Spoilers New Picard TV Series and Litverse Continuity (may contain TV show spoilers)

[CaptainXaviOfEarth]

Well I wish any and all tie in creators the best

These nutters made me buy a PS2 to play obscure Ninja Turtles video games, to ensure the tabletop game I’m producing is narratively consistent with a version of Ninja Turtles they had absolutely no involvement with, but are forcing us to base our game on so they can revive it. We get to call it Season 8 (of the 2003 version of the TV series) but my goodness...

But judging by this thread, Star Trek merchandise is going to be the first time the brand managers give more of a shit about canon than the fans.

 

[CaptainXaviOfEarth]

Um, Simon & Schuster, which Pocket Books is an imprint of, has been owned by Viacom all along.

Google seems to say it was part of CBS but they’re moving the entire company under Viacom management now.

Pocket Books is moving to Nickelodeon within that. I’m guessing they’ll keep Pocket Books or split it up into something else, and then sell the rest of S & S off.

 

[Nerys Myk]

I'm confused. Why would a book publisher with a variety of content be part of Nicklelodeon?

 

[GaryH]

Is there any kind of public information on how many copies Star Trek books sell these days?

 

[CaptainXaviOfEarth]

I'm confused. Why would a book publisher with a variety of content be part of Nicklelodeon?

Nickelodeon is a very successful licensing and merchandising company - that's how they make most of their money, when the TV side makes major losses.

I think Nickelodeon are now in charge of licensing and merchandising for all the Viacom and CBS brands. Things for kids will be under the Nickelodeon branding, everything else will be under a new brand called "ViacomCBS Consumer Products", but it's all being done by the Nickelodeon team. To emphasise this, the VP I spoke to has a "@nick.com" email address, and he reached out to me in the first place about doing an Evil RPG (based on the TV show).

If ViacomCBS plan to sell Simon & Schuster (unreported but it doesn't really fit their new focus anymore), they will likely want to keep any department that does licensed books, and use that team for its own brands and characters. That said, it doesn't mean Nickelodeon wouldn't just sell off rights to make Star Trek novels to the highest bidder.

 

[The Wormhole]

Regardless if any of this is true, S&S only just renewed their Star Trek novel license less than two years ago. Even if Viacom sells S&S (and I do stress if) won't S&S keep the license to do Trek novels until the contract expires? I think previous contracts were renewed every five years, so we'll be getting S&S Star Trek novels until at least 2023.

 

[CaptainXaviOfEarth]

Even if Viacom sells S&S (and I do stress if) won't S&S keep the license to do Trek novels until the contract expires?

Keep the part of the company that fits in with their vision, sell the rest. They can transfer rights across to whatever they keep.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Nickelodeon is a very successful licensing and merchandising company - that's how they make most of their money, when the TV side makes major losses.

I think Nickelodeon are now in charge of licensing and merchandising for all the Viacom and CBS brands. Things for kids will be under the Nickelodeon branding, everything else will be under a new brand called "ViacomCBS Consumer Products", but it's all being done by the Nickelodeon team. To emphasise this, the VP I spoke to has a "@nick.com" email address, and he reached out to me in the first place about doing an Evil RPG (based on the TV show).

Still confused. As I understand it. If you want to make underoos with Nickelodeon characters you license the characters from Nickelodeon via CBSViacom Consumer Products. If you want to do the same for Star Trek you license via CBSViacom Consumer Products. It makes little sense for Nickelodeon to be in charge of licensing for all of ViacomCBS, since licensing isn't their thing.

 

[The Wormhole]

Keep the part of the company that fits in with their vision, sell the rest. They can transfer rights across to whatever they keep.

Pretty sure it doesn't work that way. Besides, this recent contract renewal was a complicated affair. We went pretty much a whole year without new Trek novels because of it. They would really be screwed over if circumstances barely halfway though the contract make it null and void. I really don't see that happening.

 

[CaptainXaviOfEarth]

Still confused. As I understand it. If you want to make underoos with Nickelodeon characters you license the characters from Nickelodeon via CBSViacom Consumer Products. If you want to do the same for Star Trek you license via CBSViacom Consumer Products.

