Tico Publishing

ticopublishing said:

Are those bad goals to have?

Click to expand...

Those are lovely goals.

What I hope we have is a full and frank exchange of opinions.

Being in a hurry (or merely wanting to hold your book in your hand), is, in my opinion, never a good reason to decide to go with a certain publisher.

priceless1 said:

I merely wanted to dispel Scott's belief that the author has carte blanche to call the shots in all phases of production. There are repercussions for assuming that the author retains total control. I have two friends who are now without their publisher because they reached that impasse, and the publisher let them go rather than try to work out a solution.

Click to expand...

I never had such a conception, actually. I'm aware that the editor can pull the plug anytime if they're not satisfied. I have no intention of being 'difficult' anytime.

Regards,
Scott

priceless1 said:

I merely wanted to dispel Scott's belief that the author has carte blanche to call the shots in all phases of production.

Click to expand...

The author's traditional rights as far as the cover goes is the right to b!tch about it to his friends. Same for typeface, design, flap copy, trim size, illustrations, maps, dingbats, and the rest of production. I can suggest a title, and the publisher will listen respectfully, but the title on the spine may come as a surprise to me. That's the publisher and their marketing department's lookout.

The text -- the publisher controls house style. If the publisher wants to spell out numbers below 100 but write numbers above 100 as digits -- they have that right. Same for putting periods inside or outside of quotes, and lots more besides. But as to the story ... what happens is the editor makes a pile of suggestions. I rewrite to editorial order (but often find better ways than the editor suggested, and often find that fixing one problem fixes many without the need to change a word). Here's the editing and proofreading clause from SFWA's model contract:

Editing is a collaborative process, not an adversarial one. I've had editors ask for 10,000 more words. I've had them ask for name-changes for major characters. All of these things work out. More on this when we look at the actual editing clauses of the contract under discussion.

Option on next work

22. Option on next work

I'm still listening.

I haven't stopped for the day yet (since 6:21 am PST this morning, it's now 5:16pm PST and God knows how many words later in 21 posts).

Hopefully that shows a commitment to this discussion.

ticopublishing said:

I'm still listening.

I haven't stopped for the day yet (since 6:21 am PST this morning, it's now 5:16pm PST and God knows how many words later in 21 posts).

Hopefully that shows a commitment to this discussion.

Click to expand...

I appreciate your diligence and honesty. Perhaps you should call it a night soon and take a break before it all breaks you. . . . tension I mean.

Get a rest, and keep plugging away. We all respect that, I believe.

Regards,
Scott

Publication of the Work

6. Publication of the Work

James D. Macdonald said:

6. Publication of the Work

The Publisher agrees that the Work shall be published at the Publisher's own expense and under such imprint as it deems suitable. Publisher does not guarantee any specific time limit within which the Work has to be published.

​

Click to expand...

This one seems to be as much a hazard to the publisher as to the author. It would be too easy to get so backlogged that you accept manuscripts and put yourself in the hole financially and time-wise I suspect this is part of what happened to Rockway, for instance.

I think a year from acceptance is time enough, isn't? Even eighteen months would not be unreasonable; but sometime in the future, maybe, is no incentive to sign with Tico. Especially since no advance has been offered.

Regards,
Scott

Popeyesays said:

I think a year from acceptance is time enough, isn't? Even eighteen months would not be unreasonable; but sometime in the future, maybe, is no incentive to sign with Tico. Especially since no advance has been offered.

Regards,
Scott

Click to expand...

Just curious..what should a publisher do that signs a series of books (ie. Book 1, Book 2, etc. of the same storyline or characters) at the same time?

Publish them all within that 12 month period?

Wouldn't it seem wiser, at least on the publisher's part, and potentially the author's part, to allow one book to gain momentum and allow for market saturation before the publication of the second book?

Even bestselling authors have time between book releases.

Dangnabbit.. this isn't how it works! The publisher being discussed either turns up under four or five different names praising themselves, or they should ignore every question and pretend that any criticism was never made while constantly carping on about how they are the best.

