-good effort to bring more members to the group.

    Reply
  9. I, too, had gone out to the website to dig a little deeper into the site/”magazine”. Last night, I stopped by a bookstore to see if I could find the magazine because the website said it could be found at bookstores – although I’d never seen it at any of the stores I frequent. They didn’t have it on their shelves or on their availability lists. Now we know why. Thanks for putting all the pieces together and clearing this up for all of us, Lee!

    Reply
  10. A working writer who would kick a rave review because he disapproves of the source – hats off to you, sir. I now sit back to await the novel you will eventually write on this racket (will it be a MONK or will you roll your own? Either way, I’m there). At least, perhaps you could collect and edit the blog entries into book form – but then who would publish it? Either way, there’s some kind of gold here, and you’ve got one hell of a head start. Best o’ luck.

    Reply
  11. “A working writer who would kick a rave review because he disapproves of the source – hats off to you, sir.”
    It’s not hard to do…the review is worthless, as is the magazine. A magazine that sells their reviews and has no ethics has no credibility whatsoever.
    I also wrote a letter to their editor asking them to remove the positive review from their site.
    Lee

    Reply
  12. I haven’t kept up with Affaire de Coeur over the years, but they’ve been reviewing since before I was published. I have to wonder if this is a different staff / owners, etc. than launched the magazine originally because they’ve always had a good rep in the romance community – again, this being years ago.

    Reply
  13. I’ve had slam amateur reviews usd by online foes as evidence of MY ineptitude. Right. I finally convince Amazon they wee personal attacks and had nothing to do with the books. Amazon reviews are a Circle J…

    Reply
  14. I know Affaire de Coeur (and always wondered why it wasn’t Affaire DU Coeur, which would be more proper French…but, never mind!)
    This story about having to take up ads to pay for reviews has been mistakenly attributed over the years to Romantic Times…and I know that’s not at all true. I’ve been reviewed by RT several times and never made to take out an ad. I don’t even have a subscription!
    I have never been reviewed by Affaire de Coeur, and now I think I understand why 🙂

    Reply
  15. Affaire de Coeur reviewed my first book and gave it an excellent review. I have never advertised with them, am not published by them, and know no one at the magazine. I can’t speak for other people’s experiences, but I do have to say that at least my experience was a good one. That was some years ago, though.

    Reply
  16. I am incredibly impressed with the integrity you displayed in “turning down” praise from an unethical source. You are a rare human.

    Reply
  17. Mr. Goldberg,
    At first I was not going to address you at all because you really aren’t worth my time. But in spite of your claim to be from a family of journalists, none of it apparently rubbed off on you and you really do need to be educated.
    I have never seen or heard of anyone evaluating a product they openly admit they have never seen, but then I’ve never seen or heard of anyone getting a superb review free of charge, with no strings attached then lambasting the person who gave it to you. Neither one of these actions are smart. Moreover, I must dispel your and Veinglory’s notion of being clairvoyants—that you can look at an ad and tell whether it is a paid ad. You don’t know me; you don’t know that for whatever reason, I may have given a free ad someone. One of your bloggers told you that—that I give them a free cover ad for a charity, but you ignored that. It’s not an uncommon practice with me, but it’s also not everyone’s business whether an author is paying for their ad. Occasionally, I get stiffed by an author for an ad. It goes with the territory.
    Let’s take the current issue. Out of the 60 pages, there are nine ads, only six of the paid for. St. Jude Hospital has a free full page inside front ad from me that they didn’t ask for. Why? You shouldn’t even have to ask. I volunteered as a Registered Nurse through the Department of Public Heath following Katrina. Hence, the 3 page spread on New Orleans. It’s my second one on that devastated city, and there will be more until they’re back on their feet. Slam Jam article—AdC was the catalyst and remains a strong supporter of African-American romances being in print. Did they pay for this 3 page coverage? No. And they won’t next year either. There are over 100 reviews. Do the math if you can. There is no way six ads are going to pay for this magazine. I pay for it. Why I do it is not your business. I pay for sending galleys like yours to reviewer; I pay the cost of publication; I pay for my web site. Instead of going off half cocked, poll the authors we’ve reviewed, you’ll learn that they and their publisher contributed nothing to their being reviewed by AdC.
    I had to draw the line somewhere; we attempt to do simultaneous reviews—that is do the review at the same time the book is released. It doesn’t matter to us whether you’re big publishers or small; it doesn’t matter the genre. If you send your galley in 3-4 months prior to its publication date, we review it. However, if your send your galley to us in less that 3 month, we have to overnight or fed-ex it to the reviewer who has to rearrange her schedule to read it and get it reviewed; we often pay to change the layout so we can accommodate the late review. These represent costs I’m not willing to absorb on top of everything else. So, I openly say if you want us to review your book and you’ve sent in less than 3 months before pub date, you need to do ad to help us allay the expenses we will incur because you sent it late. Nowhere else do we say that ad is necessary.
    I determine editorial content. It’s interesting that on one hand you condemn us for not dealing with small publishers but if I offer them a chance to explain who they are and what they do, you slam that, too. Some magazines charge for this. I don’t. And, again, just because you seen an interview (oops, you’ve never seen an issue) doesn’t mean someone paid for it. Sandra Brown, who has both the cover and a 3 page interview, paid us nothing. Readers want to know about her. Jim Butcher paid us nothing. Neither did his publisher.
    How does a small publisher, a mid-list author ever break through if no one allows them to write about themselves without charging, if no one reviews their books without an ad? This is a service, not a fault. Is it your expectation, then, when someone does take out an ad with me that I don’t review their books? That’s just crazy. Does it mean they’ll get five stars because they took out an ad? No.
    I will not engage in a personal attack on anyone, not even you. I have reviewers who have jobs outside AdC and who may review for another site. I have nothing to do with what they do outside of AdC. The same is true with Bonny Kirby and Lightsword Press. I have no personal knowledge of their machinations. I don’t want to know. However, they came to me as a legitimate small press, one of hundreds, whose authors needed publicity. They purchased one ad, and I gave them multiple free ads and let them do articles. I probably would do the same thing tomorrow.
    I would love more paid ads. I would love to stop paying out of my own pocket, but I’m not willing to become RT and do the exact thing you accused me of. There are many who are furious with you—authors, publishers (including your own), readers who know who we are and what we stand for. They are looking at you—a man who made horrendous accusations on hearsay without ever having seen the product he’s criticizing, a violation of any edict of journalism. (e-mail me, and I’ll send you a PDF for this issue) I’ve received tons of support from many sources who know the truth and who don’t want to have anything to do with your blog. Oh, and can somebody please learn how to spell Coeur?
    Louise Snead
    Publisher, Affaire de Coeur

