If Amazon.com were a book today, it would be a dog-eared soft-cover dud, battered about by its owner in a fit of disappointment.
Amazon has acquiesced and has vowed to change its ways after two days of Amazon-bashing by the press and Amazon's own customers following an unflattering New York Times story about its content sponsorship practices.
The Times reported Monday that publishers seeking to promote their books on Amazon.com pay a $US10,000 fee for the privilege of highlighting the book on its home page with a picture of the book, an author profile or interview and favorable editorial content. None of the content had been labeled "advertisement" or "sponsored."
$US10,000 for top placement
But an Amazon official said that "cooperative advertising allowance" does not buy a favorable book review as the article suggested. Professional book reviewers at Amazon first must agree that the book is worthy of the co-op treatment before they accept the $US10,000.
Bill Curry, spokesman for Amazon, said potential co-op books "are rejected every day because the cash is less important than the credibility of the recommendation", and that "the overwhelming majority" of recommendations on Amazon are free of any co-op support, and that on a given month, co-ops don't represent "a whole lot" of the endorsements.
Regardless of Amazon's defense, the fast-growing online bookseller has responded to the crush of Amazon customers' complaints, and decided to distinguish its "co-opted" book arrangements from other reviewed books by March 1, probably on a separate page that would include of list of paid-for content and non-paid-for content.
"What this experience has illustrated is our readers have higher expectations for us. We've responded by trying to meet their higher expectations," said Curry.
Amazon also has changed its return policy in light of the criticism. Previously, its return policy states that a customer can return a book if it is in new condition. But now, if a book that has been recommended by Amazon is a disappointment to a reader, then they can return it dog-eared for a full refund.
The situation signals a user backlash in the delicate balance between editorial and advertising content on Internet sites -- a proliferating practice by advertisers and site owners searching for business models that return big money.
The New York Times itself fired the first salvo a few years ago when it pioneered a much-criticized moneymaking model for online news sites with book review sections. The Times, partnering with Amazon's arch-rival BarnesandNoble.com, places links to the online bookseller near each editorially-produced book review to make it convenient for users to purchase the reviewed book online.
ZDNN was unsuccessful in contacting the Times and BarnesandNoble for comment.
While some hail the convenience factor, critics say the traditionally separate editorial and advertising functions of objective journalism sites should not blur the lines of the two sides of the aisle.
Users want full disclosure
Rich Jaroslovsky, managing editor of the Wall Street Journal Interactive and the leader of the Online News Association, which is studying the sticky church-state issues, says that while Amazon is a different business than the news business, there still is an expectation by users for disclosure.
"The key question is now what do users of Amazon.com believe to be editorial content? Had Amazon led them to believe that what they present on the site is an independent critical assessment and not influenced by commercial considerations?" Jaroslovsky said.
"Regardless of the answer to that question, it does show is just how easy it is for people to confound independent editorial content with commercial content."
Worn from a deluge of customer response, Amazon promised to change its ways despite its own opinions of its actions.
"We don't consider it to be blurring of the lines because the editorial recommendation is at the heart of it, but our customers do believe that, so that's why we're moving toward disclosure," Curry said.
Martha L. Stone is a frequent contributor to ZDNN.