How dare you be helpful, courteous and actually engage with members of the board!!!

ticopublishing said:

Just curious..what should a publisher do that signs a series of books (ie. Book 1, Book 2, etc. of the same storyline or characters) at the same time?

Publish them all within that 12 month period?

Click to expand...

Wouldn't that contract only apply to single books, rather than a series? So either an individual contract for each individual book, or a specific contract written to cover the multiple books.

ticopublishing said:

Just curious..what should a publisher do that signs a series of books (ie. Book 1, Book 2, etc. of the same storyline or characters) at the same time?

Publish them all within that 12 month period?

Wouldn't it seem wiser, at least on the publisher's part, and potentially the author's part, to allow one book to gain momentum and allow for market saturation before the publication of the second book?

Even bestselling authors have time between book releases.

Click to expand...

That's why they make multi-book contracts. You contract them all at once, the publisher usually stipulates how far apart the manuscripts will be completed. You could certainly stipulate that you will release the books six months to a year apart. That would be one way to handle.

But requiring options on the next three books may not be applicable when the books are stand alone projects. I, for instance just sold an SF book that was standalone but allowed further installments. My next projects are an historical novel, a fantasy novel and a paranormal/erotic thriller. None of them are linked, why should I tie myself to presenting those books to a single publisher when they might be better handled under different imprints?

That's the problem with a generic option clause.

If a series is possible, tie the contract together by offering publication for the series, but not just option anything else the author writes.

Regards,
Scott

Prolific writers are going to have several irons in the fire at the same time.
They may even write under pseudonyms to allow themselves to write in different genre without confusing their readers.

Some authors as famous as Dean Koontz write several books a year under various pen names.

Regards,
Scott

MartyKay said:

Dangnabbit.. this isn't how it works! The publisher being discussed either turns up under four or five different names praising themselves, or they should ignore every question and pretend that any criticism was never made while constantly carping on about how they are the best.

How dare you be helpful, courteous and actually engage with members of the board!!!





Wouldn't that contract only apply to single books, rather than a series? So either an individual contract for each individual book, or a specific contract written to cover the multiple books.

Click to expand...

I was referring to individual contracts for each book of a given series, not a multi-book contract as Popeyesays mentions in an earlier post. So essentially the hypothetical scenario is that 3 books (in a series) are all contracted on the same day. If each contract were to contain a "1-year clause" (as is suggested), then each of the three books would have to be published within a year from the date of execution of the contract. (Assuming the contracts had that time limitation)

Now, from a publisher's point of view, if I don't have that time limitation, I don't have to worry about it. I can publish the books when the time feels right to do so.

From an author's POV, well, they would have to make the decision to accept those terms or not. You can look at it as a glass half-full or half-empty. Depends on your perspective. (ie. I'm getting all my books published OR I don't know when my books will be published but they will be OR .. well, you get the point)

Oh, and thanks for the humor, it was refreshing.

Popeyesays said:

But requiring options on the next three books may not be applicable when the books are stand alone projects. I, for instance just sold an SF book that was standalone but allowed further installments. My next projects are an historical novel, a fantasy novel and a paranormal/erotic thriller. None of them are linked, why should I tie myself to presenting those books to a single publisher when they might be better handled under different imprints?


Regards,
Scott

Click to expand...

You don't have to tie yourself to a single publisher. It's simple, you don't accept the contract with the option clause. Either the publisher agrees to take it out, and you publish with them, or they don't, and you take your book elsewhere.

Oh, and yes, prolific writers have been known to publish more than one book a year. In fact, James Patterson publishes one every other month it seems (although it is fishy that all of the books are "with" somebody (ie. James Patterson with Andrew Gross)) but anyways, I have yet to have the dilemna of dealing with a Stephen King or James Patterson and, if they asked me, I'd certainly be agreeable to publishing more than one of their books in a year while at the same time removing the option clause.

"Now, from a publisher's point of view, if I don't have that time limitation, I don't have to worry about it. I can publish the books when the time feels right to do so. "

That's the difference between a publisher friendly contract and an author friendly contract.

As a writer, I want to be sure that a date of publicatiion is stipulated and that the date is reasonable. Otherwise I am at mercy of the publisher and that is not an entirely comfortable or acceptable place to be.

