Question on comics perception
Pradera
question about perception of comic books in USA in general.
The thing is, I've always perceived US as 'capital of comic books' and all,
and this comes as a sort of shocking paradox to me, but do I feel it right
that comics are treated in US with much less regard than in Europe (not to
mention Japan)? In places like France, Belgium or Poland, comic books have
their own place as genre of art, between literature, paintings and film.
<massive generalization follows> Not many people here share the idea that
they're 'for kids' or 'for youngsters'. New series are often reviewed in
'regular' literary magazines and newspapers. Sure, there are comics for
kids only, but that's rather a minority of stuff that gets printed.
And I'm not even mentioning Japan with their mangas, 'cuz they're weird' ;)
I thought it's the same, or even better, situation in US. But reading this
ng I learned that it is not so. That comic books are still regarded by
general public as kiddy stuff, nothing really serious.
Am I wrong in my impression? What's it really like?
--
Pradera
---
"Good morning! How is everyone? Its now 6am. Time for sleepy heads to wake
up! Heres the list of your dead friends in the order they died..."
-Battle Royale
Paul O'Brien
<pra...@pradera.prv.pl> writes
>The thing is, I've always perceived US as 'capital of comic books' and
>all, and this comes as a sort of shocking paradox to me, but do I feel
>it right that comics are treated in US with much less regard than in
>Europe (not to mention Japan)?
They're the capital of superhero comics, and probably of English
language comics.
But the best country in the world for comics, in commercial terms, has
got to be Japan. They actually READ the damn things there.
--
Paul O'Brien
THE X-AXIS - http://www.thexaxis.com
ARTICLE 10 - http://www.ninthart.com
NTL - even worse than I'd heard.
Brian Henderson
>I've been lurking and delurking here for a little while, and I have this
>question about perception of comic books in USA in general.
>The thing is, I've always perceived US as 'capital of comic books' and all,
>and this comes as a sort of shocking paradox to me, but do I feel it right
>that comics are treated in US with much less regard than in Europe (not to
>mention Japan)? In places like France, Belgium or Poland, comic books have
>their own place as genre of art, between literature, paintings and film.
><massive generalization follows> Not many people here share the idea that
>they're 'for kids' or 'for youngsters'. New series are often reviewed in
>'regular' literary magazines and newspapers. Sure, there are comics for
>kids only, but that's rather a minority of stuff that gets printed.
>And I'm not even mentioning Japan with their mangas, 'cuz they're weird' ;)
>I thought it's the same, or even better, situation in US. But reading this
>ng I learned that it is not so. That comic books are still regarded by
>general public as kiddy stuff, nothing really serious.
>Am I wrong in my impression? What's it really like?
Comics in the US are treated, at least by the non-comic buying adult
public, as entirely a kids medium. Compare this to Japan, for
instance, where comics are very widespread and read by virtually the
whole population, and are seen as a viable and accepted entertainment
form. People carry manga volumes and compilations EVERYWHERE and they
sell MILLIONS of copies weekly.
It's the kind of market that Marvel and DC would kill for, and that
most adult comic fans would love to see. The problem is, if you go
looking through Shonen Jump or just about any other weekly manga
compilation, very little of it would fly in the US. There's a lot of
violence, plenty of sex, plenty of profanity, even in things intended
for kids.
And you know what? It hasn't corrupted the youth of Japan. They have
far less crime, far fewer murders, far fewer rapes than the US, yet
almost everyone reads comics.
Hmmm...
Jeremy Henderson
<cep...@directvinternet.com> wrote:
>
>And you know what? It hasn't corrupted the youth of Japan. They have
>far less crime, far fewer murders, far fewer rapes than the US, yet
>almost everyone reads comics.
Dirty commie. :-)
Chuck, Tertiary Adjunct of Unimatrix 01
"Brian Henderson" <cep...@directvinternet.com> wrote in message
news:7rdosuk5plpfc7uql...@4ax.com...
But seriously, it is a shame that somehow this country has insisted that
comics are a medium for juvenilles and middle aged white guys with no
girlfriends. Maybe the recent film successes and the support of
semi-mainstream entertainers like Kevin Smith can help change that attitude.
Maybe a bag of money will fall out of the sky on my way to work tomorrow.
--
Chuck
"Anything that is too stupid to be spoken is sung. " - Voltaire
Prestorjon
>and this comes as a sort of shocking paradox to me, but do I feel it right
>that comics are treated in US with much less regard than in Europe (not to
>mention Japan)?
Pretty much. I can't speak for the state of the indsutry in other countries so
I can't do much by way of comparison (you're posting from Poland, right?). But
the general perception here in the US by comics fans and apparently by a lot of
proffesionals is that the indsutry is in trouble. Certainly sales are down
from what they had been a decade or more ago. I don't know if I can speak for
a the general public but it seems that most of them regard comics as being
something for kids or obsessive loser adults. Certainly comics like Maus that
take on serious subjects and are meant for adults aren't what most Americans
seem to think of when they think of comics. From what you say it looks like
comics get more exposure in the mainstream media in Europe than in the US.
About the only non-genre or industry specific publication that I've seen talk
about comics is Entertainment Weekly. They'll cover some prestige things like
Authority or a new trade of some kind. On the other hand we've had a recent
rash of hit adaptations of comics related material such as Spiderman, From
Hell, Road to Perdition, Smallville, Xmen, and Birds of Prey.
-----------------
He had been our Destroyer, the doer of things
We dreamed of doing but could not bring ourselves to do,
The fears of years, like a biting whip,
Had cut deep bloody grooves
Across our backs.
-Etheridge Knight
Curt
I saw the smiley face, of course, but thought I'd also post the
following info on Japan's political parties:
They include the Democratic Party of Japan, Japanese Communist
Party, Komei, Liberal Democratic Party, and the Liberal Party.
Party on!
--
Curt
http://www.curtjames.com/
Brian Henderson
Yeah, wouldn't want to confuse anyone with FACTS or anything. Might
confuse the whiners who think comics are for kids and talking about
the Thing's lizard is going to ruin the future.
Brian Henderson
Unimatrix 01" <so...@ubiteme.com> wrote:
>But seriously, it is a shame that somehow this country has insisted that
>comics are a medium for juvenilles and middle aged white guys with no
>girlfriends. Maybe the recent film successes and the support of
>semi-mainstream entertainers like Kevin Smith can help change that attitude.
It would be nice if these people who think comics are for kids would
actually stop the see-no-evil routine and actually JOIN REALITY
instead of huddling behind their biases and nostalgia.
Won't happen, I know, but it's worth wishing for.
Ronald J. Rickard Jr.
>question about perception of comic books in USA in general.
>The thing is, I've always perceived US as 'capital of comic books' and all,
>and this comes as a sort of shocking paradox to me, but do I feel it right
>that comics are treated in US with much less regard than in Europe (not to
>mention Japan)? In places like France, Belgium or Poland, comic books have
>their own place as genre of art, between literature, paintings and film.
><massive generalization follows> Not many people here share the idea that
>they're 'for kids' or 'for youngsters'. New series are often reviewed in
>'regular' literary magazines and newspapers. Sure, there are comics for
>kids only, but that's rather a minority of stuff that gets printed.
>And I'm not even mentioning Japan with their mangas, 'cuz they're weird' ;)
>I thought it's the same, or even better, situation in US. But reading this
>ng I learned that it is not so. That comic books are still regarded by
>general public as kiddy stuff, nothing really serious.
>Am I wrong in my impression? What's it really like?
>
There isn't much of a public impression of comics in the US, because very,
very few people read comics. The best selling comics in the US number just
over 100,000 copies. Think about that! That is so minute compared to the
number of people in the US, that comics are pretty irrelevant.
I'm guessing the general impression of comics, if they are thought about
at all, is they are for the social misfits. Article after article about
comics that have been printed in the US in the past 20 years have mentioned
how comics are not for kids, anyone who walks into a soft porn ... er, comic
shop can tell you comics are not for kids. I'm guessing the America public
knows they are not for kids by now (don't have other convince you otherwise)
what with the Batman movies, Blade movies, etc. I've also seen comic
articles that focus on the "collectibility" of comics. And "collecting"
things has become the US' favorite pasttime, but alas, comics are still
pretty irrelevant.
But I digress.
RJRJR
Ronald J. Rickard Jr.
>
>>I've been lurking and delurking here for a little while, and I have this
>>question about perception of comic books in USA in general.
>>The thing is, I've always perceived US as 'capital of comic books' and all,
>>and this comes as a sort of shocking paradox to me, but do I feel it right
>>that comics are treated in US with much less regard than in Europe (not to
>>mention Japan)? In places like France, Belgium or Poland, comic books have
>>their own place as genre of art, between literature, paintings and film.
>><massive generalization follows> Not many people here share the idea that
>>they're 'for kids' or 'for youngsters'. New series are often reviewed in
>>'regular' literary magazines and newspapers. Sure, there are comics for
>>kids only, but that's rather a minority of stuff that gets printed.
>>And I'm not even mentioning Japan with their mangas, 'cuz they're weird' ;)
>>I thought it's the same, or even better, situation in US. But reading this
>>ng I learned that it is not so. That comic books are still regarded by
>>general public as kiddy stuff, nothing really serious.
>>Am I wrong in my impression? What's it really like?
>
>Comics in the US are treated, at least by the non-comic buying adult
>public, as entirely a kids medium.
Why do you believe this? I'm curious, because anytime the mass media has
printed a comic story in the past 20-25 years, they mention that comics
are not for kids. And the controversy surrounding the Batman movies and
marketing to kids, the Blade movies, and other such comic movies would
suggest to me that most people understand comics are not for kids anymore.
That is, when they actually think about them. I'd argue this perception
doesn't exist, and hasn't existed for quite some time.
Let's face it, most people have similar impression's about porn that they
do about comics in the US. A fringe group of people would be interested
in that material, but not "normal" people.
RJRJR
Ronald J. Rickard Jr.
<so...@ubiteme.com> wrote:
>
I'd argue this latter statement, "comics are for middle aged white guys with
no girlfriends" is more prevalent than comics are for kids.
>Maybe the recent film successes and the support of
>semi-mainstream entertainers like Kevin Smith can help change that attitude.
I'd also argue it is because of people like Kevin Smith that comics are
regarded as such. His movies also appeal to the "middle aged white guys
with no girlfriends" in most peoples minds." Sad, but most likely true.
RJRJR
jay
(Ronald J. Rickard Jr.) wrote:
> There isn't much of a public impression of comics
> in the US, because very, very few people read
> comics. The best selling comics in the US number
> just over 100,000 copies. Think about that! That
> is so minute compared to the number of people in
> the US, that comics are pretty irrelevant.
Comics face the same problem in the U.S. as any
other literary medium--no one here reads anymore.
That, btw, is the eventual end of the United States
in the making.
