Good or bad, these agency/publisher ventures, or agency/publisher-like ventures, are here to stay. There are plenty of people who say that agencies should never be publishers, and plenty more who say that anyone who worries about agencies being publishers is recycling old, tired prejudices--but no one (no one in the business, at least) seems to be looking at things from a practical standpoint--that is, from the standpoint of "Agencies are going to do this no matter what we think, how can we make sure they do it reasonably ethically?"
Backlist only, with a 50/50 profit split and a non-exclusive, limited term grant of digital rights only. A wall between the agency and the publisher (no agency client could use the publisher, no publisher client could be repped by the agency). A clients-only policy (which would mean only backlist or new works by existing clients). If non-clients are accepted by the publisher, a strict no-referral, one-shot-and-you're-out policy (no agency queries would be directed the publisher's way, and you could query either the agency or the publisher--not both). All of these policies, and others, could be reasonably adopted, and would help to provide an ethical framework.
I worry that these established, reputable, successful agencies are relying too much on their own integrity. "Of course we'll operate ethically; we always have done." But it's hard to police yourself when striking out into uncharted waters, and easy to slip across ethical lines by degrees. Adopting some guidelines at the outset might prevent that.
So far, I haven't seen anyone taking that extra step. I hope that'll change.
- Victoria