on Harlequin, sadly.

[lagilman]

Jackie Kessler breaks it down for you, so I don't have to


SFWA's response:

http://www.sfwa.org/2009/11/sfwa-statement-on-harlequins-self-publishing-imprint/

RWA and MWR comments, via Pub Rants:

http://pubrants.blogspot.com/2009/11/harlequin-news-flash.html

----------------------

As a Harlequin author and a SFWA member, I agree with my association's position on this. The establishment of a "pay-to-play" imprint damages the standing of the entire company in the eyes of both writers and readers, and cannot be condoned.

I hate this. I hated it when my then-employer did something business-wise I strongly disagreed with, and I hate it when a company I publish with does the same. It doesn't affect how I feel about my tiny corner of Luna, but... I'm really uncomfortable, all the same.

I love my editor and the rest of the folk on the front lines, and I understand that they are required to walk the company line -- been there, empathize with that. My complaint is not with them, but with the Corporate decision-makers who a) thought this would be a marvelous idea and b) don't see/care what this is doing to the reputation of a company that, until now, had the respect of many of us for doing a difficult job, well.

Comments

[mtlawson.livejournal.com]

It's great if someone can make the hard decisions, but I want them made with the human element. The owner of Malden Mills comes to mind, who continued to pay his employees even though the factory was destroyed by fire. I know that I personally would have a higher opinion of the suits (most of whom have MBAs) if more of them would actually render themselves subject to the same decisions that they make on others. When they use buzzword bingo to weasel their way out of being subject to their own dictates, I lose a lot of respect for them. Once example that comes to mind are some of the salary cuts that hit the IT industry. While in at least one case a CEO gave himself a 20% cut, that same CEO only cut his base pay, of which it was only 0.5% of his overall pay (the rest of which was in bonuses and stock options voted on by the board, and were exempt from his 20% pay cut).

This most recent disaster wasn't MBA-think, it was disassociation with what publishing is SUPPOSED to be about -- the bringing forward of the best work, not the ones with the fattest wallets.

While I can't know the decision making process firsthand, the fact that they followed the money is in perfect keeping with the desire to maximize profit. That it was done without regard to what publishing ought to be doesn't surprise me in the least.

Locally, the Baldwin Piano Company imploded when they brought on board a person outside the music industry to run the company. The CEO proceded to make a lot of decisions that seemed great on paper -they would all maximize profit- but were done without regard to how it would play in the music industry. Hence, a slow decline accelerated rapidly until Baldwin's assets got bought out by Gibson.