|
Post by Icctrombone on Jun 6, 2023 19:19:43 GMT -5
I Returned from work to see my fellow CCFers have engaged in a feeding frenzy trying to rip apart my comment about " comics as we know them " . Like Samuel L Jackson said In Pulp Fiction "Allow me to retort" After the mid 60's ,successful comics were mostly in the monthly format that I described. It was the sign of a profitable book . Fawcett, Dell etc, became defunct because they did not uphold the standard that I mentioned. Comics that were bi-monthly were that frequency because they were close to cancelation. Again, I am talking about late 60's on to the present time. Action comics with multiple stories went the way of the do do bird because comic buyers preferred the current one feature format. Anthology titles have always had a hard time staying Viable. So you can all sneer at my comment , but bring me the sales figures for those books and if they are still around in the present day. The format of the 40's did and could not continue. In have read about most of those companies going under from lack of sales. Of course events like the Wertham witch hunt were a factor but there are still 4 comic companies still alive and kicking in 2023. This response has nothing to do with the original post about Eisner , this response is addressing what a successful comic format is. Like @mrp likes to constantly point out, we get the comics that we support and the formats that we support for good or bad. they were so successful that in the 70s and 80s DC and Marvel constantly experimented with format (80 Pagers, 100 pagers, giant size quarterlies etc. because the newsstands didn't want to carry the monthly 32 page pamphlet and often the books would arrive at dealers, get put in a pile without the straps ever being cut and returned. Look at the yearly circulation reports in the letters pages and see the discrepancy between # of copies printed and # of copies actually sold, and the lie of that being a popular and successful format is pretty self-evident. It also shows how unprofitable the format was despite selling hundreds of thousands of copies because the profit was eaten up by the costs of hundreds of thousands unsold copies being returned for credit and creating production costs without any revenue from those copies. It was so successful that they had to turn to a new path to market to sell directly to the small minority of the market that liked it (i.e. the direct market) to keep it a viable format. In addition to the publishers constantly looking for a better format, if you read stuff like Eisner's interviews with creators in shop talk, every creator from Kirby to Eisner himself, hated that format and were constantly looking for a better alternative. the 32 page monthly periodical wasn't the best format for comics, or even a desirable one, it was the one they were stuck with and had to make due with because of the nature of the periodical market. The only people who like that format are long time fans who were kids who discovered comics in that format who look at it through the lens of nostalgia and without any regard for the realities of that format in the marketplace. As for Einser rather than format, you were the one who dismissed Eisner because his work didn't appear in traditional comics as "we" knew them, which, even if we accept your definition of traditional comic, is patently false. -M If They were so successful , but why didn't it survive? You are the one that constantly beats the drum of fans getting what they vote for with their wallets. Survival of the fittest and all. There were many formats through the years that are now gone. When's the last time you saw a treasury edition ? As for Eisner, I didn't " dismiss" him. I just said he wasn't my cup of tea. I think Kirby eats his lunch for the title of greatest Comic professional. And my definition of Comics as we know them is just that , my opinion. Don't be captain literal.
|
|
|
Post by MDG on Jun 6, 2023 19:35:51 GMT -5
Checking out these religious comics done by Kingstone publishing....this is the full set 1-12 of The Christ. I don't know if these are sold in comic book stores.
Is this canon?
|
|
|
Post by badwolf on Jun 6, 2023 19:37:46 GMT -5
Checking out these religious comics done by Kingstone publishing....this is the full set 1-12 of The Christ. I don't know if these are sold in comic book stores.
