Comic Books, R.I.P.?
Robert Schmidt
people. Confirming the point is a note about "Black Scorpion," a new TV
series on the Sci-Fi channel. From the LA Times, 2/20/01:
[Co-creator Roger Corman] insisted the show have broad commercial
appeal. Hence, the cool cars, chase scenes, special effects,
constant
action and tiny outfits.
"It's a little T&A, but only a little," said Bonnie Hammer, the
network's general manager. "It's meant to be comic book in style.
It's not meant to be a serious, profound experience."
The results of this poor image are painfully obvious. From the LA
Times, 3/25/01:
[Comics are] struggling with dwindling circulation and a host of
rivals: video games, the Internet, the World Wrestling Federation,
Harry Potter and every other competitor for the time and money of
young
people. Last year, comic book sales in the U.S. were in the
neighborhood of $375 million, down significantly from the boom days
of
the 1980s and early '90s, when the total peaked at $1 billion.
If the connection between juvenile storytelling and plummeting sales
isn't clear, another quote makes it crystal. From the LA Times,
3/30/01:
Ken Dychtwald--author of "Age Power: How the 21st Century Will Be
Ruled by the New Old" and head of Age Wave Inc., a research and
consulting firm--noted...that the youth market is shrinking as a
percentage of the overall population, "[so] any company trying to
grow
share against the youth market is making a very big mistake."
The upshot: Comics need to change or die. They need to grow up, as one
retailer put it--to portray the real world in all its political, social,
and cultural complexity. If they don't, they can kiss their dwindling
market share, perhaps their very existence, good-bye.
For more on the subject, go to
http://www.bluecorncomics.com/comicded.htm.
Kid Stuff, or...?
A reader's comment on my "Fill-in-the-Blank Heroes" message (ICI #54)
and some snappy responses:
Please remember that with a bank robber you have a clearly
recognizable
villain. Where is the recognizable evil doer to battle in poverty or
disease? Comics are above all a visual medium; if it doesn't show in
artwork it doesn't go in. Kids of any "race" or cultural background
(still the largest purchaser of comics) need to have a recognizable
bad
guy to hiss at.
1) WATCHMEN, SANDMAN, FROM HELL, LOVE AND ROCKETS, ASTRO CITY, CEREBUS,
BONE...many popular and acclaimed comics don't feature conventional
supervillains in spandex. Mature comics featuring conventional bad
guys--MAUS, DARK KNIGHT, Alan Moore's ABC line--also fare well.
2) That kids form the largest group of buyers is a myth. At least half
of today's buyers are adults 18 or older. They want comics geared for
them.
3) Again, comics need to change...or die.
Still Expanding
We welcome yet another Native expert to our advisory board: Firehair
Shining Spirit, aka Sheila Spencer Stover. Ms. Firehair, whose ancestry
is Delaware/Minisink Band/Turtle Clan, is a teacher and genealogist.
She also runs an e-mail list in which she shares her many opinions.
I've just posted the 500th page on the PEACE PARTY website. It's a
blurb from the Occidental College magazine--most appropriate since Oxy
(as we call it) is where my multicultural ideas took shape. Check it
out at http://www.bluecorncomics.com/oxy.htm.
Rob Schmidt
Blue Corn Comics
T. "Rufus" Frazier
>The upshot: Comics need to change or die. They need to grow up, as one
>retailer put it--to portray the real world in all its political, social,
>and cultural complexity.
If television can't portray the "real world" (and it can't), then it's
a non starter for comics to do this. Comics, like television, is
a "serial" medium, but comics don't have anywhere near the bandwidth
of TV.
> If they don't, they can kiss their dwindling
>market share, perhaps their very existence, good-bye.
Actually, if there's a market out there, comics will find it.
Comics represents the most diverse popular artform ever offered.
Sooner or later, one of the thousands of new or old books will catch
on with some demographic group or other. As other artists and
publishers jump on the bandwagon, a trend will be created.
T. "Rufus" Frazier
<robsc...@compuserve.com> wrote:
>Everyone knows comics are for kids
Oh, sorry. I didn't recognize you at first.
You're the guy who spams this NG pushing his
lefty comics all the time. Hoping the old hippies and
grey bearded revolutionaries will start buying comics again eh?
Have you tried the head shops?
Well, maybe you could open
soom head shops then. Its about time
for those black light posters to make a comeback.
GrapeApe
Comics SHOULD be for kids, or at least accessible to them, because that is when
they start reading.
Comics can be for adults, or any demographic segment you might want to name.
They just shouldn't be for one group at the exclusion of the other group.
It is a mistake ignoring the youth market, the female market, etc... one the
industry is paying the price for now.
Comics should be as diverse as the interests of the population at large, not
as diverse as the ex-fanboys writing and drawing them for people like
themselves. Ghettoization can come from within.
Justin Bacon
(GrapeApe) writes:
>Comics can be for adults, or any demographic segment you might want to name.
>They just shouldn't be for one group at the exclusion of the other group.
If by "comics" you mean "all comics", then yes. If you are saying "no
individual comic should do this", then I need to disagree.
Justin Bacon
tria...@aol.com
Kergillian
(mainly Marvel) they're bloody awful! None of the adventure that I remember reading as a kid
in the late seventies and early eighties; the long plot-lines with sub-plots that would run
through up to 25-30 issues at times. Always great new stories, excitement early every issue,
and the one greatest thing: even though most of the titles were oriented toards *both* kids
and older folk, they never read like the reader was brainless. These days, the kids oriented
books (by which I mean books like X-Force, most of the Spiderman books, Thunderbolts, and
even Gen13) read as though they're purposefully under-complicated, as though they have to be
simple or the kids won't be able to follow. And I think *that's* what drives the kids away
faster and farther.
Cheers!
-Ben =)
>
>
> The biggest mistake comicbook companies ever made was trying to woe
> the adult market and forcing the kids out. There is a huge cultural
> biias in North America against adults reading comics and there is
> little to change that. You can moan and groan all you want, but as
> with any other aging market, comics will regret the day they lost the
> younger reader.
>
> Comics just aren't "fun" anymore, and the last things kids need these
> days is more harsh reality in their reading material. And as H. Potter
> has proven, pure fantasy still sells.
>
> Comic Investor: Comic Collector and Investor Coverage of EBay Auctions, Back Issues, etc.
> http://www.comicinvestor.com
Johanna Draper Carlson
> There is a huge cultural
> biias in North America against adults reading comics and there is
> little to change that.
Except for the New York Times plugging Jimmy Corrigan and Time magazine
printing original Joe Sacco strips and all the publicity for books like
David Boring and the like.
> Comics just aren't "fun" anymore,
I read plenty of fun comics: Akiko, Electric Girl, Scary Godmother... in
fact, the problem I had writing my latest Previews review was not overusing
that word.
Johanna Draper Carlson joh...@comicsworthreading.com
Reviews of Comics Worth Reading -- http://www.comicsworthreading.com
Newly updated: April Previews, Blue Monday, Sleeping Dragons, Witch
Johanna Draper Carlson
> if you've looked at or read any of the recent kids-oriented comics
> (mainly Marvel) they're bloody awful!
Superman Adventures and Batman Adventures are quite good.
Spider-Girl is a lot of fun (although I might not call it kid-oriented, it's
ok for kids).
There are a lot of indy titles that are fabulous and all ages.
> These days, the kids oriented
> books (by which I mean books like X-Force, most of the Spiderman books,
> Thunderbolts, and even Gen13)
Some of your choices are a bit odd. You think Gen13 is for kids? With all
that cheesecake?
> read as though they're purposefully under-complicated
Funny, the number one complaint I see about Thunderbolts is that it's too
complicated.
Arbane the Terrible
<vi...@comicinvestor.com-nospam> wrote:
>I was referring to the industry as a whole with that comment.
>Personally if I see "everything you knew about character XXX is false"
>one more time I going to barf. :>
Just because senscent superhero sagas need to be put to sleep like the
sick old mules they are is no reason to assume that the 'comic book'
medium is doomed. (It probably _IS_, but that's not why.)
"If a thing is worth doing, it's worth doing badly."
-- Lynne Grosvendor (www.lightspeedpress.com)
John Savard
>The upshot: Comics need to change or die. They need to grow up, as one
>retailer put it--to portray the real world in all its political, social,
>and cultural complexity. If they don't, they can kiss their dwindling
>market share, perhaps their very existence, good-bye.
I dunno. Maybe if they went back to being for kids, they would sell
more copies than if they tried to become an adult medium for aging
baby boomers...
although I think things would improve if they went in either direction
from what they are now.
John Savard
http://home.ecn.ab.ca/~jsavard/crypto.htm
richard
> Vince at vi...@comicinvestor.com-nospam wrote:
>
> > There is a huge cultural
> > biias in North America against adults reading comics and there is
> > little to change that.
>
> Except for the New York Times plugging Jimmy Corrigan and Time magazine
> printing original Joe Sacco strips and all the publicity for books like
> David Boring and the like.
>
I've noticed that you seem to have a habit of citing isolated counter
examples
as if they were proof of a general trend. When books like the recent Jimmy
Corrigan
hardcover start making it onto the best seller list then you'd have the basis
for a real case. As it stands now, those recent NY Times and Time articles
represent just momentary blips on the cultural radar screen. In that
NY Times article, one of the things that they mentioned was that the
circulation
for Jimmy Corrigan was something like 20,000 copies. Numbers like
that really go to show how close to being totally insignificant "adult"
comics
are in today's mainstream popular culture.
Richard
Johanna Draper Carlson
> I've noticed that you seem to have a habit of citing isolated counter
> examples as if they were proof of a general trend.
I've noticed that some people don't like concrete counter-examples to their
unsupported general statements. :)
If you want to tell me that comics aren't accepted by adults, then you'd
better be able to explain why places like the New York Times are covering
them favorably for adults, or why (for another example) Entertainment Weekly
covers comics regularly in their book reviews section.
Personally, I'm very optimistic because of events like these. True, it's no
longer possible to enjoy wallowing in cynicism and negativity, but hey,
haven't we all done that long enough by now?
