Mayo Report

[boshuda]

You guys are stuck on superheroes. Yes, the big two dominate there but there are plenty of books that are great where it just happens to be a big two character and the book could do very well with another character. Winter soldier, demon knights, Frankenstein. Those could work just as well with non big two analogs.

My point is that in the post kirkman world you would be foolish if you had what you thought was a great concept or character to just give it to the big two. Creators are going to try image or idw first.

The big two now are about the toys you can play with, not building new toys. Not in any meaningful way.

[little white lie] I agree that a creator would be nutz to bring a new creation to a publisher unless the creator retains ownership. I think where we disagree is that I don't feel it's a weakness for Marvel or DC that they have no new properties.

I guess I was stuck in the domain of superheroes, but I don't think of the big2 for non superhero books. I personally think that should be part of their mission statement - to create superhero comics. No more famous authors nonsense, no more Vertigo, no more movie tie-ins, none of it. If it isn't a superhero book then Marvel and DC shouldn't publish it. In the world where I am supreme emperor I will allow them to publish sorta superhero books that tie into the superhero universe. Like Frankenstein or Demon Knights. But they must divest themselves of books like Fables.

* Reason for little white lie: If you create a great Spider-Man villain, you have to go to Marvel and basically sign over all rights to said villain. In that case you're not nutz for bringing your original creation to Marvel. Although I guess you could argue the semantics of 'original'.

[LA Rabbit]

You guys are stuck on superheroes. Yes, the big two dominate there but there are plenty of books that are great where it just happens to be a big two character and the book could do very well with another character. Winter soldier, demon knights, Frankenstein. Those could work just as well with non big two analogs.

My point is that in the post kirkman world you would be foolish if you had what you thought was a great concept or character to just give it to the big two. Creators are going to try image or idw first.

The big two now are about the toys you can play with, not building new toys. Not in any meaningful way.

[little white lie] I agree that a creator would be nutz to bring a new creation to a publisher unless the creator retains ownership. I think where we disagree is that I don't feel it's a weakness for Marvel or DC that they have no new properties.

I guess I was stuck in the domain of superheroes, but I don't think of the big2 for non superhero books. I personally think that should be part of their mission statement - to create superhero comics. No more famous authors nonsense, no more Vertigo, no more movie tie-ins, none of it. If it isn't a superhero book then Marvel and DC shouldn't publish it. In the world where I am supreme emperor I will allow them to publish sorta superhero books that tie into the superhero universe. Like Frankenstein or Demon Knights. But they must divest themselves of books like Fables.

* Reason for little white lie: If you create a great Spider-Man villain, you have to go to Marvel and basically sign over all rights to said villain. In that case you're not nutz for bringing your original creation to Marvel. Although I guess you could argue the semantics of 'original'.

I still don't know if I agree. If that were the case, wouldn't all of the indy people be making crazy boatloads of cash? It seems like many of them end up either Marvel, DC or other licensed properties (think Dynamite and IDW). I don't think comics is filled with lots of indy guys making bank. Sure, you have a Kirkman, or Eastman, Laird, but unless I have been conned most of the smaller press dudes are not living the high life. Now that doesn't mean that you still wouldn't want to keep the idea for artistic reasons. You get to control it forever. On the other hand, if you create the next Venom, then that character will definitely live on after you and people will continue to tell stories whereas I don't know if I am going to see another story starring the Pre-Teen, Dirty Gene, Kung Fu Kangaroo. I also imagine there is some satisfaction in not only working on a character you love but adding to their legacy by creating some new sidekick or villain or new hero in general. I just don't think there is one answer as some things might work better in a licensed property (Marvel, DC, Godzilla, etc) as opposed to your own creator owned work.

[Trev]

Andy rewatch the kirkman video. It isn't about making bank it's about making a living. Most of the big creators are moving to creator owned.

It used to be you started at image and finished at marvel/dc. I see that trend reversing.

Once you're established why waste your best ideas at the big 2? Take ithem to creator owned, maintain control, and exploit them in ancillary markets.

