Scams

I Should Be Appointed Secretary of State Because My Mom Had Her Picture Taken With Gerald Ford

by

You know how much I like to trash publishing scams. Well, now my brother Tod is jumping into the fray with an expose of BK Nelson Literary Agency and their, um, "qualifications":

I can't think of a better reason to sign with BK Nelson other than she was associated with a law firm that, uh, had a partner whose daughter married Paul McCartney. If anyone can think of a stranger biographical note in an agent's bio, please, forward it to me. It's pretty much the equivalent of me saying you should buy my books because I once worked at a staffing service that sent temps to Disney (which was founded by Walt Disney).

Snead’s Screed — Dishonest or Stupid?

by

I don't know whether Louise Snead, publisher of Affaire De Coeur, is dishonest or stupid or self-deluded..or a little of all three. As you may recall, I took her magazine to task for her unethical editorial practices (accepting advertisements in exchange for reviews) and for an outrageously unethical conflict of interest  (her advertising director co-owns a sham publishing company that received cover stories, features, and extraordinarily positive reviews in the magazine).

In subsequent public comments on this blog and others, Snead and Bonny Kirby, her advertising director, unapologetically confirmed both the reviews-tied-to-advertising policy and the conflict-of-interest and defended them as appropriate conduct.

But now, in an Affaire De Coeur editorial, Sneed is trying to reframe the discussion by grossly mischaracterizing my objections, lying about her advertising policy, avoiding any mention of the magazine's conflict-of-interest, and chiding publishers for not rushing to her defense. Snead writes:

These are very serious, slanderous allegations, not even borne out by his own review. He didn't take out an ad and his publisher has never taken out ads either, so how did he manage to get a five star review if what he allegesis true?

As she knows, I never said my five-star review was bought. What I said was that AdC offered publishers the opportunity to buy reviews (and other editorial coverage) in exchange for an ad…and that, in some cases, purchasing a review was required before the book would be reviewed. Don't take my word for it, take Snead's, as stated in AdC's own advertising package:

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.[…]Book cover
ad.–This is the cover of the book that goes right beside (or above or
below) the AdC review of your book.[…]We do not review books after
publication unless it is done in association with an ad.

It's sleazy and unethical. And, therefore, I wanted nothing to do with them or their positive review of my book. She pretends not to have this policy in her editorial and then has the gall to say:

I was under the impression people could not simply tell lies on the Internet as if they were gospel. I was wrong.

But apparently she's under the impression that it's okay to tell lies in a magazine, since that is what she's doing. She's denying an advertising-for-reviews practice that both she and Kirby have previously defended in comments they posted here and on other blogs. Did she think no one would notice?

But of equal surprise was how disinterested in the truth some readers are. Some of the AdC staff and I responded to Goldberg's allegations with the correct facts, borne out by statistics which anyone can gather from our magazines, only to be completely ignored.

She's being disingenuous. It's not possible for readers to make an informed judgment about the magazine's biases and conflicts of interest when those relationships aren't disclosed.  You won't find any disclaimers alerting readers to reviews and articles that were written as a result of an advertisement being purchased by a publisher or author…nor any disclaimers alerting readers to articles, reviews, and cover stories about publishers and books in which executives at the magazine have a financial interest. Therefore, it is impossible for readers to gather anything from flipping through the magazines about the objectivity of Snead's reviews and articles. She writes:

[…]for 27 years we have strived to produce
a product and reviews that are as good and unbiased as we can make then.

If that were true, she would have informed readers that all the Light Sword books that were reviewed — all but one of which received four stars or better — were published by a company co-owned by AdC's advertising director.

If that were true, she would have informed readers in the cover stories about Light Sword that the company they were raving about was co-owned by an AdC executive.

But those facts, representing an outrageous conflict-of-interest and bias, were not disclosed. And yet, Sneed expected publishers to line up to defend AdC's dubious editorial integrity.

A greater revelation is how cowardly some people are. AdC reviews over 100 books per issue, the vast majority of which do not have ads in the magazine. Hundreds of authors and publishers could have stepped forward and declared that Goldberg's opinions were false but sadly, only a few authors did — some with qualified statements — and only one publisher stepped up to the plate, saying that we review dozens of their books and they've never taken out an ad. And even then, she did it anonymously.

I'm
guessing that publishers didn't defend
of Snead because they have very little respect for the magazine and are
disgusted by the repugnant conflicts-of-interest. I'm making that assumption
based on the tons of emails I've received from authors and editors
thanking me for taking a stand and exposing Snead's highly unethical
editorial practices.

I am not surprised that Snead is using her magazine as a soapbox to present her side of the story nor that I am
depicted as the anti-Christ nor that she doesn't acknowledge the unethical relationship between
AdC and Light Sword Publishing.  It makes sense. She doesn't think that
there is anything wrong with her ads-in-exchange-for-reviews policy
or that her advertising director co-owns a sham publishing company that
has been heavily promoted in her magazine and has been found guilty in court of defrauding authors. In her view, the
only wrong here was that I dared to call her on it.

