Editio Self-Publishing discussion

I'm thinking about a new self-publishing paradigm and I'd like to get some opinions on it. I'm finding that there is a knee-jerk prejudice against self-published authors who publish without benefit of a publishing house name. Even self-publishers who start LLCs and give their self-publishing an official publishing house name have a better chance of being viewed seriously. I wonder what the marketplace would be like for someone to just "rent" the name of a small publishing house, and give the firm a percentage of sales. Naturally, I'm thinking that the publishing house would need to feel that the titles fit within the house brand, but basically, they would need to do nothing but collect some sales revenue. What do other people think about this idea?

Also, what does anyone think about an indie-author consortium to start a publishing house brand to be shared, without revenue sharing?

Can't wait to hear some opinions on this topic.

I don't think you'll get a good publishing house to "rent" out its name. I worked for one and we wouldn't publish anything that was substandard (in our opinions). If we found something good, we edited the hell out of it before we put our imprint on it.

After all, a publishing house imprint is a valuable item and if they start publishing trash, no one will buy anything with that "brand" on it. Look at Harlequin in the romance field. They publish tons of small, rapidly-written and published books and there's a substantial section of the romance market (readers) who avoid them completely.

Then, there are some authors who's work will sell on their name alone -- no matter how it's published. Robert Heinlein (SciFi genre), Nora Roberts (Romance), and Stephen King come to mind.

I offer no alternatives that aren't already on this table, so make up your own mind as to what you want to do.

I certainly wouldn't expect them to put their name on something that they believe to be substandard, and since I was an editor myself, I'm not sure there will be a need for "editing the hell out of" my books, although a second opinion is always a good idea.

I see this option as a future paradigm for publishing, especially for indie authors.

Anyone who edits his own books and then calls it "good" is kidding himself. I'm a very good editor, but I still get another professional to go through my stuff to catch the things I've become "blind" to because of over-familiarity.

I still can't see any publishing house lending their imprint to a 3rd party (unless that author has a fantastic following and reputation (such as some of the people I mentioned before).