AAH "Big Question": Is it OK for artists to pay writers for reviews?

[jkelman]

My "Big Question," today at All About Jazz: "Is It OK for artists to pay writers for reviews?" Note/ please post your comments at AAJ.

When did it become acceptable or common practice for artists to pay for an album review?

Recently, All About Jazz writers have been asked by artists--and with increasing regularity--if they would write an album review for pay. We have also encountered writers actively soliciting musicians to pay for reviews... and we think that's wrong.

All About Jazz has a strict conflict of interest policy: those paid in any capacity surrounding a release--liner notes, press sheets, biographies or photos--are automatically precluded from reviewing that recording at AAJ. The same policy also precludes artists from paying contributors to write a review.

Why? If readers found out a writer had been paid by the artist--or anyone directly involved in the recording--it would be completely understandable for them to question not just the writer's objectivity, but the website's as well. How can a writer submit a review to a publication, having been paid to do so by someone directly linked to the release in question, with any kind of objective distance? After all, would a musician be prepared to pay a writer for a bad review?

But beyond AAJ, it's simply bad practice for writers to accept--or worse, yet, solicit--payment for a review from the artist. Liner notes, press sheets, bios? Sure, no problem--it's long been AAJ's experience that its writers get such gigs as a direct consequence of what they publish at AAJ. Critical writing, however, must be absolutely objective and distanced from the artist, something that's impossible when money's changing hands.

Continue reading and out your opinion here

[strawberrybrick]

Is a receiving a promo considered "payment"?

[bob_32_116]

Is a receiving a promo considered "payment"?

No, that's called "leaking".

[Scott Bails]

What is the argument that this would be okay? Seems rather obvious that it's a conflict of interest.

[cavgator]

I would have no problem with it, as long as the review is honestly written. The artist would have to know that up front.

[jkelman]

I would have no problem with it, as long as the review is honestly written. The artist would have to know that up front.

But if you read a review at a publication under the category of "Reviews" and subsequently learned the writer had been paid by the musician, the record label and/or the artist's management/publicist, would the credibility of not just the writer, but the publication also, be an issue?

All About Jazz thinks so, which is why it has strict conflict of interest policies. After all, would an artist or representative be prepared to pay for a negative review? Not likely. So that review would not be an analytical review...it'd be a press sheet plain and simple, hiding under the guise of an analytical, objective piece.

As for promos being a form of payment? No, not any more than a film critic who I assure you does not pay to see a movie under review, or book critics who are provided either ARCs or real copies of the books they are to review.

Promos are the cost of doing business and artists or representation send them out in the hopes of being reviewed...but with no guarantees.

Most reviewers receive far more review material than they can ever hope to write. When I started it was the plan... But with 200+ albums -hard media or download - coming in each month it's impossible, and artists know that, so they send out enough to hopefully get a reasonable return in terms of reviews written. But it is what it is, and most good writers try to make sure they provide some coverage over time. Whether it's one release from a label releasing 6 at a time or some other method.

So promos are a different kettle of fish to being paid to write a review. One is accepted cost of doing business...the other is clear conflict of interest, and All About Jazz thinks that's wrong, plain and simple.

[Reginod]

Once the artist (or representative thereof) pays the writer, it becomes a promotion and not an unbiased critique. Such distinctions should be clear to the readership.

[jkelman]

Once the artist (or representative thereof) pays the writer, it becomes a promotion and not an unbiased critique. Such distinctions should be clear to the readership.

Agreed. Except that in our opinion it should not happen at all, because even if you let the readers know, there's still a nagging doubt that this is also happening unannounced.

Plus if artists begin to believe that this is the way that they get reviews then gradually the waters become completely muddied and readers will no longer know what is legit and what it not.

As I said in the piece, while All About Jazz cannot prevent it from happening in the sense that we cannot always be aware if a writer is being paid, if we do learn that they we, we respond quickly and decisively: not just the article in question, but ALL articles by the writer are removed from the site, and the writer is immediately banned as a contributor. We son't mess around because we believe this to be an incredibly serious breach of trust between writer and site, and writer and reader.

Having a "This review was paid for by Bill Frisell" doesn't make it any better as it still dilutes the rest of the good work at the publication.

So we don't believe it should be allowed, period; but more, we don't believe that artists should feel they must pay a writer for a review. They make the records; they (or their label and/or publicist) sends out promo copies; and then they wait to see what rolls in (while, if they have a publicist, that person works to drum up interest in the release).

Current times have made it necessary for musicians to also become business people, since not everyone can afford representation, but spreading the music and the word is the extent of their job when it comes to obtaining reviews. Beyond that, either the publication assigns reviews to its writers or, as is the case with All About Jazz, it simply publishes what comes in as it comes in.

