Author Complaints at City Owl Press

City Owl Press (COP) describes itself as a “cutting edge indie publishing company, bringing the world of romance and speculative fiction to discerning readers.” Co-founded in 2014 by authors Tina Moss and Yelena Casale, COP publishes romance, paranormal, fantasy, horror, and mystery, and has a large staff (including an unusual number of copy editors) and a substantial catalog of books and authors. Subsidiary rights are repped by Brower Literary & Management.

Until recently, a websearch on COP would have turned up little to raise concerns: no author complaints, a regular publishing schedule, positive reviews, coverage in the trade press, approval as a qualifying market by Romance Writers of America. However, there is a kind of alchemical process that I’ve witnessed many times over my years with Writer Beware, where long-standing strains and stresses within a publisher–hidden from public view and often from the authors themselves, who don’t realize how widespread the problems they’ve experienced are until they start comparing notes–abruptly reach critical mass and boil to the surface in the form of a rush of complaints.

That process began for COP in January 2024. Over the past weeks, I’ve heard from multiple COP authors who cite an enormous variety of issues, described by most as long-standing, of which the most frequent include:

• Poor/inconsistent editing and copy editing (although I also heard from authors who said they were happy with the editing they received). Several authors were reportedly dissatisfied enough to seek help from outside editors. According to contracts shared with me, COP pays extremely editorial low rates: $50-$150 for editing depending on word count, $0.0025 per word for copy editing (low pay for editors and copy editors is endemic in the small press world, and can contribute to poor quality and high turnover). A non-disclosure clause appears to have recently been added to copy editors’ contracts.
• Lack of clarity about editing and other timelines.
• Production delays, including late/delayed edits, copy edits, final proofs, and cover art, in some cases requiring the publication date to be pushed back.
• Things left to the last minute, resulting in a rush to complete or hampering self-promotion efforts (for example, copy edits received the week before launch date, ARCs not available until the week before publication, books going up on NetGalley the day before release).
• Lack of support for pre-orders.
• Print books unavailable for purchase on publication day.
• Short discounts through Ingram (20%, as opposed to the standard 40-55%) and no returnability. (UPDATE 3/10/24: I’ve seen documentation of the 20% discount, but have also become aware that for POD books, the discount authors [and presumably publishers] set is not the discount booksellers see–so COP may not be aware that their books are being shorted.)
• Inconsistent or inadequate marketing support (for example, Amazon and Facebook ads promised but not delivered, limited promotion on COP’s social media pages, ARCs sent late to review venues). Marketing is one of the biggest sources of author dissatisfaction overall; to be clear, COP does market its books, but based on what authors have told me, many see a major gap between marketing promises and actual marketing. Additionally, there was anger over Facebook ads for Tina Moss’s own books (both she and co-founder Yelena Casale are COP authors), which ran at a time when authors were being told that such ads didn’t provide a good return on investment. Ms. Moss later apologized for that ad campaign, attributing it to her own error in neglecting to switch the campaign to her personal author page.
• What some authors felt as undue pressure to invest significant amounts of their own money into marketing and ad campaigns (COP author Erin Fulmer discusses this in detail in the third of her series of blog posts about her COP experience; discussion begins with the “Our Mission” heading). Especially in the context of widespread unhappiness with COP’s marketing, this did not go over well.
• Payment irregularities, including errors on royalty statements (corrected, but only upon notification from authors), authors having to chase payments for subsidiary right sales, and no royalties paid for book sales at conventions (I was told that COP’s explanation was that sales income didn’t offset the expense of presence at cons).

I have to note here that I also heard from COP authors who told me they were happy with their experience, and felt that many of the complaints were the result of misunderstandings or unrealistic expectations. But while it can be hard sometimes to determine whether reported problems represent isolated incidents or an ongoing pattern of behavior, the complaints outlined above are extremely consistent across multiple authors.

Frustrations seem to have come to a head in late December 2023/early January 2024, after a post from Tina Moss on publishing models and promotional budgets sparked questions and anger in COP’s Facebook group (the post, which was later deleted, is preserved at Erin Fulmer’s blog in the “Little or no care for the author’s career” section; see especially the part of the post headed “The Harsh Reality”, which addresses why some books don’t get ad spends). Over a short period of time that some COP authors have dubbed “Rush Week”, a flurry of rights reversions followed: some in response to authors’ requests, but a number offered out of the blue to authors who’d raised concerns in the group but hadn’t asked to be released (some of these authors told me that they viewed this as an effort by COP to purge malcontents from the company).