Is this canon? Not after the 2020 reboot.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 7, 2023 2:17:38 GMT -5
they were so successful that in the 70s and 80s DC and Marvel constantly experimented with format (80 Pagers, 100 pagers, giant size quarterlies etc. because the newsstands didn't want to carry the monthly 32 page pamphlet and often the books would arrive at dealers, get put in a pile without the straps ever being cut and returned. Look at the yearly circulation reports in the letters pages and see the discrepancy between # of copies printed and # of copies actually sold, and the lie of that being a popular and successful format is pretty self-evident. It also shows how unprofitable the format was despite selling hundreds of thousands of copies because the profit was eaten up by the costs of hundreds of thousands unsold copies being returned for credit and creating production costs without any revenue from those copies. It was so successful that they had to turn to a new path to market to sell directly to the small minority of the market that liked it (i.e. the direct market) to keep it a viable format. In addition to the publishers constantly looking for a better format, if you read stuff like Eisner's interviews with creators in shop talk, every creator from Kirby to Eisner himself, hated that format and were constantly looking for a better alternative. the 32 page monthly periodical wasn't the best format for comics, or even a desirable one, it was the one they were stuck with and had to make due with because of the nature of the periodical market. The only people who like that format are long time fans who were kids who discovered comics in that format who look at it through the lens of nostalgia and without any regard for the realities of that format in the marketplace. As for Einser rather than format, you were the one who dismissed Eisner because his work didn't appear in traditional comics as "we" knew them, which, even if we accept your definition of traditional comic, is patently false. -M If They were so successful , but why didn't it survive? You are the one that constantly beats the drum of fans getting what they vote for with their wallets. Survival of the fittest and all. There were many formats through the years that are now gone. When's the last time you saw a treasury edition ? As for Eisner, I didn't " dismiss" him. I just said he wasn't my cup of tea. I think Kirby eats his lunch for the title of greatest Comic professional. And my definition of Comics as we know them is just that , my opinion. Don't be captain literal. I just bought a newly released treasury edition earlier this year. Marvel is releasing all its Grand Design Books in Treasury editions as well. Just because the standard 32 page format was the best available format, doesn't mean it was a good format, or a desirable one. Again, fans like it out of nostalgia, not out of its innate quality. Black and white TVs did quite well until something better came along, and the survived for a long while after that because it was an affordable format that sold to people who didn't want to spend more on a better format for TV. Until eventually the better format became less expensive and people switched. It succeeded for a long while and many people liked it, but it wasn't the best format for TV, or even a desirable one, just one that they made do with until something better and more desirable came along. the difference being, since comics are wrapped up in memories of their childhood, most comic fans don't want to consider different formats that might be better or more desirable to a larger audience, they want what they had as a kid because their enjoyment of comics is tied up in memories not the quality of the current experience. But for the most part, the mass audience moved on form 32 page monthly comics long ago, mostly when comics decided to switch to the direct market and cater to the smaller fanbase who liked that format because returnability made it more profitable because they got away form all those unsold copies and could print to order just for people who liked that format..a number that continued to shrink steadily form that moment until today. And now, despite super-hero stories being more popular and having a bigger audience than it ever did since the 32 page monthly continued story format of comics was adopted, you couldn't pay most fans of super-heroes to get those stories in a 32 page monthly periodical format. So yeah, survival of the fittest says the format is on the endangered species list, and the mass audience has spoken out against it. The only ones who cling to it are those that do so for nostalgia, not inherent quality of the format. Comics are in a huge upswing of growth, just not 32 page periodicals. No one outside of the nostalgia crew wants their comics in that format. -M
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 7, 2023 3:46:44 GMT -5
I’m probably comparing apples and oranges, @mrp, but I do feel one area where the 32-page format works - and not due to nostalgia - is 2000 AD. I’m certain that for Rebellion, it’s more about pragmatism than nostalgia, as the 32 pages means we can get multiple stories in each week. I know that UK and US comics can’t necessarily be compared given the majority of our comics are weekly - and many over time have been anthologies,
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 7, 2023 8:56:40 GMT -5
I’m probably comparing apples and oranges, @mrp, but I do feel one area where the 32-page format works - and not due to nostalgia - is 2000 AD. I’m certain that for Rebellion, it’s more about pragmatism than nostalgia, as the 32 pages means we can get multiple stories in each week. I know that UK and US comics can’t necessarily be compared given the majority of our comics are weekly - and many over time have been anthologies, Since the 32 page format became the standard in American comics, comic sales have been in a steady decline. That is not the hallmark of a successful format. And 2000 AD would not qualify for icctrombone's format because it is not monthly and is an anthology. -M
|
|
|
Post by MDG on Jun 7, 2023 9:02:19 GMT -5
I’m probably comparing apples and oranges, @mrp , but I do feel one area where the 32-page format works - and not due to nostalgia - is 2000 AD. I’m certain that for Rebellion, it’s more about pragmatism than nostalgia, as the 32 pages means we can get multiple stories in each week. I know that UK and US comics can’t necessarily be compared given the majority of our comics are weekly - and many over time have been anthologies, Since the 32 page format became the standard in American comics, comic sales have been in a steady decline. That is not the hallmark of a successful format. ... -M I was just going to make that point. throughout the 70s, both Marvel and DC expected to go belly-up at any moment and they were casting about for a format and price point that would both be profitable for them and attractive/worthwhile to retailers.