Regards,
Scott

I'd be willing to bet that the option clause this one was modeled on specified one book, not three. Three is ... highly unusual. Faced with this contract, right away I'd line out "three" and write in "one."


But it was just specified "upon what terms." The first sentence said "on the same terms and conditions." Presumably, that means no advance, all rights for the life of the copyright, and another three-book option.

All option clauses should be written as narrowly as possible. "The next book-length mystery novel featuring private detective V. I. Warshawski," not "the next Work." That protects the publisher sufficiently if an ongoing series takes off, while allowing an author to make a living at this racket.

The publisher, with an option clause as written here, could presumably pass on the first offered manuscript and still expect first crack at the next two that author writes. This would likely conflict with the option clause of the next publisher if the author manages to sell that book elsewhere.

There's another point that I don't like, and that's this: as written the publisher could pass on a book, fail to exercise its option, then come back after the author sells the book elsewhere to snatch the book back.

If the publisher makes an offer and the author refuses, I could see it as reasonable that the first publisher should be given a chance to match the competing offer. But not if they passed to start with.

This option clause, combined with the Commercial Rights (1.B(6)) clause (derivative works) in the Grant of Rights, could be interpreted as forbidding the author to publish a sequel to his work even if Tico turned that sequel down. If that wasn't intended, it should be amended.

Combined with Paragraph 6, which doesn't require the publisher to publish a book at all, this option clause could be used to hold four of the author's books off the market indefinitely. I'm not saying it would be, but it's certainly allowed by the contract.

A fairer publication clause would give the publisher 18-24 months to publish after delivery and acceptance. After that, the author could keep the advance and find a new publisher. Since the option clause states that the clock doesn't start running for six months after the previous book came out, that doesn't put any kind of hardship on the publisher in the case of a multi-book series.

If the publisher wants to buy several books at once ... they wouldn't use this contract anyway. There exist multi-book contracts.

The option clause protects a publisher in case an author becomes wildly popular, so he can't take a successful series elsewhere after the publisher nurtured his career in his starting, slow-selling days.

This, though, is again a case of taking too much and returning too little.

(9:57pm PST now - 15 1/2 hours from the start of my day's first post to this board)

Can I ask a question that should warrant an easy yes or no answer?

Without addressing any issues as to the author-friendliness vs. publisher-friendliness of TICO's standard contract, is it clear that TICO is not a vanity press?

There is always going to be contention between authors and publishers as to the content of their contractual agreements. As authors get bigger and more famous, their contracts are adjusted accordingly or they move along to the next company that will adjust them.

Sports stars want the most money while the team owners want to pay them the least amount of money. Is that wrong? No, it's business.

I'm exhausted now but haven't given up on the thread, FYI. I have alot on my plate for the next few days so forgive me if I can't devote more 15 hour days to replying within minutes of a post (in most cases).

However, if you all will indulge me, I would like to share something I just read that, for whatever reason, seemed like it may apply here (although that might just be my tired mind) in some fashion or another. Maybe it had something to do with the half-empty, half-full thing. Either way, even if it has absolutely nothing to do with any of this, it's, at the very least, entertaining and thought provoking.

"This is why people are so disappointed with the present. We talk so much about how wonderful tomorrow's going to be that even if it's great, it can't help but be a letdown. Tomorrow is like a summer blockbuster for which the studio starts showing trailers the previous November. By the time it comes to your cineplex, you feel like you've already seen it. All the best lines and biggest explosions. The most provocative coming-out-of-the-water bikini shot. You will already have seen the making-of feature and heard the actors on the press junket talking about what a privelege it was to work with so-and-so and how they all did their own stunts. So because you feel like you've already seen it, by the time it comes, you have no desire to fork over $15 and actually sit through it in a theater. What's happened is that you've already experienced something which hasn't happened yet. In fact, when you think of it, the only real reason to go to the movies isn't to see the feature but to get a taste of the future, to see the next big blockbuster, and to experience that before it happens. And this phenomenon isn't limited to movies, it is the way we live today. And it is why I encourage you to ignore the hype of what's to come, and to get some popcorn and gummy bears during the previews, and to thoroughly enjoy the feature.
In real time.
Not in the black hole of expectation."

from "The Futurist" by James P. Othmer, Doubleday 2006, Page 127

And with that, I bid you all good night.

