|
Post by wildfire2099 on Feb 17, 2020 8:43:34 GMT -5
I think you said it yourself MRP.... doing the same thing and expecting a different result is folly.. they need to try something else. It doesn't matter if they lose money short term, because I'm sure they're not making any now, certainly not a signifigant percentage of either Disney's or Time Warner's income.
Comics are already a loss leader, why not try to change them into something better? Leave the stores behind to sell back issues and move on. Based on the amount of little kids I know that love Captain Underpants and Dogman, there's no reason a campaign to get Spider-Man or X-Men in those kids hands in a similar format wouldn't work.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 17, 2020 11:33:52 GMT -5
I think you said it yourself MRP.... doing the same thing and expecting a different result is folly.. they need to try something else. It doesn't matter if they lose money short term, because I'm sure they're not making any now, certainly not a signifigant percentage of either Disney's or Time Warner's income. Comics are already a loss leader, why not try to change them into something better? Leave the stores behind to sell back issues and move on. Based on the amount of little kids I know that love Captain Underpants and Dogman, there's no reason a campaign to get Spider-Man or X-Men in those kids hands in a similar format wouldn't work. It's not going to happen at Marvel until there is another change at EiC and publisher as the current regime has publicly stated they blame the failures of the Alonso admin on not catering to the direct market and what traditionally sells there, so there will be no courting other distributors or markets under that leadership. And secondly, since most leadership positions in comics now depend on the results of the next quarterly report, job security needs work against innovation and risk, because one bad quarterly report on a risk that fails could cost people jobs and anyone coming in afterwards is going to see that and be risk-averse. You also have to justify the risk/reward balance sheet to corporate suits and shareholders, and as we see form Disney's attitude towards comics as a whole, i.e. they see a better profit potential in licensing the Disney characters to other publishers than in producing Disney comics in house even though they have a comic producing business under their umbrella already, they are not going to make any kind of capital investment into expanding Marvel's comic publishing or tolerate high risk ventures if they fail, so it's not an environment that is going to be conducive to experimentation (which I think is reflected in Cebulski's statements about doubling down on the direct market and not alienating the direct market fanbase). DC is experimenting with some success into the book trade, but the content they are doing so with is aimed at the YA market and is not playing well in the direct market. Their best step was not partnering with Ingram or a distributor, but partnering with the American Library Association when they announced the lines at the ALA annual convention and bringing in proven YA authors that the ALA was already supporting to write those initial offerings so they had a built in customer base of American libraries willing to order in large enough numbers to ensure success at launch no matter how the direct market audience responded. This put the books out there for end readers to find (at no cost) and build a fan base that led to sales in the book trade as well as readers bought in. The Raven book in particular has been a perpetual tenant of best seller lists and is already on its third printing less than a year after its initial release. But despite all that success in the book trade, the line is still a dog seller in the direct market and has had a lot of negative reactions among the direct market customer base-about content and format-it's not m version of the characters, those are kiddie books not real comics, I might have tried it if I could have bought a single issue to sample but I am not buying a whole book of new content at any price because I might not like it. etc. Pretty much every talking point fans use to tell publishers they do not want their new content in anything other than the format they have always bought it in. I agree, the periodical format is a dinosaur and alternatives should be sought, but as long as the direct market survives it is the only format its customers will support. The lifespan of the periodical comic is the same as the lifespan of the direct market. Switching from that format in the direct market will only hasten the collapse of the direct market. The entire direct market infrastructure is built on the distribution and sale of periodical comics. It's the core that keeps that business alive (no matter the health of it). Trying to get rid of it will kill the patient, not make it better. The future of comics lies outside the direct market, but some publishers are not going to survive the transition because they are too intimately tied with the direct market and its customer base. Should they look for alternatives? In a perfect world yes, but comics isn't a perfect world. Disney is not concerned with finding an audience for comics outside the direct market. They are concerned with the future exploitation of those characters in media and merchandise as a whole, and as such Marvel is not in a position to innovate in terms of format or markets. And they know if they did, they would lose their existing customer base without finding enough success elsewhere to keep the wolves from the door, and that's the rub. DC is doing it in an additive fashion-finding new markets but not messing with existing formats for existing customers. What you are suggesting is instead of, and it's not going to work. Primarily because sales of the serialization of the book, as low as they may be, pay the creative costs of producing the books and