What does a comic produced now need to have to replicate old-school figures?

[[]D[]/\/\[]D @ Nite/So-tite]

Back in the 40's, Captain America Comics #1 almost sold one million copies. Today, it's given that even the bestselling title gets nowhere near that figure.

What would need to be included in a new comic titile (plots, characters, etc) produced now to get that same figure in today's market per month? Also, how would the book have to be marketed and what would the marketing include?

NOTE: This does not include factors outside the book itself and marketing. Even taking into account the current market factors today (fans, readers, then vs now, etc.), what would a publisher have to do to at least try replicate that number using only the book itself and marketing factors alone?

[Tadhg]

License Harry Potter

[mgs]

surely, you gest.

without the aid of a worldwide war of absolute necessity and 'open' marketing for comic books worldwide, nothing short of offering gold, drugs, or perhaps, sex, will ever get a sale of a comic book to that level again.

Maybe, a worldwide ban on use of paper, making a comic book one of the rarest things for sale may be the answer.


Edit:

*rethinking* Well...maybe one mill ain't that hard, but it's still pretty hard, in today's terms of sales.

[Michael P]

The mob controlling distribution again.

[Samurai]

A 12 cent cover price, an audience of kids with few other entertainment options, and distribution to bookstores and newstands...

[Dumok]

A Good Start would be Shameless Self Marketing,
Shameless Self Marketing
and
Shameless Self-Marketing.
Good Art and Story also helps,
You need to generate attention, and buzz while telling the world just how great your product is. Either that or have something equivalent to a train Wreck that will make people want to look away and be unable to.

[Pól Rua]

D[]/\/\[]D @ Nite/So-tite;7463603']What does a comic produced now need to have to replicate old-school figures?

Eliminate the internet, PC gaming and game consoles. Get rid of television, DVDs and VCRs.
Then, I'm guessing youll have a lot more people reading comics.

[MacQuarrie]

Remember that circulation figures for the period were based on goods sold on a returnable basis. The comics sat on the racks for a couple of months, and if they didn't sell, the covers were torn off and sent back for credit toward the next batch.

Sell-through rates typically were around 50% of circulation, meaning that a comic with a circulation of 1 million actually sold about 500,000 copies.

500,000 is still a pretty healthy number. Things that might impede a comic from reaching that number...

Already mentioned:
Competition from other media
Distribution, distribution, distribution (they can't buy them if they can't find them)
Price (a comic in 1940 cost the same as a movie ticket, but it was still low enough to be an impulse purchase)

But if you really want to sell the product, you have to kill the fanboy mindset, and return comics to what they were before, an inexpensive bit of escapist entertainment you could roll up and shove in a pocket. It doesn't have to be tailored for kids, but it has to be accessible to them, it has to be self-contained, and it has to be fun to read. "To be continued" is death to the mass market.

Here's the catch: when most people ask how to increase circulation of comics, they really mean "how do we increase the number of comics fans?" That's the wrong question. You're just not going to recruit a lot of people to join the ranks of what shows up on the SDCC highlight reel. You're not.

The real question is "how do we open up comics so that they aren't strictly limited to only the people who've already been reading them for years and know all the jargon?" The answer to that question is to throw out the jargon. Write a comic that you can read without a recap page, without an encyclopedic knowledge of the history of comics, and without reading a dozen other comics to get the story.

Treat every comic as if it exists in its own universe as much as possible. Superman exists in the same world as Batman, but the only time we should be aware of it is when they cross paths, and that shouldn't happen very often.

Also, you're not going to convince the general public (especially Moms) that comics aren't creepy until the artists put some clothes on the women and stop making their boobs bigger than their heads.

If Mom don't like it, you're not going to sell it.

[[]D[]/\/\[]D @ Nite/So-tite]

Remember that circulation figures for the period were based on goods sold on a returnable basis. The comics sat on the racks for a couple of months, and if they didn't sell, the covers were torn off and sent back for credit toward the next batch.

Sell-through rates typically were around 50% of circulation, meaning that a comic with a circulation of 1 million actually sold about 500,000 copies.

500,000 is still a pretty healthy number. Things that might impede a comic from reaching that number...

Already mentioned:
Competition from other media
Distribution, distribution, distribution (they can't buy them if they can't find them)
Price (a comic in 1940 cost the same as a movie ticket, but it was still low enough to be an impulse purchase)

But if you really want to sell the product, you have to kill the fanboy mindset, and return comics to what they were before, an inexpensive bit of escapist entertainment you could roll up and shove in a pocket. It doesn't have to be tailored for kids, but it has to be accessible to them, it has to be self-contained, and it has to be fun to read. "To be continued" is death to the mass market.

