The same way they got there in the 90's, really -- they're publishing a lot more stuff than they were a few years ago.Wait, what? How did Marvel get up there again after the fall from early 90's grace in the early 2000's?Marvel's current market share hovers around 50%.
It's still a license, though. Pocket is paying their parent company for the right to publish Star Trek novels.What are you talking about? Viacom owns Paramount. Viacom owns Simon & Schuster, which owns Pocket. Certainly they could take it to another company, but why would they? The way you describe it is, at best, disingenuous.As I said, Pocket's been thriving for decades with a property that they don't own, Star Trek. Paramount/CBS could take the ST license to some other publisher, sure. But it's been with Pocket for 27 years now, with no sign of any future change.
Similar things have happened with novels based on the DC heroes. Time Warner owns a publishing house -- Warner Books -- but they've sold licenses to Pocket Books, Del Rey, Warner Books, and iBooks in the past decade.
One question, of course, is this -- are they making enough money on the single issues to justify doing the single issues? If they're at least breaking even (or taking a slight loss), then the bookstore penetration from the trades should push them over the top on a series into profitability.Therefore, to me as a layman, IDW`s approach makes much more sense. I can imagine that they keep the print run of the singles low and instead concentrate on the trades. Another advantage is that these trades are not just found in comic shops but also in book shops.
The thing is, if too many people do the "wait for the trade" then what might have been a slight loss can magnify into a large loss, making future projects less likely.