[Oreb]

I completely agree that paid reviews are a bad idea, but where does one draw the line?

John K, you have sold photos (and liner notes?) to ECM. Should you as a reviewer disclose such a business relationship when you review their product? On the one hand it seems silly to go to that length but on the other it does constitute a financial arrangement that may be repeated (or not, perhaps depending on your relations with the label).

Taken further, should reviewers disclose in their review if they have sought out a review copy of the disc from the company?

[trurl]

Only if it's done through the time honored guise of "buying an ad".

[rcarlberg]

Shoot, where was this option when I had a monthly review column???

[Hobo Chang Ba]

I would have no problem with it, as long as the review is honestly written. The artist would have to know that up front.

Yep.

[kayfabe58]

we would buy ad space to get an article written about us...this had to happen on bigger levels.

[gpeccary]

I understand your point about a conflict of interest. However, as others have mentioned, if an artist was to pay for a review, it would have to be with a disclaimer, much like journalists do when they are reporting on a company they work for for instance, and the understanding it may not be favorable. Then the artist could elect not to have it run.
But from my view, with all due respect, I take reviews with a gigantic grain of salt, if I read them at all.
There have been so many times I've wondered what the hell the reviewer was thinking or listening to? If indeed they were thinking at all! I've often thought a reviewer shouldn't write a review if they don't like the music or the band. It's not objective, and It just ends up being a bash fest.
I once read a review on the Bozzio Levin Stevens first album. The guy was so off base, clearly didn't know anything about the individuals, or the fact the 70 minutes was improv, I wrote him and told him he should quit because he was so far off base and he didn't know shit about music. It was horrific. He should write about something he knows about.
In your case john, I have read your reviews. They're honest, informed, educational. It wouldn't bother me you got paid by the artist. You write about what you know. I trust that. Journalists need to earn a living, and bands need a way to promote their work. Why not have an educated trusted journalist write a review? With a disclaimer of course.

[TheLoony]

I've often been told I should do a music thing, podcast, writing reviews, whatever. I laugh at those who tell me to do this.

Firstly, yeah, I know a lot. Compared to most here on PE, I know nothing and that is my first laugh. My second comes from knowing that I know so little about so much that I never could do a subjective review. I submit, reluctantly, my review of the DT/QR/FW show back in 2003 as proof I cannot write a subjective review. It's worth reading for the comedy value alone. Trust me, I wrote it, I know how funny it is. Just be lucky, if you do read it, to know the original review was MUCH longer and therefore a ridiculously fanboy-ish review than it already is and that you won't have to read that much(more) drivel.

http://www.knac.com/article.asp?ArticleID=2316

The only reason I say this is because of some thoughts I had recently whilst looking over the local rags to see who's coming to town. I see the Psychedelic Furs are/were playing here. I could not write a subjective review of them. I know first off I couldn't as I already think they suck and I know nothing of their music nor their style of music. How could I write anything that is fair when I'm already programmed, for lack of a better word, to not like their music?

Just my little perspective that adds little to the conversation but thought I'd share it anyway. Basically it's why reviews and reviewers suck. I've read reviews that tell me I'd love the music, per my tastes, and I hate it yet there's stuff that I think I'll hate that I like.

Taste is subjective and everyone's is different so I take reviews with a few billion grains of salt. That's my real and only point of all this ranting.

[jkelman]

I completely agree that paid reviews are a bad idea, but where does one draw the line?

John K, you have sold photos (and liner notes?) to ECM. Should you as a reviewer disclose such a business relationship when you review their product? On the one hand it seems silly to go to that length but on the other it does constitute a financial arrangement that may be repeated (or not, perhaps depending on your relations with the label).

I have written liners for many labels. It's a logical and inevitable progression...if a label likes your writing they will hire you to write liners. But unless you're on staff (in which case i would suggest you would be precluded from reviewing any of the label's output), it's just freelancing, no different than being paid by a periodical to write an article. As I made clear in the original piece, All About Jazz has firm conflict of interest policies when it comes to reviewing an album for which you have been paid to write liners, press sheets, contribute photos etc. But if professional writers were to be precluded or have to disclose, any time they review for a label because they've written a liner or two, you'd find them on just about every review. And that, I think, would be silly....