> When books like the recent Jimmy Corrigan
> hardcover start making it onto the best seller list then you'd have the basis
> for a real case.
Due to repeat printings, Jimmy Corrigan has multiple tens of thousands of
copies in print. That's a pretty impressive record.
> circulation for Jimmy Corrigan was something like 20,000 copies.
Is that per issue? With, what, 10 issues kept in print, that's a pretty
impressive number, especially since many "real" books don't sell that well.
Johanna Draper Carlson
> comic content or strips within the confines of a magazine or
> newspaper are all fine and dandy, it is the actual comic book that has
> the cultural bias.
I disagree, since many of the examples I gave were positive coverage of
comic books in venues that could be considered "cultural gatekeepers."
Seems to me that this has really been a great year for positive comic press.
>>> Comics just aren't "fun" anymore,
>>
>> I read plenty of fun comics: Akiko, Electric Girl, Scary Godmother... in
>> fact, the problem I had writing my latest Previews review was not overusing
>> that word.
>
> I was referring to the industry as a whole with that comment.
So was I. There are a lot of great fun comics in the industry, when
considered as a whole.
> Personally if I see "everything you knew about character XXX is false"
> one more time I going to barf. :>
Then quit reading corporate assembly line comics. :)
PMthruROTJ
> retailer put it--to portray the real world in all its political, social,
> and cultural complexity. If they don't, they can kiss their dwindling
> market share, perhaps their very existence, good-bye.
>
I think comics did grow up, many of the titles out there are mature
titles. The problem is, that these titles are not what the public percieves
as comic books. Most poeple think of spandex clad warriors battling
ridiculous villains. Comics have grown up, but that side is not portrayed to
the public. No side is portrayed to the public. Reading comics has to start
when kids are young, and this will only work if they have access to comics,
in drugstores and supermarkets. Kids are not going to go into comic
specialty stores, until they have become fans.
The big publishers have to get some of their more original books
out, like Sandman, or Transmetropolitan, to adults, to show them that comics
are more than superheros. And the little publishers have to get their best
work, like Maus, out as well. I'm sure that when the movie of Road to
Peridition is released, no one will think of it as a comic book movie. The
meduim has shown it can do more than the superhero to its fans, now it needs
to show it to non-fans.
Patrick
Kergillian
Johanna Draper Carlson wrote:
> > These days, the kids oriented
> > books (by which I mean books like X-Force, most of the Spiderman books,
> > Thunderbolts, and even Gen13)
>
> Some of your choices are a bit odd. You think Gen13 is for kids? With all
> that cheesecake?
>
Granted there's plenty of that, but the level of writing is obviously aimed at
the more juvenile, in body as well as mind;) Especially the last 20-30
issues...(or, at least those that i've read interspersed among the last 20-30
issues...)
Cheers!
-Ben =)
Carl Henderson
>>Due to repeat printings, Jimmy Corrigan has multiple tens of thousands of
>>copies in print. That's a pretty impressive record.
>Yeah, I bet Stephen King and Michael Crichton are shaking in their
>boots. :>
Stephen King and Michael Crichton are unusual cases. The majority of books
don't sell much better than 20K or so.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl Henderson rec.arts.comics/rec.arts.comics.misc FAQ
carl.he...@airmail.net http://www.enteract.com/~katew/faqs/miscfaq.htm
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew High
>>copies in print. That's a pretty impressive record.
>Yeah, I bet Stephen King and Michael Crichton are shaking in their
>boots. :>
Stephen King and Michael Crichton are unusual cases. The majority of books
don't sell much better than 20K or so.
>>
My memory might be off, but I believe with its latest printing, the Jimmy
Corrigan Hardcover now has 100,000 copies in print. (At one point in the past
couple of months, someone from Fantagraphics posted the exact figure at the FBI
website...) So, it just a few short months, Jimmy Corrigan joins the likes of
Bone TPB vol 1 and Strangers in Paradise TPB vol 1 to sell over 100K copies.
And Carl is correct - King and Crichton are anomalous examples -- for
comparison, it would be like using a "Rolling Stones" or "Metallica" CD-sales
to represent the average sales of an average CD. Most "text" books sell in
the 5K/10K/20K/30K range.
PS I'm not sure if anyone here has mentioned that Michael Chabon's book "The
Amazing Adventures of Kavalier and Clay" won a Pulitzer earlier this week.
----------
"Matt! Come into the light" "No! I like the darkness!"
Distributor/Retailer Liaison Radio Comix http://www.radiocomix.com
Promotion/Sales Cold Cut Distribution http://www.coldcut.com
Steve Lieber
<vi...@comicinvestor.com-nospam> wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Apr 2001 21:42:57 GMT, Johanna Draper Carlson
> <joh...@comicsworthreading.com> wrote:
>
> >Vince at vi...@comicinvestor.com-nospam wrote:
> >
> >> comic content or strips within the confines of a magazine or
> >> newspaper are all fine and dandy, it is the actual comic book that has
> >> the cultural bias.
> >
> >I disagree, since many of the examples I gave were positive coverage of
> >comic books in venues that could be considered "cultural gatekeepers."
>
> Sure, they can get all the positive press they want, but I don't see a
> big rush to comic stores by mainstream America. Good press for a niche
> item rarely translates into mass market acceptance.
The notion of "reading for pleasure" barely has mass-market acceptance.
Any novel outside the top twenty authors is a niche item. What matters
to people who love comics is that good work find an audience capable of
sustaining it. That's happening with a few of the best creators out
there today: Chris Ware, Joe Sacco, art spiegelman and Dan Clowes among
several others.
Steve Lieber
http://unrewarding.com/steve
The acclaimed graphic novel WHITEOUT, its Eisner-winning sequel and
more. Warren Ellis' MORNING DRAGONS is coming from Image.
My wife's novel EMPRESS OF THE WORLD is coming August 2001 from Viking.
Steve Lieber
wrote:
That 20,000 is the sales of Acme Novelty Library, the Fantagraphics
comic book. Jimmy Corrigan, the hardbound reprint book published by
Pantheon, had an inital print run of 25,000 copies that sold out
incredibly quickly. It's third printing is already in stores, and the
book has only been out for half a year.
Are publishers and adult readers ready to accept the notion of graphic
novels for adults? I don't know, but here are a some of those blips
about Jimmy Corrigan from places that don't usually cover comics:
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/04/04/arts/04WARE.html?0404inside
http://www.edmontonjournal.com/entertainment/stories/001228/5008878.html
http://europe.cnn.com/2000/books/news/10/03/chris.ware/
http://www.emazing.com/archives/book/2000-10-06
http://dailycardinal.com/issues/2000/10/20001024/20001024.art_corrigan.c
html
http://www.jamcaster.com/TimeCanada0009/18_time23.html
http://flakmag.com/books/corrigan.html
http://www.divus.cz/umelec/english/2000/U2/comics_E.html
http://slate.msn.com/SummaryJudgment/00-10-03/SummaryJudgment.asp
http://www.bookmagazine.com/issue12/inthemargins.shtml
http://www.sfbg.com/lit/oct00/
http://www.goodreports.net/jimwar.htm
http://www.metroactive.com/papers/metro/11.09.00/cover/ware-0045.html
http://www.mensjournal.com/agenda/0008/list_august.html
http://www.newtimesla.com/issues/2000-09-14/calendar2.html
http://www.auschron.com/issues/dispatch/2000-09-08/books_feature.html
http://www.dallasnews.com/entertainment/196828_critics_22art..html
http://www.bestofneworleans.com/special/imprint/001205/panel.html
http://www.netsurf.com/nsd/nsd.06.35.html
http://www.publishersweekly.com/articles/20001016_91770.asp
http://www.newyorkmag.com/page.cfm?page_id=3739
http://www.januarymagazine.com/artcult/corrigan.html
http://www.feedmag.com/templates/printer.php3?a_id=1296
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,53887,00.html
http://www.metropulse.com/dir_zine/dir_2001/1109/t_pulp.html
http://www.publicbroadcasting.net/wpln/arts/books/article/290.html
http://www.jhu.edu/~newslett/11-30-00/Arts/1.html
http://www.publicbroadcasting.net/wpln/arts/books/article/290.html
http://www.portlandmercury.com/2001-01-25/art.html
http://www.freetimes.com/issues/923/arts-word1.php3
http://www.aan.org/display_story.phtml?ARTICLE_ID=747
http://www.bookforum.net/home/silverblatt.html
http://www.varsity.utoronto.ca/archives/121/sept28/review/clowes.html
http://www.bookmagazine.com/issue14/jsullivan.shtml
http://www.riverdeep.net/riverdeep_today/news_2001/jan/011001_comics.htm
l
http://www.greatwest.ca/ffwd/Issues/2000/1207/book1.htm
http://www.laweekly.com/ink/01/06/books.shtml
http://www.captimes.com/opinion/books/reviews/2000/12/katchor_knipl_1222
00.html
http://www.pitch.com/issues/2000-01-13/art.html
Johanna Draper Carlson
> they can get all the positive press they want, but I don't see a
> big rush to comic stores by mainstream America.
Rory Root posted on Comicon that after the NYT coverage of Jimmy Corrigan,
he had 6 new customers in his store asking about just that book.
Certainly, that's only one example, but it's likely that it happened other
places as well.
Johanna Draper Carlson
> On Wed, 18 Apr 2001 21:42:47 GMT, Johanna Draper Carlson
> <joh...@comicsworthreading.com> wrote:
>
>>> I've noticed that you seem to have a habit of citing isolated counter
>>> examples as if they were proof of a general trend.
This is a misquote; I never said this. It was someone responding to me.
> Getting adults to read comics en masse is truly the impossible dream,
> especially if you interact with said adults on a regular basis.
You can't get them to read in mass numbers until you get a few of them to
read, and that's what I see happening. First steps.
Of course, if someone wanted to ignore that in order to keep repeating
"never happen," well, then, they'd have plenty of company in the comics
industry. :)
>> Due to repeat printings, Jimmy Corrigan has multiple tens of thousands of
>> copies in print. That's a pretty impressive record.