ViacomCBS Consumer Products = Viacom Nickelodeon Consumer Products = Nickelodeon's business division, which already did licensing for all of Viacom's stuff (not just Nickelodeon) and is now doing the CBS stuff as well.

CBS Consumer Products (this company: http://www.cbsconsumerproducts.com/) is dead. Which makes total sense anyway.

So to use your example: if you want to make Star Trek underoos, you need to get the license from ViacomCBS Consumer Products (which is Nickelodeon with a mask on). Even the President of ViacomCBS Consumer Products's email address is "[censorded]@nick.com". Alex Kurtzman's Star Trek Franchise Group is part of ViacomCBS Consumer Products now too.

It makes little sense for Nickelodeon to be in charge of licensing for all of ViacomCBS, since licensing isn't their thing.

This is an odd comment. Nickelodeon know more about licensing than any other department in the entire ViacomCBS family. It's critical to their entire business model.

Anyway, this has all already happened. This lady from Nickelodeon is

 

[The Wormhole]

Anyway, this has all already happened.

Then why are we only hearing about it from you? Even authors who have worked with CBS haven't heard about this, apparently.

 

[CaptainXaviOfEarth]

Anyway, this has all already happened. This lady from Nickelodeon is

I didn't finish what I was typing before posting...

Anyway, this has all already happened. This lady from Nickelodeon is in charge of Star Trek merchandise: https://twitter.com/pam_kaufman12

And they are doing CBS stuff as well. This is the show I've licensed for NECA to do an RPG game:

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

I might be dealing with the Nickelodeon team, but it's not Nickelodeon in the slightest.

 

[CaptainXaviOfEarth]

Then why are we only hearing about it from you? Even authors who have worked with CBS haven't heard about this, apparently.

Which probably isn't a good thing for them.

 

[CaptainXaviOfEarth]

I really don't see that happening.

Pam Kaufman killed all Garfield licensing deals when Nickelodeon bought out Paws last summer. So who knows. I'm sure there's always a way out for the brand owner.

 

[JD]

Wait 'til these people hear that Hayden Christensen's face appears in modern rereleases of Return of the Jedi!

I don't think that's quite the same, that would be more like using images of the effect shots from the Remastered version of TOS, rather than the original '60s effects.

Regardless if any of this is true, S&S only just renewed their Star Trek novel license less than two years ago. Even if Viacom sells S&S (and I do stress if) won't S&S keep the license to do Trek novels until the contract expires? I think previous contracts were renewed every five years, so we'll be getting S&S Star Trek novels until at least 2023.

I believe S&S should keep the license no matter who owns the company. Members of the production company's parent company do often end up doing the tie-ins for a show or movie, but it's not an automatic thing, so even if someone else ends up buying S&S, I'm pretty sure they'll keep the license.

 

[CaptainXaviOfEarth]

Pam Kaufman killed all Garfield licensing deals when Nickelodeon bought out Paws last summer. So who knows. I'm sure there's always a way out for the brand owner.

Correction: she killed licensing deals her team weren't already involved with in an advisory role before they bought the franchise.

 

[KRAD]

There are no implications, as Simon & Schuster has been owned by a lot of different people since 1979, including Paramount itself.

Any license would never keep away from the continuity of the shows. The tail doesn't wag the dog.

I've said this before, but it bears repeating: every new Trek production has messed with stuff established in the literature, starting in 1979 with The Motion Picture's opening scene negating what happened in James Blish's Spock Must Die! This has happened before and it will happen again. But what happened onscreen always takes precedence. That's the way this works.

 

[KRAD]

Is there any kind of public information on how many copies Star Trek books sell these days?

No. Publishers keep that information confidential.

 

[GaryH]

No. Publishers keep that information confidential.

Thank you.

 

[KRAD]

Also, for the record, novel rights such as this aren't really transferrable without a considerable amount of paperwork and stuff, and it would be incredibly complicated. And also the amounts of money involved are -- by Hollywood standards -- tiny. It is excessively unlikely that they would bother going through the effort of transferring it to someone else, and much more likely that, if they don't want to keep doing the books, they'll just play out this contract and let it go.