(Thanks to EREC for alerting me to the editorial)

Beware the “Term of License” Contract

by

In this month's Authors Guild Bulletin, Mark L. Levine warns writers to be very wary of publishers offering a so-called "term of license" contract (signing you for seven to ten years with an option to renew) unless you are already a best-selling author or are negotiating paperback or reprint rights to an existing work.

If they're offering it to you as a novice writer, then it's a big warning sign that "the publisher in not a bona fide trade or academic publisher or even a bona fide print-on-demand one but a vanity publisher masquerading as a bona fide POD publisher."  He offers some more good advice:

Recently, a handful of POD publishers have been soliciting and "accepting" manuscripts at an astonishing rate and not requiring money up front to publish a book. They even offer what on its face apperas to be a relatively standard publishing agreement and sometimes agree to pay a nominal advance (eg one dollar). This has led writers — particularly novices– to think they are being published by bona fide trade publishers.

[…]They typically will not publish any copies other than those ordered at the authors discount. Apparently, the total number of books purchases for friends and relativesat the "special" author's price by the presumably large number of people taken in by this scheme makes it a profitable venture for the ethically challenge.

[…]If you are still interested in proceeding in the hope that your publisher is bona fide, be sure to insert, in addition to the requirement that the book be published within a specified time period at the publisher's sole expense, language stating tha the number of print-on-demand copies of the book initially published at the publisher's expense "will not be less than ______ copies" (eg 500 or 1000). Language like this, as well as a good out-of-print clause, should flush out the intentions of the publisher and save you from a bad surprise.

The Mail I Get

by

I debated whether to post this email or not with the actual producer's name in it. I decided that I probably shouldn't but I will give you this hint…I have sparred with him here before, which is why I got this email:

 XYZ  just called me and said he wanted to read
my script. He emailed a contract and then stated that I need to pay him $600 up
front against his 15% commission. I know this isn’t normal but he is a
real producer. My question is, am I getting scammed here?

Yes, you are getting scammed. No legitimate producer or agent would ask
you for a fee. A producer also doesn't ask for, or get, a commission on sales. He may have been a "real" producer once…but if he is asking you for $600, he's not any more.

An Unethical Affaire

by

The folks at Affaire de Coeur are blogging about the controversy I sparked by rejecting their positive review of my book and outing the unethical conduct at the magazine . They write:

I don’t know whether I like this blogging business. It seems that
anyone can say anything they feel like, whether it has an iota of truth
in it or not. And, if you have something to say, say it, but please own
it. What I’m finding, however, is some of the people who write on blogs
use noms des plumes because they don’t want anyone to know who they
are. I have to ask: How valid is a person’s comment if they’re not
willing to stand behind it.

For those of you who don’t know what I’m talking about, AdC was
attacked by a writer on his blog. Lee Goldberg accused AdC of selling
reviews and ratings vis a vis ads. He, himself, had received a five
star review from us, and neither he nor his publisher has ever taken
out an ad with us. He didn’t bother to explain this inconsistency.

I didn't say that all the reviews in AdC were bought…or that Penguin bought the rave review that the magazine gave me. What I said is that reviews and editorial content at AdC are for sale…and the price is an ad. This is from Affaire de Coeur's ad pitch:

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.[…]Book cover ad.–This is the cover of the book that goes right beside (or above or below) the AdC review of your book.[…]We do not review books after publication unless it is done in association with an ad.

It doesn't get much clearer than that.  I also accused the magazine of a blatant conflict of interest. The facts speak for themselves:

Light Sword founder Linda Daly’s DOVES MIGRATION and REBEL DOVES both
got four star reviews, one from “Lettetia Elasser” and the other from
“Inez Daylong” . Linda also got a cover story. That sort of coverage is
hardly a surprise given that Linda’s partner Bonny Kirby, vp of sales and promotion
for Light Sword, is also Affaire de Coeur's advertising director (and a reviewer for the magazine). This conflict of interest was, of course, not disclosed to readers.

Patricia Guthrie’s book IN THE ARMS OF THE ENEMY was reviewed by
“Kimberly Swan,” who gave it five stars and made it a Reviewer’s Pick.

“Kimberly Swan” gave CJ Parker’s FUGUE MACABRE: GHOST DANCE four and a half stars.

And “Lettetia Elasser” gave Alexey Braguine’s KINGMAKER three-and-half stars.

So most Light Sword titles get four stars or better from ADC…only KINGMAKER got slightly less. But the favorable treatment doesn't end there. That's just the beginning.

