| Unethical Trick or Useful Promotion? |
 John H. Johnson, publisher of Ebony and Jet magazines, died yesterday at the age of 87. The following two paragraphs are excerpted from his listing in the Self-Publishing Hall of Fame. At the age of 24 in 1942, he self-published Negro Digest, using a $500 loan secured by his mother's furniture. In 1945, he launched Ebony magazine with a press run of 25,000 copies. From this meager beginning, he built up a billion-dollar publishing and cosmetics empire. In 1982, he became the first African-American to be featured on Forbes magazine’s list of the 400 richest Americans. To encourage a distributor to pick up Negro Digest, he asked co-workers to ask for the magazine at newsstands around Chicago. His friends bought most of the copies at these newsstands to convince the dealers that the magazine was in demand. In turn, Johnson bought the copies from his friends and resold the copies they had bought. He continued to use this tactic to open up the markets in New York, Detroit, and Philadelphia as well. Within a year, Negro Digest was selling 50,000 copies a month. Was he unethical in what he did? Some would say so. But it worked. It made an incredible difference in the life of African-Americans at a time when they couldn't play major league baseball or vote in many states. But let's look a little closer at the ethics of what he did: First, he asked his co-workers to ask for the magazine at newsstands. Was this unethical? You could argue it was if the co-workers had no intention to buy the magazine. Perhaps, in the beginning, the co-workers had no such intention. But, chances are, that within a few months they were regular buyers and readers of the Negro Digest. So, ethical or unethical? It really is hard to decide since we have no way to judge his friends' intentions. That the ploy worked was significant in allowing Johnson Publishing to weather the hard times of a start-up with limited resources. As book authors, we often do something similar when we ask family and friends to ask for the book at bookstores or libraries. Many of us have done that at some time in our careers. Are we being unethical in making such requests? On a rigid scale of ethics, we are being unethical (no question about it) since our family and friends probably have little intention to buy our book at a bookstore or even check it out at a library. Does that make us bad people? No. Do we need an ethical check-up? Probably yes. And, yet, I might still recommend this ploy to some authors. I have in the past, so I am likely to do so again. Second, Johnson bought back the copies of Negro Digest his friends had bought at the newsstands. And then he resold those copies. Was he unethical in buying back those copies? Yes. It would be hard to argue otherwise, if you subscribe to a strict ethical viewpoint. Now, he resold the copies -- so someone, in the end, actually paid for the copies. So, if you wanted to walk on a slippery ethical slope, you could argue that the copies were bought by readers who actually wanted the magazine. By looking at this larger picture, you could then argue that Johnson acted ethically. Personally, I like to look at this larger picture. But, then, on the other hand, I would never recommend to authors that they buy back copies of their books from friends who bought them at bookstores. No matter the reason. Whether to get distribution, to build momentum for a bestseller list, or to make bookstores happy. I do see such moves as being unethical. Now, if their friends and family buy the books for themselves, then there is no ethical question. The sales were truly legitimate, even if coaxed or pressured by the author. Since the many comments on the ethics of the Amazon bestseller campaign last week on this blog, I've been more attuned to ethical questions. It could be easily argued that John Johnson acted unethically. But, somehow, I can't accuse him of that. I don't know quite why. Perhaps it was his underdog status at the time. Perhaps it was because it might have been the only way he could have launched the magazine during those days. Gosh, I have always loved Robin Hood as well. But he did steal. He did break a major commandment. Can we excuse his action because he gave the money to the poor? When you start asking these questions, you begin to understand why people study ethics in college. And why many students get only more confused as they debate the issues. Actions in a limited context can easily look unethical by anyone's standards. Stealing is bad. It is unethical. It is wrong. So when is it right? Should Robin Hood be a hero? How about our American patriots? They stood behind trees to shoot and kill the British redcoats. Was that fair? Was that ethical? The British expected men to come out and fight on a fair battlefield. The colonists valued their lives, so they shot the British while hiding behind trees, boulders, and other hiding places. Were the colonists ethical? If yes, then are the terrorist bombers also ethical? If the colonists were unethical, then is our country founded on bad seed? You can ask all sorts of such confusing questions when discussing ethics. It is easy to accuse another of unethical behavior. It is much harder to hold yourself to such standards when acting in real life. Thus, is the standard Amazon bestseller campaign unethical? I don't think so. BUT, its results can definitely be used in an unethical manner. Personally I think it's wrong to say your book is a bestseller just because it was #1 at Amazon for a few