|
Post by Deleted on May 23, 2022 9:29:32 GMT -5
Covers have always been about selling the book. That hasn't changed. What has changed is what works to sell a book to a contemporary audience rather than an audience in the 60'-80's, which is where most of us first encountered comics on the racks and had imprinted what we think a cover should be. In the 90s gimmick covers were what sold books, in the 21st century, covers have changed to reflect what catches the eye and opens the wallet of 21st century customers. The purpose of the cover though, has never changed, it's always been to catch the potential customers' eye and open their wallets. If covers today looked the way they did in 1982, they would fail miserably at that task because customer sensibilities have changed. -M You are operating from a premise that comics, modern cover sensibilities and all, are, in fact, selling today. They aren't. The thing that would help "modern" covers sell comics, is if they were cheaper, and if they were in places people could find them. Also, I'm afraid the "customer sensibilities" you mention don't include reading comics, at all... no matter what the cover looks like. I think this does hit on the issue for me, and it drives me back to yet again that reality of why manga does so well. They are meant to be read, they are affordable, kids of all ages can find them pretty easily, etc. It's a business model that seems to work. Traditional Big 2 type fare is just in this weird place, trying to be a relevant pop culture machine somehow versus really trying to keep the bar high for graphic storytelling. I agree with you as well @mrp, having them look like they did in 1982 isn't the answer. But again, I think they need to remember how to appeal to consumers at higher levels of volume similar to my example of how manga seems to pull this off.
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on May 23, 2022 9:31:15 GMT -5
You are operating from a premise that comics, modern cover sensibilities and all, are, in fact, selling today. They aren't. The thing that would help "modern" covers sell comics, is if they were cheaper, and if they were in places people could find them. Also, I'm afraid the "customer sensibilities" you mention don't include reading comics, at all... no matter what the cover looks like. I think this does hit on the issue for me, and it drives me back to yet again that reality of why manga does so well. They are meant to be read, they are affordable, kids of all ages can find them pretty easily, etc. It's a business model that seems to work. Traditional Big 2 type fare is just in this weird place, trying to be a relevant pop culture machine somehow versus really trying to keep the bar high for graphic storytelling. I agree with you as well @mrp , having them look like they did in 1982 isn't the answer. But again, I think they need to remember how to appeal to consumers at higher levels of volume similar to my example of how manga seems to pull this off. Manga are comics.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 23, 2022 9:37:41 GMT -5
I think this does hit on the issue for me, and it drives me back to yet again that reality of why manga does so well. They are meant to be read, they are affordable, kids of all ages can find them pretty easily, etc. It's a business model that seems to work. Traditional Big 2 type fare is just in this weird place, trying to be a relevant pop culture machine somehow versus really trying to keep the bar high for graphic storytelling. I agree with you as well @mrp , having them look like they did in 1982 isn't the answer. But again, I think they need to remember how to appeal to consumers at higher levels of volume similar to my example of how manga seems to pull this off. Manga are comics. Yeah, I was actually calling out Big 2 above, totally not only agree manga are comics but IMO representative of where the industry seems to really get it right. I understand the gist of your comment of course...it's calling the Big 2 "the industry" versus acknowledging it's a more diverse set of big players these days. But I think the spirit of the conversation was premised around an observation on a notable Big 2 practice.
