Put away the pitch forks and torches and hear me out.
Is that review still skeevy?
Setting aside the fact there are tons of people you can ask to review your book at no cost, I'm a little torn. One one hand, there's the fact the person wouldn't have written the review if you hadn't paid cold, hard cash. But on the other the review is honest. It talks about good points and bad points. Let's say for the sake of this argument, that the paid reviewer even said they enjoyed the book but didn't really love. (Go one step further and say the paid review ended up being two stars.) Does that make the review any less credible?
I am asking this as a serious question. I'm curious about people's answers. If a paid review is actually honest and the reviewer read the book, does that make it more credible than a paid review that is utter BS and the reviewer didn't even read the book?