It's okay, Arnold.

We've moved well beyond the question of whether Tico is a vanity press. We're all the way up to whether signing with Tico is a good idea.

Please view my comments on your contract as constructive criticism. For all I know everyone who's signed a contract with you has negotiated away every point I've raised. You're under no obligation to say which points are negotiable. (Agents earn their commissions by knowing what parts of which publishers' contracts are negotiable, then doing that negotiation.)

What you need to recognize is that a book that's publishable by one is publishable by many. An author with a publishable book has a rare commodity and can shop for the best deal.

Yes, there are publishers out there with truly bad contracts.

Look at the quality of author they get.

Look at their sales.

Look at their sales two years later.

Coming in late, but this is interesting...

First Buckeye Writer was a hit-and-run. Interesting.

Buckeye Writer said:

Tico is new. Most of the negative comments I've seen here about this small publishing company are able to be generated because it is a new company and the Editor is trying some new things.

Click to expand...

Yes, there is certainly scrutiny against new small companies because they lack experience and track records and any serious writers should do their research before submitting to these companies. But not all small presses are the same.

More than fifty books were rejected to get to those fourteen publishable titles. Only two of the titles currently scheduled for publication paid any more than the $5 contest fee. It is a contest fee, not a reading fee.

Click to expand...

50:14 is not a comforting ratio... and only two paid $5 contest fee? I wonder how many "won"... two? That sounds like a scam to me, then.

Tico does charge a modest fee for editing: punctuation, grammar, plot, character development and marketability are the things covered in a full edit.

Click to expand...

Cueing a big, blinking "Vanity" sign. No commercial publishers would charge editing fees.

Money always flows TO the author.

an author who submits their work without the $5 contest fee gets the same treatment as the one's who pay it, contest entries just get reviewed quicker because the contest has a deadline date.

Click to expand...

This simply doesn't make sense. The "deadline date" was determined by what? The date the ms. was read? Or when it was submitted?

I bet both of those who paid the $5 won something. Tell me I am wrong...

victoriastrauss said:

I would never sign a contract that gave the publisher the right to alter my work without permission from me.
I agree as to cover design, marketing, and print run size--but again, for me and for other writers I know, editing is a collaborative process.

Click to expand...

I do think that's what Lynn was saying, that the author has to turn in an "acceptable" work ready for publication, and that may include editing. It's not to say the publisher is going to alter the work without asking or working with the author. Editing IS a collaborative process, and I can vouch for that. But the publisher is the final stop that determines what is "acceptable" and if the author refuses the changes, and if the publisher determines the final version of the work is not "acceptable," the contract could be terminated and production stopped.

ticopublishing said:

You don't have to tie yourself to a single publisher. It's simple, you don't accept the contract with the option clause. Either the publisher agrees to take it out, and you publish with them, or they don't, and you take your book elsewhere.

Click to expand...

That makes you predatory to those who don't understand these terms. Clearly you, the publisher, knows you are taking advantage of the authors by a) grabbing all the rights, b) not committing to a timeframe for publication, thus potentially holding the rights indefinitely, etc. This is an unfair contract that puts the author at great disadvantage. To say, "take it or leave it" means you'll be preying on unsuspecting authors. It's like a trap door -- one way in, no way out. The only way out is to never go in at all.

So let me ask you a question: Are you willing to negotiate? What if an author only wants to give your limited rights, and requires you to commit to a publication timeframe with specific reversion clauses in the contract? Are you going to say "no, take it or leave it"?

Okay, I don't think you are a vanity press NOW. I think that until you removed your review and other fees the argument was valid. You have had the good heart to make some changes and they've improved the situation.

I have one question, but it requires some set-up:

Your contract would allow you to accept a work, impose an option clause on three more books, and then IF you wanted to never publish those books for (in my case with anticipated life span plus 70 years under the copyright) for 85 or 90 years and the author has no recourse at all.

