Eric Powell Calls Out Everyone

If there wasn't anymore reason to love Eric Powell.

The numbers he quotes are pretty bleak.  I don't know if its fair to blame the comic reading audience.  Theres no doubt the numbers reflect the lack of diversity in these readers.  They don't have an excuse.  But the fact of the matter is, their love of superheroes doesn't change the fact, the industry is dying because of a lack of new readers. 

Most likely we'll see an improvement in creator owned stuff with the success of digital.  But digital is going to take probably at least a decade to really understand its place.

Comixology is definitely not the answer.  Creators take home very little, extremely little. 

So digital is coming, but is it actually going to create new readers? 

Why is it not fair to blame the comic reading audience? I'm not letting the companies and the distributors off the hook, but there definitely have been some attempts to generate diversity, bring in new readers and kids, etc., even by the big two. The problem is that they tend to fail when they're pitched to the traditional comics audience. I've seen superhero fanboys rabidly attack books like Scott Pilgrim just for being popular--they seem actively threatened by the idea of something new. Yes, the Big Two (and Image back in the day) definitely encouraged this OCD mindset--it's a bit of a chicken-and-egg--but there's a highly inbred mentality among comics fans, and while the Big Two especially aren't doing much to bring in new readers or advance the artform, it's hard to blame them to sticking with the audience that provides them with a steady flow of cash. In fact, I think part of the problem is linked to the fact that fanboys are essentially running these companies, rather than mature businessmen. It's hard not to read some of Didio and Quesada's statements and not imagine them posted on a message board somewhere.

It's funny, a few years ago I posted on this forum that I thought things were slowly turning around for indie comics. I actually still think that, though there's still a rough road ahead. But I can't help thinking that as few as the breakout indie successes are, there's still a hell of a lot more than there were ten years ago. Plus there are more options for publishers, and the chance, however remote, that your indie comic might get picked up by Hollywood, which is at least one motivation.

I'd like to know more about Comixology's business stuff, Nabster. Where are you getting your info from?

I understand blaming the companies and the readers for the sorry state of diversity in comics, but the effect of the comic code all those years ago cannot be denied. Comic companies stick with superhero work because comic readers buy superhero comics because they are conditioned to do so. This is not to take any blame off the readers or companies making this dreck, but the Comic Code all but ensured that for decades most of what was published was within those safe parameters.

But really, people need to stop spending some much time and money on superhero comics that they'll end up complaining about anyways when there is so many good title that don't involve superheroes. While I don't necessarily agree with Steve Niles 'no complaining' rule, it would do the industry more good if people spent more time championing the good rather than denigrating the bad.

The comics code has little or nothing to do with the problems facing comics today. It was more or less neutered in the 70s. And while it steered things towards superheroes, there have been several eras since then in which indie comics have flourished, particularly the 80s.

Also, people don't seem to realize the complicity of the companies, particularly DC and Dell, in the Comics Code. It wasn't a government authority, it was a board made up of the same people who controlled the comics industry, which is why it slanted so heavily towards superheroes and funny animals--that was what DC and Dell published. Ironically, a government-controlled authority might have had more reasonable guidelines. So it's very much part of the continuum of monopoly and exploitation of which the comics publishers have historically been guilty.

If you're going to blame a historical trend for the way things are now, blame the boom and bust of the 90s. It drove away almost everyone who wasn't a fanatical superhero fan (and usually one with a seriously skewed sense of priorities) and comics sales numbers have never recovered.

The CCA put out of business plenty of publishers who specialized in non-superhero work. Saying that has no impact on the modern superhero dominated landscape is like saying slavery has no bearing on the racial achievement gap. Just because we're chronologically displaced from it doesn't mean the effects don't linger. It is a point well made, though, that it was in fact the big comic publishers who created the code. It was in response to Seduction of the Innocent and a government inquiry, but it was still a self imposed code.

As to the second point, the 90's boom period may have drove folks away, but I don't how that affects diversity in the medium.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nabster 

So digital is coming, but is it actually going to create new readers? 

More importantly, will it create more buyers? I've recommended to several of my friends who dug the movie that they check out the Scott Pilgrim books(just got them for Christmas), and they said they'd torrent it. I didn't even realize people torrented comics, and now I feel bad for even recommending them.
 

Prankster, I'm trying to find the article I read on the breakdown of how much a creator gets through comixology.  I believe it was one of those comicsalliance articles on digital comics.  Comicsalliance interviewed a ton off people upon digital comics.  Someone linked a bunch of those interviews (I apologise if it was you).  It might have been somewhere else, maybe in that one peice about how comics creators need to create new ways to sell digital comics, that Warren Ellis linked.  I remember when I read it, I was going to link it, I should've.  Comicsalliance or CBR, I'm sure it was one of these.  Possibly comicsbeat or newsarama, but I think its one of the first two I mentioned.  I'll find it eventually.

