When Reviewers Remain Honest and Publishers Remain Accessible, Everyone Benefits
ComicalOpinions.com publishes reviews. Lots of reviews. And we’re grateful to every publisher willing to grant early access to their comics so we can get the word out and provide the best reviews possible.
However, not all publishers engage with review sites in the same way. Sometimes it’s an effortless experience. Sometimes it’s a bewildering experience that comes with… pressure.
Ultimately, the Publisher/Reviewer relationship should be a net positive experience, and it can be. But it only works if everyone does their part and we build and maintain an appropriate level of trust.
Before we dive too deeply into the benefits of reviews (and how the experience can be improved), let’s level set reality versus fantasy.
How Readers Think Reviews Work
A reviewer with a website or YouTube channel reaches out to a publisher asking for early access to review one or more of their titles. The publisher says “sure,” and every week a pristine copy of the latest issue arrives on the reviewer’s doorstep a week or more before the release date.
The reviewer sets a dedicated amount of time aside, thoroughly reads the issue while taking notes about pros and cons, and then sits to write out the review. The review is scheduled to release in line with the publisher’s cycle and embargo dates. On release, customer’s who trust the reviewer read the review as part of an informed purchasing decision before they visit their Local Comic Shop (LCS).
The end… but of course, the process is not nearly that simple or consistent.
How Reviews Actually Work
A reviewer with a personal, generic Gmail account sends a poorly worded email to the first email address they could find on several publishers’ websites, or they send a tersely worded DM to a publisher’s main account on Facebook or Twitter. The reviewer doesn’t inquire about a specific title or has a published portfolio that indicates they review books in that title’s genre.
Publisher A never responds in any way.
By an act of good fortune or perhaps random luck, Publisher B replies saying “Thank you for your interest. What are your monthly traffic stats?” The reviewer hastily scribbles out some numbers in the reply. Publisher B is never heard from again.
By Fate’s continuing graces, Publisher C replies and simply says “sure”. Without any signatures or formal agreement of any kind, the reviewer randomly receives an email with preview information and a pdf of one or more titles.
The interior preview pages are all labeled “prev1xx4463.png” and range from 2-4MB in size each. There is no mention of dates or expectations around what to do with the content. The reviewer also notes the specific title(s) they requested is not provided, but a competing site has the title of interest and reviews already published under a “world exclusive” banner.
Once the review is published, the reviewer receives a perturbed DM from the title’s colorist because the review remarked the colors were muted and washed out. Two weeks later, the emails containing preview and review content from Publisher C stop coming without notice.
Rinse and repeat.
Why Reviews Benefit Customers and Publishers
Before we dive into how we can improve the all-too-common scenario described above, here are a few points to consider about the benefit of reviews.
For the Customers
To be clear, a customer is a random individual that spends their money in an LCS or an online digital platform to purchase a comic. An LCS is not the customer. An LCS is a comic dealer no different from an independent or franchised car dealer. An automaker would never say the car dealership is the customer.
One more time, the person who ultimately plunks down their money at the end of the supply chain is the customer, not the LCS.
A customer benefits from reviews by virtue of having an independent and (hopefully) experienced voice providing a thoughtful opinion before they make their purchase.
If we look at one of the biggest retailers on the planet, Amazon.com, customers put more faith in products that get positive reviews from other customers.
In marketing terms, this is referred to as social proofing, which is just a fancy way of saying people have a natural desire to go along with positive things other people perceive as positive. Within the world of comic reviews, customers who trust reviewers will have a natural inclination to think “if Reviewer A says it’s good, it really is good.”
But notice, this only works if the reviewers are trusted. More on that later.
For the Publishers
Publishers benefit from reviews in several key areas, but two stand above the rest — Exposure and Feedback.
Exposure
Reviews, whether positive or negative, spread the word about a title further than any publisher does with its own marketing. There will always be pockets of people on user forums, on Facebook, on Twitter, on Instagram, or anywhere else you can think of that have no idea a title featuring their favorite character or creator is out. We see that reaction at ComicalOpinions.com every week.
Now, there’s plenty of room for discussion about how well (or not) the publishers are marketing themselves, but a fundamental precept of marketing always applies — More exposure is better.
Feedback
Good reviewers understand what they do is provide a service to the customers first above anyone else. Consequently, the reviews must be fair and honest, and that means they have to reflect both the good and the bad.
Positive-only reviews don’t cut it. Customers rely on reviewers to give them the straight scoop on a title, and when a reviewer only submits positive reviews or outright ignores the negatives of a book, it’s not long before customers label them with the dreaded s-word: Shill.
Shills have no credibility among customers because a positive-only strategy is perceived as advertising for the publisher. Shill sites are thought to be dishonest to curry favor with publishers. Shills, in effect, aren’t trusted by the customers.
Although the focus of good reviewers is the customer, a well-written review should have a few nuggets of constructive feedback for the publisher. A publisher may not like to hear about the negatives, but a publisher needs to hear them. No person or organization can improve if they never hear about what could be improved.
And to be fair, we here at ComicalOpinions.com get feedback too, from both customers and publishers. Feedback is a two-way street, and we welcome it.