[LA Rabbit]

Andy rewatch the kirkman video. It isn't about making bank it's about making a living. Most of the big creators are moving to creator owned.

It used to be you started at image and finished at marvel/dc. I see that trend reversing.

Once you're established why waste your best ideas at the big 2? Take ithem to creator owned, maintain control, and exploit them in ancillary markets.

I certainly understand wanting to control your own creations but I think there is value in doing work for hire that may not exist in creator owned comics. Artistically, you have to do what is right for you but working for other people can provide things.

To your favor, I would think the biggest argument is that Marvel and DC don't want really new ideas and don't know what to do with them. They want things like Red Lanterns, Winter Soldier, Batwing - characters that are technically new but have an established connection. However in favor of this (as previously noted) is you get to play with and add to this rich legacy that presumably influenced you as an artist (or you probably would not be working in comics). Your creation will forever join those characters. Further sometimes those new creations really fit in that existing world. Would anyone really want to read a Red She-Hulk outside of Marvel comics? Sure it might work but it is probably best within that context. There is probably also a chance that it will make it to other mediums. If you go indy, it could also make it to TV or film but unless you are Kirkman, it is unlikely that you will get the same level of approval as he has but you will get yes or no approval and a check.
The other consideration previously unmentioned is that more people will see your art at a larger publisher. Look at "Trio" which I think we can all agree is a pretty thin disguise for the Fantastic Four. Issue #3 sold under 5,500 copies. I think it is safe to say the Fantastic Four would have better circulation than that but Byrne gets to control this things wholly and forever.
Sometimes both these factors come together in one example. Dan Parent is an established and pretty well-known creator, yet I think it probably worked out better that he did Kevin Keller for Archie Comic Publications. He could have taken Kevin Keller to Image and done it with Archie analoges but I don't think anyone can argue that Image version of Kevin Keller is not making the news and likely not getting out there. Maybe it would have and then he would have control over that, but part of what made the character note-worthy was that he was in Riverdale. Now, the downside is the next writer could make him go to one of those pray the gay away programs and get converted to straight. He loses that control but gets exposure.

I think both options have value but I would not automatically say it is dumb to create new characters for the big two. I would agree with people that if you want control don't sell it to Marvel or DC, and if it really is original, then neither company would know what to do with it anyway so keep it yourself. However these people are not "giving" them away they are selling them for whatever their page rate/book rate is. If those characters allow you to tell an amazing story that satisfies you then do it. Johns and Lee looks pretty happy when I see him at cons so there must be something working for the man.

[LA Rabbit]

Andy rewatch the kirkman video. It isn't about making bank it's about making a living. Most of the big creators are moving to creator owned.

It used to be you started at image and finished at marvel/dc. I see that trend reversing.

Once you're established why waste your best ideas at the big 2? Take ithem to creator owned, maintain control, and exploit them in ancillary markets.

I certainly understand wanting to control your own creations but I think there is value in doing work for hire that may not exist in creator owned comics. Artistically, you have to do what is right for you but working for other people can provide things.

To your favor, I would think the biggest argument is that Marvel and DC don't want really new ideas and don't know what to do with them. They want things like Red Lanterns, Winter Soldier, Batwing - characters that are technically new but have an established connection. However in favor of this (as previously noted) is you get to play with and add to this rich legacy that presumably influenced you as an artist (or you probably would not be working in comics). Your creation will forever join those characters. Further sometimes those new creations really fit in that existing world. Would anyone really want to read a Red She-Hulk outside of Marvel comics? Sure it might work but it is probably best within that context. There is probably also a chance that it will make it to other mediums. If you go indy, it could also make it to TV or film but unless you are Kirkman, it is unlikely that you will get the same level of approval as he has but you will get yes or no approval and a check.
The other consideration previously unmentioned is that more people will see your art at a larger publisher. Look at "Trio" which I think we can all agree is a pretty thin disguise for the Fantastic Four. Issue #3 sold under 5,500 copies. I think it is safe to say the Fantastic Four would have better circulation than that but Byrne gets to control this things wholly and forever.
Sometimes both these factors come together in one example. Dan Parent is an established and pretty well-known creator, yet I think it probably worked out better that he did Kevin Keller for Archie Comic Publications. He could have taken Kevin Keller to Image and done it with Archie analoges but I don't think anyone can argue that Image version of Kevin Keller is not making the news and likely not getting out there. Maybe it would have and then he would have control over that, but part of what made the character note-worthy was that he was in Riverdale. Now, the downside is the next writer could make him go to one of those pray the gay away programs and get converted to straight. He loses that control but gets exposure.