This is the situation if your contract were imposed the way it is written. I am not saying you would ever do that, but your contract as written gives you that right.

So, if you would never do such a thing, WHY does your contract allow you to do that?

If you would be so kind as to consider your contract with that question in mind (and it's a valid question), and give an answer, I would appreciate it.

Regards,
Scott

Regards,
Scott

maestrowork said:

50:14 is not a comforting ratio... and only two paid $5 contest fee? I wonder how many "won"... two? That sounds like a scam to me, then. Cueing a big, blinking "Vanity" sign.

Click to expand...

You're comparing apples to oranges. The figure was "more than 50" submissions. and OUT OF THE 14 CONTRACTED books, only 2 were contest entrants. That isn't saying that we didn't receive more contest entries than the 2 that we also happened to contract. We certainly received MANY more submissions than people that actually entered our contest.

maestrowork said:

This simply doesn't make sense. The "deadline date" was determined by what? The date the ms. was read? Or when it was submitted?

Click to expand...

The deadline dates you are referring to are posted under our contest information page on our website and have never changed. The manuscripts are considered within the contest period of when they are read.

maestroworks said:

I bet both of those who paid the $5 won something. Tell me I am wrong...

Click to expand...

Yes, our contest winners did win something. The contest is self-supporting in the sense that all of the contest monies we receive are paid out to the winners in the form of a cash prize (for best overall) and plaques. It actually COSTS us money to run the contest as the cash prize is equivalent to the aount of entrants. (ie. If 20 entrants paid $5, then the cash prize is $100) The cost of the plaques is paid for by TICO Publishing.

I sure hope people actually READ the 20-some-odd posts I made yesterday along with the many other posts before rebringing up already explained and/or answered points again.

maestrowork said:

That makes you predatory to those who don't understand these terms. Clearly you, the publisher, knows you are taking advantage of the authors by a) grabbing all the rights, b) not committing to a timeframe for publication, thus potentially holding the rights indefinitely, etc. This is an unfair contract that puts the author at great disadvantage. To say, "take it or leave it" means you'll be preying on unsuspecting authors. It's like a trap door -- one way in, no way out. The only way out is to never go in at all.

So let me ask you a question: Are you willing to negotiate? What if an author only wants to give your limited rights, and requires you to commit to a publication timeframe with specific reversion clauses in the contract? Are you going to say "no, take it or leave it"?

Click to expand...

Have you not read my posts from yesterday (all 23 of them)? Not trying to be rude but I answered all of those questions yesterday.

I will answer them again though.

Yes, we are willing to negotiate. An author can negotiate any aspect of their contract with us. We're not necessarily going to say "Take It or Leave It" (depends on the author and manuscript) but it is certainly within OUR RIGHT to do so, just as it's in the author's right to decline the terms.

It's not "predatory" to try to negotiate and/or offer the best terms to a contract for the publishing house's benefit. Do you really believe that if Stephen King's book publisher (whoever that is) "could" negotiate a contract with all rights, no advance, etc. that they wouldn't? It's a business. It's ultimately the publisher's money that is being risked. Some authors are less of a risk than others (ie. a Stephen King) and would command different terms and rightly so on their part.

When you START a negotiation, ANY negotiation, the idea is for each person to start at the extreme opposite ends and meet someplace in the middle, correct?

Is the car dealership predatory for asking for the sticker price first?

Is the car dealership taking advantage of the customer, then, if the customer says YES to paying the sticker price?

Popeyesays said:

So, if you would never do such a thing, WHY does your contract allow you to do that?

Click to expand...

The contract is a standard publishing contract adopted by TICO Publishing and modified to fit our needs.

Do we have the SFWA model contract? No. I did go and look at it though, and we're NOT that far off. There are some issues which people are bringing to my attention here (yourself included) and I'm listening with an open-mind and willing to make changes that I feel are necessary (if any).

The option clause would only be exercised if TICO desired to match another house's offer to you on those book(s). If we didn't want to match the terms you received, then you are free to sign that book with the next publishing house. This is what is intended in our option clause.

Do I come across as an unreasonable person?