hours. But I do think it's ethical to say it was an Amazon.com bestseller. Now, I've probably opened up the whole can of worms again. If you'd like to comment on this post, anonymously or as a real person, please hold comments to discussing whether or not John Johnson acted ethically. I'd really like to know what you think. Personally, looking at the larger picture, I believe he acted ethically. But on a black and white scale of ethics, his actions are definitely in the gray area. I don't think they merit being placed on one extreme or the other. I believe most of our actions fall in the same gray area. I doubt very many of us act in a black or white manner when it comes to ethics. Our actions are rarely purely good or purely evil. Our goal should be to act ethically at all times. The reality is that we often miss the mark. But most of us are still good people. I would trust most of you who read this blog with my life. That's my ultimate measure of ethics. Can I trust you with my life? |
posted by John Kremer @
12:48 PM
13 comments |
John Kremer's Ten Million Eyeballs Internet Marketing Event
13 Comments:
There is nothing unethical about having friends and family buy your books. If you are trying to imply this is the same as spamming people and using a fake, 20-minute "best seller" status to sell other books and products, you have got to be kidding me. If you want to have people go to bookstores all over America and buy your book, do so. As long as the books are not later returned, what's wrong with that? It's called marketing. And please, please, please tell me you and your rich white self are not comparing your situation to a man of color in the '40s. That's just disturbing.
And I didn't see anything where he was paid to recommend other people's products and didn't mention the fact. You keep skipping over that point John, or removing it or having it removed. You were promoting a product for money, not because you liked it. That's okay, but you should let people know that's the case. People trust you. Don't take advantage of that trust for a few dollars. You're a bigger man than that.
Anonymous 1
(so there's no confusion with other anonymous posters)
Hi John,
You said, "If you'd like to comment on this post, anonymously or as a real person, please hold comments to discussing whether or not John Johnson acted ethically."
There you go again, trying to direct the exact path of every conversation to suit your own level of comfort.
Why don't you create some debatable situations to discuss that are comparable?
Comparing yourself and the Amazon Best Seller programs to American Patriots is not only ridiculous, it's incredibly offensive to those of us who have family members currently fighting for our country and for all U.S. military personnel, past and present, as well.
It's nice that you're finally admitting that the Amazon program is unethical. If you'd just apologize and stop endorsing this unethical program, the problem would simply go away. As long as you continue to endorse (and make excuses for) it while profiting from it, you'll continue to look bad in the eyes of the publishing community.
And, yes, what John Johnson did was unethical. But, his situation has nothing to do with yours. Trying to turn attention to other people's actions when you're the one in hot water just makes you look desperate.
To Anonymous #1:
I never said it was unethical having friends and family buy your books. Read my post again. I said it's unethical to have them ask for the book at a bookstore or library with no intention to go back to buy the book or check it out of the library.
A rich white self? I wish. Fat, yes. But I'm working on that.
I promote the Amazon.com bestseller campaign idea because I like the idea and for no other reason. I promote the program by Randy Gilbert and Peggy McCall because I think they offer a good program for a fair price. I won't promote any program unless I like it. If I get to make a referral fee as well, that's just a bonus. It's not the motivater behind my recommendation. Never has been. Never will be.
Please note that the Amazon.com bestseller campaign idea is totally separate from Randy and Peggy's program. Many others have done the campaign and written about and taught it before Randy and Peggy put together their study program.
I totally and unconditionally endorse the Amazon.com bestseller campaign idea. I believe it's completely ethical and above board.
I like Randy and Peggy's program, but I tell people that they don't have to buy their program in order to carry out the campaign. If they want to make sure they do every step right and have help with every step -- and they have the money to spend -- then, go ahead and use their program. But every person who has ever asked me about Randy and Peggy's program, I've made sure to tell them that they could do it on their own and read about it on my web site at http://www.bookmarket.com/jason.html. Some people told me directly that they preferred to use Randy and Peggy's program. Well, God bless them if that's what works for them. I have no problem with that.
Personally I would not spend the money on their program because I know how to carry out an Amazon.com bestseller campaign myself. And I know how to do it well.
People do trust me. That's why I always tell them about both options every time I speak or consult.
I don't think it's unethical to take a referral payment if you would make the referral anyway. I do think it's unethical to take a referral payment if you cannot endorse the program personally.