>
> Yeah, I bet Stephen King and Michael Crichton are shaking in their
> boots. :>
Of course not, but then, those aren't average writers by any means. On the
other hand, the Jimmy Corrigan numbers are better than a large number of
mid-list author sales.
Johanna Draper Carlson
> If someone quotes 100K sales for X-men, are
> we supposed to compare this to a niche paperback with little appeal in
> the market?
Are you really saying that Strangers in Paradise or Jimmy Corrigan have
little appeal?
> X-Men is THE top seller and it should be compared to the
> N'Synch's, King's and other top sellers from other genres.
Not necessarily. X-Men is the top seller when looking at monthly issues. But
many other media use total copies in print, and if that's used in comics,
then the top sellers include such books as Jimmy Corrigan that go through
multiple printings.
> If you're not doing Apples to Apples, then what's the use?
By comparing X-Men sales one month (with an issue that's then considered out
of date) to continuing sales of a trade paperback, then you're not comparing
apples to apples.
Plus, you're the one that started doing cross-media comparisons and then
moving the bar.
Doug Tonks
>On Thu, 19 Apr 2001 11:45:53 GMT, Johanna Draper Carlson
><joh...@comicsworthreading.com> wrote:
>
>>By comparing X-Men sales one month (with an issue that's then considered out
>>of date) to continuing sales of a trade paperback, then you're not comparing
>>apples to apples.
>
>Granted, so let's compare the top-selling graphic novel/TPB against
>the top selling paperback or CD, over the last quarter of retail
>activity. This is not an attack, but I'd really like to get an idea on
>the sales of Jimmy Corrigan and if its success has filtered over to
>other GN/TPBs.
OK, I'm willing to go out on a limb here and state the comics industry's dirty
little secret:
Comics don't sell as well as CDs.
Next question, please.
--Doug Tonks
_____
Teaching AIDS--a book for parents and teachers
AIDS Prevention Education
http://www.mtsu.edu/~hytonks/aidsbook.html
Kevin J. Maroney
>OK, I'm willing to go out on a limb here and state the comics industry's dirty
>little secret:
>Comics don't sell as well as CDs.
The average piece of recorded music in the USA sells something less
than 10K copies. Something like 95% of the total sales of all recorded
music come from around 1% of the released titles.
Which isn't a contradiction of your point--in the aggregate, more
pieces of recorded music sell in the US each year than comic books,
and the best selling CDs sell far more than the best selling comics.
--
Kevin J. Maroney | Unplugged Games | kmar...@ungames.com
"Love doesn't have a point. Love *is* the point."--Alan Moore
richard
> richard at ric...@nospam.edu wrote:
>
> > I've noticed that you seem to have a habit of citing isolated counter
> > examples as if they were proof of a general trend.
>
> I've noticed that some people don't like concrete counter-examples to their
> unsupported general statements. :)
You know, I'd be willing to bet that if we were talking about basketball
and I said "the Vancouver Grizzles are a lousy team" your immediate
response would be "but they won their last game!" as if that negated my
statement and the fact that they lost 59 out of 82 games. You do not seem
to appreciate the idea that one can make general statements that are not exercises
in binary logic.
>
>
> If you want to tell me that comics aren't accepted by adults, then you'd
> better be able to explain why places like the New York Times are covering
> them favorably for adults, or why (for another example) Entertainment Weekly
> covers comics regularly in their book reviews section.
And just how many times has the New York Times run stories about
adult comics in the last year? I'd be impressed if you could cite even one
more example. Now if comics weren't at least accepted by SOME adults,
I suppose we wouldn't be having this pleasant little discussion. However,
as far as the opinion of the majority of adults in North America, you're
going to have to do a lot better than doing a little name dropping to convince
me that Vince's position that "there is a huge cultural bias against adults
reading comics" is incorrect.
>
>
> . True, it's no
> longer possible to enjoy wallowing in cynicism and negativity, but hey,
> haven't we all done that long enough by now?
My, what a meaningful comment.
>
>
> > When books like the recent Jimmy Corrigan
> > hardcover start making it onto the best seller list then you'd have the basis
> > for a real case.
>
> Due to repeat printings, Jimmy Corrigan has multiple tens of thousands of
> copies in print. That's a pretty impressive record.
Wow, that's about the circulation of a newspaper in a medium sized North
American city. That might be "impressive" for comics perhaps, but selling
"tens of thousands" of books amongst a North American population base of
more than 300 million doesn't sound too hot to me. One thing I always
find interesting to look at is the sales ranking of books at Amazon.com.
Jimmy Corrigan is currently ranked number 1,328. Not very convincing
evidence of a mainstream breakthrough to me.
Richard
Dave Groening
> > These days, the kids oriented
> > books (by which I mean books like X-Force, most of the Spiderman books,
> > Thunderbolts, and even Gen13)
>
> Some of your choices are a bit odd. You think Gen13 is for kids? With all
> that cheesecake?
They really are odd choices. Thunderbolts, with its labyrinthine plots and
reliance on past continuity appeals to longtime readers especialy. Gen13 is
mostly tittilation aimed at the late-teenage crowd. The character Spider-Man may
have more appeal to kids than most other superheroes, but I'd hesitate to call
the comics themselves juvenile, especially those written by Jenkins. And the
narrative complexity of all these books is no lower than today's average comic.
Johanna Draper Carlson
> You do not seem to appreciate the idea that one can make general statements
> that are not exercises in binary logic.
In evaluating a general statement, I think it's useful to see if specific
examples match the statement. If too many of them don't, then that calls the
statement into question, as has happened here.
>> Due to repeat printings, Jimmy Corrigan has multiple tens of thousands of
>> copies in print. That's a pretty impressive record.
>
> Wow, that's about the circulation of a newspaper in a medium sized North
> American city.
Interesting example, since newspapers are having many of the problems comics
supposedly are: declining sales, not enough younger readers, increasing
costs.
Are there really newspapers with 100,000 circulation in medium-sized cities?
Johanna Draper Carlson
> the level of writing is obviously aimed at the more juvenile
Certainly, but I think kids and teenagers are two different audiences. I'd
agree that Gen 13 is aimed at teenagers.
Vince at vi...@comicinvestor.com-nospam wrote:
>I simply worry that with all the emphasis on "adult comics" we are
>ignoring a very real and necessary part of the future of comics.
Except we're not -- a number of publishers are bringing out all ages comics,
including Oni (Alison Dare, Jetcat) and Renaissance Press (Amelia Rules), to
match those already out there.
> I'd like to think so, but I never see a single TPB
>or GN at the bookstores I frequent
The Borders and Barnes & Nobles near me have both recently expanded their
selections, as well as featuring GNs on the "recently released" and "staff
picks" racks. I hear similar from other people. Maybe it's just your area?
KRothst402
>
>On 19 Apr 2001 03:25:27 GMT, matt...@aol.comPINKMEAT (Matthew High)
>wrote:
>
>>And Carl is correct - King and Crichton are anomalous examples -- for
>>comparison, it would be like using a "Rolling Stones" or "Metallica"
>CD-sales
>>to represent the average sales of an average CD. Most "text" books sell in
>>the 5K/10K/20K/30K range.
>
>But what does that prove? If someone quotes 100K sales for X-men, are
>we supposed to compare this to a niche paperback with little appeal in
>the market? X-Men is THE top seller and it should be compared to the
>N'Synch's, King's and other top sellers from other genres.
No it shouldn't. These other mediums do not judge certifiable hits by the
standards of the others. Sometimes even the same medium has different
definitions of what makes a hit.
In TV, "Survivor" is the king of the hill with something like 28 million
americans watching every week. But "Sopranos" is seen as just as big a hit
because it manages to garner high ratings despite only being available in a
fraction of the homes "Survivor" is. It was seen by far less people than The
Oscars when they were telecast head to head, but the winner of that battle was
deemed "The Sopranos" because it was watched by something like 2/3 of the homes
in which it was physically possible to watch it.
To go to films, "Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon" is seen as a blockbuster
because it earned over $100 million. But compared to "Titanic", that number is
a drop in the bucket (so to speak). Do we really need to judge every piece of
film, tv, book, magazine, song and comic by how it stacks up to "Titanic"?
Must every author garner Shakespeare like numbers before they are hits?
Lets look at how easy it is for people to stay home and watch "ER". It is
available in something like 98% of the homes in the United States. But a comic
like X-MEN is not. It is available in limited venues and thus is almost
physically unable to garner "ER" type numbers.
'NSync has their CD on sale in just about every city and town in the western
world. JIMMY CORRIGAN does not. Whlie it is true that JC theoretically can be
side by side with every new John Grisham release, it has no more chance of
getting Grisham like numbers than CNN has of getting "Friends" type viewer
levels. But CNN is still pretty mainstream, isn't it?
If you just want to say that NSync, Survivor, Titanic, Harry Potter, and X-Men
should all be judged as equals because they are all deemed as the top sales
forces of recent times in their respective mediums, then yes, you are correct
that X-MEN is not as popular as the others. But by that token, with only
7,000,000 CDs sold, NSync isn't popular because "Titanic" sold 100,000,000
tickets, and on any given week 30,000,000 people will watch "Survivor".
Doug Tonks
>dto...@aol.comics (Doug Tonks) wrote:
>>OK, I'm willing to go out on a limb here and state the comics industry's
>dirty
>>little secret:
>>Comics don't sell as well as CDs.
>
>The average piece of recorded music in the USA sells something less
>than 10K copies. Something like 95% of the total sales of all recorded
>music come from around 1% of the released titles.
>
>Which isn't a contradiction of your point--in the aggregate, more
>pieces of recorded music sell in the US each year than comic books,
>and the best selling CDs sell far more than the best selling comics.
My real point is that comics aren't as pervasive and socially accepted as music
on CDs, so there's nothing to be gained by comparing sales between the two.
Certainly there are some comics that sell far more than the majority of CDs,
but industry to industry, there's no comparison.
We've got to deal with expanding the comics industry on its own terms rather
than quarreling among ourselves and dismissing any ideas and efforts that won't
result in N*Sync or Stephen King numbers.