Paul O'Brien
<curt_...@yahoo.com> writes
>
>I saw the smiley face, of course, but thought I'd also post the
>following info on Japan's political parties:
>
>They include the Democratic Party of Japan, Japanese Communist Party,
>Komei, Liberal Democratic Party, and the Liberal Party.
And they're virtually a one party state because the government is
invariably re-elected, as I recall. Not the healthiest democracy in the
world.
Paul O'Brien
Rickard Jr. <rj...@localhost.devel.redhat.com> writes
>
>Why do you believe this? I'm curious, because anytime the mass media
>has printed a comic story in the past 20-25 years, they mention that
>comics are not for kids.
And the reason they keep doing the "comics aren't for kids" angle is
because nobody believes it. That's why it's a story.
And still, nobody believes it. Which is why they keep doing it.
Johanna Draper Carlson
> Comics in the US are treated, at least by the non-comic buying adult
> public, as entirely a kids medium.
Not true. There were a number of non-offensive "some comics aren't for
kids" articles around several recent media properties like Ghost World,
From Hell, and Road to Perdition. (I saw that last one on the Today
show, and you can't get much more mainstream than that). Even the
recently discussed Sixty Minutes II piece on the Spider-Man movie talked
about Jimmy Corrigan and Maus with brief coverage on Chris Ware and Art
Spiegelman, respectively.
Additionally, mass market magazine Entertainment Weekly has fairly
regular (every month or two) comic reviews, in which they treat comics
like any other medium.
Do most adults think comics are for kids? Probably. But the message is
out there in such a way that you can no longer say that that's the only
coverage of the medium.
Not to mention that books like Jimmy Corrigan have sold in the multiple
tens of thousands in bookstores, and Doubleday just launched a new
graphic novel line.
> The problem is, if you go looking through Shonen Jump or just about
> any other weekly manga compilation, very little of it would fly in
> the US. There's a lot of violence, plenty of sex, plenty of
> profanity, even in things intended for kids.
Weird, then, that they're launching Shonen Jump over here shortly.
--
Johanna Draper Carlson
Reviews of Comics Worth Reading -- http://www.comicsworthreading.com
Newly updated: November Previews and many reviews!
Tue Sorensen
> The best selling comics in the US number just
> over 100,000 copies. Think about that!
I live in Denmark, population 5 million. Our weekly Donald Duck & Co.
comic sells 2-300,000 copies.
- Tue
James Moar
<pa...@esoterica.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <de4psukhftv28ce5n...@4ax.com>, Curt
> <curt_...@yahoo.com> writes
> >
> >I saw the smiley face, of course, but thought I'd also post the
> >following info on Japan's political parties:
> >
> >They include the Democratic Party of Japan, Japanese Communist Party,
> >Komei, Liberal Democratic Party, and the Liberal Party.
>
> And they're virtually a one party state because the government is
> invariably re-elected, as I recall. Not the healthiest democracy in the
> world.
They're also a right-wing party - closer to the classical definition of
"liberal" than the current US one.
Party names can be misleading sometimes. The UK's ones were pretty
accurate up to about 20 years ago, but the parties have moved from
their roots lately.
As for the US ones, you can't really call the Republicans
anti-democratic, or the Democrats anti-republic (okay, there are
probably exceptions).
--
James Moar, following up the post of someone who very probably knows
all this.
Curt
<pa...@esoterica.demon.co.uk> after I scribbled:
[snip]
>> >Japan's political parties:
>> >
>> >They include the Democra
>> And they're virtually a one party state because the government is
>> invariably re-elected, as I recall. Not the healthiest democracy in the
>> world.
>
>They're also a right-wing party - closer to the classical definition of
>"liberal" than the current US one.
>
>Party names can be misleading sometimes. The UK's ones were pretty
>accurate up to about 20 years ago, but the parties have moved from
>their roots lately.
>
>As for the US ones, you can't really call the Republicans
>anti-democratic, or the Democrats anti-republic (okay, there are
>probably exceptions).
>James Moar, following up the post of someone who very probably knows
>all this.
Speaking as someone who very probably does *not* know all this,
how do term limits and the "health" of the US government compare
to the current systems elsewhere? I know this has nothing to do
with comic books, perhaps, though I am thinking of the Watchmen
(oops, Marvel ng, let me change that to the current Captain
America run), just wondering if any of you believe that the US
currently gets the best results on their "physical".
--
Curt
http://www.curtjames.com/
GI Trekker
currently gets the best results on their "physical".>>
Well, now that the Republicans have control of both the White House and
Congress, I'm more optimistic.
However, on the whole, I'd say that while the US gets good marks on overall
foundational ideals, present day results courtesy of partisan politics and the
influence of a staggering range of short-sighted and inherently selfish
special-interest groups are somewhat lacking as such.
Ronald J. Rickard Jr.
wrote:
>In message <Rr4z9.471546$o.60...@news1.west.cox.net>, Ronald J.
>Rickard Jr. <rj...@localhost.devel.redhat.com> writes
>>
>>Why do you believe this? I'm curious, because anytime the mass media
>>has printed a comic story in the past 20-25 years, they mention that
>>comics are not for kids.
>
>And the reason they keep doing the "comics aren't for kids" angle is
>because nobody believes it. That's why it's a story.
>
>And still, nobody believes it. Which is why they keep doing it.
I think people believe it, and they just don't care. The majority of people
still would not read comics if you gave comics to them for free. Ditto for
paperbacks, magazines, etc.
Trust me, alot of people, if not most people, understand comics are not
for kids. They just don't care.
RJRJR
Ronald J. Rickard Jr.
These partisan politics and special interest groups have existed as long as
this country has existed. There are some very infamous partisan political
stories about this country's forefathers. Political short-sightedness is
nothing new in the good old US of A. I'd argue our current generation of
politicians have become even more civilized, accommodating, and cooperative.
Some of our forefathers had pistol fights to settle arguments. 8^) And this
country was founded because of special interest groups. 8^)
Nothing is any different now than 200 years ago with regards to the
selfishness of politicians. In fact, it is exactly this partisan fighting
that keeps this country from going into the toilet. The more they fight,
the less things change, and the better off we are. I begin to worry
when everyone agrees. 8^)
RJRJR
Marc-Oliver Frisch
: Brian Henderson <cep...@directvinternet.com> wrote:
:
: > Comics in the US are treated, at least by the non-comic buying adult
: > public, as entirely a kids medium.
:
: Not true. There were a number of non-offensive "some comics aren't for
: kids" articles around several recent media properties like Ghost World,
: From Hell, and Road to Perdition.
But articles basically saying "Hey, some comics aren't for kids!" seem to
suggest that the vast majority of folks out there assume the opposite, or don't
they?
: Do most adults think comics are for kids? Probably. But the message is
: out there in such a way that you can no longer say that that's the only
: coverage of the medium.
If you're interested in the medium at all, which a lot of people aren't. If the
average non-comic-buying citizen sees a headline saying "Hey, some comics aren't
for kids!", they'll probably think "Oh, great, they made a comic that isn't for
kids now." for a moment, move on, and forget about it entirely about five
seconds later.
Beyond making the folks who already read comics feel better about themselves, I
don't think that sort of sporadic coverage will achieve anything significant in
the long term.
--Marc
Pradera
>
>> Compare this to Japan, for
>> instance, where comics are very widespread and read by virtually the
>> whole population, and are seen as a viable and accepted entertainment
>> form. People carry manga volumes and compilations EVERYWHERE and they
>> sell MILLIONS of copies weekly.
>
> That is not true, japanese adults see comics the same way american do
> an adult japanese reading comics is considered a maniac.
> In japanese a maniac stand for a person that has an strong and unusual
> interest in something.
>
Not really. An 'otaku' (what you translate as maniac, I presume) is a lot
more than just a fan of something - the original japanese word describes
actually a really sick person with some serious disorders. Someone who
has no life beyond what he's maniacal about. No sane Japanese will want
to say about himself 'I'm otaku' (something I heard a lot from non-
japanese anime fans... luckily, they were almost always wrong).
'Japanese adult reading comic' is just a japanese adult reading comic.
It's like watching tv shows or reading a book. There are soap opera
mangas, thriller mangas, all sorts, for everyone. Not to mention erotics,
of course.
Johanna Draper Carlson
> Johanna Draper Carlson wrote:
> : Brian Henderson <cep...@directvinternet.com> wrote:
> :
> : > Comics in the US are treated, at least by the non-comic buying adult
> : > public, as entirely a kids medium.
> :
> : Not true. There were a number of non-offensive "some comics aren't for
> : kids" articles around several recent media properties like Ghost World,
> : From Hell, and Road to Perdition.
>
> But articles basically saying "Hey, some comics aren't for kids!" seem to
> suggest that the vast majority of folks out there assume the opposite, or
> don't they?
I prefer to look at the positive side. Now millions of people (based on
viewership and readership of the outlets I'm familiar with) are aware
that there are comics out there for adults. You can't call comics
"entirely a kids' medium" (or even perceived as such) with those kinds
of numbers.
> If the average non-comic-buying citizen sees a headline saying "Hey,
> some comics aren't for kids!", they'll probably think "Oh, great,
> they made a comic that isn't for kids now." for a moment, move on,
> and forget about it entirely about five seconds later.
If you think that people have attention spans of gnats, then I'm not
sure why we're even talking about public attitudes, since they wouldn't
matter at all. :)
> Beyond making the folks who already read comics feel better about
> themselves, I don't think that sort of sporadic coverage will achieve
> anything significant in the long term.
Part of my point was that the coverage right now is consistent enough to
no longer be called sporadic. That's why I brought up the EW example.
Brian Henderson
I really don't believe it. Heck, I'm not a kid and I read comics. It
was more a reference to the people in this newsgroup who are crying
that 'draining the lizard' in FF is somehow going to ruin America's
youth. I'd agree with you that comics are not, and perhaps never have
been just for kids, except in the minds of people stuck nostalgically
in the past.
>Let's face it, most people have similar impression's about porn that they
>do about comics in the US. A fringe group of people would be interested
>in that material, but not "normal" people.
I'm proud to be part of the fringe then. ;)
Brian Henderson
>That is not true, japanese adults see comics the same way american do
>an adult japanese reading comics is considered a maniac.
>In japanese a maniac stand for a person that has an strong and unusual
>interest in something.
>But japnese kids and teenagers do read tons of comics the same way europeans
>do.
Funny, wasn't that way last time I was there. Japanese adults were
carrying manga just about everywhere and were openly reading them on
the subways, etc.
>The price range is very different, manga are printed on toilette paper
>(just kidding), no color and few details due to the massive pages ammounts.
>They really are disposable comics, you read them and trow them.
That's true, they are recycled after reading and are printed on very
poor stock. Mostly, the lack of details are a result of having to
produce 10-20 pages of art and story weekly, which I doubt any US
artist could do and not lose just as much detail/
>You are right about that, but then look at who founded this country(usa).