I also don't think it's unethical whether someone is informed about a referral payment or not as long as you would make the endorsement anyway. In that case, it's really none of their business whether or not you get a referral payment. As long as I make a legitimate referral to something I think is good, I am acting ethically.
Yes, I am white, but I am color-blind.
And now to Anonymous #2 (though he or she did not designate it so):
I don't really run my blog to get into debates. Although I did know that this entry would probably stir some debate. Most entries in my blog serve only one purpose: either to provide a great resource that might help you sell more books or to provide inspiration to keep you going when times get rough.
I have no level of comfort. I just think that most visitors to my blog would prefer to read comments directed to the entry that I posted. I could be wrong. So be it.
I'm not comparing myself or the Amazon bestseller campaigns to American patriots. That is ridiculous. I never made such a comparison in my post. I simply pointed out that every action has ethical consequences or questions attached to it. In my case, when I was a child, I thought that the patriots fighting from behind trees when the British expected straight battlefield fights was very clever. I was proud of them for adopting tactics from their fights with Indians (now I'm using the term that was used at that time). But then at some point in my life someone pointed out that it was kind of cowardly to fight in that way. And so I had a little conundrum.
Not a big one, because if I were ever stuck in the middle of a war, I'd hide and shoot from any little hole I could find. I'd duck, shoot missles from miles away, try to have the toughest armor, anything to keep me alive. And, yet if my friend was in danger, I'd run right out into a hail of bullets to save him or her. At least that's what my mind tells me I would do. I have no idea what my body would let me do if I were on a real battlefield. I don't think any of us know what we would really do until we are actually faced with a real situation.
During the Vietnam War, I turned in my draft card. I risked imprisonment and more by doing so. My number at the time was middling high, so I suppose I might have been drafted. A lot of my friends were. Unknown to me, my draft board took the card, changed my rating to a rating that would not get me drafted because of a physical infirmity (I'm legally blind in my right eye). My family docter happened to be on the draft board and made the argument for the rating. They sent the card to my mother. I never knew she had it until the war was over. During those many years, I thought I was exposed to great danger. Turns out I wasn't. Does that make my action ethical? Daring? Foolish? Inept?
Anyway, back to the rest of your post...
In my post, I do not admit that the Amazon program is unethical. Can't you read? Here's what I said: "Thus, is the standard Amazon bestseller campaign unethical? I don't think so." And later I say that "But I do think it's ethical to say it was an Amazon.com bestseller."
I wasn't trying to turn attention to other people's actions to avoid my hot water. First, I don't think I'm in any hot water. I fully support Amazon.com bestseller campaigns as an ethical act. I have no qualms about that. I don't know how I can make that any clearer than I have. I also have absolutely no qualms about getting a referral fee for a program I would endorse even without a payment and have endorsed in the past with no payment whatsoever. If I don't like something, I'll say so. Done it before. Will do it again.
I don't think what John Johnson did was unethical (in a strict literal sense, perhaps yes, but in a larger sense, no). I love the man. I'm proud that he did what he did because it allowed him to survive long enough to get the audience he knew was out there. I would put my life in his hands any day.
Now that he is dead, I can't do that in real life. But I suspect that he could still help me from up above. He was a good man, even a great man. His heart was wide open. I wish I had been able to meet him in person.
He's been in the Self-Publishing Hall of Fame for years, but today I updated his listing when I read his obituaries. It was in them that I found out just how great he was. God bless him and God bless you.
Maybe Johnson's initial campaign was less than ethical now that I think about it some more, but he didn't continue the farce, as those using the Amazon scam are. His campaign simply initiated demand for the publication and that demand increased on its own afterwards. Not so with the Amazon "best sellers."
Johnson could legitimately claim success for Negro Digest years down the road. Which he did. I do not believe anyone with a temporary, manipulated ranking on Amazon has that right. The Amazon stories are more a glitch in the system than they are an indication of success or a good publication. Calling a book a "best-seller" years down the road because of the Amazon scam is unethical, particularly if you're using that fake success to sell other services or products.
If the Amazon books later became best sellers in their own right, then you could claim the success, but they didn't. Sales dropped right back to where they were before in every case I've heard of.
You have to remember the place, the time and the people Johnson was dealing with. There were no TV ads, no internet and would they have allowed a billboard or radio or newspaper ads for Negro Digest in the '40s? Media controlled by the white folks. We're talking about a time and when he would not have been allowed to drink from the same fountain, sit in the same restaurant, ride at the front of the bus, have children go to the same schools, attend the same church as "white" Americans. He simply found a way to do PR with all those restrictions in place.