But what I read was, Comixology takes at least half off the top, and then the publishers get their cut, leaving extremely little for the creators.  Creators get less percentage wise than they do from print, apparently.  The numbers I remember, reflect the same predatory anti creator practices that plague the industry.  There are digital comics companies being created, I think people realise now is the time to make your mark.  The digital industry is completely at the mercy of some visionary people, whom are needed to make this work.  I don't think Comixology is the answer, something better is going to be created, or is needed for the industry to really gain traction.  The ability for digital comics to create a dynamic and directed experience is what I think will really propel it.  I could be wrong, but I think the scope for improving the digital comic experience is absolutely huge.  Comixologys guided view is still pretty terrible, but it could be amazing.  The potential is truly there.   

You know, I can't really defend the audience.  I'm tempted to say, all pop art, in every medium has a majority of an audience whom consume poor art.  Those mediums are just large enough to have niches that can support the better works.  But I don't think this holds, because at the very least those mediums have variety.  Even if it is a variety of different trash.  The insular nature of the comic fan is unmatched by other mediums fans.  Its a dominoe effect, the more the audience relies solely on superheroes, the less choice there is, thus less people are interested in it.  So you're correct.  But I guess why I thought maybe its unfair is, the demographics of this audience is extremely isolated to older white males.  Is it surprising a medium consumed by a group not consisting of variety, chooses to consume comics without variety?

At the end of the day, like you said, the big two do sometimes create something different (non cape).  And it just almost never sells.  And if it does, it pales in comparison to the Batmans and Supermans.  The disparity is just too large, it defies belief almost.

Yup, this is very true.  Lots of self destructive practices.

Quote:

Originally Posted by James May 

The CCA put out of business plenty of publishers who specialized in non-superhero work. Saying that has no impact on the modern superhero dominated landscape is like saying slavery has no bearing on the racial achievement gap. Just because we're chronologically displaced from it doesn't mean the effects don't linger.

It's had some effects, but the big problems affecting the industry right now--lack of diversity, low sales, a super-niche audience--don't really have much to do with the historical footprint of the Comics Code, except in fairly indirect ways. In the Code's heyday, comics had much, much higher sales than they do now, and believe it or not, there was plenty of diversity. In fact, in the early years of the Code, up until Stan and Jack revitalized the genre, superheroes were seen as being in decline; DC had some high-selling characters, like Superman, but compared to the superhero boom of WWII, there were comparatively few superhero books, and fewer still that did really well. In the meantime throughout the late 50s and 60s, you had romance comics, western comics, SF comics, funny animals, comics based on celebrities, Mad magazine, teenage humour like Archie, and lots more. Much of it selling better than even the top-selling books of today. If there was a lack of diversity, it was inasmuch as comics were always aimed squarely at kids, and even then, by the late 60s you had a boom of independent, counterculture comics--excuse me, "comix". Remember, it was always perfectly legal to publish comics without the code, it's just that newsstands and retailers were reluctant to stock them during the height of the "comics lead to juvenile delinqency" scare. By the 60s, everyone had bigger problems.

The dominance of superheroes really didn't kick in until the 70s, as Marvel and its geeky continuity started to dominate the market, and even then there was still a pretty solid diversity--horror comics and pulp fantasy were both big, Disney and Archie were always solid sellers, and later Star Wars led to a boom of SF comics. And, as mentioned, the Comics Code was challenged and eventually weakened precisely at this point in history. If diversity in comics started to decrease at this point, it was probably a combination of economic factors--the comics industry went through some tough times in the 70s, with a lot of books getting canceled--and the audience aging and getting more obsessed with "grown up" comics of a certain genre (basically, Marvel-style continuity superheroes).

Which is also why I bring up the Image boom and bust, because again, you had retailers chasing a particular type of audience--geeks who wanted "edgy" niche comics--to the exclusion of almost everyone else. This has always been a problem with the comics industry, but it got really bad in the early 90s. Right up until then, comics regularly sold in the hundreds of thousands. Then everyone started chasing the dream of lenticular covers that would someday be worth a fortune, and foolishly let everything else go by the wayside. Once everyone wised up to the scam, the audience left in droves, leaving only the fanatics. And this has dragged down diversity ever since, because without a broad audience base, new books that appeal to a different market can't survive. If the 90s crash hadn't happened, it would have been easier to maintain a broad selection of genres and styles. But since then, it's been too much competition for too tiny an audience, and the people who already have the market staked out have an advantage.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nabster 
 But I guess why I thought maybe its unfair is, the demographics of this audience is extremely isolated to older white males.  Is it surprising a medium consumed by a group not consisting of variety, chooses to consume comics without variety?