Probably didn't help that a lot of the business model was based on 1) a lot of revenue from licensing, not the books themselves and 2) screwing the creatives.
|
|
|
Post by kirby101 on Jun 7, 2023 9:25:43 GMT -5
I would add to that, the pricing problems had a lot to do with sales of Marvel vs DC comics. As much as more than content.
|
|
|
Post by tarkintino on Jun 7, 2023 11:40:40 GMT -5
Since the 32 page format became the standard in American comics, comic sales have been in a steady decline. That is not the hallmark of a successful format. Is that the fault of the 32-page format alone, or the unavoidable changing nature of a culture's entertainment choices? The mid 20th century saw the rise of TV, a new explosion in popular music (and the marriage of music and TV in the 50s and 60 to create a marketing juggernaut that exists to this day), and new trends in movies that swept the imaginations of audiences from time to time (e.g., the big musicals, the disaster movie cycle, the new rise of sci-fi & other fantasy films in the late 70s, leading to the "blockbuster" trend, the slasher film, etc.). TV hurt traditional radio in that manner, and TV had the same effect on movies until new blood was brought into film. Perhaps superhero comic fans found new blood in comic magazines such as that published by Warren (I certainly gravitated toward the format in a big way), which led Marvel/Curtis to jump into the deep end of the B&W magazine format--even with some of its superhero characters. There's likely a number of reasons for a format sales decline, but I'm not certain its the specific kind of format that was the culprit.
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Jun 7, 2023 12:15:08 GMT -5
A bigger effect would be the economy of the 1970s. With the post-Vietnam Recession, inflation skyrocketed and a lot of long time staples started drastically changing or went away. Major magazines like Life and The Saturday Evening Post ceased publication; so, it wasn't just comics. Traditional outlets started looking for better ways to make a buck and margins on periodicals were so-so, depending on the price point. Supermarkets and drugstores turned that space over to other things and newsstands shrunk. With limited space came competition with adult magazines, with higher price points and better profit margins. So, outlets for selling comics disappeared. Add to that the changes in technology that brought new forms of entertainment, like video games and home video and you have more distractions from reading.
The Direct Market is credited with helping the industry survive; but, in the 70s, comic shops were pretty rare. They become a force by the mid-80s; but, aren't ubiquitous until at least the end of the decade, if not the 90s.
Comics fell off, over time, because of alternatives. You see a lot of changes after the war and one of those is television. Why read adventure stories when you can watch them, for free? Still, comics sales in the 50s were in the millions, though not as many individual books were selling like that. They were still a big deal and would continue to be so, until the 1970s, which saw heavy decline. Like I say, the economy and alternative entertainments are a big factor. Adding to that, when comic shops become more dominant, the focus is on older readers and the gateway comics of childhood start disappearing, by the early-mid 80s. Goodbye Gold Key and Uncle Scrooge, so long Richie Rich. There was nothing for girls. DC and Marvel pretty much walked away from young readers. The thinking was that their audience turned over every 5 years, or so. Now, new readers weren't entering, older readers aged out and they were left focusing on keeping the ones who remained, longer. At times, they seemed to recognize this, like when Marvel started the Star line; but, it was never given the support of the big guns and they didn't really go in search of that audience, but hoped they would find them. Same with girls, as they poo-pooed ideas from people like Louise Simonson to try to capture some of the Harlequin market, with romance comics, or young girls, with stuff akin to the babysitters Club, or other popular YA prose series.
Format has less to do with the popularity of comics, except in hard economic times. If you look at the 70s, cover prices increase every couple of years and story content decreased, in favor of advertising. Some books had as little as 16-18 pages of story and the rest ads and editorial content. That's not much bang for your buck. Part of the reason that the Dollar Comics were successful, for DC, was that you got a lot of content, for your dollar. Same with the digests and treasury editions and things like the Pocket Book and Fireside Books reprints.
Content and price usually trumped format.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 7, 2023 12:24:01 GMT -5
On a personal level, and this isn’t a major revelation, I can’t justify paying nearly four quid for a comic - six quid for two comics, etc, etc. If I bought four comics one week, that’d be nearly £16!
I don’t mean to keep doing apples and oranges, but I can get a season boxset for £24.99, about the cost of 6 US comics. Just four US comics a month (if I buy one a week) is about the same as the cost of a streaming service subscription.
And I can’t justify it for numerous reasons: comics being part one of a six-issue arc, quick reads due to the modern way, etc. Not having thought balloons (in *some* comics) makes them a quick read. A 1980s issue of Transformers might take 20+ minutes to read, more if you have a letters page. I can probably read a modern Marvel comic in ten minutes. And i don’t even get something akin to Stan’s Soapbox! (I know some titles still have a letters page).