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on May 23, 2022 9:51:02 GMT -5
Yeah, I was actually calling out Big 2 above, totally not only agree manga are comics but IMO representative of where the industry seems to really get it right. I understand the gist of your comment of course...it's calling the Big 2 "the industry" versus acknowledging it's a more diverse set of big players these days. But I think the spirit of the conversation was premised around an observation on a notable Big 2 practice. I get that. But that is just one of my bugaboos with this particular conversation. There's a large contingent of folks who talk about comics to whom "Comics" means Big Two superhero comics and nothing else matters. And, by and large that myopia extends throughout the actual history of funnybooks. But it's particularly egregious with regard to modern comics. While the manga boom seems to have subsided, they still seem to be doing well. My grandkids have read My Hero Academia, Captain Underpants, Wimpy Kid, Bone, etc. All comics. But they aren't 32 page superhero funnybooks that are sold exclusively in niche stores so they don't count somehow.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 23, 2022 10:15:17 GMT -5
Maybe said another way, the initial reaction elicited when Marvel throws a hipster comic book cover out there: ![](https://i.imgur.com/IRrJo15.jpg)
|
|
|
Post by impulse on May 23, 2022 10:44:56 GMT -5
If we're using relevant Simpsons references to hammer home the point, I think this nails it. ![](https://i.imgur.com/tmE6UPx.jpeg) And we are at the "It will happen to you" part. That's us.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 23, 2022 10:46:07 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on May 23, 2022 12:18:37 GMT -5
If we're using relevant Simpsons references to hammer home the point, I think this nails it. ![](https://i.imgur.com/tmE6UPx.jpeg) And we are at the "It will happen to you" part. That's us. I have no issues with people no longer being "with it." It annoys the bejeebus out of me when they do the exact same things that their parents and grandparents did when they were kids that annoyed them so very much and now think it's incredibly fresh and insightful. Your parents almost always hated your stuff when you were kids and it drove you nuts. Be better.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 23, 2022 13:52:02 GMT -5
Covers have always been about selling the book. That hasn't changed. What has changed is what works to sell a book to a contemporary audience rather than an audience in the 60'-80's, which is where most of us first encountered comics on the racks and had imprinted what we think a cover should be. In the 90s gimmick covers were what sold books, in the 21st century, covers have changed to reflect what catches the eye and opens the wallet of 21st century customers. The purpose of the cover though, has never changed, it's always been to catch the potential customers' eye and open their wallets. If covers today looked the way they did in 1982, they would fail miserably at that task because customer sensibilities have changed. -M You are operating from a premise that comics, modern cover sensibilities and all, are, in fact, selling today. They aren't. The thing that would help "modern" covers sell comics, is if they were cheaper, and if they were in places people could find them. Also, I'm afraid the "customer sensibilities" you mention don't include reading comics, at all... no matter what the cover looks like. You are operating from a premise that comics, modern cover sensibilities and all, are, in fact, selling today. They aren't. The thing that would help "modern" covers sell comics, is if they were cheaper, and if they were in places people could find them. Also, I'm afraid the "customer sensibilities" you mention don't include reading comics, at all... no matter what the cover looks like. I think this does hit on the issue for me, and it drives me back to yet again that reality of why manga does so well. They are meant to be read, they are affordable, kids of all ages can find them pretty easily, etc. It's a business model that seems to work. Traditional Big 2 type fare is just in this weird place, trying to be a relevant pop culture machine somehow versus really trying to keep the bar high for graphic storytelling. I agree with you as well @mrp, having them look like they did in 1982 isn't the answer. But again, I think they need to remember how to appeal to consumers at higher levels of volume similar to my example of how manga seems to pull this off. Comics aren't expensive because the big 2 forgot how to appeal to a mass market. Comics are expensive because mass market retailers rejected periodical comics because they were too cheap and did not offer a large enough margin for them to pay for the retail space they took up and were too labor intensive to carry for what little they made (we've all heard the tales of retailers who never unpacked or unbound the packs of comics just returned them for credit without ever putting them out for sale). Most major mass market outlets stopped carrying comics long before Marvel and Dc stopped making newsstand comics. Chains like 7-11 stopped carrying comics almost 10-15 years before comics "left the newsstand" and comics relied on the direct market because newwstand distribution had all but dried not because they didn't want to be on the newsstands. Yes, the non-returnable nature of the direct market made it more profitable per unit, but they still did more volume and thus more revenue overall and the larger print runs it afforded kept economy of scale on their side. The loss of newsstands was a gradual shift in