News

IPG members balk at PA scheme

Members of the Independent Publishers Guild have questioned attempts by the Publishers Association to encourage small and medium-size enterprises (SMEs) to its fold.

The PA's initiative is to be led by Nick Robinson, chair and publisher of independent Constable & Robinson, who is joining the PA Council in order to set up an SME forum. Robinson said: "I'm a member of both [organisations] because we get different benefits from them. I cannot imagine being the member of one to the exclusion of the other."

But existing IPG members were sceptical about the benefits of joining the PA. Alan Mahar, publishing director at Tindal Street Press, said: "The IPG serves its members very energetically, with numerous initiatives and conferences . . . It wouldn't really make sense for us to join [the PA] as well as IPG."

Corinne Souza, director at Picnic Publishing, described the PA as "playing catch-up". She added: "For a tiny outfit, the IPG can run rings around what the PA are trying to offer." Simon Flynn, m.d. at Icon Books, said: "It's not really clear what about [the PA's] offer is different."

However, Emma Barnes, m.d of Snowbooks, said she was planning to become a member of both. While applauding the IPG, she said that sometimes it was necessary to be part of an organisation, "big enough to work on a global industry level".

Simon Juden, chief executive of the PA, said that more than half of its current membership were eligible for the new SME rate. He added: "We're very clear that the PA and IPG are organisations with separate aims and objectives. The PA has supported the IPG, and still does." Juden said the PA had been working on the initiative since before the IPG recruited publishers such as Bloomsbury and Walker. Juden pointed to the PA's advocacy role on issues such as copyright. He added: "The PA has immense relevance to the largest and the smallest."

Bridget Shine, executive director of the IPG, said: "The PA will no doubt do its best for its members and the IPG will continue to provide the best and most appropriate services for ours."

* The PA's SME membership, which was announced at the London Book Fair, offers a tiered annual subscription rate according to a company's turnover. The lowest rate is £250
(+VAT) for companies with turnover of up to £250,000, increasing to £1,995(+VAT) for those with turnover between £1m and £2.5m.

Comments: Scroll down for the latest comments and to have your say

By posting on this website you agree to the Bookseller comments policy. Comments go direct to live please be relevant, brief and definitely not abusive. Report any "unsuitable comments by clicking the links"

As a former Chair of the IPG, and member of PA Council, I'm depressed to read this. For many years my company was a member of both associations, each having totally different things to offer a small company. Where did this adversarial either/or approach come from? The IPG does excellent, practical things for its members, but it has never pretended to be able to do the expensive and time consuming work that creates an environment in which we can all continue to do business. The PA really does do that work, and the entire industry benefits. And I'm personally grateful to Ian Hudson for the out of hours time he put in on Bertrams. We were all beneficiaries; it certainly made a big difference to my company. I think it's great that the PA is able to offer a special rate to smaller companies. What's the problem with that?

If only the BA was as cheap as this! But both BA and PA organisations are redundant. They've missed the boat and offer little to their members - especially the BA which is a lost cause. At least the IPG delivers value and cohesiveness to their members. Why pay twice and get no extra value? Stick with the IPG I say.

If only the BA was as cheap as this! But both BA and PA organisations are redundant. They've missed the boat and offer little to their members - especially the BA which is a lost cause. At least the IPG delivers value and cohesiveness to their members. Why pay twice and get no extra value? Stick with the IPG I say.

As a former Chair of the IPG, and member of PA Council, I'm depressed to read this. For many years my company was a member of both associations, each having totally different things to offer a small company. Where did this adversarial either/or approach come from? The IPG does excellent, practical things for its members, but it has never pretended to be able to do the expensive and time consuming work that creates an environment in which we can all continue to do business. The PA really does do that work, and the entire industry benefits. And I'm personally grateful to Ian Hudson for the out of hours time he put in on Bertrams. We were all beneficiaries; it certainly made a big difference to my company. I think it's great that the PA is able to offer a special rate to smaller companies. What's the problem with that?