collected editions are where the profit is. Subtract the serialized periodicals means the book has to sell more (not less) even at the higher price point because it has to cover all of the creative costs before it starts turning a profit, and sales on OGN for Marvel have not sold enough to do that. So yes, doing the same thing and expecting different results includes sticking with periodicals as a bad thing, but when you know the other option (original content OGN's) are going to produce worse results, it isn't a viable option just because it's a different option. Evidence in place show it isn't the solution to the existing problem. If there is a solution, it is going to require a new vision and a lot of capital investment to make work, and patience to give it time to find it's legs, and those last two things are the real issue because they are not available to a lot of the existing publishers in the direct market, and anything that doesn't show immediate results and immediate returns will be shut down before it has a chance to take root. -M
|
|
bor
Full Member
Posts: 238
|
Post by bor on Feb 18, 2020 11:37:02 GMT -5
Those are the ones I'm thinking of... I have 3 of the 4 of them, and they are definitely NOT in continuity. If they were meant to be, they epically failed. Diamond isn't who would be selling them... they need to be with Ingram and Baker and Taylor if book stores are going stock them properly.. I know they have the channel, because when I worked for a book store Ingram was selling Marvel and DC trades. To be honest, I think alot of the evils of the industry can be traced to attempting to appease Diamond. Dont know about the Thanos ones since I never read them, but the avengers and Spider-man OGNs are definitely in continuity. Characters and plots points have been referenced several times. Also to ad to the debate: Yeah it often makes sense to print the single issues first. Often the sheer volume what a no. 1 can, not will but can, sell is enough for them to do it. On top of that there are the rare case like Ms.Marvel where the series actually takes off.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 18, 2020 15:11:18 GMT -5
This is slightly tangential, but relevant. This is an essay by James Tynion IV (current Batman writer for those who don't follow modern comics) on the challenges of modern comics in particular on getting people who would be inclined to be comic readers to actually go to a comic shop and buy something-anything that is a comic. It is excerpted form his weekly newsletter... There is a lot of fodder for thought in there, but here is the relevant parts of the newsletter (I omitted one mage he was referencing but you can see it at the link if you are interested). Essentially comic/geek culture is now a zero sum game in many ways. In order to get someone tp buy/pay attention to what you are doing, it no longer has to be more interesting to the potential customer than all the other books currently being made, but it has to be more interesting than every other comic currently featuring the character ever produced but still currently available and pretty much any comic ever produced that is currently available at all, and that is just competition against other comics, let alone other iterations of geek culture in other mediums. And the idea of buying something as a Totem of your geekdom really struck a chord, as I have seen that a lot over the years in shops, at conventions and among my geeky acquaintances but never quite had the words to articulate it. A lot of them will by a comic (or action figure or Funko pop or statue or trade or DVD or print or t-shirt or whatever) not to read or because it's good, but so they can have something tangible that says see, this is my thing, but they are not looking to read comics or collect comics or what have you. They just need a representative icon-i.e the Geek Totem and that is enough for them. And another important point buried in there is that even those who are willing to read and explore more can be turned off from doing so by bad initial experiences. This goes back to David Pedersen's (creator of Mousegaurd) point in his keynote speech at the Ringo awards a few years back-the best way to turn people onto reading comics is NOT to try to get them to read your favorite comics but find things that they are already interested in and recommend comics (hopefully good comics) about those things to them. If they are interested in dinosaurs and fantasy, giving them your favorite super-hero comics to read is not going to turn them on to comics, but a comic about dinosaurs or a good fantasy comic might. But if their first experience with comics is negative (whether because it was inaccessible, unsatisfying because it didn't tell a complete story, was dated and thus irrelevant to them, or whatever) they are not going to give it a second chance or take a deeper dive because there are way too many other options and stuff out there they like to spend time on something that wasn't a good experience This was not the case when we were young and getting into comics. Most (many?) of us would never see a comic other then the current stuff on the spinner racks or maybe stuff a relative or neighbor had. We weren't inundated with options. The current issue of Spider-Man didn't have to be more interesting than every other Spider-Man comic ever made because we couldn't go out and easily read every other Spider-Man comic ever made with a few clicks and a few dollars. And many of us old guard (whether consciously or unconsciously) do that kind of comparing when we look at contemporary stuff, and if we had done that with the comics that were there when we were getting into comics we might never have become comics fans either. Again, just some food for thought, and I am still thinking about a lot of this, not sure where it leads or if it leads anywhere (but I do keep coming back to what would be my 25 on the shelf if I had to do it that way). -M
|
