I’m annoyed to read the latest revelation about SBP, but am not surprised, either, as the firm enjoyed a poor reputation among writers, editors and publishers for its editorial liberties. Allowing one text version to appear in a “regular” edition, while another “inside dope” manuscript flourished at the higher rate, is skating on thin ice. Pretty low-brow, too!
In general publishing terms, it is entirely acceptable for a higher-priced version to contain a Tip-In Page of Authenticity, be leather-bound, limited in print-run, contain a famous signature, or utilise appealing design features not found in the cheaper (trade) version. But even accounting for these differences, dual versions/formats usually purport to disseminate the same message. And where they don’t, it’s always good form to point this out to the readership.