Comic Book Resources

Well number three is just an out right lie.

So’s number 1. 2 is pretty iffy, too.

Read the article for further detail – it’s pretty clear that #3 means “producing material that is not identical to material already on the market which someone else is doing“. Obviously, if you’re Marvel, putting out Marvel Comics is generally going to be a good idea. But publishing Marvel Comics when you’re, say, IDW? Not so much. The timeliness is also addressed, that Marvel and DC can get away with lateness to a certain degree, but small-timers don’t have that luxury.

#5 is interesting – I wasn’t aware that there was that much variance in the cost of selling various comics.

I think the list makes sense. #1 and 2 could be combined as “Be Professional.” I.e., put out a competently crafted product with decent production values, in a timely fashion. “A quality product” isn’t necessarily incompatible with sucking.

Success is a tricky word. How do you judge that? Just making a profit? Or selling over 40,000 copies a month?

I think for a book to be VERY successful, the average fan needs to think the book MATTERS. That can happen in a lot of ways. It could be by having Wolverine in it or it could be by having some unique artistic merit (though probably, that’s not nearly enough), or it could be part of big event X that people get behind.

Some of that is marketing, but some of it is creative planning too.

Mmm… so how come Brave and the Bold isn’t a success?

1) It’s a quality product. I mean, the book is glossy and pretty. Plus, it doesn’t matter if you hate Perez or Waid; they are both top notch creators and any book (I’m thinking Green Arrow or a new Captain Marvel/Shazam series) would be lucky to have them.

2) It kept its bi-monthly schedule.

3) It was new. It was different. And even though it wasn’t a Morrison book, they managed to tell 10 to 12 individual stories (mostly single or two-parter issues) that told a bigger story and touched past, present and future.

4) Yes here also. People knew about the series.

5) It wasn’t that expensive to retailers. And I imagine that it provides an average profit margin, the same as any other DC book.

Mmm… so how come Brave and the Bold isn’t a success?

Under this formulation, I guess it’d fail on point #2 (per Hibbs, “that the zeitgeist needs to be ready for what you’re doing.”)

That seems to be the standard conventional wisdom on B&B’s soft sales: it’s “too old-fashioned” or “fun doesn’t sell” or whatever.

This seems like it could apply to any product in existence.

Mmm… so how come Brave and the Bold isn’t a success?

Well, the article’s primarily function is to give advice to new ‘n up-and-coming companies.

And, really, B&B is just another damn DC superhero book, just like the 40 or 50 already out there. Most people probably feel like they have enough DC superhero books in their life.

1) It’s a quality product. I mean, the book is glossy and pretty. Plus, it doesn’t matter if you hate Perez or Waid; they are both top notch creators and any book (I’m thinking Green Arrow or a new Captain Marvel/Shazam series) would be lucky to have them.

Writing wise, Brave and the Bold has been very off and on since the Lords of Luck arc. Waid spends way too much time on set up (see the Ultraman/Superman issue or the most recent issue, where roughly half the issue is talking about what’s going on rather than having fists flying, or the whole Challengers of Doom arc which was literally five people sitting around and reading a book for four issues.) Frankly, he’d better off doing more 1-shots and less arcs so there’s less wasted space on set up.

I thought #2 was a myth everyone knows quality comics cant come out on a schedule.

Even the Lords of Luck arc struck me as pretty bad. The Haruspex wasn’t an interesting MacGuffin and just seemed to detract from what the book did best, bouncing wildly different character personalities off of each other. So honestly I would say that B&B violated #1; the product wasn’t awful, but the plot just wasn’t quality work. No slam on Waid to say this, I think, we all have off days.

In all I rather agree with Hibbs assessment of what makes a successful direct market book, although I’d note that moreso than a book needing to possess any of the characteristics in an absolute sense, they need to appear to possess these qualities if assessed by the untrained eye of the average non-internet, non-hardcore fan. If enough fans think a book appears to be quality work and a big deal and suchlike, no absolute proof you can offer to the contrary is probably going to dissuade them from buying it.

And, yeah, bein’ pretty crappy probably didn’t help Brave and the Bold much. I’ve been buying it on and off and it’s pretty much just continuity fetishization without the Final Crisis/Secret Invasion style illusion of meaning. (Continuity Fetishization! On Brave and the Bold! For shame! You disgrace the spirit of Bob Haney with your strange OCD!)

