Harlequin went to the dark side…

Writers everywhere are expressing dismay over Harlequin’s decision to open a vanity publishing imprint. Already, RWA, MWA, and SFWA have stated that they would  stop recognizing the publisher based on this move.

There are some self -published writers who may see this change as a good thing, another sign that traditional publishing is changing  away from “the old ways.” The problem is, what Harlequin is offering now goes beyond the basics of self-publishing and moves into the territory of a vanity publisher.

There’s debates about what makes a vanity versus what makes a self-publishing service, but let us be clear on my interpretation: a self-publishing service will allow you to make a book with little or no setup costs and charge you per book to make money. They may charge about two to three times what the actual printing cost is, and so in this way, they are not the most economic solution, but they are still not quite ripping off the writer. After all, the writer goes into the deal knowing that they have to pay for the most of books they want to sell.

On the other hand, a vanity service charges insanely high amounts of money for things that people can do for free themselves. A vanity service promises that there is a potential for great sales opportunities for paying for extra services, and most of these services are again things that a self-published writer could accomplish with little or no expense, and with very little time invested either. The publisher does very little work, and the rest of the writer’s money is all pure profit.

Harlequin is selling packages for new writers, and they’re using their name to entice in as many new writers as they can. It doesn’t matter to them that they are wasting their good name. The potential revenue to be made by working as a vanity is just too tempting after years of running just above the red.

What must these big houses do, when trend humping and taking safe bets leads to the point where the revenue intake cannot support the whole of the organization? They either lay off people and run lean, or they change the direction of the company.

This kind of decision strikes me as being extremely short-sighted. In the short term, it will pull in lots of cash and thousands of fledgling writers trying to cash in on the promise of working with a “real” publishing company. But, if they take everybody’s books, then what keeps their label reputable?

Nothing. Shortly, the lack of consistent quality will drive the readers away. The only people buying their books will be the writers and the friends of the writers.

Harlequin’s imprint will still earn money, but it will no longer be in the business of making books, or of “making dreams come true.” They’ve chosen to take the path to the dark side of publishing, and the biggest tragedy of all is how many fledgling writers they will have the potential of sidelining for years with their petty plans to make up extra cash.

There’s a lot wrong with the marketing and distribution methods of traditional publishers, but of all the potential directions that Harlequin might take to become more solvent, this is the least likely to find success in terms of a larger readership.

What the readers want are consistent standards of quality, while at the same time being assured of reading experiences that are “different, but similar.” They don’t want “the same book, but with different names,” and turning into a vanity press is going to get a lot of thinly veiled fan-fiction. So Harlequin’s imprint can make badly edited clones of Twilight and other paranormal romance stories, selling them only to the writers because the readers no longer trust the brand.

Where I would hope other publishers take this is to pursue e-book imprints, companies separate from their larger paper pushing entities. E-books that sell well could then be referred up to the company for editing and promotion. Publishers could develop talent in-house without having to promise pie in the sky. The writers work to market themselves, just like they do anyway, and the company and the writer split the e-book sales 50/50.

Whether this kind of self-publishing plan would fly with the writer’s associations is another matter. My thoughts are that the authors working for e-book imprints might not qualify for membership unless their sales under the imprint exceeded the appropriate level. At the same time, I would hope that so long as the e-book imprint truly was a separate company, it shouldn’t affect the standings of its parent corporation. Now, this is all conjecture on my part, but I think it’s likely that the publishers might be discredited even going with this kind of business plan.

That’s a different debate, and when it comes to the points the writer’s associations make about Harlequin, I agree. This is a bad move on the part of the company, and I can only hope that more publishers do not venture down such a foolhardy and short-sighted path.