Just tossing this out there, but is anyone really surprised that B&N doesn't want KDP Print, or whatever they are using, on their website? Createspace at least had the appearance of not being part of Amazon.
I'd be interested to know how many people who are on B&N were there with Createspace first. Also, how many own their own ISBN. Not 100% sure, but having your own ISBN should negate the KDP Print as publisher?
It's possible that that's B & N's attitude, but Createspace was a wholly owned subsidiary of Amazon, whatever it appeared to be.
I can kind of see why B & N won't take Amazon imprint books, but that was because Amazon wouldn't also let them sell an ebook version--Amazon cutting its throat for the sheer joy of exclusivity. I'd worry that BN had now extended the same idea to indies, except that one of the books not appearing is wide, and the ebook is on sale on BN.
I'd ponder the idea of creating an edition through Nook Press--if I'd ever actually sold any paperbacks on BN. I haven't. The fact that they haven't appeared there is irksome on principle, but for me, it probably wouldn't make any practical difference.
Most readers never knew that Createspace was owned by Amazon. They do know what Kindle is and who it belongs to.
I don't know of any business that would happily put a product on sale when said product has its competitor's name on the product description page. It probably doesn't matter if the book is wide or not. What might matter is who owns the ISBN. KDP-Print or Createspace or the author. If this is a case where BN is saying no to KDP-Print because of the name, it's a sound business decision and to not do it would be irresponsible. Their responsibility isn't to an indie publisher, but to their shareholders and giving a competitor real estate on their website, is just bad business.
The argument rests on the idea that KDP paperbacks list KDP as the publisher, which is not the case. Even on Amazon, the KDP paperbacks are listed as "independently published." I just checked a couple of other outlets, and that's the way KDP paperbacks are listed there are well. And frankly, even if they were listed as KDP, if "Kindle" wasn't spelled out, I'm not sure how many customers would see the connection. Certainly not more than would have recognized Createspace as an Amazon company. Self-published authors certainly recognize KDP in the same way they recognized Createspace. Ordinary customers? Not so much.
Anyway, two of the books I now have in expanded distribution still have their old CS ISBNs, and yes, they're still listed as CS. They're not up on B & N, either.
Not so long ago, B & N would have been happy to stock Amazon imprints if Amazon had let them sell the ebooks as well. Evidently, they weren't worried about giving Amazon real estate then. (Or perhaps that was just an excuse. We'll probably never know for sure.)
Anyway, I'm not seeing how the current pattern supports your thesis. Under these circumstances, it's seems more like B & N being petty rather than trying to protect any legitimate business interest.