Here's the catch: when most people ask how to increase circulation of comics, they really mean "how do we increase the number of comics fans?" That's the wrong question. You're just not going to recruit a lot of people to join the ranks of what shows up on the SDCC highlight reel. You're not.

The real question is "how do we open up comics so that they aren't strictly limited to only the people who've already been reading them for years and know all the jargon?" The answer to that question is to throw out the jargon. Write a comic that you can read without a recap page, without an encyclopedic knowledge of the history of comics, and without reading a dozen other comics to get the story.

Treat every comic as if it exists in its own universe as much as possible. Superman exists in the same world as Batman, but the only time we should be aware of it is when they cross paths, and that shouldn't happen very often.

Also, you're not going to convince the general public (especially Moms) that comics aren't creepy until the artists put some clothes on the women and stop making their boobs bigger than their heads.

If Mom don't like it, you're not going to sell it.

I'm don't know for sure, but have these things help titles like Bone or Invincible (in terms of higher than average sales)?

[JeffreyWKramer]

D[]/\/\[]D @ Nite/So-tite;7488384']I'm don't know for sure, but have these things help titles like Bone or Invincible (in terms of higher than average sales)?

I dunno about INVINCIBLE, but I've been told BONE collections sell like hotcakes through Scholastic's school book programs.

[K Von Doom]

Value for Money: A $1.25 cover price similar to the '90s boom would make it cheap enough for anyone to buy. Also the standard 22 page comic might seem short for most, so a double size like 48 pages for $1.25 would make it a great buy.

Accessibility: Don't just sell in comic book stores. Market it in large bookstores as well, like Borders and such. Also video games stores because they have a huge market with a similar demographic.

Best Creators: The art would have to be impressive and mainstream, and the writing smart. I'm talking Jim Lee in his X-men days, Alex Ross from Kingdom Come and Neil Gaiman. And the story would have to be interesting but cater to most.

Recognizable characters: Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings, Spiderman, Batman, Wolverine etc would have to be involved somehow. If not, million-selling games such as Streetfighter, World of Warcraft, GTA, Halo would have to be the subject and marketed as the game comes out. Definitive Marvel vs DC or Capcom vs SNK stories would also sell.

Special Covers: The much maligned variant, collector, gatefold, die-cut, multiple version cover of the 90s would have to be brought back.

I have no doubt that a $1.25 comic that's 48 pages long with cover art by Alex Ross, interior art by Jim Lee and written by Neil Gaiman featuring Streetfighter characters helping out the wizards of Hogwarts from the overrunning army of Warcraft orcs from invading the school, as Marvel characters assist the wizards and DC characters assist the orcs with 8 variant covers featuring trademark characters from all companies involved would sell 1 million copies in Borders.

[dupont2005]

Eliminate the internet, PC gaming and game consoles. Get rid of television, DVDs and VCRs.
Then, I'm guessing youll have a lot more people reading comics.

and convince people that it will be worth millions in 20 years. multiple covers with plenty of foil and embossing should guarantee that

[Shellhead]

To replicate the sales figures of the '40s, comic books would need to be cheap and have extremely widespread distribution. Sales were still pretty high in the '70s when I was a kid, and I could buy several comic books for a dollar, at the grocery store, the drug store, the newsstand, or the convenience store.

To get back to cheaper prices, we would need cheap recycled paper, a cheap printing process, and cheaper talent. No tv or movie guys, no best-selling novelists, just efficient hacks who crank out the product. Sorry if this sounds harsh, but has anybody here actually read comics from the '40s? They were pretty crappy. Dumb stories, bad artwork, corny dialogue. But they sold well, because kids like bright colors and action, and comics were cheap compared to toys or any other entertainment alternatives except playing tag.

[MacQuarrie]

and convince people that it will be worth millions in 20 years. multiple covers with plenty of foil and embossing should guarantee that

Comics sold the most long before anyone thought they would have any value. Most of the biggest-selling comics ended up in WWII paper drives.

The speculator boom of the '80s and '90s is largely responsible for the low sales of comics today. It's what changed comics from an entertainment medium to a faded fad.

[dupont2005]

Comics sold the most long before anyone thought they would have any value. Most of the biggest-selling comics ended up in WWII paper drives.