I think both options have value but I would not automatically say it is dumb to create new characters for the big two. I would agree with people that if you want control don't sell it to Marvel or DC, and if it really is original, then neither company would know what to do with it anyway so keep it yourself. However these people are not "giving" them away they are selling them for whatever their page rate/book rate is. If those characters allow you to tell an amazing story that satisfies you then do it. Johns and Lee looks pretty happy when I see him at cons so there must be something working for the man.

[Trev]

I didn't say it was dumb, I said why waste your best ideas?

DC used to and may still have a thing where if creators get something if a character they made ends up in other media. I don't think marvel has ever done that.

In any case, what we are seeing right now from the career perspective is very different than the pre kirkman world:

1. Start small with a creator owned work
2. Parlay that into a big 2 job
3. Establish yourself and your 'brand'
4. Either move into a major leadership position or go back to creator owned with a bigger name.

Not everybody can be johns, lee, bendis and the ones who are well established and not them are pulling out of exclusives and going creator owned.

Morrison
Robertson
Ennis
Moore
Kirkman
Rucka
Brubaker
Ellis
Norton
Winnick
Hitch
Rivera

I'm sure I'm missing some folks.

[JohnMayo]

I didn't say it was dumb, I said why waste your best ideas?

Correct, you used the word "foolish," not "dumb."

I do question an earlier statement you made implying fewer titles would inherently result in higher quality of the remaining titles.

Using that line of thinking, wouldn't the titles from publishers which only have a single title therefore be of a much high quality than those published by Marvel and DC which routinely publisher around 100 issues a month?

[Trev]

I didn't say it was dumb, I said why waste your best ideas?

Correct, you used the word "foolish," not "dumb."

I do question an earlier statement you made implying fewer titles would inherently result in higher quality of the remaining titles.

Using that line of thinking, wouldn't the titles from publishers which only have a single title therefore be of a much high quality than those published by Marvel and DC which routinely publisher around 100 issues a month?

I think it is about talent, the quality of that talent, and how that talent is spread across the portfolio of books being published.

Fewer titles in general does not nec. yield higher quality across the line as you suggest with small publishers -- which for 1 book publishers are usually vanity imprints. But for the big two, concentrating the top talent on fewer titles and jettisoning the rest I believe would result in higher quality overall and to the point raised during the call -- reduce the cannibalization of like titles -- resulting in better profits. It seemed to me that without hard evidence you don't believe cannibalization is occurring -- fair enough.

The article that crystallized it for me was a Mike W. Barr piece on Canceled Comics Cavalcade -- if you're familiar with that book. Speaking in hindsight as someone who read all the content, he was fairly candid about the fact that most of it was not particularly good. The Jeanette Kahn article I mentioned before provided the perspective on that event from the top and is a good companion.

[LA Rabbit]

Sorry for the double post.

Not to answer Trev's question but as I said something similar I will answer from my perspective. This is filled with my usual share of guesswork and estimates and I don't work in the biz so please correct me where possible.

I think that cutting the line down (or for my argument's sake cutting the shared line titles down, you can still have Vertigo, Johnny DC, the video game licenses, ultimate universe, and whatever other standalone titles) provides a couple of potential advantages:

1) Reduce cost to get people to completely buy-in. This is not just money but time, space, whatever resource you have. Plenty of us old timey 80's comic readers used to essentially buy the entire line of a books back in the day (although I know John still does). If you have 25 main titles only, then I know personally that is manageable enough for me to want in on it all. I can swing 25 books a month via time, space, and money.