On January 7, COP put out a press release about the reversions, initially describing them as “per the authors’ wishes”, but shortly afterward adding a paragraph to clarify that some of the initiative was COP’s. On January 8, the Facebook group was abruptly closed down. (Erin Fulmer chronicles its demise here, in the section headed “Little or no care for the author’s career.”)

Several authors announced their split from COP on social media, without providing details as to why, causing questions and concerns from observers. This is also the point at which COP authors started contacting Writer Beware. Then, in late January, Erin Fulmer published her detailed series of blog posts about her departure from COP. Authors are often very, very reluctant to go public with publisher complaints, whether because they don’t want to single themselves out, fear retaliation and blowback from the publisher and/or fellow authors, or are simply too exhausted and demoralized–but a flood of other accounts followed Erin’s: Megan Van Dyke, SL Choi, Elisse Hay, Jen Karner, Lisa Edmonds, Lily Riley, and more have all chosen to speak out about their experiences.

This unusually public discussion has had an impact. On February 22, COP posted a public apology to authors and readers, with a pledge to implement “systematic and operational changes”. (This is the overshare mentioned in the first paragraph; it was later reformulated in response to criticism).

I reached out this week to Tina Moss with a request for comment. She provided the following statement:

City Owl Press is a small publishing house built by authors for authors. During the past few months, we have been having conversations with our authors to identify areas where we can improve our processes and procedures. We are now working to implement meaningful changes.  

In February, we shared disappointing news about one of our series. We were wrong to announce it as we did, and many of our authors immediately shared their concerns. While we edited the wording, we know the original post lives on in screenshots, and we can only promise our authors that we will do better. 

We have not responded to recent blog posts and social media posts about City Owl Press. Many of the allegations are untrue, inaccurate, or one-sided. Rather than engage in a public argument with these writers, we continue to work to improve our services further, support our authors, and publish their work so that their readers and fans continue to enjoy their talents. 

City Owl Press thanks Victoria Strauss for offering us the chance to provide a statement. As we have not seen the content of her March 8, 2024, blog post of this writing, we cannot comment on specific issues. However, we are open to continued conversation and meaningful dialogue. Our goals are always to work in the best interest of our authors and bring to market the best books for our readers.  

This is an evolving situation (one reason it took me so long to write about it). I’ll post updates as I receive them.

UPDATE 3/9/24: When I reached out to COP for comment, they asked me to share a draft of this post so they could review it. It’s not my policy to let the subjects of my posts vet them in advance; instead, I offered the opportunity to provide additional responses, to be included as updates. Accordingly, COP has provided me with this additional statement.

We want to address the most concerning statement posted in the March 8, 2024, blog post that “payment irregularities” have been associated with our press. That is false.

City Owl Press issues quarterly payments. Sublicensee royalties are paid in the accounting period immediately following receipt. If City Owl Press receives sublicensee royalties late, they are included in the quarterly payment that follows our receipt of said royalties.

Royalties are paid for book sales at conventions and are issued in the quarter following the sales. For example, royalties from the New York Comic Con held in October 2023 will be in the quarterly payments issued in March 2024.

In nine years, we have had two accounting errors, which were corrected, and amended statements were issued. Note: City Owl Press’s Ingram discounts are the standard 40% on all print books, not 20%, as stated in the post. 

UPDATE 3/28/24: As noted above, several authors told me that they received no royalties for sales of their books at conventions. However, in the statement above, COP states that they do pay royalties on such sales. On March 26, COP sent out an explanatory email that reads in part:

COP’s contract states that royalties on all sales are paid on net income (generally understood to mean retail price less retailers’ and wholesalers’ discounts). But according to the above, they’ll be paying conference sales on net profit (net income less expenses), which makes not just for a smaller royalty, but potentially a more opaque process. Can they really suddenly decide to define royalties differently for a special circumstance?

Well, in a publishing contract, definitions are what the publisher says they are. Here’s COP’s definition of net income:

It bars COP from deducting a variety of expenses from “actual proceeds received” for the purpose of calculating royalties…but, wait: “other than the physical production cost of the WORK”. In other words, printing–the cost of which can be deducted. And just like that, “net income” becomes net profit.

I do think that shipping and taxes might reasonably be considered to be “overhead expenses”, though.