    Reply
  18. Louise wrote: ” I have reviewers who have jobs outside AdC and who may review for another site. I have nothing to do with what they do outside of AdC. The same is true with Bonny Kirby and Lightsword Press. I have no personal knowledge of their machinations. I don’t want to know. However, they came to me as a legitimate small press, one of hundreds, whose authors needed publicity. They purchased one ad, and I gave them multiple free ads and let them do articles. I probably would do the same thing tomorrow.”
    That’s sad, Louise. Light Sword didn’t come to you as “one of hundreds” of small press whose “authors needed publicity.” It came to you from your advertising director, who co-owns Light Sword and who profits from the success of the publisher and its books. That is an outrageous conflict-of-interest and the fact that you “don’t want to know” even now says a lot about your ethical standards (or rather your complete lack of them).
    The same goes for total lack of interest regarding potential conflicts-of-interest with your reviewers. Let’s say, for example, that one of your reviewers is also a publicist for Harlequin. It wouldn’t bother you to have her reviewing Harlequin books that she’s been hired to publicize? You wouldn’t care? You wouldn’t consider that an unacceptable conflict-of-interest?
    You’re a magazine publisher, Louise. You have a responsibility to your readers to assure that your reviews and coverage are free from bias. The fact that you don’t care about that is shocking.
    Louise writes: “So, I openly say if you want us to review your book and you’ve sent in less than 3 months before pub date, you need to do ad to help us allay the expenses we will incur because you sent it late. Nowhere else do we say that ad is necessary. I determine editorial content.”
    That’s not what you offer your advertisers. On your site you say:
    “To compliment your ad and review we also offer interviews or articles. If you would like an interview let us know 3 months in advance so it will go in the same issue as your review and ad. We accept articles at any time, we need articles 3 months in advance. All articles must receive approval on subject matter.”
    So what is the truth, Louise? What you offer to advertisers or what you are telling me. But, for the sake of argument, let’s say you don’t offer articles, interviews and reviews in exchange for advertising. It’s still a breach of ethics to ask publishers to buy an ad in exchange for reviewing a book that is submitted late. Here’s a simple solution: if the publisher misses the deadline, don’t review the book.
    I think it’s terrific that you give free ads to charities. Good for you. BUt that has nothing to do with your total disregard for basic ethical conduct in your editorial practices.

    Reply
  19. This is one of the most bizarre statements ever: “So, I openly say if you want us to review your book and you’ve sent in less than 3 months before pub date, you need to do ad to help us allay the expenses we will incur because you sent it late.”
    I think in any other industry, that would be called payola.

    Reply
  20. Dear Ms. Snead,
    I have read your post and I hope that I have understood it correctly. You are saying that sometimes you charge an author to have his or her book reviewed.
    If this is the case, then I see nothing wrong with it as long as you clearly state this. That is, the author could pay you to publish a review, and you could honestly say in the review what you think of the book. On the other hand, if the author is paying for a POSITIVE review, and this is NOT stated, then this would be wrong. If the author paid for a positive review and this is clearly stated, then this would be fair.
    To my way of seeing it, the ethics of the situation all hinges on your clearly stating what is happening so that the reader understands that the reviews in your magazine are not journalism but a paid-for service purchased by authors. However to present your magazine as journalism — that is, as disinterested presentations of “the truth” — would be wrong.
    Anyway, I see the desire for authors to have their books reviewed, and to pay for the service, but I also see how persons could be fooled by the reviews, thinking they were journalism unless they are clearly identified as a paid-for service.
    Sincerely,
    Dan Williams (from Guelph, Ontario, Canada)

    Reply

Leave a Comment