News US Independent Book Publishers Association updates criteria re 'reputable hybrid publishers' – PL

[E G Logan]

According to US industry publication Publishers Lunch (today), The US Independent Book Publishers Association has just updated its criteria defining the much-discussed terms 'reputable hybrid publisher'.

The new Criteria guidelines include 11 points, ALL of which must be met for the IBPA to regard a hybrid publisher as reputable. A hybrid publisher must:

1. Define a mission and vision for its publishing program.
2. Vet submissions.
3. Commit to truth and transparency in business practices.
4. Provide a negotiable, easy-to-understand contract for each book published.
5. Publish under its own imprint(s) and ISBNs.
6. Publish to industry standards
7. Ensure editorial, design, and production quality.
8. Pursue and manage a range of publishing rights.
9. Provide distribution services.
10. Demonstrate respectable sales.
11. Pay authors a higher-than-standard royalty.

 

[Peyton Stafford]

But what about publishing start-ups with no track record? Number 10? And 11 is vague. No numbers... Never mind. Sounds like a wish list, not a specification, and I am going to focus on writing, not on social media criteria for dating partners. Sorry. Yes. I am sarcastic. Born that way.

 

[Dorm Ant]

According to US industry publication Publishers Lunch (today), The US Independent Book Publishers Association has just updated its criteria defining the much-discussed terms 'reputable hybrid publisher'.

The new Criteria guidelines include 11 points, ALL of which must be met for the IBPA to regard a hybrid publisher as reputable. A hybrid publisher must:

1. Define a mission and vision for its publishing program.
2. Vet submissions.
3. Commit to truth and transparency in business practices.
4. Provide a negotiable, easy-to-understand contract for each book published.
5. Publish under its own imprint(s) and ISBNs.
6. Publish to industry standards
7. Ensure editorial, design, and production quality.
8. Pursue and manage a range of publishing rights.
9. Provide distribution services.
10. Demonstrate respectable sales.
11. Pay authors a higher-than-standard royalty.

All very vague except 4 and 5. How can it be proven whether or not subs are vetted?

 

[E G Logan]

But what about publishing start-ups with no track record? Number 10? And 11 is vague. No numbers... Never mind. Sounds like a wish list, not a specification, and I am going to focus on writing, not on social media criteria for dating partners. Sorry. Yes. I am sarcastic. Born that way.

Not my list. Please do not shoot messenger.

However, I think it's better someone makes some attempt to codify and assess these people, rather than not.