the marketplace through the 1980s and early 1990s. Periodical sales as a whole began to dip in that area and the retail real estate devoted to periodicals began to shrink. And comics, with their terrible margins because of low prices, were the least able to make the space they did have worthwhile to retailers, and their ability to be a loss leader to draw customers in waned making them even less desirable to said retailers. The loss of one market created a need for Marvel and DC to rely on other channels of distribution while other publishers closed up shop (Charlton, Western, etc.) Those that did start up focused on other channels of distribution. Eventually newsstand distribution was so small that it no longer justified print runs large enough to make economy of scale work and with returnability accounted for just weren't making enough money to remain viable and so newsstand distribution ended. Not because Marvel and DC didn't want it, but because it had abandoned them behind long. And once comics left the mass market, they were no longer mass market products, no matter how big the customer base of the direct market was. They were a niche product, produced for a niche customer base and distributed to a niche market. Once that happened, comics were never going to be cheap again-niche products cost more than an equivalent mass market product because of economy of scale increases production costs for smaller scale products, especially print products. It's easy to say make them cheap and make them available where people shop. It's virtually impossible to do so if those places don't want to carry your products, especially when they are too cheap to be profitable for them and to pay for the cost of the space they would take up as opposed to other more expensive products that sell more they could use that space to stock instead. And in today's market, there is not a large enough demand for periodicals in general, let alone for periodical comics, that making comics as curmudgeonly grognards perceive them (a 32 page pamphlet serializing a super-hero story) a product that will sell on the mass market virtually impossible. Doing so would require a massive overhaul of infrastructure and capital investment that would not provide anywhere near the ROI their parent companies would need to even bring such a venture to the board to consider. That era is gone and not coming back. Comics are now a niche product sold in a niche destination shop. The covers, no matter how their constituted, are not going to sell comics on a level when they were a mass market product. They are configured now to maximize sales in the current reality, to sell as many copies to retailers who will in turn try to sell them to the small but persistent number of Wednesday Warriors who still buy periodical comics based on the way they look in a preview book or online solicitation 3-4 months before they are on sale. And the covers you see do that well. They are not going to grow sales-growing sales of periodical comics in the 21st century isn't happening under any circumstances-they will remain a niche product until that too is not even viable at some point, but they are generating sales within their current customer base and that is what they are designed to do. And for that, they still do quite well. -M
|
|
|
Post by impulse on May 23, 2022 14:30:59 GMT -5
I have no issues with people no longer being "with it." It annoys the bejeebus out of me when they do the exact same things that their parents and grandparents did when they were kids that annoyed them so very much and now think it's incredibly fresh and insightful. Your parents almost always hated your stuff when you were kids and it drove you nuts. Be better. 100%. I assure you I don't personally give a flying fart about the names of all the characters dating who on whatever Disney made-for-TV tween fantasy drama show of the moment has temporarily captured my daughter's eye, but she doesn't know that, and yes, I can name them.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 23, 2022 14:37:31 GMT -5
I guess I'm still not clear though...
I get the change in distribution over the years. I get that the industry is bigger than Big 2 and superheroes for that matter. All the history makes sense to me.
And I'm going to discount the pandemic years as I say this since like most things, there is some significant volatility there that I don't think is a reliable predictor of future performance (good or bad). Are companies like DC and Marvel leaving money on the table compared to the more popular manga titles again as a prominent (but not exclusive) counterexample?
Jokes/memes aside, it's not about my wanting comic books to look like they did when I was a kid (cool as that dream may seem). I fundamentally question if they have the best practices in place. Taking say Marvel as an example, it's not like Disney hasn't been know to struggle with unlocking the potential of their acquisitions. The amount of money they have missed out on in the video game industry (a MASSIVELY booming market) with the properties they control alone is staggering (I think they are finally starting to figure that out more).
Now, in terms of actual distribution, sure, the newssstand is ancient history, but take a popular manga title like My Hero Academia, like everything else super easy to either get the digital copy or buy a print copy at Amazon or wherever. Large scale volume distribution is happening. My question is why can't a Marvel or DC create the next My Hero Academia anymore. And I attribute that "potentially" (this is a hypothesis, not a fully informed conclusion) to lack of quality creative output and a business model that COULD adapt better.