The speculator boom of the '80s and '90s is largely responsible for the low sales of comics today. It's what changed comics from an entertainment medium to a faded fad.

yeah
but short of a max max style post apocalyptic world where our cellphones no longer have internet access and our ipods no longer have the entire series of the sopranos on them, the only way i can see for comic books to sell like they used to is to get the speculator buyers back

[MacQuarrie]

yeah
but short of a max max style post apocalyptic world where our cellphones no longer have internet access and our ipods no longer have the entire series of the sopranos on them, the only way i can see for comic books to sell like they used to is to get the speculator buyers back

Never gonna happen.

Look up the Tulip mania. It doesn't happen twice with the same object. Comics are done as an investment.

[fly on the wall]

Never gonna happen.

Look up the Tulip mania. It doesn't happen twice with the same object. Comics are done as an investment.

That's the reason why it's okay to throw them away once you are done with them.

But stock mania happens again and again. Real Estate mania happens again and again. Aren't stocks and real estate objects? Gold mania happens once and awhile, too.

Not knocking your theory at all, I don't think there will ever be a Tulip or a Comic Book or a Beany Baby Mania again. But why do some objects get mulit-mania?

[Michael P]

Because those objects have actual value?

[dupont2005]

Never gonna happen.

Look up the Tulip mania. It doesn't happen twice with the same object. Comics are done as an investment.

thats just what they want you to think. im still banking on this foil covered batman #0 to buy my retirement yacht

[MacQuarrie]

That's the reason why it's okay to throw them away once you are done with them.

But stock mania happens again and again. Real Estate mania happens again and again. Aren't stocks and real estate objects? Gold mania happens once and awhile, too.

Not knocking your theory at all, I don't think there will ever be a Tulip or a Comic Book or a Beany Baby Mania again. But why do some objects get mulit-mania?
Difference is, stocks and real estate and gold have intrinsic value. Comics, as an investment, really don't.

[MacQuarrie]

thats just what they want you to think. im still banking on this foil covered batman #0 to buy my retirement yacht

You might be able to hollow out a shelter in the bushes behind the 7-11.....

[dupont2005]

You might be able to hollow out a shelter in the bushes behind the 7-11.....

can i still dress like thurston howell the third?

[MacQuarrie]

Value for Money: A $1.25 cover price similar to the '90s boom would make it cheap enough for anyone to buy. Also the standard 22 page comic might seem short for most, so a double size like 48 pages for $1.25 would make it a great buy.
The only way that could be done and still turn a profit is to make it an 80 page comic with 48 pages of comics and 32 pages of ads. Without the ad base, there's no way to publish a comic at that price point without losing money.
Accessibility: Don't just sell in comic book stores. Market it in large bookstores as well, like Borders and such. Also video games stores because they have a huge market with a similar demographic.
Comics retreated to the comics shops because they made so little profit that it wasn't worth it for other stores to stock them. You're not going to get them into the stores you mention unless you can convince them they will make a profit on them. Borders has a carefully planned out formula for dollars earned per square foot of shelf space, and if comics don't sell, comics don't stay.
Best Creators: The art would have to be impressive and mainstream, and the writing smart. I'm talking Jim Lee in his X-men days, Alex Ross from Kingdom Come and Neil Gaiman. And the story would have to be interesting but cater to most.
Sorry, none of them are mainstream. Bruce Timm is mainstream. There's no such thing as a mainstream superhero comic book. They are a niche interest, and the general public's idea of comics is the 1967 version of Spider-Man.
Recognizable characters: Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings, Spiderman, Batman, Wolverine etc would have to be involved somehow. If not, million-selling games such as Streetfighter, World of Warcraft, GTA, Halo would have to be the subject and marketed as the game comes out. Definitive Marvel vs DC or Capcom vs SNK stories would also sell.
What makes you think people want to read comics about games they can play? Why not give them something they didn't know they could have? Let comics do what they do best, and copying other media isn't it.
Special Covers: The much maligned variant, collector, gatefold, die-cut, multiple version cover of the 90s would have to be brought back.
Oh hell no.
I have no doubt that a $1.25 comic that's 48 pages long with cover art by Alex Ross, interior art by Jim Lee and written by Neil Gaiman featuring Streetfighter characters helping out the wizards of Hogwarts from the overrunning army of Warcraft orcs from invading the school, as Marvel characters assist the wizards and DC characters assist the orcs with 8 variant covers featuring trademark characters from all companies involved would sell 1 million copies in Borders.
And it would lose money. The numbers don't pencil out.

[dupont2005]

if super hero comics aren't the most mainstream comics there are then what is?