A reader emailed me jpegs of four Affair de
Coeur covers in a row. Lightsword co-owner Linda Daly and/or Lightsword
authors were on three out of four of them.

Sept/Oct 2007 – The cover features the jacket of Lightsword author CJ Parker’s FUGUE MACABRE and a photo of Linda Daly.

Nov/Dec. 2007 – There’s another photo of Linda Daly on the cover.

March/April 2008 – Linda Daly IS the cover story and so is her book Lightsword book DOVES MIGRATION.

But I am sure all of this attention for Linda Daly, and the rave
reviews for Lightsword Books (four out of five of them got four stars
or better), had nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that
Bonny Kirby, the co-owner of Lightsword Publishing, is also the vp of
advertising and a critic for Affaire de Coeur. No sir. It’s just one of those happy coincidences when good things happen to good people.

It's clear that Bonny Kirby engaged in an unethical conflict-of-interest. But the ultimate
responsibility for all of this mess rests not with Kirby but with Sneed, who
is the publisher. She clearly has no respect whatsoever for her readers
or the journalistic integrity of her magazine. If she did, she would
have fired Kirby by now, issued an apology to her readers, and
instituted reforms to make sure such a blatant and unethical
conflict-of-interest never occurs at her magazine again. Instead, she misses the point…or pretends to:

To put this issue to bed, I ended up writing an editorial. I also did a
side bar on how we review for those who want fact rather than hearsay
and innuendo. Finally, I have a spreadsheet on the correlation between
ads and the number of stars a review received. (There is none). So
maybe read the editorial and the sidebar and scan the spreadsheet and
then, if you still have questions about how we review, shoot!

I'd love to read this editorial, and the rationalizations it contains for unethical behavior, but I can't find Affaire De Coeur on any newstands. So if you have a copy, please send it to me at PO Box 8212, Calabasas, CA 91372

Airleaf Reborn?

by

6a00d8341c669c53ef00e54fb34c9d8833-640wi
Bonnie Kaye, who was a key player in the demise of the Airleaf vanity press scam, is now leading the charge against Jones Harvest Publishing, a sleazy vanity press run by Brien Jones, a former Airleaf exec (who is also doing business as Author Celebrity, Starred Review, Great Concept Books, Book Wheat  and Author Profile, to name just a few).

She has launched JonesHarvestFraudVictims, a blog for people who claim that they've been swindled by Jones. She writes:

In the aftermath of Airleaf Publishing's demise, the former Executive
Vice President, Brien Jones, has "re-invented" this system all over
again in his own publishing business.  Although Mr. Jones swore he was
not the man to be blamed behind Airleaf's fraudulence, the
investigation conducted by a number of members of the Airleaf Victims
support group has proven that this is not the case. Mr. Jones was no
innocent victim of Airleaf fraud as he proclaims like the authors who
bought their worthless promises—in fact, he perpetuated much of it.
According to a dozen ex-employees, Mr. Jones was the mastermind behind
the worthless promotions of Airleaf that he was pitching.

Brien Jones has cast himself as an innocent victim who is being trashed by "baseless and vicious attacks from competing publishers," even though his critics aren't publishers at all.

I was an employee of another publishing company and despite being
called the “mastermind” of this operation I was not in charge of
anything at all. I never had access that company’s check book, company
credit cards, accounts payable, or accounts receivable. I never saw a
bank statement, not one time. Most amazing of all, I was not allowed to look at the mail!

I also had no information, none, about book sales. Despite nearly constant pleas I never had any clue how many copies of client’s books were sold.  I had no clue how many of MY books were sold, even though I had to pay out of my pocket (just like the other authors) to print them! I DO know that I never got paid a percentage of any book sales, including my own.

[…]When
I left that publishing company it was up to me to decide how much of
the responsibility was mine. I decided I deserved my fair share of the
blame. So I sent out apologies. I published 30 books for free
(including the crusader’s), and 30 more at our hard cost. I also used
and use the same vendors that got stiffed by my former boss. In other
words I have done all I can to atone for my role in that other company.
Since many of our client’s now were clients there, I guess we must be
doing something right.

That's one way of looking at it. Another would be that he's suckered the same suckers again using the same schemes that worked so effectively at Airleaf (which seem primarily targeted at senior citizens). He's not the only one who has seemingly gone back to the Airleaf playbook for inspiration. As Writer Beware notes:

Airleaf has spawned several publishing enterprises run by ex-staff–including Fideli Publishing, a fee-based publisher whose marketing packages bear an eerie similarity to Airleaf's, and Brien Jones's Jones Harvest Publishing,
which also charges fees for publishing and offers many Airleaf-style
services (Writer Beware has gotten some advisories about Jones
Harvest's email solicitations,
and Mr. Jones has recently chosen to reimburse several Jones Harvest
authors who alleged performance problems). If you trace the family tree
backward instead of forward, you arrive at the Big Daddy of POD vanity
publishing, AuthorHouse, where Brien Jones was employed before he
co-founded Airleaf's predecessor, Bookman Marketing. It's a tangled web
indeed–which, sadly, is not unusual in the murky world of vanity POD.