William Davis
<joh...@comicsworthreading.com> wrote:
>Are there really newspapers with 100,000 circulation in medium-sized cities?
Plenty.
Off the top of my head I can think of Greensboro, N.C., Newport News,
Va., Roanoke, Va., Columbia, S.C., and Bakersfield, Ca., all of which
meet or exceed the 100K mark. Basically, the average circulation for a
metropolitan daily takes in about a third of the population base of
its coverage area - namely its home city and surrounding counties. A
city of 150,000 people probably supports a 50,000 daily.
Thus, a paper like the Newport News paper can bring in more than
100,000 readers from everything from Alexandria to Newport News and
the neighboring Norfolk and Richmond papers can bring in more than
250,000 each by covering their regions.
Carl Henderson
>>Stephen King and Michael Crichton are unusual cases. The majority of books
>>don't sell much better than 20K or so.
>Sure, but with any media that are the "stars" whether you're talking
>about books, records or comics. It just happens that the top comic
>seller doesn't have the numbers to come close to the top in any other
>area.
I don't know if you are being deliberatly disingenious, or are just confused,
but the 20,000 figure was mentioned in relation to sales of ACME NOVELTY
LIBRARY (aka JIMMY CORRIGAN). Clearly a new Stephen King book outsells (by
orders of magnitude) the latest issue of UNCANNY X-MEN. So what? That's not
what I was talking about.
Doug Tonks
>Tat's a lot like what is happening with Jimmy Corrigan, which is not a
>comic in the basic sense, but more like an illustrated novelette. This
>may seem a slight difference to some, but Jimmy Corrigan is more
>mainstream (a la Asterix, TinTin) in format and art (IOW, look and
>feel, as opposed to content) than most of the "down and dirty" GNs you
>see.
Maybe I'm not so fast on the uptake, but I'm afraid you'll have to explain to
me the basic sense in which Jimmy Corrigan, Asterix, and Tintin aren't comics.
And what's a "down and dirty" GN? Do you just want to limit this conversation
to superheroes?
Pat ONeill
>Are there really newspapers with 100,000 circulation in medium-sized cities?
Sure there are. Philly Inquirer, in a city with around 3.5 million, has a
circulation in the 500,000 range, as I recall. NY Times, in a city of 8
million, is in the 900,000 range, last I looked.
It's not at all unlike that a city of 500,000 or so (which isn't really
medium-sized, since the average US city is in the 200,000 range statistically)
would have a paper with a circulation of 100,000 or less.
Best, Pat
Pat ONeill
>I don't know if you are being deliberatly disingenious, or are just confused,
>
>but the 20,000 figure was mentioned in relation to sales of ACME NOVELTY
>LIBRARY (aka JIMMY CORRIGAN). Clearly a new Stephen King book outsells (by
>orders of magnitude) the latest issue of UNCANNY X-MEN. So what? That's not
>what I was talking about.
I believe the point, one I've made myself in the past, is that the top-selling,
top-audience titles in the comics field are dwarfed by the top-selling,
top-audience projects in virtually every other entertainment medium--books, TV,
movies, music.
Yes, it's true that the average mid-list novel does no better than X-Men. But
X-Men isn't a mid-list comic book; it's our top-seller, month in and month out.
Best, Pat
Marc Fleury
>On 20 Apr 2001 06:01:52 GMT, dto...@aol.comics (Doug Tonks) wrote:
>>Maybe I'm not so fast on the uptake, but I'm afraid you'll have to explain to
>>me the basic sense in which Jimmy Corrigan, Asterix, and Tintin aren't comics.
>
>They are illustrated graphic novels, but are presented in a much more
>mainstream way visually and structurally to gain the largest possible
>audience. This is in no way a bad thing, but these kinds of books have
>long been a staple of the bookstore market.
I dunno... I think that the structure of Jimmy Corrigan is complicated
as hell, and it potentially very confusing to someone who isn't
familiar with comics. I even started a thread about that before
Christmas.
--
Marc.
Doug Tonks
>On 20 Apr 2001 05:06:32 GMT, dto...@aol.comics (Doug Tonks) wrote:
>
>>I'm not sure that anyone's provided any numbers, but DC insists that their
>TPB
>>sales continue to grow substantially. The fact that they continue to release
>>more and more new titles seems to support this.
>
>That brings up another good point, are TPB sales up on a "per-issue"
>basis or just higher sales due mostly to more and more product on the
>shelves?
Without specific sales figures from at least a couple of years, that's
something we can't know. But I'm not sure it matters. Either way presents
evidence that there's a market waiting to be served. If it turns out that
there's only the same two guys buying everything, it just means that it's a
limited market which is far wealthier than anyone expected.
>>What bookstores do you frequent? The stores I visit have varying amounts of
>>comics-related books, but I can't think of any bookstore that carries none
>>at all.
>
>You may be right, and it can probably be better stated as "the
>bookstores I frequent do not have a single GN or TPB in plain view or
>on prominent displays or shelves".
You're changing the argument. Would you be happy with anything less than
bookstore employees thrusting comics-format material at you when you walk in
the door? These books are available in bookstores, and they're more widely
available than they were ten years ago. We're on an upward curve, even we
haven't reached the hoped-for top of it yet.
Doug Tonks
>On 20 Apr 2001 06:01:52 GMT, dto...@aol.comics (Doug Tonks) wrote:
>
>>Maybe I'm not so fast on the uptake, but I'm afraid you'll have to explain
>to
>>me the basic sense in which Jimmy Corrigan, Asterix, and Tintin aren't
>comics.
>
>They are illustrated graphic novels, but are presented in a much more
>mainstream way visually and structurally to gain the largest possible
>audience.
And that prevents them from being good examples of what we're discussing how?
I'm still not sure what you're talking about, and I'm even more mystified about
what "non-mainstream" material you're comparing them to.
>This is in no way a bad thing, but these kinds of books have
>long been a staple of the bookstore market.
Example, please? Asterix and Tintin have large European followings, but they're
not terribly well known in the US. Which titles or series have been bookstore
staples?
>And there are many areas of Graphic Novels that are hugely successful,
>such as the Archie digests. They have anormous sales numbers, far in
>excess of other comics, but these reflect a segment of the market and
>the success Archie has had with the mainstream distribution and
>display.
Why do you consider these Graphic Novels? They're periodicals. Do you likewise
consider Reader's Digest a regular book?
>My point wasn't that these are all not illustrated comics in a sense,
>but that pointing to Jimmy Corrigan's success probably won't mean a
>hill of beans for the success of the next "adult" GN.
We can't really know without massive research. But I'd be willing to bet that
Maus, particularly with the various awards its won over the years, has had some
effect in paving the way for the mainstream acceptance of Jimmy Corrigan and
other more recent graphic novels.
Doug Tonks
But so what? Yes, the comics market is smaller than other media--no one
disputes that. What other point are you trying to make?
Doug Tonks
According to your numbers, The Inquirer reaches less than 15% of Philadelphia's
residents and the NY Times reaches 11% of New York residents. How does this
mean that a paper in a city of 500,000 would reach 20%?
Duggy (Paul A Duggan)
> Yes, it's true that the average mid-list novel does no better than X-Men. But
> X-Men isn't a mid-list comic book; it's our top-seller, month in and month out.
Yes, and I bet they sell more cans of Coca-cola each day than they sell
break cables.
The point is: who cares how comics sell compared to other media. The
important factor is can the industry support itself.
---
- Dug.
---
The E-mail of the species is more deadly than the mail.
---
Clay Peterson
> >They are illustrated graphic novels, but are presented in a much more
> >mainstream way visually and structurally to gain the largest possible
> >audience. This is in no way a bad thing, but these kinds of books have
> >long been a staple of the bookstore market.
>
>
> I dunno... I think that the structure of Jimmy Corrigan is complicated
> as hell, and it potentially very confusing to someone who isn't
> familiar with comics. I even started a thread about that before
> Christmas.
That's why you've gotta take the quiz on the inside cover.
Clay, who hadn't read Jimmy Corrigan before Christmas, and avoided the
thread
----------
"He really does seek information. He's very curious, and so he asked a lot
of questions. He asked some detailed questions. Several times he asked,
`Do the members of the crew have Bibles?' `Why don't they have Bibles?'
`Can we get them Bibles?' `Would they like Bibles?'"
-- Bush brain Karen Hughes, on Smirk's involvement in the China 'crisis'
Kevin J. Maroney
>I believe the point, one I've made myself in the past, is that the top-selling,
>top-audience titles in the comics field are dwarfed by the top-selling,
>top-audience projects in virtually every other entertainment medium--books, TV,
>movies, music.
>
>Yes, it's true that the average mid-list novel does no better than X-Men. But
>X-Men isn't a mid-list comic book; it's our top-seller, month in and month out.
A novel which sold as many copies in a year as _X-Men_ does in a month
would be a *major* success. Not NY _Times_'s #1 Bestseller, but a
*major* success.
Most novels don't sell as many copies as the worst-selling Marvel
titles.
Animeg3282
>That's a given, but has this positive PR translated into higher sales
>across the board? I'd like to think so, but I never see a single TPB
>or GN at the bookstores I frequent and still have to hit the comic
>shop when I feel the need.
In Memphis, bookstores I go to(stand alones like Barnes and Nobles and Borders
not mall shops) have a small selection(bigger at Borders than Barnes and
Nobles) of GNs of both American comics and manga. An interesting note is that
the anime store in Memphis(which features many manga of both adult and non
adult varities has moved to a larger location, but the comic one(a bit too
messy for my taste) hasn't.
Hana no Kaitou
http://members.fortunecity.com/animeg3282 <---Fancy Lala Club!
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fancy_lala <--and a mailing list too. Hey, there
are worse uses for a .sig.
KRothst402
>
>On 19 Apr 2001 23:54:28 GMT, kroth...@aol.com (KRothst402) wrote:
>
>>that X-MEN is not as popular as the others. But by that token, with only
>>7,000,000 CDs sold, NSync isn't popular because "Titanic" sold 100,000,000
>>tickets, and on any given week 30,000,000 people will watch "Survivor".