What does that matter? This isn't the same country that was founded
225 years ago either.
Brian Henderson
<joh...@comicsworth.spamblock.reading.com> wrote:
> Brian Henderson <cep...@directvinternet.com> wrote:
>> The problem is, if you go looking through Shonen Jump or just about
>> any other weekly manga compilation, very little of it would fly in
>> the US. There's a lot of violence, plenty of sex, plenty of
>> profanity, even in things intended for kids.
>
>Weird, then, that they're launching Shonen Jump over here shortly.
From what I've seen, it's a rebuilt Shonen Jump that has specific
stories that will appeal to an American audience (in other words, a
lot of things that are on Cartoon Network right now).
Brian Henderson
<joh...@comicsworth.spamblock.reading.com> wrote:
>I prefer to look at the positive side. Now millions of people (based on
>viewership and readership of the outlets I'm familiar with) are aware
>that there are comics out there for adults. You can't call comics
>"entirely a kids' medium" (or even perceived as such) with those kinds
>of numbers.
I agree with you, but if these adult comics don't get more readers,
it's ultimately not going to do anything for the medium. I do think
that the majority of people in the US don't care about comics in the
least, wouldn't read them if they were handed a lifetime subscription
free and simply wouldn't get upset no matter what Marvel might put
into their comics.
>If you think that people have attention spans of gnats, then I'm not
>sure why we're even talking about public attitudes, since they wouldn't
>matter at all. :)
People do have the attention spans of gnats. It's that pesky
television thingy that's responsible! ;)
>Part of my point was that the coverage right now is consistent enough to
>no longer be called sporadic. That's why I brought up the EW example.
But how much attention does it get by your average person? Does your
average Joe on the street read EW? Do they look at the comic reviews?
Or is this just a space filler for the few who might actually read it?
I'd e a lot more impressed if the New York Times had comic reviews on
the front page. ;)
Marc-Oliver Frisch
: I prefer to look at the positive side. Now millions of people (based on
: viewership and readership of the outlets I'm familiar with) are aware
: that there are comics out there for adults. You can't call comics
: "entirely a kids' medium" (or even perceived as such) with those kinds
: of numbers.
I would not count on that kind of "awareness" based on the fact that millions of
people may have seen a show in which it was mentioned that there are comics
which aren'r for kids. People watch TV a lot, and people watch a lot of stuff
which doesn't really interest them. Are we really "aware" of everything we see
on TV at one point or other, let alone to the extent that it might change our
pre-existing views about the subject matter? I doubt it, frankly.
The popular "awareness" I've encountered so far from people who aren't into
science fiction or comics already is that a) comics are for kids, b) they
contain silly stories or c) that they are or kids and contain silly stories.
(That's a European perspective, mind you, but from what I hear and see, America
doesn't seem to be much different in that regard.)
: If you think that people have attention spans of gnats, then I'm not
: sure why we're even talking about public attitudes, since they wouldn't
: matter at all. :)
I firmly believe that people do have the attention spans of gnats when it comes
to things which don't particularly interest them, and a lot of people not being
interested in comics seems like a major problem the industry has been having for
a while now.
--Marc
Johanna Draper Carlson
> if these adult comics don't get more readers,
> it's ultimately not going to do anything for the medium.
Bookstores continue to expand their selections and shelf space. I don't
think those 50,000 or so copies of Jimmy Corrigan sold to kids.
> I do think that the majority of people in the US don't care about
> comics in the least, wouldn't read them if they were handed a
> lifetime subscription free and simply wouldn't get upset no matter
> what Marvel might put into their comics.
I think most US people don't even read, let alone read comics. But as I
said before, it's about looking at all the positive gains that have been
made among adult readers in the last few years.
And yeah, most of these gains have little to do with Marvel -- it's
mostly manga and non-superhero books making the real strides.
> >Part of my point was that the coverage right now is consistent enough to
> >no longer be called sporadic. That's why I brought up the EW example.
>
> But how much attention does it get by your average person?
I dunno. As soon as I asked someone, they wouldn't be average. :)
> I'd e a lot more impressed if the New York Times had comic reviews on
> the front page. ;)
The NYT doesn't even have a comics page. :)
Johanna Draper Carlson
> Johanna Draper Carlson wrote:
>
> : I prefer to look at the positive side. Now millions of people (based on
> : viewership and readership of the outlets I'm familiar with) are aware
> : that there are comics out there for adults. You can't call comics
> : "entirely a kids' medium" (or even perceived as such) with those kinds
> : of numbers.
>
> I would not count on that kind of "awareness" based on the fact that
> millions of people may have seen a show in which it was mentioned
> that there are comics which aren'r for kids.
The problem is that not we're just guessing. I provided evidence that
the story was out there.
If someone is convinced that they already know what people really
believe, then evidence isn't going to matter, because there's going to
be some way they can handwave or explain away, at least to their
satisfaction, anything I show them.
Marc-Oliver Frisch
: The problem is that not we're just guessing. I provided evidence that
: the story was out there.
I believe you that the story is out there, Johanna. However, I don't believe
that it is out there to such a degree that it significantly influences the
widespread regard of comics as a medium for kids and retards at this point.
If you went out on the street right now and asked the next guy what they have in
mind when they think of comic books, what do you think the odds would be that
they tell you about Superman and Spider-Man and Mickey Mouse? Do you think
there was a better chance that you'd hear about Sandman, the Minutemen or Jimmy
Corrigan?
--Marc
John and Angela Fontana
and consider myself a closet comic collector. I purchase about 35 comics per
month but don't discuss this hobby with my co-workers .... occasionally I
get a raised eyebrow when I accidentally provide, for example, comparisons
on the movie vs. comicbook Spiderman.... "I thumb through a few issues while
at the bookstore" usually provides an effective response to their
suspicions. I'm not embarrassed to be a collector but I prefer to leave
comic related discussions to this newsgroup and the comicbook store I
frequent.
"Pradera" <pra...@pradera.prv.pl> wrote in message
news:Xns92C0E28CF7032p...@130.133.1.4...
> I've been lurking and delurking here for a little while, and I have this
> question about perception of comic books in USA in general.
> The thing is, I've always perceived US as 'capital of comic books' and
all,
> and this comes as a sort of shocking paradox to me, but do I feel it right
> that comics are treated in US with much less regard than in Europe (not to
> mention Japan)? In places like France, Belgium or Poland, comic books have
> their own place as genre of art, between literature, paintings and film.
> <massive generalization follows> Not many people here share the idea that
> they're 'for kids' or 'for youngsters'. New series are often reviewed in
> 'regular' literary magazines and newspapers. Sure, there are comics for
> kids only, but that's rather a minority of stuff that gets printed.
> And I'm not even mentioning Japan with their mangas, 'cuz they're weird'
;)
> I thought it's the same, or even better, situation in US. But reading this
> ng I learned that it is not so. That comic books are still regarded by
> general public as kiddy stuff, nothing really serious.
> Am I wrong in my impression? What's it really like?
>
Brian Henderson
<joh...@comicsworth.spamblock.reading.com> wrote:
> Brian Henderson <cep...@directvinternet.com> wrote:
>> if these adult comics don't get more readers,
>> it's ultimately not going to do anything for the medium.
>
>Bookstores continue to expand their selections and shelf space. I don't
>think those 50,000 or so copies of Jimmy Corrigan sold to kids.
But did those 50,000 readers, or however many there were, go on to be
part of the fandom, or was it a one-shot? If a breakthrough title
doesn't attract permanent fans, it's not doing any good.
>> I do think that the majority of people in the US don't care about
>> comics in the least, wouldn't read them if they were handed a
>> lifetime subscription free and simply wouldn't get upset no matter
>> what Marvel might put into their comics.
>
>I think most US people don't even read, let alone read comics. But as I
>said before, it's about looking at all the positive gains that have been
>made among adult readers in the last few years.
There are a lot of people who read in the US, although I agree, it's
probably not the majority who do so recreationally. But if you look
at how many people read paperbacks, and then compare it to how many
read comics, the comic readers are still a tiny minority. Personally,
I'd like to see some truly breakthrough comics which would appeal to a
much larger audience. This would likely be a TPB of some sort and
should appeal to a mainstream audience. That pretty much does away
with superhero comics and most of the so-called adult stuff that's
being done.
>> I'd e a lot more impressed if the New York Times had comic reviews on
>> the front page. ;)
>
>The NYT doesn't even have a comics page. :)
See, there's something wrong with that to begin with! :)
Johanna Draper Carlson
> But did those 50,000 readers, or however many there were, go on to be
> part of the fandom, or was it a one-shot?
"Fandom" is more of a superhero comic concept. The question to be asked
is "how many of them picked up another graphic novel"? I dunno. I do
think there are more good possibilities out there for new readers now
than there were when Maus debuted years ago.
(Heh. The idea of a Jimmy Corrigan fandom. Weird.)
Anyway, the point is that you can no longer determine "comic readers" by
simply looking at those who visit the speciality stores.
Johanna Draper Carlson
> I don't believe that it is out there to such a degree that it
> significantly influences the widespread regard of comics as a medium
> for kids and retards at this point.
I disagree, based on the changes I've seen over the past few years. At
this point, though, it becomes anecdotal.
> If you went out on the street right now and asked the next guy what
> they have in mind when they think of comic books, what do you think
> the odds would be that they tell you about Superman and Spider-Man
> and Mickey Mouse? Do you think there was a better chance that you'd
> hear about Sandman, the Minutemen or Jimmy Corrigan?
Oh, if I used the term "comic books", yeah, I'd likely get a superhero
response. Part of the growing acceptance of the comic medium among
mainstream readers is the graphic novel format, getting away from the
preconception of pamphlets and their contents.
Marc-Oliver Frisch
: Oh, if I used the term "comic books", yeah, I'd likely get a superhero
: response. Part of the growing acceptance of the comic medium among
: mainstream readers is the graphic novel format, getting away from the
: preconception of pamphlets and their contents.
Sure, but my point is in regards to comic books as a medium, not to the
particular kind of comic books referred to as "graphic novels". The term
"graphic novel" automatically eliminates the preconception of pamphlets anyway,
as you say, so it would be changing the parameters of the discussion.
That said, though, I'm not convinced that you'd find a lot of people who'd
immediately know what the term "graphic novel" means. I think that's another
one of these cosmetic things whose primary purpose is to make comic readers feel
better.
--Marc
Johanna Draper Carlson
> Johanna Draper Carlson wrote:
>
> : Oh, if I used the term "comic books", yeah, I'd likely get a superhero
> : response. Part of the growing acceptance of the comic medium among
> : mainstream readers is the graphic novel format, getting away from the
> : preconception of pamphlets and their contents.
>
> Sure, but my point is in regards to comic books as a medium, not to the
> particular kind of comic books referred to as "graphic novels".
My point is that comics is a medium as well -- that's why I brought in
examples of success outside the superhero genre and direct market.