To put it into context. I have reviewed hundreds of ECM recordings. I have written two liners (one still awaiting release) and contributed photos to three others. That does not exactly constitute employment...though I cannot, in all good faith, review those recordings of course. I am not an employee of ECM's any more than I am one of Hatology, HighNote/Savant, MoonJune, Criss Cross, Rune Grammofon, Ninja Tune, Jazzland, Abstract Logix, Motéma or the others who occasionally hire me to write a liner or press sheet. Obviously if i were to be hired by the label on a regular basis, it would be a different thing.

should reviewers disclose in their review if they have sought out a review copy of the disc from the company?

No. Because obtaining review materials is, as I've said, part of doing business. If a label wants writers to review their material they must be prepared to provide review materials. This seems to come up often and I don't know why. Do you expect book or film reviewers to do the same? No, of course not. While it might seem like payment to those who think "wow, reviewers get all this free stuff" - and I will admit, at the start, it was a bit like that for me, 13 years down the road, however, and with 200+ albums coming at me monthly, it's great to get the music but. It's also an obligation that continues to grow, it seems. You have artists, labels, publicists all coming at you every day looking for a review, and legitimately, you're lucky if you can write one good one every day...and that's a push. Not that I don't enjoy getting new music from artists I enjoy, but this is work, plain and simple, and review materials are what must be provided for me to do my job, whether it comes from the periodical, the label, a publicist or the artist.

I hope this clears things up. If you're a professional writer - and while All About Jazz is still unable to pay it has led to many other paying opportunities for me, so I now consider myself a professional writer, and (occasionally, but I've still a ways to go I think!) a pro photographer too, when I'm lucky and get a good shot - then it's simply part of the work. It is not in any way compensation. Do you think that getting a free CD or download puts food on the table? Do you think a CD, worth perhaps $15-20, is fair compensation for the 8-10 times spent listening to an album and the 3-4 hours ( box sets, much longer) spent writing the review? If you are a professional writer, it sure ain't. If you write for a blog as a hobby and are lucky enough to score materials, then it might seem that way. But that's what has really muddiedthe water. And for guys like Anil Prasad, whose website is the farthest thing from a blog as I can imagine, getting the music is how he researches for those wonderful in-depth interviews that take hours to prepare for, hours to conduct, and hours to transcribe and shape into cogent form. It is not compensation. It is research materials, and to expect him, memoir any other pro writer to pay for it, given the time invested, is actually kinda ludicrous,when you really think about it...no offense intended to anyone here at PE. Just think about your job and all the things provided to facilitate it. Same thing, truly.

[jkelman]

Only if it's done through the time honored guise of "buying an ad".

And while, sadly, the quickest way to get a review at many publications is to buy an ad, a big reason I stay with All About Jazz is because a clear line is drawn between revenue and content. Buying an ad does not guarantee you a review and if you do get one,mthee's no guarantee it'll be good.

Actually, a few years ago a guy put out an album called A New Kind of Blue, the premise? What if Miles Davis made,that classic album in the cd era where younhadm80 minutes available? So it was the music from KoB but longer. Not a bad album, but I'm sure nobody will be surprised to hear that in my final para I wrtle something like "Of course, it cannot have the 'wow factor' of the original." The producer was upset despite it being, if.not a glowing review, certainly not a bad one...because it was not a bad record.just not a classic. All About Jazz's publisher refused to pressure me into adjusting the review, and ultimately told the producer, who had purchases ad space at the site, "the review stays as-is, but if you like I will refund your money and pull the ad."

Ultimately the producer went with pulling the ad, and the publisher gained even more respect from me than he already had.

Years later, and despite no small pressure, he has not changed his policy. And it's why All About Jazz is still my primary destination for analytical writing.

[jkelman]

In your case john, I have read your reviews. They're honest, informed, educational. It wouldn't bother me you got paid by the artist. You write about what you know. I trust that. Journalists need to earn a living, and bands need a way to promote their work. Why not have an educated trusted journalist write a review? With a disclaimer of course.

Thanks, that's very kind of you to say...but I will still never accept payment from an artist, label or publicist to write a review. I'll happily write a liner or press sheet for them, of course...

[trurl]

Buying an ad does not guarantee you a review and if you do get one,mthee's no guarantee it'll be good.

Which is good- the problem is when it works in reverse though.
"Will you review our album?"
"Sure! You want an ad? Like, a big full color one?"
"Not really, we can't afford it... the review will help us though."
"Well, that's like free advertising isn't it? Maybe we'll get to you sometime, who knows."
"Uh ok. Anyway, an ad probably is a good idea."
"Sure it is! We bet you'll like the review too. You can quote it in your big ad."
"Uh...ok??!!"

Of course it cuts both ways... I'm sure websites and mags hear stuff like, "Will it be a great review? Because why should we have an ad next to a terrible review." Complicated. AAJ has a great reputation. That's the best way to fight this stuff.