Sadly, many of the desperate, and insanely gullible, aspiring authors who were swindled by Airleaf learned nothing from the experience…and have gone running from one vanity press scam right into others.

Kaye organized over 450 scammed authors against Airleaf and succeeded in getting the Indiana Attorney General to shut the company down. I wonder how many victims she will rally together this time…

My Further Pulitzer Adventures…

by

Alien-laundry-eater
Because time is not my friend, I quickly followed "Paul Tash's" Important Instructions for securing my surprising and unexpected Pulitzer Prize nomination.  He asked me, on his very impressive Columbia University letterhead, to write about the hardships that went into my reporting, why my article is so very important, and a brief bio. There's just one problem. I haven't written any articles lately. So I stole one from the Weekly World News that was written by somebody else and lied about how I came to write it. Since "Paul Tash" isn't the real Paul Tash, I'm sure he won't mind if my article isn't mine. Here's what I wrote to him (note my intentional miss-spelling of his name):

Dear Mr. Nash,

I am so glad to hear from you because I was beginning to suspect that
no one appreciated the global ramifications of my reports simply
because they weren't published in a "major" paper. It's so nice to know
that you were aware of my stories and appreciated their significance
and journalistic merit! I have attached the requested materials and
eagerly await your reply.

The rest of my material follows after the jump:

Read more

I Have Been Nominated For a Pulitzer Prize…

by

Imagine my unbridled excitement and shock when I got this email today, informing me that I have been nominated for a Pulitzer Prize:

REF:PULITZER PRIZE,2009..RSVP!!!

ATTN: I write to acknowledge the above attachment to us of your inclusion as a norminated finalist for the Pulitzer Prize,2009. I forward you same, to enable you contact us and get the requisite details germane to your participation without further delay.
Regards,
Paul Tash.

It came attached with an impressive letter written on Pulitzer letterhead that read, in part:

As a distinguished example nominated in your specific
category and recognized as finalist by the Pulitzer Office sitting in the United Kingdom, please forward all
entry matters pertaining to this nomination to: Paul Tash [co-chair member of the Pulitzer Prize
Board].

Who cares that nowhere in the letter did it mention what piece of writing I was nominated for or what category I was nominated in? Who cares that an award granted by Columbia University in New York is being administered by Paul Tash in the UK? Who cares that the Paul Tash on the Pulitzer committee is the editor of the St. Petersburg Times and yet is writing to me from the UK?

It must be real. And I am honored to have been chosen for my great work.

I've emailed Mr. Tash for more details about my exciting nomination and will let you know what happens. This should be fun.

UPDATE 9-6-08 – I am so excited. I just heard back from "Paul Tash."

I am sending you these important details as above that are Important to your participation for The PulitzerPrize,2009.Please endeavour to expedite action on what we require of you without delay to avoid the rush and fierce lobbying for last minute registration by nominees. I humbly await your response and cooperation in this regard.

Just because the Pulitzer recognizes excellence in writing, and "Paul Tash" is the editor of the St. Petersburg Times, I don't see any reason to be worried by sentences that don't make sense, capitalization errors, spelling mistakes and the like, because he was probably in a hurry writing the email. It must be authentic because he used important words like "endeavour" and he is an important man. I realize now that I didn't win a Pulitzer, but I am being offered a fast track to nomination. I am so lucky!

I eagerly opened the attached letter, which was on Columbia University Letterhead, so I know it is absolutely authentic. It said, in part:

I thank you for your mail, and I direct you to look at the
top captioned heading of our initial mail to you, initiative That is the operative word. This is an introduction by the Pulitzer Foundation to give equal opportunity to all citizen of the world to fairly compete without citizenship
barrier requirements. Your nomination was made possible by far reaching search
by our in-house team. We are undertaking a quiet campaign in enlightening all stakeholders. It means we
want you and two others only among many, to enter for the 2009 Pulitzer Prize
as distinguished finalists using any of your past work.

[…]Your two page entry submission should state what difficulties if any, where appropriate, what was accomplished by its publication and what you had to overcome to get the work done. The final draft should be emailed to me as an attachment as soon as possible. Also do not fail to give a small biography, and the final draft to me in summary format, should reach me via email attachments as soon as possible because time is not our friend. 

I guess that's why some of the sentences in the letter don't make sense because he wrote it in a big hurry, because time is not our friend. I am so lucky to have him rooting for me. I have to hurry up and write that letter and before I know it, I'll be a Pulitzer Prize nominee!

Mr. Monk and the Affaire De Coeur

by

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.