> That said, though, I'm not convinced that you'd find a lot of people who'd
> immediately know what the term "graphic novel" means.
See response in previous post -- all I can do is give you evidence (of
increasing use of the term in mass media markets). If you don't want to
be convinced, you won't be.
Brian Henderson
<joh...@comicsworth.spamblock.reading.com> wrote:
> Brian Henderson <cep...@directvinternet.com> wrote:
>
>> But did those 50,000 readers, or however many there were, go on to be
>> part of the fandom, or was it a one-shot?
>
>"Fandom" is more of a superhero comic concept. The question to be asked
>is "how many of them picked up another graphic novel"? I dunno. I do
>think there are more good possibilities out there for new readers now
>than there were when Maus debuted years ago.
Well, I mean people who purchase comics on a regular basis. Someone
who picks up one title occasionally isn't really much of a fan, nor do
they do anything for the industry as a whole.
Johanna Draper Carlson
I buy a novel once every four months, maybe. I'm not a "book fan" (put
that way, the term shows how ludicrous it is), but I am part of the book
industry as a regular customer.
I'd call someone who buys a graphic novel every 2 or 3 months a regular
customer. The point, once again, being that you don't have to depend
entirely on "fans" if you have a mature media market model.
Other media don't depend exclusively on fans to survive -- they have
their hardcore groups, but then, they also have their casual customers.
Both together keep the market healthier.
--
Johanna Draper Carlson
Reviews of Comics Worth Reading -- http://www.comicsworthreading.com
Newly updated: Teenagers from Mars, True Story Swear to God
Paul O'Brien
Draper Carlson <joh...@comicsworth.spamblock.reading.com> writes
>
>"Fandom" is more of a superhero comic concept.
I think, more accurately, only the superhero fans (and the manga fans)
will cop to it. The "graphic novel" audience like to delude themselves
that they aren't a fandom, but behave in exactly the same way as every
other fandom on the planet that I've ever seen, in any medium. These
people are not, by any stretch of the imagination, casual readers.
--
Paul O'Brien
THE X-AXIS - http://www.thexaxis.com
ARTICLE 10 - http://www.ninthart.com
NTL - even worse than I'd heard.
W. Blaine Dowler
> I think, more accurately, only the superhero fans (and the manga fans)
> will cop to it. The "graphic novel" audience like to delude themselves
> that they aren't a fandom, but behave in exactly the same way as every
> other fandom on the planet that I've ever seen, in any medium. These
> people are not, by any stretch of the imagination, casual readers.
Some of us include ourselves in fandom. I'd be buying monthly issues
instead of graphic novels if the ads weren't so bloody annoying. :)
--
- Blaine
http://www.bureau42.com
XFW # 299792458, WM, SW, WNS, NRMTPB, FPSSG
SVS# 0.00729735308002..., CoC #36, SSUCS
Jeremy Henderson
<pa...@esoterica.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In message <johanna-675BEF...@news.fu-berlin.de>, Johanna
>Draper Carlson <joh...@comicsworth.spamblock.reading.com> writes
>>
>>"Fandom" is more of a superhero comic concept.
>
>I think, more accurately, only the superhero fans (and the manga fans)
>will cop to it. The "graphic novel" audience like to delude themselves
>that they aren't a fandom, but behave in exactly the same way as every
>other fandom on the planet that I've ever seen, in any medium. These
>people are not, by any stretch of the imagination, casual readers.
I don't know, Paul. When's the last time you saw someone in a Jimmy
Corrigan costume?
Brian Henderson
<joh...@comicsworth.spamblock.reading.com> wrote:
> Brian Henderson <cep...@directvinternet.com> wrote:
>> Well, I mean people who purchase comics on a regular basis. Someone
>> who picks up one title occasionally isn't really much of a fan, nor do
>> they do anything for the industry as a whole.
>
>I buy a novel once every four months, maybe. I'm not a "book fan" (put
>that way, the term shows how ludicrous it is), but I am part of the book
>industry as a regular customer.
Just looking at it from a monetary standpoint, you do help the
industry with your purchase, but can you really be said to be a fan of
the medium if you only buy one very seldomly?
I'm really looking at people who are going to increase their buying
habits over time and look at different aspects of the hobby beyond a
single title. If people are going to buy one comic or one GN or TPB
every so often, I don't know that their purchase really helps the
industry as a whole.
Brian Henderson
<pa...@esoterica.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In message <johanna-675BEF...@news.fu-berlin.de>, Johanna
>Draper Carlson <joh...@comicsworth.spamblock.reading.com> writes
>>"Fandom" is more of a superhero comic concept.
>
>I think, more accurately, only the superhero fans (and the manga fans)
>will cop to it. The "graphic novel" audience like to delude themselves
>that they aren't a fandom, but behave in exactly the same way as every
>other fandom on the planet that I've ever seen, in any medium. These
>people are not, by any stretch of the imagination, casual readers.
Any person who follows a particular medium is part of the fandom of
said medium. However, there are casual members, those who really buy
a couple things and don't interact with anyone else, and there are
those who are much more into it, like most people in this newsgroup,
who seek out others of like interest and discuss, debate and argue
about things.
Ronald J. Rickard Jr.
Ditto. But I rarely worry about what other people think about me. My wife
and kids being my only exceptions. 8^)
RJRJR
Johanna Draper Carlson
> >
> >"Fandom" is more of a superhero comic concept.
>
> I think, more accurately, only the superhero fans (and the manga fans)
> will cop to it. The "graphic novel" audience like to delude themselves
> that they aren't a fandom, but behave in exactly the same way as every
> other fandom on the planet that I've ever seen, in any medium.
You may have missed the earlier part of the discussion where I
specifically said we were talking about, for instance, casual bookstore
shoppers who pick up Jimmy Corrigan because they saw a newspaper
article. Those new readers cannot be called a fandom, and that's a good
thing.
--
Johanna Draper Carlson
Reviews of Comics Worth Reading -- http://www.comicsworthreading.com
Johanna Draper Carlson
> Johanna Draper Carlson <joh...@comicsworth.spamblock.reading.com> wrote:
>
> >I buy a novel once every four months, maybe. I'm not a "book fan" (put
> >that way, the term shows how ludicrous it is), but I am part of the book
> >industry as a regular customer.
>
> Just looking at it from a monetary standpoint, you do help the
> industry with your purchase, but can you really be said to be a fan of
> the medium if you only buy one very seldomly?
For the third time: whether or not they're a "fan" is missing the point.
We're talking here about customers, not obsessives. Having customers
instead of fans is a more mature model, so having comics bought by
people who aren't fans is a positive expansion for the medium.
It doesn't matter whether someone thinks of themselves as a comic "fan"
if they're still buying graphic novels or collections at their local
bookstore every few months.
> I'm really looking at people who are going to increase their buying
> habits over time and look at different aspects of the hobby beyond a
> single title.
Along similar lines, bookstore shoppers likely see comics as a medium,
not a hobby, and that's also a good thing.
When you're talking about a real mass medium, you don't rely solely on
your hobbyist fans. They're the fringe.
> If people are going to buy one comic or one GN or TPB
> every so often, I don't know that their purchase really helps the
> industry as a whole.
It's a sale, isn't it? And it's a sale to someone who wouldn't have
otherwise bought it, so it's a net win.
Paul O'Brien
Henderson <hell...@verizon.net> writes
>
>I don't know, Paul. When's the last time you saw someone in a Jimmy
>Corrigan costume?
When's the last time you saw someone attend a Fall gig dressed in a Mark
E Smith outfit?
Still fandoms.
Marc-Oliver Frisch
: > That said, though, I'm not convinced that you'd find a lot of people who'd
: > immediately know what the term "graphic novel" means.
:
: See response in previous post -- all I can do is give you evidence (of
: increasing use of the term in mass media markets). If you don't want to
: be convinced, you won't be.
Well, I already addressed your evidence and, frankly, I don't see my personal
desires having any effect on a discussion about the public perception of comic
books. In fact, I would very much like to be convinced that comics have a
better public image than they do.
--Marc
Brian Henderson
I only care when said perceptions could have negative repercussions in
my life, but reading comics certainly isn't that important to me, and
nobody seems to care that I do, so I agree with you wholeheartedly.
Brian Henderson
<joh...@comicsworth.spamblock.reading.com> wrote:
> Brian Henderson <cep...@directvinternet.com> wrote:
>> Just looking at it from a monetary standpoint, you do help the
>> industry with your purchase, but can you really be said to be a fan of
>> the medium if you only buy one very seldomly?
>
>For the third time: whether or not they're a "fan" is missing the point.
>We're talking here about customers, not obsessives. Having customers
>instead of fans is a more mature model, so having comics bought by
>people who aren't fans is a positive expansion for the medium.
Obsessives are still customers and, on the average, buy a lot more
than the casual purchaser. The same with speculators. So-called
obsessives who buy 20 comics per month are more important to the
industry than a customer who buys 1 comic a month, simply because they
put more cash into the coffers.
>It doesn't matter whether someone thinks of themselves as a comic "fan"
>if they're still buying graphic novels or collections at their local
>bookstore every few months.
You're right, and I'd rather have someone buy one comic a month than
not buy any.
>> I'm really looking at people who are going to increase their buying
>> habits over time and look at different aspects of the hobby beyond a
>> single title.
>
>Along similar lines, bookstore shoppers likely see comics as a medium,
>not a hobby, and that's also a good thing.
They are a medium for the retailers, and a hobby for those who
regularly purchase them, just like everything else. To someone who
sells baseball cards, it's just a product line. To someone who buys
baseball cards, it's a hobby.
>> If people are going to buy one comic or one GN or TPB
>> every so often, I don't know that their purchase really helps the
>> industry as a whole.
>
>It's a sale, isn't it? And it's a sale to someone who wouldn't have
>otherwise bought it, so it's a net win.
Yes, it's a sale, and every sale is important. But, as with any
industry, drawing new people into the fold and getting them to buy
more and different things is the ultimate goal of any product line.
~consul
> In message <de4psukhftv28ce5n...@4ax.com>, Curt
>> I saw the smiley face, of course, but thought I'd also post the
>> following info on Japan's political parties:
>> They include the Democratic Party of Japan, Japanese Communist Party,
>> Komei, Liberal Democratic Party, and the Liberal Party.
> And they're virtually a one party state because the government is
> invariably re-elected, as I recall. Not the healthiest democracy in the
> world.
Much the similar impression in the US. :)
--
My neighbour just got an invite to the "National Youth Leaders Conference"
Any 'heads up' or 'beware' or 'it's a political scam!' info?
I'm leaning along the lines of 'not enough bang for the buck$."
till next time,
Jameson Stalanthas Yu http://www.dolphins-cove.com
xdedes...@dolphins-cove.com (remove x's to reply)
~consul
> On Sun, 10 Nov 2002 15:39:05 -0500, Johanna Draper Carlson
>>that way, the term shows how ludicrous it is), but I am part of the book
>>industry as a regular customer.