|
|
Post by rberman on Feb 18, 2020 16:31:48 GMT -5
Essentially comic/geek culture is now a zero sum game in many ways. In order to get someone to buy/pay attention to what you are doing, it no longer has to be more interesting to the potential customer than all the other books currently being made, but it has to be more interesting than every other comic currently featuring the character ever produced but still currently available and pretty much any comic ever produced that is currently available at all, and that is just competition against other comics, let alone other iterations of geek culture in other mediums. ... This was not the case when we were young and getting into comics. Most (many?) of us would never see a comic other then the current stuff on the spinner racks or maybe stuff a relative or neighbor had. We weren't inundated with options. The current issue of Spider-Man didn't have to be more interesting than every other Spider-Man comic ever made because we couldn't go out and easily read every other Spider-Man comic ever made with a few clicks and a few dollars. And many of us old guard (whether consciously or unconsciously) do that kind of comparing when we look at contemporary stuff, and if we had done that with the comics that were there when we were getting into comics we might never have become comics fans either. Right on. Almost every other media property has a natural life cycle. Cinema latches onto a certain actor for a certain time frame (Rudy Valentino, Jimmy Stewart, Harrison Ford, Brad Pitt, etc.) and then moves on to someone new. Same thing in pop music; every star has a window of popularity. But stars get older, and their shtick gets old with the public. Likewise in the music industry, every generation sees a significant shift in stylistic taste. Orchestral music gives way to ragtime gives way to jazz gives way to rock gives way to hip-hop. There's always another hungry new face coming down the pike. A similar dynamic takes place in fictional characters, and the exceptions are more interesting than the rule. How does Mickey Mouse manage to maintain his popularity with little kids,when Barney and the Wiggles and the Teletubbies come and go? Tynion is correct that the likelihood of a new Batman/Superman/X-Men story vaulting to the top of the heap shrinks every year. For one thing, the top talent generally refuses to play that game, creating their own characters and stories, unbound by someone else's continuity, and reaping the rewards for themselves. Basically Tynion is realizing that he needs to get off of Marvel and DC (and probably comic books) and try to compete in the broader entertainment industry's growth areas, which are TV, international action cinema, and video games.
|
|
|
Post by berkley on Feb 18, 2020 22:20:22 GMT -5
If the takeaway is that we need less Batman (and the like) and more originality, I'm on board.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 19, 2020 0:18:43 GMT -5
Basically Tynion is realizing that he needs to get off of Marvel and DC (and probably comic books) and try to compete in the broader entertainment industry's growth areas, which are TV, international action cinema, and video games. I don't think that is the takeaway though. Tynion's non-DC work (I am not sure he has ever worked for Marvel) is voluminous and very, very good and I like it far better than his work-for-hire stuff (The same is true of a lot of other creators-Jeff Lemire, Cullen Bunn, Kieron Gillen, etc.-which is a something I riff on a lot here in various threads). And he (Tynion) has been doing creator-owned work since he broke into the industry and continues to do creator-owned work alongside the DC work-for-hire stuff (a sound strategy for writers-not so much artists who cannot produce the same volume of work a month a writer can-working DC/Marvel for the better page rates to have a steady income and working creator-owned for the bigger overall chunk of the revenue and possibility to exploit the properties for future revenue in other media). So I don't think he is now just realizing he needs to get off Marvel and DC, and he has in previous newsletters talked about the various ideas he has for comic series and his future plans for a while, so I don't think he is looking at moving away from comics either. I think he is trying to start a discussion of the challenges of capturing readership and what comics need to do to find an audience to be a growth industry and to tap in to what is working in some areas of the industry (i.e. the growth of the YA book trade market in comics), something publishers have been notoriously loathe to do, preferring to stick their head in the sand and ride out the direct market and the status quo (which is why I thought his essay was relevant to the discussion at hand in this thread even while being a bit tangential). -M
|
|
|
Post by Reptisaurus! on Feb 19, 2020 0:37:20 GMT -5
Also, every book that Marvel puts on the stands is a slot that an indy book isn't occupying. It's the '50s Atlas thing where you drown out the competition through sheer volume.
|
|
|
Post by beccabear67 on Feb 19, 2020 1:15:44 GMT -5
Interesting industrial reading. I'm up later than I intended just to read it all: good work! Too tired to try and formulate anything to say about getting new readers excited by something in the comic story form, either in some untapped format or through overlooked distribution... which might just not be in my anyway.
|
|
|
Post by berkley on Feb 19, 2020 2:20:11 GMT -5
Also, every book that Marvel puts on the stands is a slot that an indy book isn't occupying. It's the '50s Atlas thing where you drown out the competition through sheer volume. Yes and this has very direct, physical repercussions. Whenever I go to the LCS here, the shelves where the new stuff is on display is usually swamped by Marvel/DC stuff. A casual customer who's just wandered in and is scanning the shelves is quite likely not to even notice much else.