I'm not sure what keeps "older white males" from not reading anything but superheroes. Does straight SF somehow not appeal to older white males? Humour? Horror? I'm not talking about radically experimental stuff here, just the same kind of genres that support the movie and TV industries. I mean, if something like Scott Pilgrim is being sneered at by superhero fanboys for being too weird, when you'd think that it would appeal to that demographic specifically, I think it's a sign that the audience is living in a bubble. I don't know if it's the fact that they're too busy plunking down money for their favourite continuity books (which they complain endlessly about) to have money left over for something new, or if it's just that they're assholes, but superhero fans have a dispiriting tendency to be actively hostile to anything new. And their slavish devotion to the corporate overlords is also pretty embarassing--see the inevitable pack of nerds who will defend anything the Big Two do, from siding with DC against the Seigel family to the convoluted defenses of why superheroes should always be straight white males.

Speaking of which--I KNOW there are passionate female, non-white, and gay superhero fans out there. They have to be passionate, because the superhero fan community is often obnoxious and even hostile to anyone who isn't a straight white male. I don't see how that's excusable either.

As for the ComiXology stuff, I did link to a few articles a while back, but I don't remember reading that about the percentage for the creators being lower in any of them. In fact, one of the articles made the point that a disproportionate number of the sales on ComiXology were creator-owned, so presumably that's a good thing.

Obviously, if the publishers are using this as an excuse to lower the percentages, that's a bad thing. Though if Comixology ever manages to do the impossible and expand the comics audience significantly, even a smaller percentage may be an improvement on what creators are making on print.

ComicsAlliance reacts.

Prankster, I found the article.  Its written by Mark Millar.

Okay, Millar says similar percentages, but my point remains.  For some reason Millars comics are amongst the most popular, so he probably gets a better deal.  I'm sure comixology takes even more than 50% from other comics.  To me, one of the beauties of digital should be the ability to capture far more revenue.  But it appears the opposite is happening, because you have three parties taking virtually all the money, Apple, Comixology, and the Publisher.  Someone needs to figure out a way to at least get rid of Apple, and Comixology, and hopefully the Publisher from this equation.  Because, if you can't make a living doing it, why bother?  Money, and profits is what is going to drive this thing.  Comixology's model would require the comic audience to double just for the creators to make the same money!!  Not tenable.

The incredible thing is the publisher splitting the take 50/50(minimum I believe) with comixology.  This is obviously a sweetheart deal.  Its ridiculous the big two wouldn't just digitally distribute it themselves, and double the size of their pies.  And this is the worrying part, DC and Marvel are owned by mega conglomerates now, Time/Warner and Disney, respectively.  The money they get from these comics are peanuts to them, so they don't care about making deals that continue to suppress the creators.  Someone said DC and Marvel aren't even comic book companies anymore, but Intellectual Property companies.  They're only concerned with making profits of their existing characters.  So movies, merchandise, and cartoons is what they actually care about.  Comics are just a holdover from another era to them.  In fact these anti comics, anti creators practices may actually be aimed at specifically ensuring new properties don't flourish lest they threaten the popularity of their own ones.  I just think its a general lack of care and thought, as their sweetheart deal with comixology proves.  Comixology to me represents an attempt to keep things exactly the same, worse maybe.

We need to move on from the big two, and from comixology somehow.  I think the best way is to create a comixology type database, but have it accessed from the web, thus ipad users can still view it without having to pay apple 1/3 off the top.  Although, maybe Comixologys massive cut and the Publisher only need to eliminated.  Comixology isn't some piece of technical masterwork, my friend makes apps for this company, and he said its basic enough.  Their true strength is somehow getting all comic companies into bed with them.  Maybe that 1/3 Apple gets is a necessary evil, although I don't see why, when the web is at every ones disposal.

I imagine a good website, or comics portal, would involve a team of editors, maybe even content creators.  But this team essentially is concerned with promoting other peoples creator owned comics.  And they take only 10-15% off the top, nothing more.  They'd decide which comics are worthwhile amongst the, hopefully, thousands that are submitted.  Just spit ballin.

But there are people creating their own digital comic book companies, I read about one or two, in the hopes to create original digital content.  I think the good ones might flourish in this age of pads and tabs.  Hopefully they're truly tailoring the digital experience to maximum effect.