> Just looking at it from a monetary standpoint, you do help the
> industry with your purchase, but can you really be said to be a fan of
> the medium if you only buy one very seldomly?
But if it is released on a somewhat regular schedule, and you make the purchases when you
see them, that's good enough for me to be called a "fan".
> I'm really looking at people who are going to increase their buying habits over time and look at different aspects of the hobby beyond a
> single title. If people are going to buy one comic or one GN or TPB every so often, I don't know that their purchase really helps the
> industry as a whole.
First step to becoming a multi-millionaire is to save that first penny.
Jeremy Henderson
>ng I learned that it is not so. That comic books are still regarded by
>general public as kiddy stuff, nothing really serious.
>Am I wrong in my impression? What's it really like?
There's another perception out there though. THe most common reaction
by non-comic reading people when I tell them I collect comics is
"What's the most valuable one you own?"
It doesn't even occur to some people that comics are an artform and a
source of entertainment, they're simply seen as collectibles.
Johanna Draper Carlson
> Obsessives are still customers
Yes, they are -- but they may also not be worth the cost to deal with.
For a hypothetical, it's more profitable for an auto repair shop to deal
with five random people who come in, have their car serviced, and leave,
then it is for them to deal with one guy who wants to hang over the
mechanic's shoulder, kibitz on everything, and take five times as long
to help because he won't shut up.
> So-called obsessives who buy 20 comics per month are more important
> to the industry than a customer who buys 1 comic a month, simply
> because they put more cash into the coffers.
Depends on how many total obsessives and customers there are.
I agree, right now, you're correct. But that's one reason I was saying
the comic industry doesn't currently use a mature mass media model. A
mature model doesn't cater exclusively to the obsessives.
As for speculators, I urge you to read Dirk Deppey's modern history of
the comic industry at the Comics Journal weblog to see just what kind of
effect chasing speculators has.
> They are a medium for the retailers, and a hobby for those who
> regularly purchase them, just like everything else.
No. I regularly buy magazines. Are magazines a hobby of mine? No.
They're reading material. I watch TV. Is that one of my hobbies? No.
It's entertainment. That comics are only a hobby, not a source of
entertainment, is another of the immaturities of the industry.
> drawing new people into the fold and getting them to buy more and
> different things is the ultimate goal of any product line.
Yes, but you can do that without going too far and creating fanatics.
Marc-Oliver Frisch
: It doesn't even occur to some people that comics are an artform and a
: source of entertainment, they're simply seen as collectibles.
Quite true-- In part, I suspect that may be a by-product of the "silly" image
they enjoy, though: "He's not exactly a kid anymore and doesn't look like a
retard, so he must be getting them because they're worth a lot of money."
--Marc
Brian Henderson
<joh...@comicsworth.spamblock.reading.com> wrote:
> Brian Henderson <cep...@directvinternet.com> wrote:
>> Obsessives are still customers
>Yes, they are -- but they may also not be worth the cost to deal with.
>For a hypothetical, it's more profitable for an auto repair shop to deal
>with five random people who come in, have their car serviced, and leave,
>then it is for them to deal with one guy who wants to hang over the
>mechanic's shoulder, kibitz on everything, and take five times as long
>to help because he won't shut up.
Well, I wasn't talking about obsessives in that regard, but in people
who buy lots of comics, simply because they are there. The Marvel
Zombies, in other words, who purchase anything Marvel comes out with
simply because it has Marvel on the cover.
>> So-called obsessives who buy 20 comics per month are more important
>> to the industry than a customer who buys 1 comic a month, simply
>> because they put more cash into the coffers.
>
>Depends on how many total obsessives and customers there are.
>
>I agree, right now, you're correct. But that's one reason I was saying
>the comic industry doesn't currently use a mature mass media model. A
>mature model doesn't cater exclusively to the obsessives.
Nor does it cater exclusively to the customers. In fact, a mature
model doesn't cater exclusively to anyone, it goes for the widest
market reasonable. I say reasonable because, as should be obvious,
the market is going to be fragmented and cannot truely have mass
appeal.
>As for speculators, I urge you to read Dirk Deppey's modern history of
>the comic industry at the Comics Journal weblog to see just what kind of
>effect chasing speculators has.
The same effect it had in every other hobby. While there's a lot of
short-term money in speculation, in the long run it'll ruin you if you
chase after it. That's why coin collecting, which was absolutely huge
in the late 80s/early 90s is down to 10% of it's former glory. Comics
aren't alone in that regard.
>> They are a medium for the retailers, and a hobby for those who
>> regularly purchase them, just like everything else.
>
>No. I regularly buy magazines. Are magazines a hobby of mine? No.
>They're reading material. I watch TV. Is that one of my hobbies? No.
>It's entertainment. That comics are only a hobby, not a source of
>entertainment, is another of the immaturities of the industry.
They may be, depends on what they mean to you. And no one said that
comics cannot be many things to different people. They entertain me
for the most part, that's why I buy them. I wouldn't bother if I
didn't get any enjoyment out of it.
>> drawing new people into the fold and getting them to buy more and
>> different things is the ultimate goal of any product line.
>
>Yes, but you can do that without going too far and creating fanatics.
Why do you insist that comic fans are wide-eyed lunatics?
Johanna Draper Carlson
> I wasn't talking about obsessives in that regard, but in people
> who buy lots of comics, simply because they are there. The Marvel
> Zombies, in other words, who purchase anything Marvel comes out with
> simply because it has Marvel on the cover.
It's been my experience that those people are most likely to buy into
the "you're the REAL editor, True Believer" line of PR and get
emotionally involved in thinking they have some kind of ownership of the
concept.
> In fact, a mature model doesn't cater exclusively to anyone, it goes
> for the widest market reasonable.
Exactly! I'm so glad we're reaching agreement.
> I say reasonable because, as should be obvious, the market is going
> to be fragmented and cannot truely have mass appeal.
Do you mean for comics or for any medium?
> >Yes, but you can do that without going too far and creating fanatics.
>
> Why do you insist that comic fans are wide-eyed lunatics?
I didn't. I said that some obsessives go too far, and that's why relying
on them as your main audience would be a mistake.
Brian Henderson
<joh...@comicsworth.spamblock.reading.com> wrote:
> Brian Henderson <cep...@directvinternet.com> wrote:
>> I wasn't talking about obsessives in that regard, but in people
>> who buy lots of comics, simply because they are there. The Marvel
>> Zombies, in other words, who purchase anything Marvel comes out with
>> simply because it has Marvel on the cover.
>
>It's been my experience that those people are most likely to buy into
>the "you're the REAL editor, True Believer" line of PR and get
>emotionally involved in thinking they have some kind of ownership of the
>concept.
Some may debate it, but I doubt any of them are looking over Bill
Jemas' shoulder telling him what to do. They just don't have that
kind of access.
>> I say reasonable because, as should be obvious, the market is going
>> to be fragmented and cannot truely have mass appeal.
>
>Do you mean for comics or for any medium?
Any medium. As was pointed out not long ago in this newsgroup, there
hasn't been anything with true mass appeal in 40-50 years.
>> Why do you insist that comic fans are wide-eyed lunatics?
>
>I didn't. I said that some obsessives go too far, and that's why relying
>on them as your main audience would be a mistake.
Given the choice between having obsessed fans who buy 50 comics a week
and having casual customers who buy one TPB every few months, it would
be foolish to go after the casual customers, they simply don't put
enough money into the system. That's not to say that the casual
customer doesn't have a place as well, but a company cannot survive on
that kind of sales structure.
Johanna Draper Carlson
> Given the choice between having obsessed fans who buy 50 comics a week
> and having casual customers who buy one TPB every few months, it would
> be foolish to go after the casual customers, they simply don't put
> enough money into the system. That's not to say that the casual
> customer doesn't have a place as well, but a company cannot survive on
> that kind of sales structure.
Top Shelf does. AIT/PlanetLar does. Both of those comic companies do
mostly or exclusively graphic novels.
Of course, a big ol' dinosaur company with lots of executives and New
York offices to support may not be able to... but as I've said all
along, there's a lot more to comics than just those.
Brian Henderson
<joh...@comicsworth.spamblock.reading.com> wrote:
> Brian Henderson <cep...@directvinternet.com> wrote:
>> Given the choice between having obsessed fans who buy 50 comics a week
>> and having casual customers who buy one TPB every few months, it would
>> be foolish to go after the casual customers, they simply don't put
>> enough money into the system. That's not to say that the casual
>> customer doesn't have a place as well, but a company cannot survive on
>> that kind of sales structure.
>
>Top Shelf does. AIT/PlanetLar does. Both of those comic companies do
>mostly or exclusively graphic novels.
But those are so completely insignificant to the industry as a whole,
making a miniscule percentage of one percent of the total books sold,
if they vanished tomorrow, nobody would even notice.
Ronald J. Rickard Jr.
Furthermore, if Marvel were as small, the entire industry would vanish or
be significantly changed as well. A smaller Marvel would mean no direct
retailers.
<Heh> Now that I've read what was written above, I'm not sure my comment
has anything to do with the discuss you two are having. 8^)
I'm curious, how does everyone see this TPB trend turning out 10-15 years
from now? Do pamplets get replaced? Do comic retailers survive? Do
comic publisher deal exclusively with megabookstore chains? Is that the
ideal publishing scheme considering the decline in readers of all published
materials? Will I have to find something else to do with my Wednesday's
15 years from now? What happens to the peripheral merchandise that gets
made (toys, clothing, etc.)? Do comics go electronic?
RJRJR
Brian Henderson
(Ronald J. Rickard Jr.) wrote:
>Furthermore, if Marvel were as small, the entire industry would vanish or
>be significantly changed as well. A smaller Marvel would mean no direct
>retailers.
Agreed. Marvel makes up 50% of the total comics market. If Marvel
goes under, so does mainstream comics. The industry cannot survive
without Marvel and DC, as together, they make up about 80% of the
market. Say what you will about their comics, they *ARE* comics in
the US.
>I'm curious, how does everyone see this TPB trend turning out 10-15 years
>from now? Do pamplets get replaced? Do comic retailers survive? Do
>comic publisher deal exclusively with megabookstore chains? Is that the
>ideal publishing scheme considering the decline in readers of all published
>materials? Will I have to find something else to do with my Wednesday's
>15 years from now? What happens to the peripheral merchandise that gets
>made (toys, clothing, etc.)? Do comics go electronic?
Personally, I see the end of pamphlets in the very near future. They
are much more expensive to produce than TPBs, but I fear that when
TPBs take over, that will be the end of specialty stores, which can't
move fast enough to replace the majority of their business.