He also didn't send out spam. And yes, John, the endless e-mail promos from you guys doing this, and I used to receive newsletters from those who did it, is spam. It is annoying and I always opted off every list that did it, including yours.
In fact, I have a junk Hotmail account and it's always filled with this stuff from one of your cohorts. It's ridiculous.
Anonymous 1
I suppose the question is this: Does Johnson's unethical practice matter to us personally? It is quite clear to me that his initial practice was unethical. However, he did not continue the practice after his magazine was established.
As far as I'm concerned personally, I'm not bothered by his unethical behavior. It didn't harm anyone. The newsstands where the magazines were purchased made their money. His friends got paid back. The public got innovative magazines. I don't see the harm, financially. The only harm I see is that the public was not aware of the way the magazine got popular.
I think you are right, John. We all function every day in some shade of gray. Is every single action I take ethical? I eat meat; the PETA people would say that is an unethical act. Most of ethics has to do with perspective.
I see no grey with what most people are doing with the Amazon scam.
At least some of these people are selling their "expertise" saying "I am a best-selling author" - as a consumer you would assume they know something about the business and are worthy of your money. Anyone can become a best seller on Amazon and I don't think most of them are worthy of your money.
These are false credentials. It's like a mail-order PhD.
Nony1
It is very naive to think that just anyone can become a bestseller on Amazon.com. The reality is that no more than about 1,000 authors can become a #1 Amazon.com bestseller in any one year -- out of 150,000 authors published every year. With Harry Potter and other books dominating on many days, there is no chance to become a #1 bestseller on those days.
I know that some people say if you make it into the top 100 at Amazon, you can call yourself a bestseller. I don't agree. I think you have to be in the top 10. Ideally #1. That's where most of the original Amazon bestsellers landed when they launched their bestseller campaign. Anyone who can make it to #1 deserves recognition on any day. That's a bold and tough achievement. Even Top 10 is a tough achievement. Not many who try will break these barriers.
There are no false credentials when someone works hard to create and nurture the relationships that enable them to break into the Top 10 at Amazon.com.
The people who call such achievements a scam have no idea what it really takes to make it to #1 or even to #10. They think its a walk in the park and therefore illegitimate. They are wrong. I doubt very much that they will ever make it to #1, with or without a campaign.
Basically, this program has accomplished one major thing:
It has mad the words "Amazon.com Bestseller" mean absolutly nothing.
Hi, I was searching blogs, and came onto yours fantastic blog.
I have a niche site. It pretty much covers how make money with niche marketing.
Keep it up. I'll check back later im sure.
I'll leave the issue of ethics to the experts--whoever they are. What I do think matters is value.
You may be able to prime the pump with creative tactics to get you or your product noticed. But in the end it's the value (or lack thereof) that will decide whether customers continue to buy from you for a lifetime.
Internet marketers looking for a quick fix may be happy with an Amazon Best Seller badge. But those focused on building lasting relationsthips based on lifetime customer value, will see this as only the beginning.
Yvonne Bailey
www.theindispensableentrepreneur.com
Great discussion!
Perhaps the best way to address the question of ethics in this case is to ask whether I would care if someone did this to me. If I was a store owner and I had customers coming in and asking for a book that they have no intention of read, but will give sell to the author, would I care? No, because I would still get my percentage of the sale. What the person does with it after I sell it is his business. Would I care if the author is selling a book to me that I have already sold to someone else? I might, but if the book is in excellent condition then what I don't know won't hurt me. It is like playing Monopoly. I am happy to go around and around collecting my $200 as long as I am not losing money in the process.
Keeping my comments to whether or not John Johnson was ethical, I have this to say.
Were his tactics pure as the driven snow? No, but don't we all persuade?
If you think you have ever persuaded, think of this:
As a child, I'm sure you figured out how to work a situation with a parent to get what you wanted.
Now, as an adult, have you ever persuaded someone toward your political, spiritual, or moral viewpoint? I'm sure you have.
Personally, I believe Mr. Johnson used a creative technique so that he could provide hsi value in the marketplace. Yes he seeded the pot, but if his publications were not valuable, they would not have taken off as they did.
Naturally, sales of any publication will rise and fall. Everything has its season, and Mr. Johnson was not a "flash in the pan." If he had not provided value, theh magazines would have died quickly.
Post a Comment
<< Home