The thing is, these slate/tablets are becoming absolutely huge.  I think over 100 million are expected to be sold by the end of 2011.  This needs to be harnessed.

I'm astonished by most of the reactions from comicsalliance, as I have been by most of the community's reaction.  I think a lot of people are insulted by his message, because they're part of that hardcore superhero audience.  Even if they consume some non cape stuff, I think the majority of the stuff they're consuming is the big two superhero stuff, so its not surprising they're not taking the message well.  I personally, think Powell is comepletely correct.

I think this is what I was trying to get at earlier.  Its not unfair to criticise the DM audience, they suck there's no doubt about that.  But it might just be futile.  They're simply not going to change.  The DM market exists to read Xmen and Batman comics, and thats not going to change.  But I still think Powells message is correct, it certainly cannot hurt to promote creator owned stuff.  Its insane that some people are getting so defensive.  A lot of the arguments against Powells video deals with how he delivers the message, the humor, the superhero raping him.  But thats completely missing the point.  Anyway I find it hard to believe people who read comics, which are pretty damned explicit in every possible way, are so easily offended.  I think they just don't like being told its strange that all they read is superhero crap. 

For the record, Marvel and DC both have their own comics apps, and there are many others besides ComiXology. An indie publisher can, theoretically, sell their own stuff directly through iTunes or their own website, no publisher or ComiXology required.

I think I've put my finger on what bothers me about the reactions to Powell's video: he's clearly criticizing the industry, but people are reading it as a criticism of superhero comics themselves. I feel like to a lot of superhero fans, the two things are unhealthily tied up together, so that they don't just enjoy Superman comics, they're rooting for DC, the company, no matter what it does. That's how you get the "rooting against the underdog" mentality when something happens to challenge these two huge publishers.

I get a message from YouTube saying "this video is private" ... what happened?

ElCaptain?  What are you referencing?

And Prank, its true that Marvel and DC have separately branded apps.  But when I fire them up, it used to say, "Powered by Comixology".  So I just assumed it was the same deal, wrongly probably.  Its certainly the exact same software and format.   

And yes one can definitely make their own app.  But, first of all the costs may be a little prohibitive if one doesn't possess the technical know how, since the comics themselves are unlikely to return much of a profit.  And secondly, one would have to be prolific to warrant their own app.  And in comics that can be tough, as I'm sure you know far better than me(Btw, I bought a digital copy of yr comic, read it tonight hopefully).  These observations are not necessarily significant.  But making your own app, I think would only work for a creator who has already found an audience.  The problem is how do we harness digital for the new comers, for unpublished creators?

And another prob, which I've mentioned before I'm sure, is the fact Comixology hasn't optimized the guided view for the Ipad.  I think this is criminal.  Whats the point of reading digital comics on a pad or tab, if you're not going to use its natural advantages?  Massive opportunities are being squandered, the paradigm in its infancy, now is the time to get it right!  DC, Marvel, or Comixology should certainly stop draggin their asses on this.  Hell, even regular reading isn't perfectly optimized.  Frequently you have unwanted borders, that should've been cropped, which require the user to zoom.  The ipads a little smaller than the standard 12 inch comic, so zooming into the pictures to obscure the borders is necessary in maintaining the original proportions and clarity.  Problem is comixology doesn't maintain zoom levels from page to page, I've read independent comic readers on the market allow for maintaining the zoom level, but there's no way for comixology to share your dls with these readers.  Digital is awesome, I love it.  I read digi comics on and off, all the time.  But they're not going to draw in many readers if they don't create a better experience.   

Your totally right.  I don't think the superhero bangin him was aimed at people who read comics.  Its actually fascinating how defensive comic book readers are.  With the whole, hes "saing we're virgin losers who live in our Mom's basment."  Powell was obviously joking, and how sensitive are these ppl?  Powell didn't really insult the fans at all.   

I went on those comicsalliance talk backs for a bit.  And virtually no one is receptive to Powells message, lots of knee jerk reactions.

Also Powell apparently took down the video from Youtube, so obviously the reaction has been consistently negative. 

I don't have an iPad (or an iPhone or even an iPod--yes, I'm a dinosaur) but my understanding is that there are a number of ways to view PDF and CBR/CBZ formats. So if you're an indie comics creator, you just need to find a way to sell downloads of those.

Hint hint.

Bought it and read it.  I'm very impressed, it was fantastic.  Not often you have a fat heroine, especially in comics.  I liked the second story as well.  Very cool indeed.  Did you take classes or go to art school, or did you learn to draw on your own?  Whats next, another issue, or another thing?