[Dusty Chalk]

Agreed. Except that in our opinion it should not happen at all, because even if you let the readers know, there's still a nagging doubt that this is also happening unannounced.

And if you don't let the readers know, the doubt goes away? Just like in the audiophile industry? /sarcasm

Don't get me wrong, I agree it shouldn't happen at all, and I especially appreciate the stance of people like you, honest journalists, but I do remember reading in a magazine "ad copy" that said at the top, "advertisement", and it was written like a review, and my thought was, "at least they're honest about it", and it made me think that the reviews in the same magazine were not paid-for "ad copy".

Why do I sound like I'm arguing? I agree with everyone who said, "under what circumstances could it possibly be okay?"

[jkelman]

Why do I sound like I'm arguing? I agree with everyone who said, "under what circumstances could it possibly be okay?"

It's ok. I didn't come here for an argument....

[klothos]

Welcome to Supply and Demand...In this case, the recorded music market is SO oversaturated (endless SUPPLY), that there are many scruple-less artists tripping over themselves and stepping on the next to try and get ahead...... This creates the lousy environment that we live in now

Have you guys been to Reverb Nation yet? As an artist, I have to :

- Pay for an EPK to be used to submit to every single original music promotion or original music showcase
- Pay to have my music reviewed
- Pay for Airplay on Digital Radio

and there are plenty of artists within the oversaturated music industry willing to do this

Its no longer about the artist and the artist's work: that ended back in the late-70s, but - at the very least - it used to be about how much sales of product and merchandise the artist can sell for their label/management/artist to make the most money but, now, its not even about that anymore:

Now, its about "If there are a Billion bands out there and I can get my Net Service to get just 1 Stinkin U$ dollar out of each one, my Net Music Service just made One Billion Dollars!! Hell, why dont I just have my Net Music service leech off these No-names for an extended amount of time? It doesnt matter if any of them are good, bad, or in-different musically - thats all irrelevent. I'll doctor up my net service with all these "charts" and "industry professional" hyperbole and leech until they dont want to pay anymore"

[jkelman]

Welcome to Supply and Demand...In this case, the recorded music market is SO oversaturated (endless SUPPLY), that there are many scruple-less artists tripping over themselves and stepping on the next to try and get ahead...... This creates the lousy environment that we live in now

Have you guys been to Reverb Nation yet? As an artist, I have to :

- Pay for an EPK to be used to submit to every single original music promotion or original music showcase
- Pay to have my music reviewed
- Pay for Airplay on Digital Radio

and there are plenty of artists within the oversaturated music industry willing to do this

Its no longer about the artist and the artist's work: that ended back in the late-70s, but - at the very least - it used to be about how much sales of product and merchandise the artist can sell for their label/management/artist to make the most money but, now, its not even about that anymore:

Now, its about "If there are a Billion bands out there and I can get my Net Service to get just 1 Stinkin U$ dollar out of each one, my Net Music Service just made One Billion Dollars!! Hell, why dont I just have my Net Music service leech off these No-names for an extended amount of time? It doesnt matter if any of them are good, bad, or in-different musically - thats all irrelevent. I'll doctor up my net service with all these "charts" and "industry professional" hyperbole and leech until they dont want to pay anymore"

Well,I prefer not to be harsh against musicians because, as you say, it's a pretty over saturated market and getting any attention is a challenge.so I don't hold it against musicians for looking to pay writers for reviews.

Who I do hold culpable are writers who accept that money and write reviews that cannot be objective, and writers who then turn around and offer to write reviews for musicians for fee. If anyone, it is they who are causing (especially younger) musicians to feel that this is how it must be done,

I have a huge problem with that. When musicians me offering to pay me to write a review, I explain to them, in the nicest way possible, that I will not do so and why. They need to understand the motivations of a for-fee review. They might still go out and try and solicit one, and then I will start to have problems with them...but even then, they are struggling to be he's and to get some attention at a time like none other, when the number of releases each month has reached epic proportions.i don't know if it's continuing to rise, but I do know there was a time when I could keep up with incoming and cover most of it. Now? Absolutely impossible.

I don't know what the answer is, but it's certainly one of the downsides of DIY recording that anyone can make a record. It's definitely snowballed and I don't know if it's a case where the (sorry for the mixed metaphor!) toothpaste can actually be put back in the tube. Somehow I doubt it.

Just my call for material for the book project has resulted in a response far in excess of what I'd expected...even with my awareness of how things are. So where we will be in six months.,.one year...five years? I'M almost afraid to take a guess.