I V
<cep...@directvinternet.com> wrote:
> Given the choice between having obsessed fans who buy 50 comics a week
> and having casual customers who buy one TPB every few months, it would
> be foolish to go after the casual customers, they simply don't put
But what if there are 50 times as many casual customers? It may be
(although it needn't be) the case that ceasing to focus on the small
number of fanatics is a crucial step in tapping a much larger market.
> enough money into the system. That's not to say that the casual
> customer doesn't have a place as well, but a company cannot survive on
> that kind of sales structure.
Why not? As Johanna has been pointing out, plenty of companies
(particularly outside the comics market) do. It's a completely different
business model (requiring a move from regularly producing lots of new
material to keeping a large catalogue in stock, for example), but there's
no _a priori_ reason it shouldn't work, and the anecdotal evidence I've
seen about increasing TPB sales in bookshops suggests to me it is
working.
Actually, I wonder if the CD market might not be a good analogy for comics
and TPBs. What you seem to have there is a comparitively small, very
short-term market, driven by fans, that is, singles, and a larger, longer-term
market in albums, which picks up much more casual sales. There are also
acts targeted at each market. I don't know what lessons we could draw
from this analogy, beyond the possibility that comics and TPBs could in
principle co-exist, but only if comic companies consciously figure out a
strategy which allows them to complement one another.
--
"Mr I V Lenin, the Lenin of love"
Peter Bruells
> Given the choice between having obsessed fans who buy 50 comics a
> week and having casual customers who buy one TPB every few months,
> it would be foolish to go after the casual customers, they simply
> don't put enough money into the system. That's not to say that the
> casual customer doesn't have a place as well, but a company cannot
> survive on that kind of sales structure.
The comics market in Europe seems to prove otherwise. The vast
majority of materials are albums sized "graphic novels" (often part of
a series, but not serials), are being kept in print for a much longer
time. If a series sells very well, it will be kept continiously in
print (Asterix, Lucky Luke, Donald Duck TPDs). Or be reissued after a
hiatus.
Johanna Draper Carlson
> A smaller Marvel would mean no direct retailers.
Perhaps. But retailers have been facing that possibility since Marvel
went bankrupt several years ago, and many of them (especially the most
professional ones) have radically diversified their product lines.
Would we lose the guys dealing out of a cigar box in a basement? Yeah,
likely. Is that a big loss? I dunno. The dedicated fanbase (which Brian
was arguing is the target to go for) will simply order through the mail
or online. The stores that don't depend on any one product line will go
right on. What's the harm?
> I'm curious, how does everyone see this TPB trend turning out 10-15 years
> from now? Do pamplets get replaced? Do comic retailers survive?
Sure! I can buy cheap DVDs at Target, but the Suncoast (dedicated movie
stores) are still out there. There are fewer and fewer VHS tapes
available, but they're still kept around in the corner.
Sorry, to translate: There will probably always be pamphlets, but they
may no longer drive the marketing and purchasing. Good comic retailers
will survive by providing speciality service: a greater range of stock
and recommendations, to name two value-adds.
Johanna Draper Carlson
> Johanna Draper Carlson <joh...@comicsworth.spamblock.reading.com> wrote:
> > Brian Henderson <cep...@directvinternet.com> wrote:
> >
> >> That's not to say that the casual
> >> customer doesn't have a place as well, but a company cannot survive on
> >> that kind of sales structure.
> >
> >Top Shelf does. AIT/PlanetLar does. Both of those comic companies do
> >mostly or exclusively graphic novels.
>
> But those are so completely insignificant to the industry as a whole,
You stated it couldn't be done. I showed you companies doing it. Now
you're moving the goal posts.
> if they vanished tomorrow, nobody would even notice.
Did you miss the news earlier this year? Top Shelf, due to circumstances
beyond their control, were in real danger of vanishing. Fans bought
$80,000 of their product in ONE DAY to prevent it. That's an awful lot
of "nobody", and plenty of companies would welcome that kind of customer
base and income.
Part of the change in the comic market is the increasing
diversification. Instead of two big companies, you have many more
smaller companies. Just like TV has moved from 3 networks to hundreds of
cable channels.
~consul
> I'm curious, how does everyone see this TPB trend turning out 10-15 years
> from now? Do pamplets get replaced?
Pamphlets are the mainstay. They are the support that holds the comic industry afloat.
TPBS, are secondary, like the toys and the movies. Pamphlets are the driving force. If the
other stuff sells great, say 1000X better than the pamphlets, that just means that
Marvel/DC would be able to experiment more in their pamphlet lines, which would be a good
thing. Monthly comics are like Daily Newspapers. Sure we have Time Magazine et al for "the
complete story", but we still have the daily news to give us a play by play of the situation.
~consul
> The comics market in Europe seems to prove otherwise. The vast
> majority of materials are albums sized "graphic novels" (often part of
> a series, but not serials), are being kept in print for a much longer
> time.
Of new stuff or of the already produced pamphlets? If the US pamphlets are gone, you don't
think that Europe might make their own monthlies?
Pradera
scribbled loosely:
True, but that makes european stories very different from US ones. In
terms of story-telling, I find US comics more alike to mangas, which are
also published periodically (usually weekly- or bi-weekly) in small
chapters, before they get re-released in PB. Because of that, the stories
have shorter, more action-packed chapters than european novels...
I'm not saying which one is better, but personaly I prefer the US &
Japanese way.
--
Pradera
---
"Good morning! How is everyone? Its now 6am. Time for sleepy heads to
wake up! Heres the list of your dead friends in the order they died..."
-Battle Royale
Brian Henderson
<joh...@comicsworth.spamblock.reading.com> wrote:
> rj...@localhost.devel.redhat.com (Ronald J. Rickard Jr.) wrote:
>> A smaller Marvel would mean no direct retailers.
>
>Perhaps. But retailers have been facing that possibility since Marvel
>went bankrupt several years ago, and many of them (especially the most
>professional ones) have radically diversified their product lines.
Still, if you look at most comic specialty shops, even though they
have added games and anime videos and toys and things like that, their
primary income comes from the comics. If they lose that income, the
rest cannot sustain them.
>> I'm curious, how does everyone see this TPB trend turning out 10-15 years
>> from now? Do pamplets get replaced? Do comic retailers survive?
>
>Sure! I can buy cheap DVDs at Target, but the Suncoast (dedicated movie
>stores) are still out there. There are fewer and fewer VHS tapes
>available, but they're still kept around in the corner.
But Target doesn't carry everything that you'd find in a Suncoast.
That's why specialty stores exist, they give you a much better
selection, usually at better prices (although big box stores like
Walmart and Target will give them a run for their money just based on
volume buying). You can buy comics at Waldenbooks or Walmart, but you
just can't get much selection.
Brian Henderson
<joh...@comicsworth.spamblock.reading.com> wrote:
> Brian Henderson <cep...@directvinternet.com> wrote:
>> But those are so completely insignificant to the industry as a whole,
>
>You stated it couldn't be done. I showed you companies doing it. Now
>you're moving the goal posts.
No, you're talking tiny fish in a very big pond. I'd be willing to
bet that those companies are just side businesses for most of the
people who work for them as well. The *INDUSTRY* couldn't function
that way.
>> if they vanished tomorrow, nobody would even notice.
>
>Did you miss the news earlier this year? Top Shelf, due to circumstances
>beyond their control, were in real danger of vanishing. Fans bought
>$80,000 of their product in ONE DAY to prevent it. That's an awful lot
>of "nobody", and plenty of companies would welcome that kind of customer
>base and income.
Too bad nobody cared enough about Chaos! to save it, huh? How many
small comic companies go out of business every year because nobody
cares about their product line?
>Part of the change in the comic market is the increasing
>diversification. Instead of two big companies, you have many more
>smaller companies. Just like TV has moved from 3 networks to hundreds of
>cable channels.
There have always been many smaller companies. This isn't something
that has just come about in the last few years, small press has been a
mainstay of the comics industry for decades.
Brian Henderson
>Actually, I wonder if the CD market might not be a good analogy for comics
>and TPBs. What you seem to have there is a comparitively small, very
>short-term market, driven by fans, that is, singles, and a larger, longer-term
>market in albums, which picks up much more casual sales. There are also
>acts targeted at each market. I don't know what lessons we could draw
>from this analogy, beyond the possibility that comics and TPBs could in
>principle co-exist, but only if comic companies consciously figure out a
>strategy which allows them to complement one another.
I haven't said that they cannot, and do not coexist, I was arguing
that going to a TPB-only marketing model would spell suicide for the
industry if it was adopted industry-wide right now. There just aren't
enough people who are buying TPBs at the moment for it to work.
The future though, who knows? Personally, I rarely purchase a TPB,
simply because I don't really like the format, but that's personal
preference. Same reason I won't buy hardcover books.
Johanna Draper Carlson
> No, you're talking tiny fish in a very big pond.
No, I'm showing you successful companies (with products geared outside
the tiny comic direct market) doing what you said couldn't be done.
> I'd be willing to bet that those companies are just side businesses
> for most of the people who work for them as well.
Why don't you investigate the companies before you guess at how they
might be running? That might prevent you stating errors of this sort as
fact.
> Too bad nobody cared enough about Chaos! to save it, huh?
Whoosh! That's an abrupt change of subject.
Look, I'm sorry that the facts that are out there about the modern comic
industry contradict your assumptions. There's no need to keep changing
the subject, though.
> How many small comic companies go out of business every year because
> nobody cares about their product line?
I dunno. How many Marvel titles are cancelled every year because you
can't keep selling rehashed revamps to the same shrinking fanbase?
> There have always been many smaller companies. This isn't something
> that has just come about in the last few years, small press has been a
> mainstay of the comics industry for decades.
What's new in the past few years are the success stories coming out of
the small press while Marvel churns out yet another Spider-Man origin
story.
Johanna Draper Carlson
> if you look at most comic specialty shops, even though they
> have added games and anime videos and toys and things like that, their
> primary income comes from the comics.
Right. Comics. As a whole. Not Marvel comics only. That was what I was
saying -- they've diversified so they're not dependent on any one
publisher. That's how smart stores plan for survival, no matter what
happens to Marvel or DC or Image.
Johanna Draper Carlson
> The future though, who knows? Personally, I rarely purchase a TPB,
> simply because I don't really like the format
Oh my gosh! That explains so much about why you're so out of touch with
what's going on in the comics-as-book market. Now it makes sense. No
wonder you've never heard of Top Shelf!
Johanna Draper Carlson
> Monthly comics are like Daily Newspapers.
Which are also dying, as people get their news elsewhere.
Just because something's always been that way, doesn't mean it will
continue to survive. Fiction magazine anthologies are on their last
legs, and with the exception of a few stunt promotions, when's the last
time you saw a serialized novel?
~consul
> ~consul <xdedes...@dolphins-cove.com> wrote:
>>Monthly comics are like Daily Newspapers.
> Which are also dying, as people get their news elsewhere.