>
>Just remember that you're the one who brought the whacky TV/movie
>comparisons in, and not me.
>
>I was comparing them to similar pop culture items such as novels and
>CDs, not to how many couch potatoes click on The Sopranos.
But comics are not similar to NSync. NSync is on sale and easy to find.
Comics are not. But what X-MEN can say is that where it is sold it sells well
in comparison to everything else sold in the same place. The fact that there
are more John Grisham readers than JIMMY CORRIGAN readers does not diminish the
notion that for the type of product it is, JC sells well.
GrapeApe
>bookstores I frequent do not have a single GN or TPB in plain view or
>on prominent displays or shelves
I saw this with the Jimmy Corrigan hardback. In fact, I would not have known it
was out if it were not for the placement in the Book store. My comic store did
not have it.
GrapeApe
>
>Comics are not. But what X-MEN can say is that where it is sold it sells
>well
>in comparison to everything else sold in the same place.
While we are in apples and oranges mode, how many units did the X-Men movie
sell?
GrapeApe
>and end. They have word ballons and thought balloons. They are
>presented exactly the same as most other comics. They are comics.
But they are books, and not periodicals. They are reprinted to stay in print
more or less indefinately over the years.
Kergillian
band puts out a CD, sells a million+ copies, never sells another album again. Or,
a top act might sell a few million once every three or four years (which doesn't
include a top pop act who will inevitably die out after 2-3 albums tops, whereas
a top comic like X-Men has *way* more longevity)
Is the approx 1.2 million copies a year, year in and out, multiple printings and
collected tpbs not even included of X-men not comparable to The Offspring or U2
selling 5 million every four years??
Cheers!
-Ben =)
Doug Tonks wrote:
>
>
> OK, I'm willing to go out on a limb here and state the comics industry's dirty
> little secret:
>
> Comics don't sell as well as CDs.
>
> Next question, please.
>
> --Doug Tonks
> _____
Kergillian
Vince wrote: And yes, with Jimmy Corrigan, TinTin and Asterix being promoted as
> Graphic Novels, I think the Disney books also qualitfy under this wide
> umbrella, as do Archie Digests under Trade Paper Backs.
>
> >Why do you consider these Graphic Novels? They're periodicals. Do you likewise
> >consider Reader's Digest a regular book?
>
> So why aren't Archie Digest categorized as Graphic Novels or at least
> Trade Paper Backs? Where do you draw the line?
>
Because books like Asterix, Tintin etc are self-contained stories in one (or once in awhile,
two) book(s), and other tpb's are collected, single and related storylines. Archie contains
a bunch of unrelated shorts of a page or two each that come out regularly in digest
editions, hence the name 'periodical'
Cheers!
-Ben =)
Kergillian
Vince wrote:
> On 20 Apr 2001 13:50:59 GMT, dto...@aol.comics (Doug Tonks) wrote:
>
> >According to your numbers, The Inquirer reaches less than 15% of Philadelphia's
> >residents and the NY Times reaches 11% of New York residents. How does this
> >mean that a paper in a city of 500,000 would reach 20%?
>
> There is far less competition in smaller markets, hence the ability of
> the papers to hit a larger percentage of the readers.
except that many in small markets read thebigger newspapers (peopl in RI are often more
likely to read the Boston Globe...perhaps the Times or Tribune...or even USA Today... than
their local smaller papers)
Cheers!
-Ben =)
Kergillian
Garjones wrote:
>
>
> No. Asterix and Tintin are 60-odd page comics with a start beginning
> and end. They have word ballons and thought balloons. They are
> presented exactly the same as most other comics. They are comics.
> There is no structural difference between Asterix and any Marvel
> graphic novel, they just get published by book publishers and not
> comic publishers but 100% unadulterated comics is what they are and
> they sell, sell, sell.
>
> Cheers Drive!
>
> Gareth
question (for curiosity's sake) what kind of translation factor do Marvel type
tpbs/gns have? because part of the reason Asterix/Tintin/Lucky Luke/Spirou etc all
sell so well is because of their availability in dozens of languages worldwide. Do
comic companies bother to translate comics? I know that many of them sell in Europe
(not counting England)...but surely only the *big* name books, no?
Cheers!
-Ben =)
Johanna Draper Carlson
So is Arkham Asylum. Does that mean it's not a comic?
Pat ONeill
>But so what? Yes, the comics market is smaller than other media--no one
>disputes that. What other point are you trying to make?
That it hasn't always been that way and that it doesn't have to be that way.
The top sellers in comics once matched in sales the top sellers in prose books,
with sales in the multiple hundreds of thousands.
They don't now. Why? I have my theories, which I have expounded ad infinitum in
this forum and others--the ghettoization of the medium through the DM as
(all-but) exclusive distribution channel being the primary one. Other parts of
the theory include the fan-turned-pro nature of virtually every creative and
editorial individual in the business now, so that instead of marketing toward
the general public we are marketing merely to ourseves...like making a
theatrical movie intended to be enjoyed only by your family and friends.
Best, Pat
Pat ONeill
>A novel which sold as many copies in a year as _X-Men_ does in a month
>would be a *major* success. Not NY _Times_'s #1 Bestseller, but a
>*major* success.
>
>Most novels don't sell as many copies as the worst-selling Marvel
>titles.
Yeah, but X-Men sells that 100,000 a month to (virtually) the same 100,000
people every month. The market for X-Men is 100,000 people.
A novel that sold 1,200,000 copies in a year would be selling them to 1,200,000
different people, not 12 copies to the same 100,000 people. The market for that
novel would be 1,200,000 people.
Best, Pat
Michael Lehmeier
>
>question (for curiosity's sake) what kind of translation factor do Marvel type
>tpbs/gns have? because part of the reason Asterix/Tintin/Lucky Luke/Spirou etc all
>sell so well is because of their availability in dozens of languages worldwide. Do
>comic companies bother to translate comics? I know that many of them sell in Europe
>(not counting England)...but surely only the *big* name books, no?
No, not necessarily only the big name books.
An example I often use is Lobo. It was a big success here in Germany and
that was probably a reason while it lasted so long at DC even though it
sold very poorly there.
Just how successful american low-sellers are here depends on many factors,
but they are certainly here:
Preacher, Transmet, Elfquest, Berlin, Stray Bullets, Faust, From Hell,
SiP, Bone, Spider-Girl and many others.
Presentation varies, from paperback format (From Hell), TinTin-like
album format (Elfquest) to american pamphlet format (Spider-Girl).
Some of these managed to survive (Elfquest, Bone, Transmet), others not
(Spider-Girl, SiP).
--
Lehmeier Michael
Kergillian
IIRC.
I buy and read a bunch of smaller name tpbs like Johnny tHM and Kabuki, how well do
those do in terms of sales? (I'm not up on the sales #s of non-major tpbs and gns)
Cheers!
-Ben =)
Garjones wrote:
> What is different is that there is more general acceptance of the
> graphic novel idea in Europe, rather than the serialised and collected
> model in the US. Apart from Arkham Asylum and The Killing Joke I can't
> think of many actual graphic novels that have come out and made a big
> sales impact in the USA. Watchmen, Maus, Ghost World, Sin City, From
> Hell etc, are collections. I'm sure I've missed out an obvious one or
> two and feel free to correct me.
>
> Cheers Drive!
>
> Gareth
Kevin J. Maroney
>Yeah, but X-Men sells that 100,000 a month to (virtually) the same 100,000
>people every month. The market for X-Men is 100,000 people.
So what, Pat? Did that have *anything* to do with what I said?
>A novel that sold 1,200,000 copies in a year would be selling them to 1,200,000
>different people, not 12 copies to the same 100,000 people. The market for that
>novel would be 1,200,000 people.
I said a novel which sells 100,000 copies in a year is a major
success. Where did you get the idea that I was talking about a novel
which sold 1.2 million copies in a year? Show me any words in my post
which refer to a novel which sells 1.2 million copies in a year. It
shouldn't be hard, given that you've chosen to respond to my post as
if I did.
Steven Rowe
writes:
>Archie contains
>a bunch of unrelated shorts of a page or two each that come out regularly in
>digest
>editions, hence the name 'periodical'
hmm, try from a page to six or longer (most 6).
I take it you've nver looked in one.
Steven Rowe
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------
Don't forget to Delete "Unspam" if you wish to e- mail me.
join the FelixTheCat list at www.egroups.com
.
Michael Alan Chary
--
Vote for Tom Galloway for Most Intelligent Poster in the Bizarro Squiddies!!!
"Since Auschwitz we know what man is capable of. And since Hiroshima we know
what is at stake." -Viktor Frankl, author, neurologist and psychiatrist,
Holocaust survivor (1905-1997)
Duggy (Paul A Duggan)
> > But they are books, and not periodicals. They are reprinted to stay in print
> > more or less indefinately over the years.
> So is Arkham Asylum. Does that mean it's not a comic?
Most of DC's backlist work like books rather than periodicals. DC has
claimed that the backlists are doing well.
Coincidence?
Duggy (Paul A Duggan)
> >From: dto...@aol.comics (Doug Tonks)
> >But so what? Yes, the comics market is smaller than other media--no one
> >disputes that. What other point are you trying to make?
> That it hasn't always been that way
Things change. Videos, Computer Games, etc have appeared since comics
started and eaten into it's market.
Comics are now the smallest share of the entertainment market? So? I
can't think of anything they should be beating.
> The top sellers in comics once matched in sales the top sellers in prose books,
> with sales in the multiple hundreds of thousands.
With no real competition. Now it has conmpetition from TV, computer
games, etc. The glory days are over, whining about them won't bring them
back.
> They don't now. Why? I have my theories, which I have expounded ad infinitum in
> this forum and others--the ghettoization of the medium through the DM as
> (all-but) exclusive distribution channel being the primary one. Other parts of
> the theory include the fan-turned-pro nature of virtually every creative and
> editorial individual in the business now, so that instead of marketing toward
> the general public we are marketing merely to ourseves...like making a
> theatrical movie intended to be enjoyed only by your family and friends.
