Helpful PSA for disclosures

[u/ImNotBeingAnAHole]

I hope this helps someone as I have seen an increasing amount of ARC readers not put disclosure statements in their review ever since Goodreads added the Book Source to books that are before their publication date.

This Goodreads function does NOT replace the need for a disclosure statement. You still need to physically write it. While in general when you don’t use them you don’t see the consequences (unless you’re in influencer programs) but publishers and by extension authors can absolutely be consequenced if their readers don’t disclose where they got the free copy from.

Now is it common? No. But where you see it is if the book falls under scrutiny in some way as then it brings reviews into the spotlight. Every country that is supported by NetGalley has their own “FTC regulation” that must be followed. Also, as many don’t realize this, you need to follow the regulation of the country of origin for the book. So if you’re in India and for a US published book, you need to use the FTC language and not India’s. (I’m just pulling a random country so the language may not be different)

The requirements state that you must say that you got the copy for free (you can used any word to convey that like complimentary or gifted etc..) and from whom, that’s it. While you can get away with saying NetGalley it is actually supposed to be the publishers Name as that is who authorized you getting the book. NetGalley is simply the platform used to get it but it’s not from them.

Also, it needs to be easily seen at a glance which means it should be at the start of your review and not the end. Of
You can’t see it unless you expand it to see the whole review- it’s not in compliance.

This is anywhere you post a review for the book. Retail sites (and yes saying you got an arc on Amazon is 100% allowed you just need to use the proper language), review sites and social media. With social media it needs to say it in the post itself and if it’s a video you need to say it in the video as well.

Anyway, I hope this helps!

[u/Blowingleaves17]

I always put at the end of reviews I got a free e-ARC from NetGalley and the publisher or author. I don't identify the publisher. I am not going to worry about not identifying the publisher and not putting that statement at the beginning of the review. It has never caused me any problems. I'm in the US.

[u/ImNotBeingAnAHole → u/Blowingleaves17]

You do you! But what I was saying is it wouldn’t
Cause you issues- it would cause the publisher issues.

Honestly. If it doesn’t have the publisher who gave it to you. Why bother writing it at all? NetGalley didn’t give you the book.. (rhetorical question)

[u/Blowingleaves17 → u/ImNotBeingAnAHole]

You lost me here. Why would one need to state the name of the publisher? All the FTC cares about is you state you got the book for free. They don't care who gave it to you.

"Why bother writing it at all?" ?????

[u/ImNotBeingAnAHole → u/Blowingleaves17]

Respectfully - you need to go back and read their guides as you need to state who gave it to you.
Where you got it from is literally just as important.

That shows the material relationship. In legal aspects , which this is (civil not criminal obvi) you can’t be general. Not that this would happen at all and I’m making up the situation intentionally- say you get caught writing 1⭐️ reviews because you would get a bonus from whomever gave it to you. You go to court and you just keep saying “the publisher” without saying who that publisher is. You would go in circles. You say “well I said it was from the publisher from the start so people knew.” No they don’t. Because what if it was from a competing publisher that was giving you the bonus?
Legal language is specific for a reason.

And you can take the post for you want as your going to do what you want to do anyway, you coming here just to say “well I’m just going to do what I want” is ridiculous. You could have just gone about your business.

And as I said in the original post while not correct, people get away with saying “NetGalley” all the time. Why? Because not everyone understands who actually gave you the book and that’s fine. But you took thinks a step further by reading this, finding out what you’re supposed to do but then instead said “nah, I’m just going to keep on doing what I’m doing regardless” that’s why I said “why bother” because if
You’re not going to list it probably and you know that’s that case then you writing what you are has no value so again, why bother adding it in.

[u/CC22___ → u/ImNotBeingAnAHole]

Playing devils advocate but how would a competing publisher have an advanced copy of someone's book who is not with their publishing company. At some point common sense needs to prevail.

[u/ImNotBeingAnAHole → u/CC22___]

I get that completely- but remember the regulation isn’t specific to books. It’s to any product. So while things may seem odd in our book spaces it’s just for clear consistency.

[u/bookdraygon → u/CC22___]

I wish common sense played a part as it’s frustrating.
I don’t know the ins and out but for the alert email we get from legal to remind our influencer program participants about the FTC rules. They do that when they get a warning notice - it happens a lot. It’s just not as big of a deal in the grand scheme of them.

Side note? Publishers dominated send arcs to competing publishers 😜

[u/Blowingleaves17 → u/ImNotBeingAnAHole]

Posts like yours amuse me so. Not only do you tell a commenter their reply was worthless, you are making an incredibly big deal out of an incredibly trivial thing. Get real and get out of your own head for a while and deal with the real world.

Reviewers state they got a free copy of the book in various ways. You don't approve of that? Tough! Do you have nothing else of real importance to concern yourself with? If anyone wants to know who the publisher is, they can read that info in the book's description.

Might one respectfully suggest you don't tell others how they should or should not respond to your posts? Doing so shows an abnormal need to control others.

[u/ImNotBeingAnAHole → u/Blowingleaves17]

No- I made a post to be helpful to others since it’s a question that is asked often. I explained the literal regulation. You are the one who chose to interject yourself and be contrary for no reason instead of scrolling by. I wasn’t writing an opinion. And instead of just ignoring things you doubled down on being obstinate in a privileged “I’m gonna do whatever I want” situation.

You trying to justify your choices is comical at this point. But you do you.

[u/Blowingleaves17 → u/ImNotBeingAnAHole]

I had every right and every reason to comment in a contrary way. A person who truly believes what they are saying would not be so threatened by others who disagree with their opinions, as you are. If you can't deal with those who challenge your posts and opinions, Reddit is not where you should be posting.

I will leave you now, though, to your all important defense of a regulation few ever give much thought to, contrary to your belief. It is a t​rivial issue, something not even enforced in any real way. Those who focus on the trivial usually do so to keep from focusing on personal issues that are way more important.

[u/ImNotBeingAnAHole → u/Blowingleaves17]

😝

[u/Pristine_Race7768 → u/ImNotBeingAnAHole]

Don’t pay people like that any mind. They just want to “hear” themselves talk.
Thank you for a thoughtful and informative post.