[Alex Scott]

What makes you think people want to read comics about games they can play? Why not give them something they didn't know they could have? Let comics do what they do best, and copying other media isn't it.Thing is, these game-related comics already exist. Udon's basically become the official Street Fighter team. IDW has Metal Gear Solid. DC and Tokyopop have both handled Warcraft, and Tokyopop seems to have been doing well with Kingdom Hearts (which has the added bonus of being a Disney comic). Marvel, I believe, sold quite a few copies of the Halo Graphic Novel. Viz is positively loaded with game tie-ins: Mega Man, Legend of Zelda, Blue Dragon,* and, of course, Pokemon.

Then there's all the game-related webcomics -- Penny Arcade, PVP, ctrl-alt-del (ugh), VG Cats, 8-Bit Theatre, and any number of crappy knock-offs and sprite comics. And Nintendo Power's had in-house comics from the beginning -- starting with the Howard and Nester strips, continuing with Mario, Zelda, Metroid, and Starfox serials, up through whatever they're doing today.

So yeah, I don't think comics have much to worry about on the video game adaptation front. Whether they're any good is a different story, but it's not exactly a pressing issue.

(and personally, I can think of some pretty big advantages: namely, that if I want to get the whole story from the game, I have to either sit through hours of non-playable cutscenes or play the whole game for forty hours or more -- or there's not much of a story to begin with. A comic can tell the whole story without quarreling with the gameplay, or expand the universe in a way the game isn't built to do)

Other than that, though, you make a lot of sense. I just get touchy when people bring up video games in comic book discussions, because they make such an easy scapegoat for comics' problems. Personally, I think if comics would be much better off if the companies put less emphasis on building up properties for other media, milking nostalgia, or manufacturing collectors' items, and more on finding out what readers actually want outside of superheroes or genre work, pursuing original ideas, and coming up with better formats.

[Alex Scott]

if super hero comics aren't the most mainstream comics there are then what is?Naruto, Fruits Basket, Diary of a Wimpy Kid, Disney, Garfield, Peanuts, and to a lesser extent, webcomics (I say "to a lesser extent," but then, Penny Arcade alone is popular enough to result in both a convention and a national charity).

[Brandon Hanvey]

if super hero comics aren't the most mainstream comics there are then what is?


What Jim is saying that superheroes comics are only mainstream for the comic shop market. For direct market comic fans, they think of certain types of art and stories as the norm. But go up to someone who never regularly read comics, and they would have a wildly different view of what comic art and stories.

Plus if you look at the majority of what is selling in other markets such as bookstores there are a lot different types of book selling more. Right now manga is around 65% of the comics sold in the bookstore market. Sure superheroes still sell there as well, but they are not the only top sellers as they are in the direct market.

[dupont2005]

hmm, maybe i misunderstand. i figure if you ask someone who knows little to nothing about comics to tell you something about them they would bring up superman, batman, and spiderman before anime or a webcomic.

[Brandon Hanvey]

hmm, maybe i misunderstand. i figure if you ask someone who knows little to nothing about comics to tell you something about them they would bring up superman, batman, and spiderman before anime or a webcomic.

What we are saying is that a average person would know about superheroes but not really think of them in the way an average direct market comic fan would think of them. They would mostly know of superheroes from cartoon and other media.

Plus if you go up to a kid/teenager today and ask what they think comics are about, you would most likely hear about manga more than superheroes.

[MacQuarrie]

hmm, maybe i misunderstand. i figure if you ask someone who knows little to nothing about comics to tell you something about them they would bring up superman, batman, and spiderman before anime or a webcomic.

Yup. They would. They'd think of the licensed merchandise versions of those characters, as drawn by Jose Luis Garcia-Lopez and John Romita. If you showed them a current Batman, Superman or Spider-Man comic, they would think it was kind of weird.

[dupont2005]

Yup. They would. They'd think of the licensed merchandise versions of those characters, as drawn by Jose Luis Garcia-Lopez and John Romita. If you showed them a current Batman, Superman or Spider-Man comic, they would think it was kind of weird.

i think its kind of weird too :biggrin:

[Kid Omega]

Yup. They would. They'd think of the licensed merchandise versions of those characters, as drawn by Jose Luis Garcia-Lopez and John Romita. If you showed them a current Batman, Superman or Spider-Man comic, they would think it was kind of weird.

This is a bit of a stretch.

Most non-fans see the costume and iconography and recognize the character. The distinction between artists isn't as pronounced as you seem to think.

None of the marvel adventures books like romita or buscema, but I have grandmothers all the time that easily recognize the properties, and have no "that's weird" judgement.