Or it could be that there are "better" thing for people to spend their
money on.
If the fan-turned-pro thing was a problem then Buffy, Angel, The Simpsons,
Scream, anything by Kevin Smith and Quintin Tarrentino would fail,
because they are intended only to be enjoyed by the "family and
friends" of the makers. It's not a comic book phenomenon, it's
entertainment industry wide.
Yes the Direct Market is a bit of a problem... but the music industry and
computer game industry survives with Record/game shops & sales through
major retail outlets.
The traditional demographic has changed, and moved on to other
things. Radio big before television. Now it's different, no serials
etc. Not because it fought to hold what it couldn't, but because it
played to the strenghts that it still had.
Duggy (Paul A Duggan)
> Yeah, but X-Men sells that 100,000 a month to (virtually) the same 100,000
> people every month. The market for X-Men is 100,000 people.
> A novel that sold 1,200,000 copies in a year would be selling them to 1,200,000
> different people, not 12 copies to the same 100,000 people. The market for that
> novel would be 1,200,000 people.
And the following year X-Men would sell another 12 *issues* to the same
100000 people. That novel will probably not make another 1200000 sales
in it's second year.
If the author writes a second book then it's essentially the same 1200000
people buying it.
And books don't have the same merchandise connected to them that comics
do, and merchandising is important to the entertainment industry - most
bands make more money through T-shirt sales then they do from record
sales.
Kergillian
moons ago). And I remember them averaging 2-3 pages and being essentially the
exact same strip over and over again. Which is yet another reason why it could
never be considered a tpb or gn, because there's no growth, and no real story, and
certainly no continuity. Just a bunch of generic vignettes.
Cheers!
-Ben =)
W. Lee & T. Beatty
(formerly Batman and Robin Adventures), which I ink for DC. The French
edition is done in a hardcover album format with two issues per and is one
handsome-lookin' package. I think a similar format would work well here
'cause of the "more bang for your buck" principle. A hardcover book simple
FEELS like it has more value than a couple flimsy comic books. (Anybody have
any of these for sale or trade? I only have ONE volume.... contact me
directly, OK?)
The UK version of Batman Beyond (I inked the six issue mini which intoduced
the series) is a magazine (same formnat as the Nickelodeon mag published in
the US) -- and the oversized pages and slick paper again give it more
perceived value.
I don't have any figures to toss about -- but I supect DC has licensed a
great many foreign language editions of its titles... and if the ones I've
seen are any indication, format varies from country to country, book to
book -- from standard comic book format, to anthlogy magazine to
hardcover -- B&W to color -- in English or translated to other languages....
Terry
GrapeApe
>>> and end. They have word ballons and thought balloons. They are
>>> presented exactly the same as most other comics. They are comics.
>>
>> But they are books, and not periodicals. They are reprinted to stay in
>> more or less indefinately over the years.
>
>So is Arkham Asylum. Does that mean it's not a comic?
Nope but in the context of the discussion (missing in the quoted bit above)
that "book not periodical" distinction was important. There are different
production and distribution issues at stake naturally; they are apples and
oranges as far as business model.
GrapeApe
>many
>moons ago). And I remember them averaging 2-3 pages and being essentially
>the
>exact same strip over and over again. Which is yet another reason why it
>could
>never be considered a tpb or gn, because there's no growth, and no real
>story, and
>certainly no continuity. Just a bunch of generic vignettes.
And this is bad because....?
Steven Rowe
writes:
>actually, I used to read them voraciously (when I was in elementary school,
>many
>moons ago). And I remember them averaging 2-3 pages and being essentially the
>exact same strip over and over again
Your memory is wrong.
Go fuss at it. (Bad memory, behave!)
Because Archie digest consist mostly of 6 page stories with a fillers of 1 page
and occasionaly longer stories.
Your complaint of them of having no growth is true. And is why I basicaly
stopped reading superhero comics or watching most tv shows.. When we read or
watch most continuing characthers in comics or tv or books, and you see little
growth, just situations. And for many of us, we grow tired of that, after we
read or watch for awhile.
Animeg3282
>Your memory is wrong.
>Go fuss at it. (Bad memory, behave!)
>Because Archie digest consist mostly of 6 page stories with a fillers of 1
>page
>and occasionaly longer stories.
>
>Your complaint of them of having no growth is true. And is why I basicaly
>stopped reading superhero comics or watching most tv shows.. When we read or
>watch most continuing characthers in comics or tv or books, and you see
>little
>growth, just situations. And for many of us, we grow tired of that, after we
>read or watch for awhile.
>
Yes, there isn't much growth, but Archie seems to have almost changed over the
years. Newer strips are more topical and have more attention paid to the
clothing. Betty also emerages as the 'boyish' one..What I like best is the
semi-serious ones in which Archie and the gang get into some kind of situation
like volunteering in the back woods and trying to save a kid that had been
bitten by a dog, because they remind me of real stories. Archie would be good
if they had made it into a single coherent story...
Ojerasmus
>>> Asterix and Tintin are 60-odd page comics with a start beginning
>>>> and end. They have word ballons and thought balloons. They are
>>>> presented exactly the same as most other comics. They are comics.
>>>
The closest american term would actually be tpbs. They are collections of
material from periodicals kept in print via reprinting. The fact they were
first collected decades ago and the periodicals have long since disappeared
doesn't change their origins.
In the case of Tintin I'd also note that they aren't always stories with a
begining and end, in quite a few of the volumes subplots continue from one
volume to the next, again a hangover from the fact they were originally
serialised. (Of course series of books can continue subplots from one volume to
the next but the fact is that Tintin was written for periodicals)
Asterix volumes stand alone far better, because by the time they were created
the album format was more established and the creators worked towards
collection but they were still serialised (or at least the early volumes were)
Owen Erasmus
KRothst402
>Archie would be good
>if they had made it into a single coherent story...
I think ARCHIE is probably one of the most coherent comic ideas out there.
Their lack of serialization has allowed them to write their characters
consistently and without much revision. There are no retcons. Further, their
simple characterizations are rock solid and continuity over the years is high.
Reggie has been what he is all these years, Jughead will be the good natured
pal forever. Veronica will always be from a wealthy family and the simple set
up allows for hundreds of stories based on a few themes.
Animeg3282
>I think ARCHIE is probably one of the most coherent comic ideas out there.
>Their lack of serialization has allowed them to write their characters
>consistently and without much revision. There are no retcons. Further,
>their
>simple characterizations are rock solid and continuity over the years is
>high.
>Reggie has been what he is all these years, Jughead will be the good natured
>pal forever. Veronica will always be from a wealthy family and the simple
>set
>up allows for hundreds of stories based on a few themes.
>
>
Yea, but it gets old. Having the chracters always be the same- caught in an
endless adolescence isn't quite as good as having them change and grow. There's
a reason why most great literature(and comics) don't just have same chracters,
different stiuations, but the chracters never seem aware of another but the
present thing going on..
Kergillian
reasons, means it shouldn't quakify as a gn or tpb.
I don't particularly like them any more, but I did like them a lot when I was
younger. I also liked the Casper/Richie Rich/Hot Stuff ones...
Cheers!
-Ben =)
Kergillian
and ceased to become strips. I definitely liked a lot of the little bits of
continuity in Tintin from volum to volume, especially as you didn't *have* to read
them all to enjoy each one, but those little bits helped to make them more
interesting when you had read the previous ones.
Dick Tracy was much the same way. I have HC volumes where you can see a lot of
little twists and subplots from story to story, which also comes from being a
strip.
Cheers!
-Ben =)
Kergillian
this afternoon about how comics have lost a lot of the fun of continuing story.
While it's true that many comics never actually had it, I think that the original
Claremont run on Xmen is probably the best single comic run ever because it had
that growth. Characters hwho evolved, tons of subplots and side-stories, and the
plots continued for long runs of issues. The later X books in the late 80s early
90s tended to have the same sort of continuity, even from book to book (though not
as masterfully crafted).
That's why I used to love Wildstrom...where there was one universe with continuity
from book to book, where something in one book affected the others, and where
crossovers were often interesting, and there were also tons of guest appearancxes,
great subplots etc.
Comics now not only seem to disregard the past, but also have lost the continuity
and universal aspects...there are always simple and short plots, straightforward
and usually confined to one book. A four issue stroyline that has little or no
later impact isn't nearly as interesting as a bunch of related stroies for 30-40
issues with subplots and character growth.
There are a few comics that still have a taste of this, but they're few and far
between (WildCATS is the closest I can think of, and it's getting better and
better these days in terms of story, now that Casey is finally adding more
subplots and including a few panels each issue to charactes not in the spotlight))
Most have become, as you put it,
situational’ which does indeed become quickly boring. That's the problem I had
with Planetary and Authority, esp. Authority which seems to be basically the same
arc over and over again, with merely more destruction and more violence added in
for good measure each time.
Anyways, I'll stop ranting now;)
Cheers!
-Ben =)
KRothst402
>Krpthst said:
>
>>I think ARCHIE is probably one of the most coherent comic ideas out there.
>>Their lack of serialization has allowed them to write their characters
>>consistently and without much revision. There are no retcons. Further,
>>their
>>simple characterizations are rock solid and continuity over the years is
>>high.
>>Reggie has been what he is all these years, Jughead will be the good natured
>>pal forever. Veronica will always be from a wealthy family and the simple
>>set
>>up allows for hundreds of stories based on a few themes.
>>
>>
>
>Yea, but it gets old. Having the chracters always be the same- caught in an
>endless adolescence isn't quite as good as having them change and grow.
>There's
>a reason why most great literature(and comics) don't just have same
>chracters,
>different stiuations, but the chracters never seem aware of another but the
>present thing going on..
>
>
Well of course it gets old, but they assumed that once people got older they
would give up ARCHIE anyway. It didn't matter if you only read it for five
years.
I can't think of which great literature would be apporpriate to discuss as a
comparison to ARCHIE, but I will say I think Superman, and his basic set up, is
the stuff of "literature" with a capital L, and that is why he has endured for
so long. The monthly serialization and continuity has added not a lick to his
appeal.
