If kids aren't reading Big Two comics it's not because they don't know about the characters. Walk into any toy store or big retailer and you'll find a bazillion Batman and Marvel Hero toys. Clearly they are seeing Marvel Super-heroes in the theaters. They're also seeing DC and Marvel heroes on TV. And walk into any kids section of a book store and you'll find a ton of children's books with super-heroes.

Diary of a Wimpy Kid sells. So did Bone. But a lot of those sales are through alternative means. Bone sold huge through Scholastic Book Sales.

My Grandson is 8 and is a nut for Super-heroes. I bought him Batman: The War Years for Christmas. But what he really can't read are Comic Books. Because they aren't available. And most of the superhero comics aren't appropriate for his age anyway. He does, however, have access to an IPad. And if the price was right that would be a great forum for him to read comics, just like he does a ton of other stuff on it.

The Big Two are selling to their captive audience who are rapidly aging and are going to start dying off. Their business model is fatally flawed.

Yes, kids are into it as much as they were 25 years ago, probably more so considering the among of super-hero merchandise and programming that is readily available to them that wasn't 25 years ago. And comic shops are part of the problem, not the solution. Comics need to be available wehere people are, not a niche destination product.

But it seems you think Stephenson and the industry should just throw in the towel because things have changed and it will never be the way it used to...maybe TV and movies should have too instead of adapting with the times and continuing to be viable entertainment models, because I mean it's just not the same that I can't get all my shows off of 3 broadcast networks and my only option for home viewing of movies is to subscribe to HBO or pay upwards of $40 for VHS copies of movies...I mean it's not the way it was ehn I grew up and kids have other options so why should they even try to compete right?

-M

Not sure why you're getting pissy...

I'm just going by what I've observed. Kids don't care much about reading during a day and age populated with smart phones, iPad's and PS4's.

I mean, how is that even debatable? 

And yeah, I suppose if comics start flooding your local Wal-Mart, grocery store, etc then they would be more accessible and more people would buy them...but when exactly does anyone see this happening?

Should they continue to throw good money after bad. With 8 issues they can see how fast the sales attrition rate is. If they are dropping 10%, 20% or more in sales with each successive issue (which is average per issue drop on most ongoing titles these days) despite critical buzz and initial orders for the first collection have come in (it was likely listed on Amazon and other places after issue 6 hit) and don't show any signs it will get a growth surge on the trade release, why keep it going? It will not see any growth but a slow, staeady attrition despite critical acclaim and word of mouth. If you haven't seen growth is 8 months, you are not going to no matter how much critical acclaim there is. Should you dump more money on marketing to try to halt attrition (you won't actually achieve growth though) so spend money to lose less than you would, that makes sense for a book. Or launch another book that has a chance to capture some audience and will at least give better numbers early on than the cancelled book would have if it kept going?

How do you justify to your shareholders continuing a product that is losing money or making less than another product would?

With Image, a creator can decide to pony up their own money to keep a book afloat to see if it catches on if it gets buzz but not sales, but usually it get cancelled when the creators themselves decide they are not making enough to keep it going, or if Image isn't making anything back on putting the book out. No shareholders to answer to, no other in house properties to give a try instead, etc.

Comparing the publishing plan of Image and Marvel vis-a-vis cancellation and sustainability is comparing apples and oranges. It's like comparing a local franchise business with a large corporation. Sustainable levels of sales and cost structures are radically different because they are different businesses even if they both operate in the same field.

-M

I'm buying tons of comics like I haven't in years on Comixology mostly, with 99.9% of them on sale @ $.99 each or so, depending on the sale.

The only exception I can think of was last year's Multiversity, which I paid full retail for as the issues were released.

Just today, I bought the entire run of Lucifer, the Metabarons from Humanoids, and 3 out of the 4 graphic novels Delcourt has on sale.

The Lucifers were $ .99 each, the Metabarons $1.99 each instead of $ 5.99, and the Delcourts were all at least half off.

The future is digital. Every year Comixology grows and offers more items; sales are up. The direct market comic shop is slowly dying off.

If Amazon / Comixology can get 1% of digital non-comic readers to buy a digital comic, they'll have tripled the size of the direct market.

In order for the medium of comics to stay relevant, I think at some point in the near future there needs to be a disruptive shift in the way comics are made and distributed. Some of the recurring arguments I see are:

--Superheroes and related merchandise are hotter than ever, but that doesn't seem to be translating into sales for monthly single issue comic books.
--For the price and content, the single issue comics don't seem to have the same entertainment value as other media.
--The direct market is too insular of a distribution channel.

I think all of this adds up to one inevitable conclusion: direct market dominated distribution of single issue monthly comics has to go the way of the dinosaur.

A lot of folks are placing bets on digital being the modern equivalent of the spinner rack as far as being able to pull in non-collectors and casual fans. I'm inclined to agree, but I also think that's a superficial evolution as it's still the same basic content, just presented on a screen.

My own observation is that the culture of entertainment has changed in the last 20 years or so. That change has not just affected comics, but comics has been the medium that is most stuck in the past. People are more heavily invested in their entertainment than they used to be. They are willing to spend more money on it, more time consuming it, and more time following it. We expect higher production values and more replayability. Movies, TV, and video games have adapted. Even print fiction has adapted -- look at how publishers are looking more and more for the next Twilight or Harry Potter series. They don't just want to put out one decent selling novel.

In the face of this, a 22-page booklet put out once a month that basically tells part of a story looks antiquated. And it is. It came of age in an era when comics were meant to be cheap, disposable entertainment. That format doesn't make sense to modern audiences. I read an article on Sketchd.com where the author tried to get a non-comics reader to try comics. One of the main take-aways was that the would-be reader thought that it felt like they were being asked to read one chapter of a book each month that gets published over the course of a year.

To me at least, it seems pretty clear that the future of comics, if it wants to grow and be more mainstream, lies in graphic novels, trades, and bookstore distribution. But more fundamentally, the publishing format needs to change. Maybe it means that instead of monthly floppies, publishers put out the annual graphic novel. I don't know. I just don't see floppies providing a sustainable future for comics given the way society's interaction with their entertainment is evolving.

My problem with Image stuff is not creatively (I agree they have some awesome stuff), but their lack of consistency in production. I'm almost at the point where I want to see the series finished before I buy it, to make sure the story actually finishes. I know that's a bit of a self-fufilling thing, but that's the way it is.