2) Completionist urge can't swing that pendulum easier. In any complete universe of books past 5 or 10 books there are going to be at least some amount that are not to your liking as much as others. I don't think there is a hard number but lets say that there are 3 or 4 that are "meh" and 1 you don't like. Well if I am already getting most of the books, I personally am more likely just to keep getting those other 4 or 5 so I can have that complete thing. I think most comic people have this urge to some degree and I know I have beaten it down, but in for a penny, in for a pound. DC has about 55 or so with the minis and all. At that ratio, there are too many meh books to justify getting them all.

3) More cohesive universe. Presumably with 25 titles, the editors can actually make the titles seem more consistent. I am pretty sure John has pointed out issues with the treatment of Superman in the new 52 and there are other times when even in my limited reading I am not sure it all adds up. Now maybe they could do this with the new 52 and are choosing not to for a variety of reasons (made up reason could be that two high profile writers/artists want to do their own thing and it just can't be meshed. You can't force either of them because of their high profile, I am sure we could come up with a bunch of other excuses). No matter the how and why, 25 would be easier than the current number of titles from either Marvel or DC. Maybe 25 is still too much. Obviously with 1 title, it is axiomatic that there is no conflict with other titles. At some point it becomes practically impossible to coordinate the titles and still get them out profitably (I would think but you computer guys always have clever systems so maybe you could make it so all titles are consistent and cohesive but how do you spin that many plates.

4) Talent management. I don't know about high quality, but certainly I think we can say there are only so many high-profile or big names in the comic business. Certain of them are not for hire so that knocks those out. Generally speaking, at least for now, it seems to me that Marvel and DC get the lion's share of those names. I imagine that this is because they can pay the most (but if there is a smaller publisher that pays more, please let me know). Some of the smaller guys can offer rights and control that you don't get at Marvel or DC. However plenty of those publisher are also doing work for hire where the artist might get profit sharing but not rights (Dynamite and IDW do many licensed propreties and isn't Top Cow work for hire?).
One artist can only do some many projects at once so with less projects you could theoretically staff every book with a high profile name. Only the most expensive people.
However this is entirely premised on the theory that the high profile creators are the best. I don't know that I believe this but it is probably true that the high profile people sell the best. I am finding great new people all the time.

To your specific question, I don't know about highest quality but it seems like the one title places do give you the unadulterated directed vision which likely speaks more to the cohesiveness concept. Terry Moore, Jeff Smith, Dave Sims, Thom Zahler, you are getting their perspective directly jacked into you. Now a 1 title operation has so many strikes against it that I don't think it is much of a practical model for any but the big names/singular vision. I think it is probably tough to get discovered by readers, you get no economies of scale or other similar efficiencies. Only a certain type can make that happen and by default the ones that do make it are going likely be special. I would probably advise trying to distribute a different way, look for new customers like Knights of the Dinenr Table seems to do. Also I would imagine that it is tough to pay high rates with a single title if you need collaborators. I don't think there is much profit margin in a single comic title. If you are trying to support 2 creators off that 1 title, you need to seel more than if you are supporting 1 creator off of the title. I think it really favors the one person operation for that.

However some of the smaller publishers do seem to have a better hit record with me. I like Red 5 and Th3d World and it seems like you guys give good marks to Big Dog Ink. Now I think Big Dog Ink books do have a similar vibe to them in look and feel but I think Red 5 and Th3d World seem to have titles that are pretty different in art and story. Bonnie Lass seems worlds away to me from Atomic Robo but that is just my take. I think the smaller publishers can really vet the titles they do because there is only a few of them (see my factors above). So even if the titles are not linked, they seem to really work hard on them. Not phrasing it well because I imagine Marvel and DC work hard as well.