I'd even go so far as to say the basic Superman shtick from the 30s-80s has
more in common with literature than anything since he went soap opera with
character growth.
Also, I am not sure which comics are "great comics" and which aren't, but I can
think of many great comics from the golden age that paid almost no attention to
characters growing and continuity. Their continuity was their sameness year
after year.
I've read a lot of Agatha Christie novels starring Hercule Poirot. Aside from
a couple, his first book and last specifically, I don't think he paid much
attention to reminiscing about prior books or even acknowledging he appeared in
any. Maybe a little here and there. It worked fine for Christie, and it
works fine for ARCHIE.
GrapeApe
>an
>endless adolescence isn't quite as good as having them change and grow.
>There's
>a reason why most great literature(and comics) don't just have same chracters,
>different stiuations, but the chracters never seem aware of another but
>the
>present thing going on..
So that s why you have Little Archie, and Caveman Archie, and Pureheart the
Powerful, and occasional stories where Archie and the gang are old and grey.
Doug Tonks
>On 20 Apr 2001 13:44:01 GMT, dto...@aol.comics (Doug Tonks) wrote:
>
>>And that prevents them from being good examples of what we're discussing
>how?
>>I'm still not sure what you're talking about, and I'm even more mystified
>about
>>what "non-mainstream" material you're comparing them to.
>
>If you can't tell the differences in presentation between Archie's
>Jokebook and Sin City, then I don't know what else to say.
I'm curious as to what you think the difference is. In terms of theme and
narrative complexity, of the two choices you give, I'd say Jimmy Corrigan is
more similar to Sin City. From other comments you've made in this thread, my
guess is you'd find it more similar to Archie's Jokebook. I'd just like you to
confirm that one way or the other rather than leaving me to my assumptions.
>>Example, please? Asterix and Tintin have large European followings, but
>they're
>>not terribly well known in the US. Which titles or series have been
>>bookstore staples?
>
>Take the Disney Graphic Novels for example, there isn't a bookstore in
>North America that doesn't have these in stock.
I'm still looking for specific examples. Disney hasn't made comics in years, so
I'm not sure what you mean by "The Disney Graphic Novels." Do you mean Barks
Duck books? I'm not sure anybody's currently got them on the market, but I
could be wrong. Do you mean children's books based on Disney characters that
combine prose and illustrations (which aren't comics, obviously)? Particular
titles and creators would be helpful.
>And yes, with Jimmy Corrigan, TinTin and Asterix being promoted as
>Graphic Novels, I think the Disney books also qualitfy under this wide
>umbrella, as do Archie Digests under Trade Paper Backs.
How are the Disney books (and from this comment I'm assuming you're talking
about prose children's books--again, correct me if I'm wrong) like Jimmy
Corrigan, Tintin, and Asterix? Do they use sequential art to tell the story? Is
each page separated into individual panels? Do they show dialogue through word
balloons?
>>Why do you consider these Graphic Novels? They're periodicals. Do you
>>likewise consider Reader's Digest a regular book?
>
>So why aren't Archie Digest categorized as Graphic Novels or at least
>Trade Paper Backs? Where do you draw the line?
If it's in magazine format and published periodically on a regular schedule, I
categorize it as a periodical. If it's published once in book format (either
hard or soft cover), I categorize it as a book. Graphic novels and trade
paperbacks are books. Archie Digests are periodicals. You never did answer my
question about Reader's Digest, which seems to me exactly like the Archie
Digests in publication format. Is that a book?
--Doug Tonks
_____
Teaching AIDS--a book for parents and teachers
AIDS Prevention Education
http://www.mtsu.edu/~hytonks/aidsbook.html
Duggy (Paul A Duggan)
> The UK version of Batman Beyond (I inked the six issue mini which intoduced
> the series) is a magazine (same formnat as the Nickelodeon mag published in
> the US) -- and the oversized pages and slick paper again give it more
> perceived value.
I was wondering about UK versions... it obviously isn't a language
thing... but I recall ads in 2000AD for a Superman and Batman Magazine
reprinting US comics... and The Preacher was reprinted in Judge Dredd: The
Megazine...
Australia used to do reprints but doesn't anymore...
Why is it so?
Johanna Draper Carlson
> I try and enjoy life, and don't waste time on useless things such as
> the ultra-anal definition of every single illustrated work ever
> printed in the history of mankind.
Ah, I see we're back to the way you acted over in rac.marvel.u. When people
point out inconsistencies in your discussion, you start moving the bar and
insulting them. Keep this up and people will start calling you Pat. :)
Johanna Draper Carlson joh...@comicsworthreading.com
Reviews of Comics Worth Reading -- http://www.comicsworthreading.com
Newly updated: Akiko, Xeno's Arrow, Murder Me Dead, Powerpuff Girls,
Static Shock, Review Capsules including JSA, Defenders, Spider-Man,
Catchup Capsules including Alison Dare, Batman: LDK, Spider-Girl
Ojerasmus
>tpb
>and ceased to become strips.
I know Asterix was, I dont know about Tintin.
I definitely liked a lot of the little bits of
>continuity in Tintin from volum to volume, especially as you didn't *have* to
>read
>them all to enjoy each one
I think the continuity in Tintin (and in many other Francophone albums) works
the way continuity used to work in American comics, it was nice to see a
newspaper showing that a villain had surivived his fall into a ravine or that a
supporting character was singing an opera on the radio but it didn't effect the
story one iota. It's just a way of building an organic world in the background
that only the hardened fans notice, its not the be all and end all.
Owen Erasmus
Doug Tonks
>On 23 Apr 2001 05:18:54 GMT, dto...@aol.comics (Doug Tonks) wrote:
>
>>How are the Disney books (and from this comment I'm assuming you're talking
>>about prose children's books--again, correct me if I'm wrong) like Jimmy
>>Corrigan, Tintin, and Asterix? Do they use sequential art to tell the story?
>>Is each page separated into individual panels? Do they show dialogue
>>through word balloons?
>
>You seem to be a person with an extremely narrow view on what does or
>does not make up a graphic novel or trade paper back.
I'll take that as a "no."
>I try and enjoy life,
Good luck to you on that.
bungeye5
S
(But what's this "Comic Investor" stuff? Funnybooks are for reading, not
speculating... right?)
+++++
in article 1f98etgpfvgng4f1s...@4ax.com, Vince at
vi...@comicinvestor.com-nospam wrote on 4/23/01 2:10 PM:
> On 23 Apr 2001 02:59:14 GMT, anime...@aol.compelsia (Animeg3282)
> wrote:
>
>> Yea, but it gets old. Having the chracters always be the same- caught in an
>> endless adolescence isn't quite as good as having them change and grow.
>
> But that is the secret to their success. Instead of relying on a
> constant, aging readership (like Marvel/DC/etc.) Archie has a
> readership that is consistently renewing itself with newer, younger
> readers. Because it stays true to the intrinsic character design which
> has proven quite popular, and understands the concept that (gasp) new
> readers will continue to buy the books, the Archie franchise will
> probably go on forever.
>
> It was the way all comics were, until certain editors started
> listening only to the hardcore fans and made their comics way too
> inbred and confusing to work in the mainstream. Archie and the Gang
> are essentially the same characters they always were, and only the
> situations and stories get updated to current times. If you want a
> constantly renewing readership and also maintain valuable licenses,
> that is the only way to go. If you want to create more adult comics,
> then start with new ideas and characters instead of ruining classic
> ones.
>
> After all, no 8-year old is sending letters to Archie asking the
> writers to retcon all of Archie's past and make him a booze-swilling
> criminal, turn Jughead into a clone, or to have Mr. Lodge lose his
> fortune, and force Veronica into prostituion to make ends meet.
>
> But that's the way it would be if Marvel/DC/etc. got ahold of the
> book, and started listening to 30-year old Archie fans who feel that
> "the book has lost its edge and should be updated". At that point the
> new Archie reader would be a thing of the past. The people running
> Archie obviously know their business and would never ruin an
> incredibly lucrative license that way, just to make some short term
> bucks.
>
>
> Comic Investor: Comic Collector and Investor Coverage of EBay Auctions, Back
> Issues, etc.
> http://www.comicinvestor.com
Omarichu
>>does not make up a graphic novel or trade paper back.
>
>I'll take that as a "no."
>
>>I try and enjoy life,
>
>Good luck to you on that.
Thanks for proving what a lifeless douchebag you are. Good luck with that.
__
"[No matter how busy he was], he'd always look up and acknowledge a passing co
work whore..." Closed captioning on a live news broadcast
Kergillian
school age. Because most readers are more demanding, they want something more intellectual
and more story based and will grow quickly tired of a mundane and generic book. On the other
hand, I think these books are great for the purpose they serve: harmless entertainment for
the young'uns, and therefore shouldn't be changed.
Cheers!
-Ben =)
Vince wrote:
> On 23 Apr 2001 02:59:14 GMT, anime...@aol.compelsia (Animeg3282)
> wrote:
>
> >Yea, but it gets old. Having the chracters always be the same- caught in an
> >endless adolescence isn't quite as good as having them change and grow.
>
Steve Lieber
wrote:
> And just how many times has the New York Times run stories about
> adult comics in the last year? I'd be impressed if you could cite even one
> more example.
For what it's worth, here are some that I'm aware of:
*Characters and the streets that are their stage. IN: New York Times,
April 2, 2000. pg. 13-14. (couldn't find a link, but it's listed as a
review of Ben Katchor's "The Beauty Supply District.")
http://www.sevenhillsbooks.com/home/review/sacco/nytimes.htm
http://archives.nytimes.com:80/plweb-cgi/fastweb?state_id=988108752&view
=book-rev&docrank=1&numhitsfound=124&query=comics&&docid=1513&docdb=book
rev-arch&dbname=bookrev-cur&dbname=bookrev-arch&numresults=10&operator=A
ND&TemplateName=doc.tmpl&setCookie=1 (This, I admit, is iffy- it's
about Little Lit- Art Spiegelman's collection of what he's called
"adult comics for kids.")
http://partners.nytimes.com/books/00/11/26/reviews/001126.26eggerst.html
That's 3 or 4. I hope that all concerned are, as promised, suitably
impressed. From watching the conversation, I expect that none of these
articles will mean a thing to people for whom the sole measure of a
work's success is how closely the size of its audience approaches that
of N'Sync or Tom Clancy. Funnybooks will ever be able to piss as far as
Ricky Martin.