It’s a niche product that is costly. As a kid, some US comics were 80p, UK comics might be 40p. I was in my LCS about 4 years ago - and a guy in front of me had a lot of comics. Not sure how many, but he was charged £55 or something. If I had £55 spare one week, I’d rather buy 1975’s The Invisible Man (just released on Blu-ray!) and a couple of books, possibly with change to spare. I wouldn’t want to spend it on a stack of comics that will take a short time to read - and probably won’t be standalone tales. It’s why I wait for trades.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 7, 2023 12:39:50 GMT -5
Since the 32 page format became the standard in American comics, comic sales have been in a steady decline. That is not the hallmark of a successful format. Is that the fault of the 32-page format alone, or the unavoidable changing nature of a culture's entertainment choices? The mid 20th century saw the rise of TV, a new explosion in popular music (and the marriage of music and TV in the 50s and 60 to create a marketing juggernaut that exists to this day), and new trends in movies that swept the imaginations of audiences from time to time (e.g., the big musicals, the disaster movie cycle, the new rise of sci-fi & other fantasy films in the late 70s, leading to the "blockbuster" trend, the slasher film, etc.). TV hurt traditional radio in that manner, and TV had the same effect on movies until new blood was brought into film. Perhaps superhero comic fans found new blood in comic magazines such as that published by Warren (I certainly gravitated toward the format in a big way), which led Marvel/Curtis to jump into the deep end of the B&W magazine format--even with some of its superhero characters. There's likely a number of reasons for a format sales decline, but I'm not certain its the specific kind of format that was the culprit. I would say format was a small part of the decline of sales at the beginning, but a huge reason why the popularity of super-heroes in the mass audience has not translated from the screen to the page. What growth there has been form the popularity of the movies and TV shows has been in trades and collected editions. A monthly periodical, at any price (despite what all those complaining that it's cover price keeping people away) is a dinosaur format in the current market, something that keeps customers away because of the format. I think the main factor with the format in declining sales was that it was a poor value for the retailers, who often would return it without ever putting it out for sale, which was part of the huge returnability issue that made the books less profitable, and which eventually led to many newsstand vendors to sop carrying comics and led to publishers seeking alternatives like the direct market to keep selling pamphlets because they couldn't find a better alternative, and that led to those pamphlets being removed form the mass market, which then limited your customer base to people who were regular (and more hardcore) purchasers of your product already, guaranteeing an entropy death spiral at some point in the future because attrition of readers was going to be higher than the growth of new customers. It's speculation, but if publishers could have found a different format more palatable and profitable to newsstand sellers and kept a mass market presence, sales may have still declined, but growth rates of new customers would have been higher either slowing down or staving off the death spiral. But that would have required forward thinking and not reactionary strategies, and the comic industry has never been good at that, and still isn't. I will also add that those coming into collecting (and not reading comics) are not seeking out pamphlets to read, if they do read the stuff its digitally or in collections, they are buying pamphlets, old or new, simply to slab and hope they appreciate in value. Anecdotally, even as a kid in the 70s, I preferred reading comics in the Fireside Editions and the Tempo paperbacks more than I did reading the monthly issues. I just felt they were more bang for my buck, and so did my parents who were the ones opening the wallet for comics. So, yes, there were lots of other factors that contributed to the sales decline, but the format didn't help solve any of them, and exacerbated many of them. -M
|
|
|
Post by EdoBosnar on Jun 7, 2023 12:52:56 GMT -5
(...) Anecdotally, even as a kid in the 70s, I preferred reading comics in the Fireside Editions and the Tempo paperbacks more than I did reading the monthly issues. I just felt they were more bang for my buck, and so did my parents who were the ones opening the wallet for comics. (...) I'm not going to weigh into the wider debate here, but I have to say that this was also true for me; I was never specifically fond of the monthly pamphlet format - in fact, even back then I found it a bit annoying at how fast they accumulated and how hard they were to store. So I always loved (and preferred) any book packed with more stories: the Fireside reprint books, digests (both Archie and DC) and stuff like the Marvel pocketbooks from the late '70s. That's also why the vast majority of my comics purchases over the past decade or so are various types of collected editions.
|
|
|
Post by MDG on Jun 7, 2023 14:54:39 GMT -5
I will also add that those coming into collecting (and not reading comics) are not seeking out pamphlets to read, if they do read the stuff its digitally or in collections, they are buying pamphlets, old or new, simply to slab and hope they appreciate in value. ...despite the fact that the vast majority of books since 1990(?) probably will not appreciate. (photo taken this past Sunday)
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Jun 8, 2023 4:41:08 GMT -5
I will also add that those coming into collecting (and not reading comics) are not seeking out pamphlets to read, if they do read the stuff its digitally or in collections, they are buying pamphlets, old or new, simply to slab and hope they appreciate in value. ...despite the fact that the vast majority of books since 1990(?) probably will not appreciate. (photo taken this past Sunday) Is this your table ? I've been selling my Hulk collection online starting at 1.99 per three issues. They mostly go for 1.99 at the end. It's a buyers market most of the time.
|
|