Even a more serious fan who's looking for something specific might have to do a bit of hunting to find it - assuming it's in stock, which isn't always the case.
I'm curious to hear other people's experiences: I remember this being different in the 90s, when I was buying independent stuff pretty much exclusively. IIRC, Fantagraphics, Drawn & Quartlery, and most things of that sort had a separate display - and not one that was hidden away in a dark corner. I should mention that this was a different shop to the one that's here now.
Now I find if I'm looking for something specific that doesn't fall into the usual genre categories, I usually have to order it from a comics shop, a bookstore, or online. And I'd say I'm more likely to find it on the shelves of the bookstore than the LCS, which seems to be focused on Marvel/DC or other superhero or genre series.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 19, 2020 2:36:35 GMT -5
Also, every book that Marvel puts on the stands is a slot that an indy book isn't occupying. It's the '50s Atlas thing where you drown out the competition through sheer volume. Yes and this has very direct, physical repercussions. Whenever I go to the LCS here, the shelves where the new stuff is on display is usually swamped by Marvel/DC stuff. A casual customer who's just wandered in and is scanning the shelves is quite likely not to even notice much else.
Even a more serious fan who's looking for something specific might have to do a bit of hunting to find it - assuming it's in stock, which isn't always the case.
I'm curious to hear other people's experiences: I remember this being different in the 90s, when I was buying independent stuff pretty much exclusively. IIRC, Fantagraphics, Drawn & Quartlery, and most things of that sort had a separate display - and not one that was hidden away in a dark corner. I should mention that this was a different shop to the one that's here now. Now I find if I'm looking for something specific that doesn't fall into the usual genre categories, I usually have to order it from a comics shop, a bookstore, or online. And I'd say I'm more likely to find it on the shelves of the bookstore than the LCS, which seems to be focused on Marvel/DC or other superhero or genre series.
That's because the direct market is now a preorder business. In most cases (including a lot of Marvel & DC offerings) if you don't preorder you won't see a copy on the shelf ever. Remember, Brian Hibbs (SF retailer and author of Tilting at Windmills a column about comic retailing) has related that in order for a shop to turn a profit on an issue, it must sell 4 out of every 5 copies it order. At approximately 5000 Diamond accounts that means on average a title that sells 50k units a month has a shop order in 10 copies of which 8 must be sold to turn a profit, so you can bet a shop is not ordering 10 copies if it doesn't have 8 presold. Factor in that the bigger accounts Midtown, Lonestar, Mile High, DCBS, TFAW, etc. that do online mail order for new comics probably order far more than the average on such a book, which means the typical shop is more likely ordering 5 copies than 10 of which 4 must sell. Books that are ordered in quantities of less than 4 per shop are probably only ordered for pull customers, so no shelf copies will ever exist for such titles. This is why the direct market can never really be a growth market because it is designed to serve people who already know what they want and inform their retailer of it. As books are non-returnable and the margins between profitability and loss on individual titles is too slim to justify the risk of ordering extra titles, most shops will not order them. The exception being issues with variant covers that the shop had to over-order on to meet minimum requirements to get certain variant, which are usually pre-sold at a price that covers the cost of the extra copies, so those will certainly be on the shelf (and likely in bargain bins 6 months down the line). And since Marvel is the leader in variants and minimum thresholds, guess whose books wind up on the shelves more often than others. Buying shelf copies of non-returnable books to see IF you can sell them to foot traffic who MIGHT come in to a shop is a thing of the past. The shops that have available capital to do this are few and far between and the reward for doing so does not balance the risk they are taking. Also remember, Diamond accounts have to pay for their product upon delivery (they are shipped C.O.D.), so they shell out the money for those books before the have a chance to sell any of it (hence the emphasis on pull lists and preorders) and a bad week or two in a row ties up capital, and a shop that is not liquid enough with its cash flow might find itself in a position where it cannot pay for the coming week's books, and if that happens, they might as well shutter the doors. Again, the direct market is a regressive business model that inhibits growth potential and offers too many penalties and not enough rewards to retailers for carrying extra copies of books that are not preordered. To return to the original point of the thread-switching to an OGN format for new comics won't change this, in fact it will make it worse as retailers would have to be even more conservative in their ordering to make sure they are not stuck with product that doesn't sell and result in a loss on that title. -M