This will never happen at Marvel and DC because I don't think they could make up the difference by cutting the line down that much. Marvel seems to have tried twice in my life to build sizeable little standalones, the new universe and the Ultimate universe. The problem is when you have that as a side to the main titles, the factors I list above are greatly weakened. If DC cuts the line in half, they would need sales to double. I think sales would go up but I doubt they would double. Therefore they lose money. Marvel would be cutting the line in 1/3 which they would never do. They are both now built on spreading the seed wide and catching what they can. Admittedly fewer titles means fewer creators to pay so a little savings that way but I doubt it is much as they probably lose some of the economies of scale that way.

Enjoying this discussion quite a bit. Glad to see the board get lively. Thanks to Trev, Boshuda and John.

[Trev]

apropos of this discussion, published late yesterday:

http://www.comicsbeat.com/2012/09/20/gr ... ther-myth/

[JohnMayo]

It seemed to me that without hard evidence you don't believe cannibalization is occurring -- fair enough.

The article that crystallized it for me was a Mike W. Barr piece on Canceled Comics Cavalcade -- if you're familiar with that book. Speaking in hindsight as someone who read all the content, he was fairly candid about the fact that most of it was not particularly good. The Jeanette Kahn article I mentioned before provided the perspective on that event from the top and is a good companion.

I do believe sales are being lowered on some titles because of the number of titles in particular groups of titles. What I don't believe is that few titles inherently results in higher quality. We have no reason to think that what any of us my consider to be the "lesser talent" on particular books wouldn't have been picked first where there fewer titles.

As someone that currently reads all of the DC Universe, Marvel Universe, Ultimate Universe, Valiant Universe and probably a few other universes, I agree that not everything is brilliant. I'm just not convinced the current number of titles out there exceeds the number of talents creators available.

Perhaps the problem is the publishers are not particularly effective at finding, guiding and grooming talent and therefore end up with either less than idea creators or, more likely, using creators in a less than ideal manner.

What I'm trying to say is that it is entirely likely we could see content just as bad or even worse if there were fewer titles coming out of Marvel and DC.

[Trev]

It seemed to me that without hard evidence you don't believe cannibalization is occurring -- fair enough.

The article that crystallized it for me was a Mike W. Barr piece on Canceled Comics Cavalcade -- if you're familiar with that book. Speaking in hindsight as someone who read all the content, he was fairly candid about the fact that most of it was not particularly good. The Jeanette Kahn article I mentioned before provided the perspective on that event from the top and is a good companion.

I do believe sales are being lowered on some titles because of the number of titles in particular groups of titles. What I don't believe is that few titles inherently results in higher quality. We have no reason to think that what any of us my consider to be the "lesser talent" on particular books wouldn't have been picked first where there fewer titles.

As someone that currently reads all of the DC Universe, Marvel Universe, Ultimate Universe, Valiant Universe and probably a few other universes, I agree that not everything is brilliant. I'm just not convinced the current number of titles out there exceeds the number of talents creators available.

Perhaps the problem is the publishers are not particularly effective at finding, guiding and grooming talent and therefore end up with either less than idea creators or, more likely, using creators in a less than ideal manner.

What I'm trying to say is that it is entirely likely we could see content just as bad or even worse if there were fewer titles coming out of Marvel and DC.

A lot of this points to weak editorial, which is something I hear you comment on a bit.

Talent identification and grooming is the responsibility of editorial, imo.

[JohnMayo]

1) Reduce cost to get people to completely buy-in.

I'll agree with that. Fewer titles means going all-in would be cheaper. Unless, of course, the few titles resulted in high prices to cover the overhead cost currently divided across more titles.

2) Completionist urge can't swing that pendulum easier.

I'm not sure I get what you are saying here.

3) More cohesive universe.