Maybe my perspective is skewed because I actually sell comics all day to a diverse audience, and regularly talk to other stores that do the same.

[fly on the wall]

Difference is, stocks and real estate and gold have intrinsic value. Comics, as an investment, really don't.


And yet these things have their bubbles that break as well. It's not easy to predict which object will be the subject of a mania but you can expect there will be more manias. And whoever is the President at the time, it's his fault.

[mattx110]

And yet these things have their bubbles that break as well. It's not easy to predict which object will be the subject of a mania but you can expect there will be more manias. And whoever is the President at the time, it's his fault.
Clinton killed comics!

that bastard.

[MacQuarrie]

This is a bit of a stretch.

Most non-fans see the costume and iconography and recognize the character. The distinction between artists isn't as pronounced as you seem to think.

None of the marvel adventures books like romita or buscema, but I have grandmothers all the time that easily recognize the properties, and have no "that's weird" judgement.

Maybe my perspective is skewed because I actually sell comics all day to a diverse audience, and regularly talk to other stores that do the same.

My point is, they would be familiar with the flat-colored, bright and "comic booky" versions of the characters, not the over-rendered, dark and greasy-looking versions found in the current comics. I cited the artists as being representative of the type of art people would know.

Like, for example, the fantastic superhero jammy pants I got at Wal-Mart the other night. Classic Batman, Superman, Flash, Green Lantern and Aquaman in perfect, circa 1979 Garcia-Lopez style. I wish I could find a photo of them online.

You might see the "faux-airbrushed within an inch of its life" comic art on the occasional t-shirt, but it's the pop art version that sells.

Like this:

http://www.youbuynow.com/img/items/120466899063278300.jpg

Seen any Marvel comics lately that look like this?

[dupont2005]

My point is, they would be familiar with the flat-colored, bright and "comic booky" versions of the characters, not the over-rendered, dark and greasy-looking versions found in the current comics. I cited the artists as being representative of the type of art people would know.

Like, for example, the fantastic superhero jammy pants I got at Wal-Mart the other night. Classic Batman, Superman, Flash, Green Lantern and Aquaman in perfect, circa 1979 Garcia-Lopez style. I wish I could find a photo of them online.

You might see the "faux-airbrushed within an inch of its life" comic art on the occasional t-shirt, but it's the pop art version that sells.

Like this:

http://www.youbuynow.com/img/items/120466899063278300.jpg

Seen any Marvel comics lately that look like this?
but they would still know the big green guy is the hulk, and the guy in the red and blue bug suit is spiderman

[Kid Omega]

My point is, they would be familiar with the flat-colored, bright and "comic booky" versions of the characters, not the over-rendered, dark and greasy-looking versions found in the current comics. I cited the artists as being representative of the type of art people would know.

Like, for example, the fantastic superhero jammy pants I got at Wal-Mart the other night. Classic Batman, Superman, Flash, Green Lantern and Aquaman in perfect, circa 1979 Garcia-Lopez style. I wish I could find a photo of them online.

You might see the "faux-airbrushed within an inch of its life" comic art on the occasional t-shirt, but it's the pop art version that sells.

Like this:

http://www.youbuynow.com/img/items/120466899063278300.jpg

Seen any Marvel comics lately that look like this?

Well, yes. But that's beside the point.

That t-shirt is a product of trends in fashion, and not really a meter of consumers identifying characters.

Distressed, "vintage" designs on t-shirts are very popular all around.

[BYC]

A new hero/villian, ass raping Superman, Batman, and Spider-Man at the same time.

It needs to be THAT big.

[howyadoin]

A new hero/villian, ass raping Superman, Batman, and Spider-Man at the same time.Would Three-Dick Man have any other powers?

[MacQuarrie]

Well, yes. But that's beside the point.

That t-shirt is a product of trends in fashion, and not really a meter of consumers identifying characters.

Distressed, "vintage" designs on t-shirts are very popular all around.
The point is, the general public does not know more than about a half-dozen "mainstream" superheroes, and they barely know those.

Test it. Put on a Flash t-shirt (or a Shazam one), and track the responses. You'll get "Flash" about as often as "Shazam", maybe a few "hey, Captain Marvel"and a few "Flash Gordon" remarks. The percentages will not change regardless of which shirt you're wearing.

The general public can't tell the difference between The Flash and Captain Marvel; they don't know who Green Lantern is. They know Batman & Robin, Superman, Supergirl, Spider-Man, the Hulk, and the movie versions of Iron Man and Fantastic Four. And that's about it. And even then, they only know the costumes and iconography, not much about the characters themselves. In fact, most people are utterly unaware that comics are even published at all anymore.

