Future of Trek at Pocket Books

[Jarrod]

Hi Everyone,

Long time lurker, first time poster.

There is a nasty rumor running around that the Trek books license will leave Pocket Books at the end of 2012, after almost 34 years. No word on how true this is.. or where it might go.

Anyone here able to shed any light on the subject?

Thanks!

 

[Kopernikus]

Given the fact, that PB has already scheduled Cold Equations 3 by David Mack for January 2013, Im pretty sure, that rumours are rather unsubstantial. Where did you hear that nonsense?

 

[F. King Daniel]

Aren't Simon and Shuster owned by CBS? If I'm right about that, I can't see them ever losing the license.

If I'm wrong.... well, it would suck a great deal for all those plot threads to be left dangling

 

[Lonemagpie]

Aren't Simon and Shuster owned by CBS? If I'm right about that, I can't see them ever losing the license.

CBS and S&S are both owned by Viacom - I can't really see it happening, but the license has been held by others in the past. (I'm sure Bantam would love to have it back and thus have both the SW and ST EUs)

Having said that, ISTR the magazine licence only ran to the end of 2012, so maybe you're thinking of that?

 

[Therin of Andor]

There is a nasty rumor running around

Where?

 

[Jarrod]

There is a nasty rumor running around

Where?

Some of the Social Media sites have it brewing.

 

[Mage]

There is a nasty rumor running around

Where?

Some of the Social Media sites have it brewing.

And that's why I hate Social Media. One of the best ways to start false rumors.

 

[Christopher]

Given the fact, that PB has already scheduled Cold Equations 3 by David Mack for January 2013, Im pretty sure, that rumours are rather unsubstantial. Where did you hear that nonsense?

That doesn't actually count, because January 2013 is technically part of the 2012 publishing year (it goes from Feb-Jan).

That said, one shouldn't put stock in rumors.

 

[C.E. Evans]

Aren't Simon and Shuster owned by CBS? If I'm right about that, I can't see them ever losing the license.

CBS and S&S are both owned by Viacom - I can't really see it happening, but the license has been held by others in the past. (I'm sure Bantam would love to have it back and thus have both the SW and ST EUs)

Having said that, ISTR the magazine licence only ran to the end of 2012, so maybe you're thinking of that?

KingDaniel got it right. CBS inherited Simon & Schuster in 2006 following their split from Viacom. National Amusements owns both CBS and Viacom, but they operate as separate (if not sometimes rival) companies.

 

[Christopher]

Theoretically, just because CBS and S&S have the same owner, that doesn't mean S&S is the only possible holder of the tie-in license. I mean, S&S published the calendars until this year, but that license is now held by another company. So it's not like it's an automatic entitlement. (Hmm, and maybe that rumor about the books is based on someone hearing about the calendars and jumping to conclusions.)

 

[C.E. Evans]

Theoretically, just because CBS and S&S have the same owner, that doesn't mean S&S is the only possible holder of the tie-in license. I mean, S&S published the calendars until this year, but that license is now held by another company. So it's not like it's an automatic entitlement.

It goes back even farther than that. I can recall both Pocket and Bantam having the license at the same time for awhile (although Bantam was releasing reprints of earlier material they published).

 

[Allyn Gibson]

There is a nasty rumor running around that the Trek books license will leave Pocket Books at the end of 2012, after almost 34 years. No word on how true this is.. or where it might go.

At some point Pocket's license will expire -- no one licenses a property in perpetuity unless they're just crazy -- but all that means is that the license would come up for renegotiation and renewal.

At that point, CBS would be likely to entertain bids from other publishers. Maybe someone can offer more money than Pocket. Maybe someone has a publishing plan that better syngerizes with CBS's plans to exploit the franchise. CBS owes it to their shareholders to get maximum value from its properties, and if they can be better served by a publisher than Pocket, they would be remiss not to change publishers.

If Star Trek left Pocket -- and we have no idea if that's happening -- I suspect leading candidates to pick up the license would be Bantam, Titan, and Tor in alphabetical order.

 

[Christopher]

It goes back even farther than that. I can recall both Pocket and Bantam having the license at the same time for awhile (although Bantam was releasing reprints of earlier material they published).

Actually, what happened was that Pocket got the license in 1979 (with the release of TMP), but Bantam still had a few unpublished novels in the works at the time (Perry's Planet, The Galactic Whirlpool, Death's Angel), so Pocket couldn't begin publishing original Trek novels until Bantam finished releasing all the ones they had in the works when the license changed hands, which took another year and a half (Death's Angel hit the stands in April '81, and Pocket debuted its original line with The Entropy Effect a mere two months later). So only one company at a time was allowed to publish new Trek fiction, so that they wouldn't be directly competing with each other. But after Pocket became the exclusive licensee for new fiction, Bantam and Ballantine/Del Rey (publishers of the Star Trek Logs adapting TAS) retained the right to reprint their previously published Trek novels and novelizations.

 

[xortex]

What does Marco Palmieri and KRAD think of nu-trek?

 

[C.E. Evans]

It goes back even farther than that. I can recall both Pocket and Bantam having the license at the same time for awhile (although Bantam was releasing reprints of earlier material they published).

Actually, what happened was that Pocket got the license in 1979 (with the release of TMP), but Bantam still had a few unpublished novels in the works at the time (Perry's Planet, The Galactic Whirlpool, Death's Angel), so Pocket couldn't begin publishing original Trek novels until Bantam finished releasing all the ones they had in the works when the license changed hands, which took another year and a half (Death's Angel hit the stands in April '81, and Pocket debuted its original line with The Entropy Effect a mere two months later). So only one company at a time was allowed to publish new Trek fiction, so that they wouldn't be directly competing with each other. But after Pocket became the exclusive licensee for new fiction, Bantam and Ballantine/Del Rey (publishers of the Star Trek Logs adapting TAS) retained the right to reprint their previously published Trek novels and novelizations.

I actually took that into account. The period that I recalled seeing Trek books by both Pocket and Bantam on bookstore shelves was during the '90s when Pocket was doing new releases while Bantam was doing their reprints. Still, both had the license the publish Trek books at the same time even though the nature of the books--new versus reprints--were different (the latest Bantam reprints I had were released in 1998 with new cover art).

 

[Christopher]

^Yeah, but it's misleading to call that having the license at the same time, because it implies a parity that doesn't exist. Bantam and Ballantine's reprint rights aren't a license per se, they're just a legacy of the licenses they used to have.

 

[Sci]

I'd be sad if the Star Trek license were to leave Pocket. But, I'd also be excited if it went to Tor and Marco Palmieri started editing Trek novels again.

 

[Sho]

If the license were ever to leave Pocket, what would be the chances of authors following to a new publisher? Are book contracts bookwise, or do authors get tied to publishers in some way that would prevent them from writing TrekLit for the new license holder?

 

[xortex]

They got to deal with an AU Marco. KRAD is the same guy in all universes.

 

[Sho]

Aye, sure, I know TrekLit authors write books for other publishers. But if I were an evil and cunning TrekLit license holder, I might want to draw up contracts for my TrekLit authors that include some sort of TrekLit-specific non-compete clause, so the license giver is less likely to move the license when the next renegotiation comes up because it will mean losing the authors fans want to buy books from.

I'm sure there's a Rule of Acquisition for it.