|
|
|
Post by rberman on Feb 19, 2020 6:02:08 GMT -5
Basically Tynion is realizing that he needs to get off of Marvel and DC (and probably comic books) and try to compete in the broader entertainment industry's growth areas, which are TV, international action cinema, and video games. I don't think that is the takeaway though. Tynion's non-DC work (I am not sure he has ever worked for Marvel) is voluminous and very, very good and I like it far better than his work-for-hire stuff (The same is true of a lot of other creators-Jeff Lemire, Cullen Bunn, Kieron Gillen, etc.-which is a something I riff on a lot here in various threads). And he (Tynion) has been doing creator-owned work since he broke into the industry and continues to do creator-owned work alongside the DC work-for-hire stuff (a sound strategy for writers-not so much artists who cannot produce the same volume of work a month a writer can-working DC/Marvel for the better page rates to have a steady income and working creator-owned for the bigger overall chunk of the revenue and possibility to exploit the properties for future revenue in other media). So I don't think he is now just realizing he needs to get off Marvel and DC, and he has in previous newsletters talked about the various ideas he has for comic series and his future plans for a while, so I don't think he is looking at moving away from comics either. I think he is trying to start a discussion of the challenges of capturing readership and what comics need to do to find an audience to be a growth industry and to tap in to what is working in some areas of the industry (i.e. the growth of the YA book trade market in comics), something publishers have been notoriously loathe to do, preferring to stick their head in the sand and ride out the direct market and the status quo (which is why I thought his essay was relevant to the discussion at hand in this thread even while being a bit tangential). I guess hope springs eternal. And change is hard. It strikes me as a discussion about possible new routes for the Pony Express.
|
|
|
Post by wildfire2099 on Feb 19, 2020 8:15:58 GMT -5
...that's another arguement for trades... Ingram, I know for sure, allows returns for 10% of what you order at a full refund, and anything more has only a small restocking fee... I assume Baker and Taylor is similar. There's no reason a comic book store couldn't buy their trades there instead of Diamond. The store I used to work for only averaged around $1500-$2000 worth or purchases a month.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 19, 2020 14:05:13 GMT -5
...that's another arguement for trades... Ingram, I know for sure, allows returns for 10% of what you order at a full refund, and anything more has only a small restocking fee... I assume Baker and Taylor is similar. There's no reason a comic book store couldn't buy their trades there instead of Diamond. The store I used to work for only averaged around $1500-$2000 worth or purchases a month. Yes but here's the thing, there are things working against comic retailers doing that -extra distributors are extra work for retailers. Extra work placing order, extra work tracking invoices and making sure they are paid and extra cost in shipping. Most already have to do that with gaming products they carry, and are not looking to increase that as it takes away time form customer service, merchandising, etc. Then you have to track what is selling and what isn't, prepare returns, get them shipped (do they have to pay for shipping on returns too?) or adding labor costs to pay someone to do those tasks to make time to do the extra work. These are expenses small businesses on tight margins may not be able to handle and stay solvent. -splitting off trades form your Diamond order lowers the volume of your Diamond order potentially lowering your discount tier (based on volume of total order per month) potentially making all your other product cost more and lower your already tight margins, making your business overall less profitable. Is thast work being able to return unsold product or will the loss of profitability on other problems cost the business more then eating the price of unsold trade. And that is a big reason why comic shoops wouldn't order their trades at Ingram or Baker & Taylor instead of Diamond. These are the kinds of opportunity costs small business owners have to deal with day in and day out and it's not as simple as oh just add another account and get your stuff here instead. -M
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 19, 2020 14:14:15 GMT -5
Also, and this is purely anecdotal-when I Was helping out at a local shop 6-7 years ago, he tried getting some books and trades through Baker & Taylor but discontinued it because the trades actually cost him more through B&T than through Diamond (i.e. the discount was less because they were returnable) and he made less per trade and the lower margin was enough of a disincentive for him to cancel his B&T account and return to getting his trades through Diamond and just ordering more conservatively. Not sure if this was due to volume or if it is just standard across the board. The difference was usually in the neighborhood of $2 per trade on average (depending on MSRP) but that adds up week after week, month after month, especially when cash flow and liquid cash are major issues facing small businesses.
-M
|
|