As I said at the start of this tangent, there's no such thing as a mainstream superhero comic.

If you want comics to reach their former sales numbers, you have to do it with something other than superheroes, because they aren't a draw anymore.

[Sean Walsh]

First page: the cure for cancer.

Second page: the cure for AIDS.

Third page to end: A flip book showing Angelina Jolie mess around with herself, only to be assaulted and sexily murdered by Jennifer Aniston.

[MacQuarrie]

This is a bit of a stretch.

Most non-fans see the costume and iconography and recognize the character. The distinction between artists isn't as pronounced as you seem to think.

None of the marvel adventures books like romita or buscema, but I have grandmothers all the time that easily recognize the properties, and have no "that's weird" judgement.

Maybe my perspective is skewed because I actually sell comics all day to a diverse audience, and regularly talk to other stores that do the same.

I think you missed my point. The distinction between artists isn't that important; the distinction between art is.

When the average non-comics person thinks of Superman, they don't think of this:

http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/superman-vs.jedi.jpg

They think of something more like this:
http://kleinletters.com/Blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/adventures-of-superman-424-1987.jpg

Though truth be told, what they really think of is this:
http://www.dynamicforces.com/images/supermanlogo.jpg

They don't know one artist from another, but comic books as comic books have not been part of the cultural landscape in 25 years. Comic book related stuff is all over the place, but not comics.

[Calybos]

The only way to see old-school sales figures for comics is with a time machine. Those days are gone and will not return.

[Kid Omega]

jim, I don't know what to tell you.

My experience, selling comics to a general audience leads me to believe your completely off-base.

Someone not knowing the difference between a shazam shirt and a flash shirt only means they're not obsessive, not that they don't want to read a superhero comic.

WATCHMEN sold over a million copies over the summer. The general public is not afraid to pick up a superhero comic.

You may not like the current state of capes books. That doesn't mean the rest of the world agrees.

[dupont2005]

they don't know who Green Lantern is. They know Batman & Robin, Superman, Supergirl, Spider-Man, the Hulk, and the movie versions of Iron Man and Fantastic Four. And that's about it. And even then, they only know the costumes and iconography, not much about the characters themselves.

but thats the point. they arent golden age connoisseurs, but they can spot the hulk out of a crowd of super heroes they had never seen or heard of. you would be hard pressed to find a sudanese child soldier who couldn't spot spiderman. to me, that makes those characters the most mainstream with the most crossover appeal. they aren't just superheroes, they are pop icons of the 20th century. thats something captain marvel doesn't quite pull off, despite his fanbase and golden age pedigree. maybe 10 years from now pikachu will be among them, but right now a 90 year old lady, 10 year old kid, and everyone in between knows who batman is

[MacQuarrie]

jim, I don't know what to tell you.

My experience, selling comics to a general audience leads me to believe your completely off-base.

Someone not knowing the difference between a shazam shirt and a flash shirt only means they're not obsessive, not that they don't want to read a superhero comic.

WATCHMEN sold over a million copies over the summer. The general public is not afraid to pick up a superhero comic.

You may not like the current state of capes books. That doesn't mean the rest of the world agrees.
By definition, you sell comics to people who are willing to go into a comic shop. Granted, you get a far higher percentage of "civilians" than the average comics shop, but it's still a niche market, one that the vast majority of the public are completely disinterested in.

They like superheroes on TV, in the movies, and on their tchotchkes. Comic books? They still make those?

Watchmen sold a million copies because (a) the trailer for the movie is running and people are curious about it, and (b) because they can pick it up at Wal-Mart or Waldenbooks or Amazon. Would it have sold a million copies if re-released at a 12 issue comic? nah.

[dupont2005]

i figured it out. 2 things, a collecting gimmick and strong appeal to kids. pokemon, pogs, that little keychain that dies if you arent constantly pushing buttons, thats what they have in common. so a cheap comic book that comes with like 3 or 4 random playing cards, to encourage buying multiple comics. make it weekly because you want to make as much money as you can before kids decide it isnt cool anymore. so the comic will be short and basically the plot will be to progress the card game or whatever. let the kids know which cards are good. a tv show or line of toys to go along with it would help too. it might not work at all, and if it does it will be short lived, but if every 2nd grader HAS to have this inexpensive comic, it will sell

[Kid Omega]

By definition, you sell comics to people who are willing to go into a comic shop. Granted, you get a far higher percentage of "civilians" than the average comics shop, but it's still a niche market, one that the vast majority of the public are completely disinterested in.


