Answer: Woooooosh.

It’s in their best interest to make sure that it’s an acceptable product. That doesn’t preclude doing it for as little as possible, but it’s their money they’re spending. With Hydra, you’re basically contracting them to do all the heavy lifting with your manuscript to turn it into a book for you, so they stand to profit from day 1.

The publishers would prefer that no longer happen.

I’m sure the agents who are negotiating with Random House would be fascinated by this and love to discuss the implications at length.

The interviewer tried to make them admit that the plan was a mistake, but they steadfastly refused to acknowledge it, only that they were now doing this and they basically didn’t want to talk about the past. It was so obvious.

Just that the implicit argument of their PR flack was not so much a ‘no, for reasons you just didn’t understand, we are actually offering you a good deal!’; but rather a ‘Yeah, you are paying to be published on our vanity imprint because no real imprint will touch you, that’s vanity publishing for you; but Authentic Random House Services!!!! are much better than the ones at Sleazy Joe’s House of Typesetting and Bait Shack.’

But I don’t see that type of author being able to appreciate the editorial staff’s work, assuming they do anything at all, since as Cory’s mentioned previously, if you’re paying the bill, it’s to their advantage to do nothing beyond the absolute minimum.

That’s sort of the vanity press thing: they offer some semblance of the services of a real publisher; but at rates that reflect their…boundless… confidence in your abilities as an author.

The Random House spokesweasel is essentially arguing that Random House is a better vanity press; because it gouges you for better services…

That’s… the only thing Random House does. Running an abusive vanity press mutation of ordinary business is not subject to special pleading when you get accused of running an abusive vanity press.

1. Silence in the face of the initial outrage.
2. A corporate message explaining how [insert unacceptable behavior] is actually in the best interests of creators, consumers, and [insert random oppressed minority].
3. Silence in the face of renewed outrage.
4. A corporate message explaining how after due consideration, [insert corporation] has decided to make [insert minor modification] in their previous [insert unacceptable behavior], thus further benefiting creators, consumers and [insert random oppressed minority].
5. Silence.
6. A corporate message buried in the inside pages of a trade publication read by no more than four people explaining how they have relaunched [insert unacceptable behavior] under a new name.

We’re at step 2. Watch for 3-6.