Do you mean online? TV news? Eh, I still think that folks like the tactile aspect of the
newspaper. Sort of like comics. :) The next major "daily news" format IMO is the
electronic paper screen. Still serialized, still tactile. Still rollable to swat the
cat/dog with if need be.
> legs, and with the exception of a few stunt promotions, when's the last
> time you saw a serialized novel?
Well, just the fantasy/scifi/romance books. Nothing else. It doesn't work anywhere else.
Are comic strips in the newspaper going to be gone as well?
Johanna Draper Carlson
> Johanna Draper Carlson wrote:
> > ~consul <xdedes...@dolphins-cove.com> wrote:
> >>Monthly comics are like Daily Newspapers.
> > Which are also dying, as people get their news elsewhere.
>
> Do you mean online? TV news?
Depends on which study you read. :)
Like comics, the newspaper audience is aging out and fading away as
prices rise and content shrinks.
> Are comic strips in the newspaper going to be gone as well?
Who knows?
Paul O'Brien
<xdedes...@dolphins-cove.com> writes
>
>Pamphlets are the mainstay. They are the support that holds the comic
>industry afloat. TPBS, are secondary, like the toys and the movies.
>Pamphlets are the driving force.
For the moment. But I think there's some force to the argument that
TPBs are better able to penetrate non-direct market audiences and have
better growth potential than the pamphlet format. I'm not convinced
either way, and emotionally I'd probably prefer the pamphlet format to
win out, but the "TPB is the future" camp have some fairly good logic on
their side.
--
Paul O'Brien
THE X-AXIS - http://www.thexaxis.com
ARTICLE 10 - http://www.ninthart.com
NTL - even worse than I'd heard.
Peter Bruells
> Peter Bruells wrote:
> > The comics market in Europe seems to prove otherwise. The vast
> > majority of materials are albums sized "graphic novels" (often part of
> > a series, but not serials), are being kept in print for a much longer
> > time.
> Of new stuff or of the already produced pamphlets?
New stuff. Original pamphlets are rare - their bulk is composed of US
imports. Tgough I forgot to mentio a new trend: A huge influx of
japanese manga, in the original japanese reprint format, i.e. ~200
pages of one series, printed from back to front.
> If the US pamphlets are gone, you don't think that Europe might make
> their own monthlies?
As a niche market.
Brian Henderson
<joh...@comicsworth.spamblock.reading.com> wrote:
> Brian Henderson <cep...@directvinternet.com> wrote:
>> if you look at most comic specialty shops, even though they
>> have added games and anime videos and toys and things like that, their
>> primary income comes from the comics.
>
>Right. Comics. As a whole. Not Marvel comics only. That was what I was
>saying -- they've diversified so they're not dependent on any one
>publisher. That's how smart stores plan for survival, no matter what
>happens to Marvel or DC or Image.
But since Marvel comics make up 50% of the comics sales as a whole
(and a lot more than that if you look at the top 100 sellers every
month). If just 50% of your customers walk in the door to buy Marvel
comics, you cannot survive without 50% of your business.
As much as I like some of the independent companies, they simply do
not have the sales power to support a specialty store.
Brian Henderson
<xdedes...@dolphins-cove.com> wrote:
>Johanna Draper Carlson wrote:
>> ~consul <xdedes...@dolphins-cove.com> wrote:
>>>Monthly comics are like Daily Newspapers.
>> Which are also dying, as people get their news elsewhere.
>
>Do you mean online? TV news? Eh, I still think that folks like the tactile aspect of the
>newspaper. Sort of like comics. :) The next major "daily news" format IMO is the
>electronic paper screen. Still serialized, still tactile. Still rollable to swat the
>cat/dog with if need be.
I haven't gotten a paper newspaper in many years and I don't miss it
at all. I can get my news faster, more accurately and in much more
detail than waiting for the morning paper.
Brian Henderson
<joh...@comicsworth.spamblock.reading.com> wrote:
> Brian Henderson <cep...@directvinternet.com> wrote:
>> No, you're talking tiny fish in a very big pond.
>
>No, I'm showing you successful companies (with products geared outside
>the tiny comic direct market) doing what you said couldn't be done.
So what are their sales like? Do they sell 10,000 per issue? 50,000?
100,000?
>> I'd be willing to bet that those companies are just side businesses
>> for most of the people who work for them as well.
>
>Why don't you investigate the companies before you guess at how they
>might be running? That might prevent you stating errors of this sort as
>fact.
In every small press company that I know of, have written for, have
been involved with, the owners had full-time jobs to sustain
themselves and did comics on the side as a hobby. Sure, they wish
they could make enough money to do it for a living, but it's just not
happening.
>> Too bad nobody cared enough about Chaos! to save it, huh?
>
>Whoosh! That's an abrupt change of subject.
>
>Look, I'm sorry that the facts that are out there about the modern comic
>industry contradict your assumptions. There's no need to keep changing
>the subject, though.
It's not a change of subject. You said that fans rallyed and saved a
company. Great for them. But for every company that has been saved
by a concerted effort of the fans, I can point to 10 that weren't.
Yours is the exception, not the rule.
>> How many small comic companies go out of business every year because
>> nobody cares about their product line?
>
>I dunno. How many Marvel titles are cancelled every year because you
>can't keep selling rehashed revamps to the same shrinking fanbase?
Less than the independent titles that nobody bothers buying because
it's unmitigated crap? Not saying that SOME independent titles aren't
very good, but you have a real problem with the mainstream and your
bias is showing.
>> There have always been many smaller companies. This isn't something
>> that has just come about in the last few years, small press has been a
>> mainstay of the comics industry for decades.
>
>What's new in the past few years are the success stories coming out of
>the small press while Marvel churns out yet another Spider-Man origin
>story.
That's hardly recent either. There are a LOT of long-running
independent companies. You have to remember, Dark Horse and Image
were the little independents of the 80s and early 90s and now they
have a good market share. Same with CrossGen, although they are a
much more recent creation. But they are hardly the only success
strories from the past.
You act like this is all something brand new and should be seen as a
'trend', when it's simply not the case.
Brian Henderson
<joh...@comicsworth.spamblock.reading.com> wrote:
> Brian Henderson <cep...@directvinternet.com> wrote:
>
>> The future though, who knows? Personally, I rarely purchase a TPB,
>> simply because I don't really like the format
>
>Oh my gosh! That explains so much about why you're so out of touch with
>what's going on in the comics-as-book market. Now it makes sense. No
>wonder you've never heard of Top Shelf!
Whoever said I hadn't heard of them? Your biases are showing again,
Johanna.
Johanna Draper Carlson
> But since Marvel comics make up 50% of the comics sales as a whole
> (and a lot more than that if you look at the top 100 sellers every
> month).
And less than that if you look at dollar value...
And those figures are only roughly accurate if you look at direct market
sales only and don't consider reorders...
> If just 50% of your customers walk in the door to buy Marvel
> comics, you cannot survive without 50% of your business.
You assume that the market pattern in the whole is replicated in each
individual store. That's not at all the case.
> As much as I like some of the independent companies, they simply do
> not have the sales power to support a specialty store.
Each individually, no. But together, there's a lot more variety and
potential there. The point is NOT to depend on any one company, whether
big two or independent.
Johanna Draper Carlson
> Johanna Draper Carlson <joh...@comicsworth.spamblock.reading.com> wrote:
>
> >Oh my gosh! That explains so much about why you're so out of touch with
> >what's going on in the comics-as-book market. Now it makes sense. No
> >wonder you've never heard of Top Shelf!
>
> Whoever said I hadn't heard of them?
You did, when you said that no company depends on original graphic
novels to survive. Since they do, you obviously weren't aware of them.
Johanna Draper Carlson
> Johanna Draper Carlson <joh...@comicsworth.spamblock.reading.com> wrote:
>
> >No, I'm showing you successful companies (with products geared outside
> >the tiny comic direct market) doing what you said couldn't be done.
>
> So what are their sales like? Do they sell 10,000 per issue? 50,000?
> 100,000?
Per "issue" is more of the old-fashioned thinking that doesn't apply.
"Per book" sales for Jimmy Corrigan were over 50,000. I heard that
figure a while ago, though, so they may have gone through additional
multiple printings since then.
That's another benefit to the book structure: much bigger market window.
You don't just have a week to sell through in, you have years.
> In every small press company that I know of, have written for, have
> been involved with, the owners had full-time jobs to sustain
> themselves and did comics on the side as a hobby.
Your experience isn't reflective of the current structure of the kinds
of publishers I'm talking about, then.
> for every company that has been saved by a concerted effort of the
> fans, I can point to 10 that weren't. Yours is the exception, not the
> rule.
Not so. Chaos and Top Shelf aren't comparable examples because Chaos hid
their problems, allowing the founder to set up another deal while
stiffing the talent. Top Shelf asked for help when they needed it and
got much more than they expected.
> Not saying that SOME independent titles aren't very good, but you
> have a real problem with the mainstream and your bias is showing.
My only bias here is against people who make uneducated comments about
things that can't be done without realizing that people are out there
doing those very things and succeeding.
I'm not anti-"mainstream" (use of which word is an error in itself); I'm
pro-variety, diversity, and experimentation. You want to read Marvel?
Great! Here, you can choose from pamphlets, books, or online. You don't
like those? Here, you can sample a whole bunch more comics with all
different kinds of stories and formats.
> You act like this is all something brand new and should be seen as a
> 'trend', when it's simply not the case.
No, I'm anti-trend as well. What I'm for are the substantal new market
changes, like increasing bookstore distribution.
I'm aware of the history of the independents. Most of the new companies
in the 80s died because of unexpected returns coming from trying to
break into the newsstand business, which also has a history of
corruption. The bookstore paradigm, while it has its own issues, has
advantages over the former. Plus, these companies have learned from
mistakes in other histories.
~consul
> On Wed, 13 Nov 2002 13:14:00 -0800, ~consul
> at all. I can get my news faster, more accurately and in much more
> detail than waiting for the morning paper.
Do you mean the tv news or online news like CNN.com? Do you think the stigma/impression of
'quick to get it published - quick to get it wrong' exists? (I can accept that it may not)
--
"I told her I didn't love her. I told her in the beginning. She knew ... she knew ... ."
Brian Henderson
<joh...@comicsworth.spamblock.reading.com> wrote:
> Brian Henderson <cep...@directvinternet.com> wrote:
>> But since Marvel comics make up 50% of the comics sales as a whole
>> (and a lot more than that if you look at the top 100 sellers every
>> month).
>
>And less than that if you look at dollar value...
>And those figures are only roughly accurate if you look at direct market
>sales only and don't consider reorders...
Well, you'd have to take that up with Diamond, it's their figures.
>> If just 50% of your customers walk in the door to buy Marvel
>> comics, you cannot survive without 50% of your business.
>
>You assume that the market pattern in the whole is replicated in each
>individual store. That's not at all the case.
Every store of which I am aware, which is a considerable number. I
was in my local comic shop tonight and asked if his store could
survive if suddenly Marvel and DC vanished from the shelves.