How is it that you have an insight into the psyche of the general public that none of the rest of us have?

Can you show your market research?

[K Von Doom]

How is it that you have an insight into the psyche of the general public that none of the rest of us have?

Can you show your market research?

I would like to see this as well

[Tadhg]

Watchmen sold a million copies because (a) the trailer for the movie is running and people are curious about it, and (b) because they can pick it up at Wal-Mart or Waldenbooks or Amazon. Would it have sold a million copies if re-released at a 12 issue comic? nah.

I don't understand this. You talk about comics not selling, but then dismiss comics that do sell out of hand.

[MacQuarrie]

How is it that you have an insight into the psyche of the general public that none of the rest of us have?

Can you show your market research?

I spend 90% of my time with people who don't read comics. I pay attention to the comments I get when I wear a Flash t-shirt in public. I'm related to the general public.

I answer questions from the general public every time a comic-based movie comes out.

EDITED TO ADD: I've also worked in advertising and marketing for 30 years. I've worked at newspapers, design studios, ad agencies, and at in-house marketing department of major corporations. Apart from a few months of 1995 spent at Electric Crayon, my entire career has been spent outside the comics industry. It's my job to understand the psyche of the general public, so that I can better design billboards, brochures, ads, packaging and so forth to sell to them.

[MacQuarrie]

I don't understand this. You talk about comics not selling, but then dismiss comics that do sell out of hand.

Not at all. Once it's in trade paperback, it's not a comic anymore. It's a book. At least as far as Joe Average is concerned.

[MacQuarrie]

I would like to see this as well

Not strictly comcis, but back in December, I did a survey of about 30 of my non-comics friends. I asked five questions:

I'm conducting a little informal survey on pop culture references. Please identify the following words and phrases. No googling!

1. Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men?

2. "Hi-Yo, Silver!"

3. Flash Gordon

4. Buck Rogers

5. Me ________, you Jane.

Very few people responded. The typical responses:

1. Not one person recognized The Shadow. One said "Lord of the Rings, another guessed Charlton Heston or Adam West. Most said "beats me."

2. Most came up with the Lone Ranger,

3. Most people said "The guy in comics who runs really fast" or "I loved that movie when I was a kid." One person said "are you sure these are 'pop' culture?"

4. Buck Rogers is "The guy in Hee Haw who I used to watch" or "Buzz Lightyear's father" or that TV Show with the robot who went biddi biddi biddi" or "no idea."

5. Everybody knew Tarzan. Some from the Disney movie, some from the Ron Ely TV show, some just from hearing the line repeated by others.

You could also pop over to Facebook and check the results on the various "how well do you know your comic characters" quizzes.

[dupont2005]

Not at all. Once it's in trade paperback, it's not a comic anymore. It's a book. At least as far as Joe Average is concerned.

i don't know man...... it could be a leather bound golden gilded volume, but if the insides still have pictures of guys in capes and underwear with little word baloons, its not a book

[dupont2005]

Not strictly comcis, but back in December, I did a survey of about 30 of my non-comics friends. I asked five questions:

I'm conducting a little informal survey on pop culture references. Please identify the following words and phrases. No googling!

1. Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men?

2. "Hi-Yo, Silver!"

3. Flash Gordon

4. Buck Rogers

5. Me ________, you Jane.

Very few people responded. The typical responses:

1. Not one person recognized The Shadow. One said "Lord of the Rings, another guessed Charlton Heston or Adam West. Most said "beats me."

2. Most came up with the Lone Ranger,

3. Most people said "The guy in comics who runs really fast" or "I loved that movie when I was a kid." One person said "are you sure these are 'pop' culture?"

4. Buck Rogers is "The guy in Hee Haw who I used to watch" or "Buzz Lightyear's father" or that TV Show with the robot who went biddi biddi biddi" or "no idea."

5. Everybody knew Tarzan. Some from the Disney movie, some from the Ron Ely TV show, some just from hearing the line repeated by others.

You could also pop over to Facebook and check the results on the various "how well do you know your comic characters" quizzes.
ask them if they know who this is
http://www.marshallbock.com/dotcom/gallery/illustrations/superman.png
im guessing they will nail it, even though he doesn't look like this
http://www.dialbforblog.com/archives/374/superman6sept1940.gif

[MacQuarrie]

ask them if they know who this is
http://www.marshallbock.com/dotcom/gallery/illustrations/superman.png
im guessing they will nail it, even though he doesn't look like this
http://www.dialbforblog.com/archives/374/superman6sept1940.gif
Ask them Robin's secret identity and they will say "Dick Grayson."