It ain’t like either of the creators are at the top of their game, here. This isn’t “Ruse” or “Potter’s FIeld” or “Impulse” Mark Waid, and it’s sure as hell not “JLA/Avengers” George Perez.

I agree with the list but, to wit:

1) A quality product
- Quality is so subjective. And I think comics are far too insular for “quality” to be anything except “big names for comics folks.” You put high profile writers and artists on a title, there is assumed quality. The threshold for this is much harder to overcome if you’re working just on the work and without a vehicle (big title) or a big name.

2) delivered in a timely fashion (both in the sense of “on time” as well as “at the right time”)
- Most assuredly. But I’d think this was a no brainer? I have the inkling most readers want to sit and read a full story and not decent serials in choppy bits. Trades are pushed like woah by Marvel/DC for a reason.

3) producing material that is not identical to material already on the market
- I agree with this and think even DC/Marvel can take a big lesson from it. While concepts may be different, target demographics are very similar. To wit, Blade or Wolverine? They are assuredly different characters but the tone and market focus is all too similar for both to survive. The titles need to diversify.
It doesn’t mean that they have to be “out there” or explicit or what have you. You need different titles for different demographics and niche markets rather than expand the line over the same core base of buyers.

4) with an appropriate amount of promotion, advertising, and publicity to let interested audiences know that the material is being produced
- Most def. You take a risk? Go all out. You need tie-ins and advertising to make it catch.

I’m sorry, but if a columnist is going to be smug enough to claim he has identified 5 key success factors for this business; then his factors should be able to work at face value and withstand a test… any test.

Scrutinazing my example (or Waid’s writing) doesn’t prove Hibbs’ hypothesis.

Look at Robin #174. Excellent comic, with the big Spoiler reveal and Batman as a guest star… only 26,201 copies sold.

Compare that to Teen Titans #59, Titans #2 or Superman-Batman #48 which sold 46,292, 57,341 and 52,830 (respectively).

Then there’s Wolverine Origins #25 at 52,891 copies sold. Can you say that it was that much better than Fables or Moon Knight?

(By the way, Wolverine Origins is like the 9th Marvel book to feature Wolverine within the month of May.
I’m sure there were others, but I don’t read all the X-men books so I can’t tell just how many appearances he had; but 9 I can support).

In any case, are we forgetting why most people buy comics, or is he under the impression that good writing and art can trump brand names?

Because if he is, I regret to inform him that he is missing one BIG, IMPORTANT, reality check. And that is, that the comic book market is not only about Superheroes; but about famous Superheroes!

Which leads me to #3… (producing material that is not identical to material already on the market).

Can he give us an example of a current successful comic series that isn’t based on a licensed or superhero property?

Then again, how is success measured these days? Is Usagi Yojimbo considered a success at 5,499 copies sold?

Yeah, but you’re cherry-picking examples from a specific line…

Y’know what, dude, just read the damn article, OK? I don’t see any point in me explaining to you, point-by-point, what an article that was linked to in the post actually says.

Yeah, I sorta figured the way it would work would be

1. Click on the link
2. Read the article
3. Come back and read my questions that were based on the article

If you skip #2, then yeah, it is not gonna make a lot of sense.

You know what…

I did read the article.

It’s crap.

I’m sorry I wasted my time reading it.

I’m sorry I wasted my time reading this thread.

And I’m sorry I cared enough to post one well natured comment and two time consuming posts.

I’ll try not to care again.

But Higgs is full of it. He provides no reason as to why he thinks the comic book market is longterm bullish, when all indicators point to being long term bear. He applauds Tokyopop’s restructuring; but at the heart of the matter is the fact their problems, with Borders, stem from the lack of sales, consumers/clients and all that jazz that he doesn’t see ’cause we are doing so well over here in the direct market.

But hey, if he thinks the numbers are due to turn around and go back to the way things were in the 80′s… then who am I to argue. After all, he has 5 airtight “ideas” and believes the Direct Market is devoid of “outside forces” (like recessions & paper costs). And to prove his point, he gives me (as an example) one of today’s current successes stories… Boris the Bear.

So, what else did I screw up? Oh, yeah. The line.

I thought I covered the line pretty well when I used Diamond’s Sales figures. You know, that sole provider for the Direct Market that includes products from Viz & Tokyopop, and is such a source of strength and comfort to Higgs & retailers everywhere.