He couldn't stop laughing.
>> As much as I like some of the independent companies, they simply do
>> not have the sales power to support a specialty store.
>
>Each individually, no. But together, there's a lot more variety and
>potential there. The point is NOT to depend on any one company, whether
>big two or independent.
You have to remember, according to Diamond, the largest distributor in
the country, Marvel makes up 50% of the total comics market. DC is
about 30%. Image and Dark Horse are maybe 5% each. CrossGen is 2%.
The remaining 8% is EVERYONE ELSE COMBINED!
Sorry, but if 80% of the market vanished, all specialty stores would
go belly up.
Brian Henderson
<xdedes...@dolphins-cove.com> wrote:
>Brian Henderson wrote:
>> On Wed, 13 Nov 2002 13:14:00 -0800, ~consul
>> I haven't gotten a paper newspaper in many years and I don't miss it
>> at all. I can get my news faster, more accurately and in much more
>> detail than waiting for the morning paper.
>
>Do you mean the tv news or online news like CNN.com? Do you think the stigma/impression of
>'quick to get it published - quick to get it wrong' exists? (I can accept that it may not)
Mostly online, but some aired sources as well. I take everything with
a grain of salt anyhow, and just because you wait until the next
morning doesn't guarantee the news is accurate at all.
I may not know all the facts or details, but at least I know about it
NOW.
Brian Henderson
<joh...@comicsworth.spamblock.reading.com> wrote:
> Brian Henderson <cep...@directvinternet.com> wrote:
>> So what are their sales like? Do they sell 10,000 per issue? 50,000?
>> 100,000?
>
>Per "issue" is more of the old-fashioned thinking that doesn't apply.
>"Per book" sales for Jimmy Corrigan were over 50,000. I heard that
>figure a while ago, though, so they may have gone through additional
>multiple printings since then.
Per book then. In either case, you're still measuring sales, it's
just semantics what you call it.
>That's another benefit to the book structure: much bigger market window.
>You don't just have a week to sell through in, you have years.
So does Marvel. They can put out the pamphlet today and repackage a
set into a TPB and sell it for years. Best of both worlds.
>> In every small press company that I know of, have written for, have
>> been involved with, the owners had full-time jobs to sustain
>> themselves and did comics on the side as a hobby.
>
>Your experience isn't reflective of the current structure of the kinds
>of publishers I'm talking about, then.
Funny, it's relflective of dozens of companies right this second. But
I guess you're only referring to 'special' publishers.
>> for every company that has been saved by a concerted effort of the
>> fans, I can point to 10 that weren't. Yours is the exception, not the
>> rule.
>
>Not so. Chaos and Top Shelf aren't comparable examples because Chaos hid
>their problems, allowing the founder to set up another deal while
>stiffing the talent. Top Shelf asked for help when they needed it and
>got much more than they expected.
You still can't mention other companies whose fans rallyed and saved
them. It just doesn't happen often, even to the really popular
companies.
>> Not saying that SOME independent titles aren't very good, but you
>> have a real problem with the mainstream and your bias is showing.
>
>My only bias here is against people who make uneducated comments about
>things that can't be done without realizing that people are out there
>doing those very things and succeeding.
Yes, things CAN be done, but you can't apply what one or two tiny
companies are doing and expect that the rest of the industry, which is
based on a very different model, could follow suit. The comics
industry is BASED on monthly titles. Does that mean that a few small
fry don't follow the same model? Yes. Does it mean anything beyond
that? No.
>I'm not anti-"mainstream" (use of which word is an error in itself); I'm
>pro-variety, diversity, and experimentation. You want to read Marvel?
>Great! Here, you can choose from pamphlets, books, or online. You don't
>like those? Here, you can sample a whole bunch more comics with all
>different kinds of stories and formats.
Sounds great. Diversity is a good thing. Doesn't change the hard
facts about what books currently rule the comics industry, like it or
not.
>> You act like this is all something brand new and should be seen as a
>> 'trend', when it's simply not the case.
>
>No, I'm anti-trend as well. What I'm for are the substantal new market
>changes, like increasing bookstore distribution.
Something Marvel has already said they're going to be doing.
>I'm aware of the history of the independents. Most of the new companies
>in the 80s died because of unexpected returns coming from trying to
>break into the newsstand business, which also has a history of
>corruption. The bookstore paradigm, while it has its own issues, has
>advantages over the former. Plus, these companies have learned from
>mistakes in other histories.
Just like most new companies today will die because no one will carry
their books. Most of the tiny press companies don't even TRY to get
into any kind of retail outlet, they simply allow people to buy direct
out of Previews.
Johanna Draper Carlson
> On Thu, 14 Nov 2002 14:53:36 -0500, Johanna Draper Carlson
> <joh...@comicsworth.spamblock.reading.com> wrote:
>
> >And less than that if you look at dollar value...
> >And those figures are only roughly accurate if you look at direct market
> >sales only and don't consider reorders...
>
> Well, you'd have to take that up with Diamond, it's their figures.
My point once again being that there's more to the comic medium and
industry than just Diamond. In addition to the other direct market
distributors, there are bookstore distributors.
> >You assume that the market pattern in the whole is replicated in each
> >individual store. That's not at all the case.
>
> Every store of which I am aware, which is a considerable number.
And now we descend to anecdotal evidence because the figures aren't
saying what you'd like them to say.
> You have to remember, according to Diamond, the largest distributor in
> the country, Marvel makes up 50% of the total comics market.
That Diamond controls. There is much more to the actual comic market
than just Diamond.
> Sorry, but if 80% of the market vanished, all specialty stores would
> go belly up.
You're switching the topic of discussion again.
There are stores out there that sell as much of certain indy books as
they do of the X-Men. THOSE stores wouldn't go belly up if Marvel
disappeared, and so your absolute statement is once again wrong.
> Per book then. In either case, you're still measuring sales, it's
> just semantics what you call it.
No, it's not just semantics; it's a different strategy and market.
> So does Marvel. They can put out the pamphlet today and repackage a
> set into a TPB and sell it for years.
Well, no, they can't, because Marvel has a really bad track record of
keeping their books in print. They're treating collections like
pamphlets, in that they're on sale for a particular time and then don't
go back to press. That misses the point on the virtue of more permanent
binding, imo.
> You still can't mention other companies whose fans rallyed and saved
> them.
And you aren't realizing that when you say "no one does", all I need is
one example to show that your statements are wrong.
> The comics industry is BASED on monthly titles.
Historically, the comic industry used to have monthly, bi-monthly, and
other types of titles. Your statement only applies if you take a limited
perspective based around a couple of companies and assume that's the
only way to do things. It's not.
And since when has "it's always been done that way before" made sense in
a changing market, industry, and economy? Clinging to that makes a
company a dinosaur, quickly overtaken by smaller and nimbler
competitors.
>>No, I'm anti-trend as well. What I'm for are the substantal new market
>>changes, like increasing bookstore distribution.
>
> Something Marvel has already said they're going to be doing.
Well, you know, it's Marvel, I'll believe it when I see it, if they
don't manage to screw it up somehow. (Like above, when they let their
collected books go out of print.)
We've been all over the place as you keep backtracking and moving the
goalposts. What's your real point here, Brian? How do you sum up the
point you're trying to make in a couple of sentences?
Brian Henderson
<joh...@comicsworthdiscardme.reading.com> wrote:
> Brian Henderson <cep...@directvinternet.com> wrote:
>> Every store of which I am aware, which is a considerable number.
>
>And now we descend to anecdotal evidence because the figures aren't
>saying what you'd like them to say.
And you don't even have figures. You have nothing but your personal
say-so.
Johanna Draper Carlson
> And you don't even have figures.
I gave figures on Jimmy Corrigan. I gave figures on Top Shelf.
The thing is, when you say "no one ever does ...", then I don't need
figures. I only need one counter-example, and there goes your argument.
BlakGard
>>> Which are also dying, as people get their news elsewhere.
>>
>>Do you mean online? TV news? Eh, I still think that folks like the tactile
>>aspect of the newspaper. Sort of like comics. :) The next major "daily
>>news" format IMO is the electronic paper screen. Still serialized, still
>>tactile. Still rollable to swat the cat/dog with if need be.
>
>I haven't gotten a paper newspaper in many years and I don't miss it
>at all. I can get my news faster, more accurately and in much more
>detail than waiting for the morning paper.
According to the Newspaper Assoc. of America, newspapers lose approximately
1% of their buyers every year, and hasn't appeared to lose any of its readers
due
to cable television or the Internet. I certainly wouldn't call it a dying
industry, as
a majority of the population still buys the daily newspaper. This cannot be
said
for any cable news network or online news company.
-=[ The BlakGard ]=-
"Somewhere there's danger;
somewhere there's injustice,
and somewhere else the tea is getting cold!"
Johanna Draper Carlson
> a majority of the population still buys the daily newspaper.
Not in the US.
"RoperASW announced today results of its "2002 Worldwide Time Study"
comparing priorities around the globe.... more than half the global
population (53%) reads the newspaper almost daily, but: the U.S. comes
in below average at 42%."
http://www.roperasw.com/newsroom/news/n0211002.html
Grey Wolf
(Ronald J. Rickard Jr.) wrote:
>
>There isn't much of a public impression of comics in the US, because very,
>very few people read comics. The best selling comics in the US number just
>over 100,000 copies. Think about that! That is so minute compared to the
>number of people in the US, that comics are pretty irrelevant.
>
>I'm guessing the general impression of comics, if they are thought about
>at all, is they are for the social misfits. Article after article about
>comics that have been printed in the US in the past 20 years have mentioned
>how comics are not for kids, anyone who walks into a soft porn ... er, comic
>shop can tell you comics are not for kids. I'm guessing the America public
>knows they are not for kids by now (don't have other convince you otherwise)
>what with the Batman movies, Blade movies, etc. I've also seen comic
>articles that focus on the "collectibility" of comics. And "collecting"
>things has become the US' favorite pasttime, but alas, comics are still
>pretty irrelevant.
>
>But I digress.
>
>RJRJR
This has been a very interesting thread, and it got me wondering if
there are any age demographics that are tracked for comics, and if
there are any stats as to which age group experiences the most sales.
Talking about comics being just for kids, or not being just for kids
anymore made me wonder if there's a certain age grouop that sells the
most?
And the other interesting thought is regarding manga vs. western
comics... manga has been experiencing a boom in cartoons... but does
that mean it's marjorily kids watching these cartoons or is it adults
who love manga? And if these manga cartoons are so popular with kids
- then maybe in 10 years it will make a major impact to the American
comic industry as these kids grow up. We've seen some of that already
with an increase (though not domination) of American artists who have
manga style art - Joe Madiera (sp?) for example.
At any rate, it got me wondering if more adults buying comics than
kids right now? Are there generational cycles in the American comic
industry?
Thanks,
David