Osprey Publishing, Ltd.

They sure look like a solid niche publisher to me. Very professional. And they come recommended by Trident.

Tri

Osprey is now referring people it rejects to vanity presses: AuthorHouse, in this case.

I saw a news item about this the other day, Jane, and I flagged it because it goes with the discussion we were having in the Accent Press thread about how this kind of thing may become more common in the future, as publishers take note of the continuing growth of POD self-publishing and look for alternative sources of income to keep their real publishing programs afloat.

- Victoria

*sigh*

Publishing can be so disappointing sometimes. As if it wasn't a hard enough industry already, now we have to worry about publishers doing this.

Yes, but change happens. When I first got into the biz in the late 1970's, agents did business on a handshake basis, commissions were 10%, and agents didn't expect clients to reimburse any submission costs. Oh yes, and most publishers were what we today would identify as "independents," galleys and page proofs were two different things, and most first-time novelists sold their books over the transom.

Those days are gone. Rather than bemoan them, it's best to acknowledge change, and deal with it as necessary, which may periodically require a re-definition of acceptable and unacceptable publisher/agent behavior. My sense--call it a hunch--is that arrangements like Osprey's and Accent's are going to become ever more common--along with literary agency consolidation and the offering by large agencies of various fee-based adjunct services, such as editing and PR. Right now, ethical agencies that offer such services put a wall between agency clients and the consumers of these services, but if such adjunct services do indeed become more common, it wouldn't surprise me to see the wall crumble over the coming years.

Not saying it's a good thing; just saying that I can see it happening.

- Victoria

I think one can acknowledge change and still consider it unethical. This is not yet a norm and I would suggest speaking against it rather than smoothing the way. Especially when the providers they recommend are not excatly the companies an unbiassed person would probably suggest--there is an innate bias to recommend vanity options to profit more from the referal at direct detriment to the author.

The Bookseller has asked me to write a blog piece for it on this subject... I'll let you know when and if it appears. Shouldn't be too long before I know.

I hope you're wrong Victoria but very much doubt it. I'm with Vein. We need to shine a light on this shady business practice.

veinglory said:

Especially when the providers they recommend are not exactly the companies an unbiassed person would probably suggest--there is an innate bias to recommend vanity options to profit more from the referral at direct detriment to the author.

Click to expand...

This seems to be a growing line of marketing by Authorhouse. From following a number of forums, blogs and on line book trade magazines -- it is not only publishers, but Agents as well picking up a referral commission when they pass rejected authors on to Authorhouse.

As Veinglory says--whatever about the ethical implications for those in the tradition book publishing trade and Literary Agents--I can think of far better places for rejected authors to be referred to.

While some may say it's good for self publishing, in the long term, if gives the business and reputation of self publishing itself a poorer reputation if these referred authors have a first-time bad experience with a POD publisher.

What Authorhouse are attempting to do by using referrals from the established book trade is add legitimacy, increased business and reputation that must first be earned.

I agree. I'm mulling a blog post on the subject.

- Victoria

As a person interested in self-publishing I think it is deterimental to this endeavour.

If a person wants to be third-party published, if those are their goals, that is what they should do. They should continue to try and do it until that hope is either extinguished or their whole approach to writing undergoes a marked transformation and they discover their real or remaining realistic goals are more consistent with self-publishing. Then they should select the most appropriate self-publishing provider. IMHO, if they are not ready to make that selection on their own, they are not ready to self-publish.

I have just posted an article on this current debate on my blogsite.

http://mickrooney.blogspot.com/2009/02/authorhouse-courts-establishment-with.html

Interesting article, Mick. Thanks for linking to it.

- Victoria

That link is now dead - I wonder if Osprey have seen the error of their ways?

I was talking on Twitter to someone who works with Osprey just yesterday: they told me that they had a very low response to the "self-publishing" offer, and that the offer has now expired.

Osprey are retrenching at the moment - if you are not already one of their authors or are mates with one, then forget it. In addition, much of their output is to please the US market, so if the US is not involved, not much chance at all. They will not bother to acknowledge most submissions or write to tell you they are not interested.

I used to write for them, but it is too much work for the little reward and they are just pushing out recycling or quick knock-ups at the moment.