But speaking as someone who loves comics and wants to see progressive
cartoonists continue to produce thoughtful, engaging work, the sort of
coverage cited above gives me some serious wood.
Steve Lieber
http://unrewarding.com/steve
The acclaimed graphic novel WHITEOUT, its Eisner-winning sequel and
more. Warren Ellis' MORNING DRAGONS is coming from Image.
My wife's novel EMPRESS OF THE WORLD is coming August 2001 from Viking.
Animeg3282
>True enough. But that's also why Archie will never appeal to most anyone
>beyond the primary
>school age. Because most readers are more demanding, they want something more
>intellectual
>and more story based and will grow quickly tired of a mundane and generic
>book. On the other
>hand, I think these books are great for the purpose they serve: harmless
>entertainment for
>the young'uns, and therefore shouldn't be changed.
>
Actually, some people read it because of nostalgia, too. However, for some
reason I don't think Betty and Veronica are going to be getting comics out to a
wider audience...
Doug Tonks
>The only reason many comic companies are worried about reaching a
>"wider audience" is because they have lost much of their audeince, and
>are in danger of going out of business totally.
>
>Archie and Co. have not made these mistakes, so do not need the
>mysterious "wider audience", and continue to have a large,
>contantly-renewing readership and remain a viable and profitable
>enterprise.
The Archie books never had a strong following in the direct market, so they
were forced to maintain themselves in more traditional and mainstream venues.
You'll still find them in grocery stores and drug stores, often the only comics
material available in such places. Now that the direct market is not doing so
well, other publishers sometimes wonder why they can't sell the same way. The
short answer is because they didn't maintain these markets through the years.
Archie was also willing to experiment with different formats to keep their
product stocked and in front of potential purchasers. If you're looking for an
Archie digest, you're not going to have to look for very long. Does anybody
have an idea of how Archie's current line breaks down between digests and
pamphlets? I'm sure it's too much to expect that any solid sales figures might
be available.
Johanna Draper Carlson
> I'm sure it's too much to expect that any solid sales figures might
> be available.
Anyone really curious can check the Statements of Ownership; Archie
publishes them yearly.
Johanna Draper Carlson joh...@comicsworthreading.com
Reviews of Comics Worth Reading -- http://www.comicsworthreading.com
Newly updated: Reviews of American Splendor, Deep Fried, Complex City
Plus Akiko, Xeno's Arrow, Murder Me Dead, Powerpuff Girls, Static
Shock, Review Capsules including JSA, Defenders, Spider-Man, Alison
Dare, Batman: Legends of the Dark Knight, Spider-Girl
Animeg3282
>
>The only reason many comic companies are worried about reaching a
>"wider audience" is because they have lost much of their audeince, and
>are in danger of going out of business totally.
>
>Archie and Co. have not made these mistakes, so do not need the
>mysterious "wider audience", and continue to have a large,
>contantly-renewing readership and remain a viable and profitable
>enterprise.
>
>IOW, the secret to not needing a wider audience to survive is not to
>lose your core market in the first place.
>
>
Maybe, but you can also make more money by having books for your core audience
and books for everyone else too. Like they could have SuperHero Clone 1-220000
and maybe some Maus types or Elfquest types or Shoujo types.
Doug Tonks
>Doug Tonks at dto...@aol.comics wrote:
>
>> I'm sure it's too much to expect that any solid sales figures might
>> be available.
>
>Anyone really curious can check the Statements of Ownership; Archie
>publishes them yearly.
These figures are discussed around here from time to time. Can anybody provide
a comparison of Archie pamphlets to Archie digests?
Duggy (Paul A Duggan)
> The only reason many comic companies are worried about reaching a
> "wider audience" is because they have lost much of their audeince, and
> are in danger of going out of business totally.
> Archie and Co. have not made these mistakes, so do not need the
> mysterious "wider audience", and continue to have a large,
> contantly-renewing readership and remain a viable and profitable
> enterprise.
DC Publishs... what 7 or 8 comics a month aimed a children, priced cheaply
(their only remaining $1.99 titles) and low on the direct charts.
The fact that they continue to do so suggests that they are having some
success in doing so, and haven't lost that "core audience"
Steven Rowe
>a comparison of Archie pamphlets to Archie digests?
last I checked like 1 to 3
Steven Rowe
bungeye5
(Paul A Duggan) at jc12...@jcu.edu.au wrote on 4/26/01 7:24 AM:
> The fact that they continue to do so suggests that they are having some
> success in doing so, and haven't lost that "core audience"
Sounds like hard science to me. I bet the Riverdale gang outsells Dexter.
DC (and Marvel for that matter) has no core audience except what Erik Larsen
recently referred to as 38-year-olds who live with their parents... ("The
biggest problem here is that you've been reading stories about guys fighting
crime in their underwear well past the time you should have stopped. The
industry as a whole is shooting itself in the foot trying to hang on to
every 38-year-old who lives with their parents and has computer access.
Once you caught on that Archie will never marry Betty or Veronica, you moved
on- and that's EXACTLY how it should be with superhero comics from Marvel
and DC.")
He's got a point...
Elayne Riggs
>>"The industry as a whole is shooting itself in the foot trying to hang on to
>>every 38-year-old who lives with their parents and has computer access.
>>Once you caught on that Archie will never marry Betty or Veronica, you moved
>>on- and that's EXACTLY how it should be with superhero comics from Marvel
>>and DC."
> If Eric Larsen actually said that, he's a darn sight smarter than I
> gave him credit for, and he has some guts to actually say it like it
> is.
> Comics have always been a self-rejuvenating market, until Marvel, DC
> and rest figured out that you could stick the adults with higher
> prices and make millions.
I don't think it's just that, Vince. I think the market was dictated in
large measure by the more fanatic readers themselves (many of whom went
on to work for the publishers as editors and freelancers), the ones who
*couldn't* seem to allow that mass-marketed corporate superhero comics
were assumed to appeal to a certain age group, and wanted to keep reading
stories that "grew with them" into adulthood-- thereby, ironically,
helping to shut out younger readers from having the same kinds of
experiences they'd had as kids.
> Unfortunately, being comic writers, they naturally forgot about the
> all-important Aging Factor and that human beings do not maintain
> reading habits for extended periods...
Well, I still enjoy rereading a bunch of stuff I liked as a kid, like the
Alice and Oz books, so that's not entirely true. I think it's more a
matter of finding enjoyable reading that's timeless to begin with.
- Elayne
Duggy (Paul A Duggan)
> >DC Publishs... what 7 or 8 comics a month aimed a children, priced cheaply
> >(their only remaining $1.99 titles) and low on the direct charts.
> >The fact that they continue to do so suggests that they are having some
> >success in doing so, and haven't lost that "core audience"
> Archie Digest have the highest sell-through and the most visibility
> oof any comic on retail store shelves.
I didn't deny that. I just said that DC has not turned it's back on that
audience, and clearly caters for it. I don't know who well they are
selling, but it's either well (to be able to afford the lower price) or DC
are actually deliberately lowering their price for that market.
Duggy (Paul A Duggan)
> in article Pine.OSF.4.21.010426...@marlin.jcu.edu.au, Duggy
> (Paul A Duggan) at jc12...@jcu.edu.au wrote on 4/26/01 7:24 AM:
>
> > The fact that they continue to do so suggests that they are having some
> > success in doing so, and haven't lost that "core audience"
>
> Sounds like hard science to me. I bet the Riverdale gang outsells Dexter.
I'm sure it does. That's not the point. DC doesnn't have to have the
best selling children's comics. The point is despite what people claim it
does have comics aimed at children that are non-continuity based, and I
assume stand-alone.
> DC (and Marvel for that matter) has no core audience except what Erik Larsen
> recently referred to as 38-year-olds who live with their parents...
And they're the core audience for Superman Adventures and Batman
Adventures?
Kergillian
digests have numbers that high...
-Ben =)
Vince wrote:
Archie Digest have the highest sell-through and the most visibility
> oof any comic on retail store shelves. At least part of that is due to
> them not orphaning the Mass Market in favour of greater
> Direct/Collector/Speculator dollars in the short-term.
Leaping Larry Jojo
Kergillian <kergi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3AE92078...@hotmail.com...
> so you say, but I'd really like to see some numbers. I have trouble
believeing Archie
> digests have numbers that high...
Remember when Archie digests were, like 165 pages and the double digests
were well over 200 pages long? Now doubles are 150 at most and the regulars
are barely 90.
Jojo
Doug Tonks
>so you say, but I'd really like to see some numbers. I have trouble
>believeing Archie
>digests have numbers that high...
>
>Vince wrote:
>
>Archie Digest have the highest sell-through and the most visibility
>
>> oof any comic on retail store shelves. At least part of that is due to
>> them not orphaning the Mass Market in favour of greater
>> Direct/Collector/Speculator dollars in the short-term.
What numbers do you want to see? "Sell-through" is not the same as "total
sales." Sell-through refers to the percentage of magazines in the store or
newsstand that are actually sold to a consumer. Those that aren't sold are
returned to the distributor and usually destroyed. High sell-through means that
most magazines are sold and few are returned. Low sell-through, obviously,
means the opposite, that most magazines are destroyed rather than sold. The
Archie Digests could have quite a high sell-through without selling huge
quantities.
This only applies to returnable magazines, obviously. Direct market comics
aren't returnable and so can't be compared directly. As far as the publishers
are concerned, each copy shipped is a sell-through, no matter how long they
might sit in the back-issue bin. Of course, the function of sell-through is to
figure out what percentage of copies are actually getting into customers'
hands, so the concept applies.
I wouldn't be surprised to find that the Archie Digests have a high
sell-through nor even that they're among the highest in comics. Of course,
without actual numbers, we can't know for sure.