How Do We Make The Process Better?
There’s a hint in the last section about the responsibility of making things better. It’s a two-way street, which means both publishers and reviewers have to make changes.
Let’s pick on reviewers first for once.
Ways Reviewers Could Do Better
If you’re a reviewer, this one’s for you. Write as much as you can about comics, and look at how other reviewers structure their reviews. Focus less on the specific words and more on the layout and the ideas that come across. Your first review will suck, and that’s okay, but you’ll only get better if you keep writing.
This does not mean you have to copy other review sites. Make it your own, but maintain focus on giving customers an independent review that they would find valuable. Always be asking: “Would this help a customer decide whether or not they should spend money on this comic?”
When interacting with the publisher:
- Have at least some published work available to show you’re interested in their comics, their genre, or at least their characters.
- Use official channels for reaching out to publishers with inquiries. Use DM’s only as a last resort when the publishers don’t have clear contact information (yes, some publishers are harder to reach than they should be).
- When you receive advance review copies, follow the embargo rules (if provided) and let the publisher know when the reviews are published. Most of the time, a publisher won’t know a review is out there unless you tell them.
- To the point about reviewing the good and the bad, critique the work, not the creator. You’re reviewing a product, not people. Don’t be insulting or rude.
- If something is bad, say it’s bad and explain why. Be constructive. “It sucks” is a worthless critique. If you can’t explain why it’s bad because you can’t articulate it, do some research and educate yourself. Take reviewing seriously.
This is by no means a comprehensive list, but serving customers comes with a level of responsibility. Treat it seriously (while you’re having fun).
Ways Publishers Could Do Better
Publishers, please understand that the reviewer’s first priority is to the customer. Not everything published is great or even good. It happens, so please take the negative reviews as more valuable than the positive ones because that’s where the golden nuggets of making a better comic can be found.
That does not mean that reviewers know how to make a better comic than the publisher. But it does mean that reviewers can provide fresh eyes and a new perspective that gets missed within the editorial bubble. It’s free feedback. Take advantage of it.
When dealing with the reviewers:
- Include all relevant dates and restrictions, especially embargoes, when sending out content.
- When sending out promotional material, it’s nice to have pictures in super huge sizes and super high resolution, but that doesn’t work for the web. Please consider sending out your preview images in web-friendly sizes with human-readable filenames.
- If there’s a concern about piracy, have reviewers sign an NDA agreement and watermark the content with a code or email for tracking. Don’t let proper handling of your material turn into a guessing game.
- If a new-to-you reviewer requests your material, sign them up. As long as they have a published body of work showing they’re serious and are willing to comply with your NDA, there’s no reason to reject a reviewer. The “let me see your monthly stats” requirement is horse puckey because it doesn’t take into account cross-pollination with other sites, backlinking, and engagement %(a more valuable metric). Remember, more exposure is better.
- Don’t play favorites. When Publishers get into the habit of giving one review site earlier access than everyone else a) it kills the valuable traffic other sites could get, and b) you unintentionally signal the early access site is a shill site. The short-term traffic boost is not worth the reputational hit.
- Please make press and media contact intuitive. Every publisher’s website should have an easy-to-find and clearly written section describing how to be contacted specifically for press and media. Don’t let contact become a guessing game.
Author’s note: One more thing about publisher’s websites. I’ve spent most of my adult life working in IT. Please, for the love of Thanos, secure your site with a TLS/SSL certificate. Ask your webmaster if you don’t know what that means.
- Please remind your creators not to contact reviewers if they don’t like what was written. As long as the reviewer is critiquing the work and not the creator, they’re doing their duty. To maintain that all-important trust between reviewers and customers, there can’t be any perceived pressure from anyone working for or with the publisher.
- Communicate. If you think a review misrepresents something or is confusing, contact the reviewer through the official liaisons in a polite and respectful way. Maybe the wording could have been better. Maybe the reviewer was having a bad day. But if you lash out angrily, or worse, cut off all ties, you’re only making things worse. Again, we welcome feedback, too. Just don’t be a jerk about it.
If you’re saying to yourself “I know all this stuff. This is normal for any corporate or business environment,” you’d be right. For some reason, the punk rock nature of comics have lulled some people into thinking professionalism isn’t necessary.
But this is a business – for publishers and reviewers. Treat it like one.
Final Thoughts
The relationship between Publisher and Reviewer can be a positive and productive one, but as with any relationship, both sides need to do their part and improve when needed. It’s a two way street.
Reviewers – be honest, be fair, don’t favor the publisher over the customer, be professional.
Publishers – be easy to find, be easy to work with, don’t gatekeep reviewers, communicate.
If we work together with these small, targeted changes, the relationship between Publisher and Reviewers will be a much happier, healthier one.
We hope you found this article interesting. Come back for more reviews, previews, and opinions on comics, and don’t forget to follow us on social media:
If you’re interested in comics, remember to let your Local Comic Shop know to find more comics for you. They would appreciate the call, and so would we.
Click here to find your Local Comic Shop: www.ComicShopLocator.com