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on May 23, 2022 15:21:30 GMT -5
I guess I'm still not clear though... I get the change in distribution over the years. I get that the industry is bigger than Big 2 and superheroes for that matter. All the history makes sense to me. And I'm going to discount the pandemic years as I say this since like most things, there is some significant volatility there that I don't think is a reliable predictor of future performance (good or bad). Are companies like DC and Marvel leaving money on the table compared to the more popular manga titles again as a prominent (but not exclusive) counterexample? Jokes/memes aside, it's not about my wanting comic books to look like they did when I was a kid (cool as that dream may seem). I fundamentally question if they have the best practices in place. Taking say Marvel as an example, it's not like Disney hasn't been know to struggle with unlocking the potential of their acquisitions. The amount of money they have missed out on in the video game industry (a MASSIVELY booming market) with the properties they control alone is staggering (I think they are finally starting to figure that out more). Now, in terms of actual distribution, sure, the newssstand is ancient history, but take a popular manga title like My Hero Academia, like everything else super easy to either get the digital copy or buy a print copy at Amazon or wherever. Large scale volume distribution is happening. My question is why can't a Marvel or DC create the next My Hero Academia anymore. And I attribute that "potentially" (this is a hypothesis, not a fully informed conclusion) to lack of quality creative output and a business model that COULD adapt better. I think some of the problem is that the parent companies, Disney & Warner, see their comic divisions as little more than content providers for exploitation in more profitable markets. They are not interested in publishing. They are interested in merchandising, video games, films and television, etc. You also have a corporate structure that is risk-averse, which is pretty much par for the course for most major corporations. They answer to shareholders who want a certain level of growth over a quarter or two and who will sell if they don't get it. They don't care about innovation, just exploitation. Let someone else spend the money to develop new things; just copy it and turn a fast profit. It's endemic in Hollywood and pretty much most American (and international) business. Really, how much innovation is there really to be had at DC or Marvel? Has there really been a new, unique book come along in decades? Or have they mostly been variations on the same thing, with more modern dialogue or pop culture references? It's been franchise maintenance; tell stories that will sell enough to turn a profit, repackage and repeat. Sometimes they tell the same old stories well, sometimes they just churn it out. Individuals care about the artform and they do work where they can, whether it is at an indie publisher, a major book publisher (like Scholastic, who sells more comics than DC or Marvel), via crowdfunding or some other method. I'm sure there are people at DC and Marvel who want to do more or do better, or do different; but, they are the voice in the wilderness, statistically speaking. You see the same thing in other forms of entertainment and that includes book publishing. Mergers and buyouts have reduced the number of major players and they are all big corporations, with similar management philosophies. Record companies don't take the chances they used to on new artists, movie studios aren't interested in "prestige" films and book publishers aren't interested in publishing a work of literature if it won't sell enough units at a newsstand at O'Hare Airport. Innovation is done by individuals and small groups who are willing to put everything they have into it or have nothing to lose. Artistic expression continues in places that will support it. If that is what you want, you seek it out. If you want reliable entertainment, you go where you know you will find it, whether that is Dc and/or Marvel, Dark Horse, Kodansha, Scholastic, Archie or Image, or something altogether different. DC and Marvel lost me a long time back, for the most part, though they still occasionally put out something that interests me. I still read new material, though. I ended exploring more at the indies and from overseas. In the last 20 years I have bought more content from Cinebook than DC or Marvel, combined. They just happened to compile a lot of material that interests me or that I knew of, but had no access to (like Blake & Mortimer or Valerian).
|
|
|
Post by impulse on May 23, 2022 16:09:20 GMT -5
As far as making money, I agree that Disney is massively underutilizing its IP with regards to video games. That is a booming industry, and with the properties they own, people would throw money at good games.
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on May 23, 2022 16:51:19 GMT -5
As far as making money, I agree that Disney is massively underutilizing its IP with regards to video games. That is a booming industry, and with the properties they own, people would throw money at good games. Disney is pretty conservative when it comes to things like that. Their book publishing has always been geared around new film releases (or re-releases), as ancillary marketing and they have been more focused on toys and games aimed at young girls. Part of their reason for acquiring Marvel and Star Wars was to grab a young male audience, after seeing the viewing numbers of the X-Men cartoons, on the Disney cable channels. They do have things like Kingdom Hearts; but I still think they see themselves as a film company and that everything else serves that. Star Wars is a bit different, since Lucas pioneered a lot of exploiting content in other fields and they inherited a going concern, rather than developed it on their own. Warner is good at exploiting in other fields, like their game material; but, they have a long history of disjointed cooperation between divisions. Disney was always better at having the various departments working in support of the films; but, Warner treated their divisions like Balkan states, running their little worlds, but feeding Vienna and Budapest (metaphorically speaking). Joe Straczynski had to secure his own deals with DC Comics and Warner publishing for Babylon 5-related books and comics (as well as toys and other tie-ins), despite the show being financed and distributed by Warner. Same with WCW, under the Warner-Turner Broadcasting merger. WCW promoted Warner films and such; but, Warner wasn't promoting WCW.
|
|
|
Post by adamwarlock2099 on May 23, 2022 18:22:16 GMT -5
I don’t really have a strong opinion either positively or negatively what the younger generations consume for the most part. As Slam said every older generation critiques the younger one. I like Air Supply for Christ’s sake. I aint got much wiggle room to call out my boys.
There I said it.
|
|