And finally,

The key thing, that I apparently didn’t read is that Higgs forgot to say that if you want to be “profitable” as an independent publisher these days; then you should publish your comics as finished trades. Because from the looks of things (and Diamond’s own sales chart), that’s the only way you’ll make a marginal profit in today’s “bullish” market.

(Maybe that could be a worthy #6.)

The man’s name is Hibbs. The reason he states for being bullish on the DM is that he runs a DM store. He specifically runs one of the most successful comic shops in the nation for about 30 years.

Also, if you must pick nits: Marvel strongly promotes its product, explaining higher sales on mediocre Origins (sales trending sharply downward); likewise, Titans has been heavily promoted through the recent cartoon and other major events. These confirm to, I believe, #4. Meanwhile, Robin #174 isn’t a good comic book if you don’t care about Spoiler, which most people don’t, and DC did not promote her resurrection in any way. I’m not convinced editorial even knows she’s back.

Your comments aren’t as well thought-out as you think. They mostly convince me you’re not a careful reader and didn’t bother to find out who Brian Hibbs is. A man who’s sold comics successfully for thirty years probably, probably has a good basis for an intelligible opinion regarding what makes for a successful book, and disagreeing with him doesn’t require this absurd level of ad hominem garbage.

I’m going to disagree with red-Ricky. I think that the article hit spot-on. The thing that I think he and I are looking at differently, is that I am reading this as a how-to for a new product, and he is comparing existing products.

Batman, Robin, Spoiler, Titans, Wolverine, etc. all have momentum in the industry. Some of that momentum leads to sales, some of it prevents sales. I believe that Marvel could produce a bi-weekly comic entitled, “The Worst Wolverine Stories Ever Told” and deliver on that promise, and still sell 25,000 copies.

Again, I think that Brian’s article wasn’t about producing a Robin comic that sold as well as or better than Titans or Wolverine, but was about producing a new comic from a new company that sold well enough to justify producing a second issue.

1. You need good art and good stories. You don’t have to have home-run quality, but if the quality isn’t better than the average in the industry, then why would you expect your title to sell at all, much less sell as well as average.

2. Timeliness. You could deliver on the 5th of every month like clockwork, if your Christmas story hits in April and your political anti-war story hits six months after the troops come home then you have mistimed your product. Timing is a rough thing. You have to watch the media and be aware of it.

If you work on a spy thriller (with the twist that the spy is impersonating his own assassin) for 8 months getting it perfect and it just happens to come out two weeks before the release of War, you’ll be called a rip-off of the movie; but if it hits two years after the movie, you’ll be called unique and innovative.

3. Identical material isn’t about Robin selling as well as Batman because they are similiar superheroes. I’ve never seen anybody compare Daredevil and Nightwing sales, either. Identical material in this instance is recognizing what the market is flooded with, recognizing what the market doesn’t want, and delivering something that isn’t going to get lost in the flood while still being desirable.

I work for a company that publishing role playing games. The fantasy genere is to role playing games as super hero is to comic books. If we were to produce a fantasy genre it would have to be 100x better than Greyhawk or Ebberon (the Hal Jordan and Kyle Rayner of D&D) in order to sell 1/10 as well. And, nobody is doing licensed rpgs except Star Wars, but that’s because even Star Trek failed in this market. So, we went with an X-Files style of detective / fantasy with people with guns against demons, ghosts and dragons hiding in public. Different while still being recognizable. And, a year later we are still in the red, but also still in business.

4. Promotion has got to be the hardest of the five for a company to hit. If you advertize to the wrong people you do more than waste your money, but you could start word of mouth anti-promotion. If you advertize to people who loved 80s Marvel that Jim Shooter is going to be your EIC, it could be good. But, if you advertize to people who hated 80s Marvel and think that the 90s were so much better without Shooter looking over people’s shoulders, then those people might tell people who don’t have either opinion to stay away.

It might makes sense to advertize your Batman-like character to Batman fans. But, you run the risk of them saying that you are just a rip off of Batman, and not giving your otherwise unique spin a chance.

5. The profit margin is the part about getting it to the direct market. Really, the other four apply equally to producing a web comic, direct internet sales, subscriptions, etc. The middle men have to have a reason to carry your product and that reason is $$.

I think that this is a very good how-to exist and eventually succeed in any market, not just comics. I’m already pretty much doing this in the role playing industry. TNA is basically following a similiar model for their product. It is really also very similiar to how Fox started out.

Theno