Fewer titles makes having a more cohesive universe easier. But having editors more skilled at keep the universe cohesive is the real answer here. Some people are simply more detailed oriented than others. Why not find the right kind of person who can do this naturally? Is the problem too many titles or a lack of focus/ability to keep the universe cohesive. I can read all of the titles in a given universe in an evening. I can't imagine that the creators and editors can find the time to do this. Actually, I can imagine it. I just don't accept it. In my opinion, keeping up with the continuity is part of the job of a creator and editor in a shared universe.

4) Talent management.

Talent management should be dependent on the number of titles. I might be a factor of how many titles a given editor has. If so, the problem is akin to the teacher/student ratio problem in some school. The solution is not few students but more teachers. Same thing here, the solution is not fewer titles but few titles per editor. If this is even the problem.

To your specific question, I don't know about highest quality but it seems like the one title places do give you the unadulterated directed vision which likely speaks more to the cohesiveness concept. Terry Moore, Jeff Smith, Dave Sims, Thom Zahler, you are getting their perspective directly jacked into you. Now a 1 title operation has so many strikes against it that I don't think it is much of a practical model for any but the big names/singular vision. I think it is probably tough to get discovered by readers, you get no economies of scale or other similar efficiencies. Only a certain type can make that happen and by default the ones that do make it are going likely be special. I would probably advise trying to distribute a different way, look for new customers like Knights of the Dinenr Table seems to do. Also I would imagine that it is tough to pay high rates with a single title if you need collaborators. I don't think there is much profit margin in a single comic title. If you are trying to support 2 creators off that 1 title, you need to seel more than if you are supporting 1 creator off of the title. I think it really favors the one person operation for that.

This is more of an issue of a single creator on a title than a single title at a publisher. Often both coincide. Love and Capes is not fundamentally different at IDW than when it was self published. The number of titles at IDW had no real impact on the story quality of the title.

However some of the smaller publishers do seem to have a better hit record with me. I like Red 5 and Th3d World and it seems like you guys give good marks to Big Dog Ink. Now I think Big Dog Ink books do have a similar vibe to them in look and feel but I think Red 5 and Th3d World seem to have titles that are pretty different in art and story. Bonnie Lass seems worlds away to me from Atomic Robo but that is just my take. I think the smaller publishers can really vet the titles they do because there is only a few of them (see my factors above). So even if the titles are not linked, they seem to really work hard on them. Not phrasing it well because I imagine Marvel and DC work hard as well.

I think the smaller publishers are more in touch with what the readers want than the people working for larger corporations.

Enjoying this discussion quite a bit. Glad to see the board get lively. Thanks to Trev, Boshuda and John.

Yes. Great discussion.

[JohnMayo]

A lot of this points to weak editorial, which is something I hear you comment on a bit.

Talent identification and grooming is the responsibility of editorial, imo.

Yes, I think a lot of the problems in comics are causes by weak editorial. And yes, I agree that talent identification and grooming is the responsibility of editorial and one that many editors might not have good training in.

[boshuda]

I think a smaller number of titles would be an improvement. It would make it possible for a larger number of 'collectors' to get the entire line.

For more casual buyers I think it would be less confusing when they go into the shop and want to buy something.

If the companies think they need to sell that many titles to fully capitalize on economies of scale or have some other business reason to publish x number of titles they should rethink their business model. How can companies with only a dozen titles or so, with a fraction of the sales of Marvel or DC, continue to turn a profit otherwise?

But maybe as John writes and says the problem is editorial and marketing and not the number of titles or new content or anything like that. I fully agree that they need to stop selling issues and start selling titles. This would mean not doing events, gimmicks, or crossovers unless they contribute something to the title and not to a particular issue. For a business where product is released every month I think it's absolutely ridiculous to assess things on a quarter-by-quarter basis. The actions of the big 2 (Marvel in particular) indicate to me they base every decision on quarterly profits, and not on long-term sustainability.

Assuming the horrible copyright laws we have don't go away anytime soon maybe it's time for the characters to be licensed out instead of controlled by Marvel and DC. Then it's just another line item for the corporation and a more focused group can actually create the Spider-Man and X-Men comics.