[MacQuarrie]

The point remains, superhero comics, and in fact comics in general, are not mainstream. Comic-book-based movies, comic-book-themed apparel and merchandise, comic-book-inspired advertising, those are all mainstream as can be, but comics? Nope.

Comic books have never been more influential while selling worse. People like the idea of comics, the iconography of comics, but they don't even know that comics are still being published.

It's no accident that every damn superhero movie ever made is based on material from prior to 1990.

[MacQuarrie]

So, getting back to the original question, "What does a comic produced now need to have to replicate old-school figures," the answer is threefold:

1. Comics have to have a general population that knows they exist.
2. Comics have to have a general population that's at least remotely interested in reading them.
3. Comics have to have a public with convenient and ready access to them.

The average comic book sells 15,000 copies per issue. That means an average comic is bought by about 1/2000ths of the population of the US. A million copies is 1/300th of the population. A jump of that size requires a dramatic increase in awareness, interest and accessibility, and I don't see any of those things changing anytime soon. Certainly not as a result of any effort on DC or Marvel's part.

[StoneGold]

It's no accident that every damn superhero movie ever made is based on material from prior to 1990.

Spawn, Hellboy, Steel, The Mask, Barb Wire, Wanted (OK, so they were villains, and it all got changed, but still), Mystery Men, The Crow (OK, so the book started coming out in 89, but that's pretty damn close)...

[Kid Omega]

Not at all. Once it's in trade paperback, it's not a comic anymore. It's a book. At least as far as Joe Average is concerned.

Cripes, dude.

You're moving goalposts.

[Kid Omega]

So, getting back to the original question, "What does a comic produced now need to have to replicate old-school figures," the answer is threefold:

1. Comics have to have a general population that knows they exist.
2. Comics have to have a general population that's at least remotely interested in reading them.
3. Comics have to have a public with convenient and ready access to them.

The average comic book sells 15,000 copies per issue. That means an average comic is bought by about 1/2000ths of the population of the US. A million copies is 1/300th of the population. A jump of that size requires a dramatic increase in awareness, interest and accessibility, and I don't see any of those things changing anytime soon. Certainly not as a result of any effort on DC or Marvel's part.

EDIT: never mind.

Let's just say I disagree.

[dupont2005]

Ask them Robin's secret identity and they will say "Dick Grayson."

but that does not matter. they do not need to know a popular heroes current sidekicks alter ego's name for the lead character to be somewhat recognizable to them. they probably also do not know bruce wayne grew up an orphan, or that batman is on his 3rd robin, (unless he got a new one in the past decade that i did not know about). they still know who batman is, the guy with the boomarang and car.

[dupont2005]

The point remains, superhero comics, and in fact comics in general, are not mainstream. Comic-book-based movies, comic-book-themed apparel and merchandise, comic-book-inspired advertising, those are all mainstream as can be, but comics? Nope.

Comic books have never been more influential while selling worse. People like the idea of comics, the iconography of comics, but they don't even know that comics are still being published.

It's no accident that every damn superhero movie ever made is based on material from prior to 1990.

the reason batman and superman have blockbuster movies, tv shows, cartoons, video games, coloring books, lunchboxes, toys, and childrens shoes with their likeness on them is because of the iconic status already established through comic books. if you are talking strictly sales, no comic book is or ever will be mainstream again. if you are talking about the IP, then there is no more mainstream comic book character than superman and spiderman, and probably never will be.

[Joe Rice]

By all means, let's not listen to KO, who actually works in the industry and actually knows what he's talking about. Let's make baseless speculation derived from how we feel and what we think things should be like.

[MacQuarrie]

By all means, let's not listen to KO, who actually works in the industry and actually knows what he's talking about. Let's make baseless speculation derived from how we feel and what we think things should be like.

Everything wrong with the comics industry is because of people who work in it and know all about it and don't know a damn thing about the other 99% of the world.

I'm in the business of packaging and selling things. I know a lot about how things are bought and sold and promoted and marketed and packaged, and I've been doing it for three decades in a variety of industries, and I can tell you for damn sure that the comics industry has been doing it completely wrong for at least 20 of those years.

When they adopted the direct market and shifted from being an entertainment medium to being a collectible, they adopted a model that's guaranteed to fail.

[MacQuarrie]

EDIT: never mind.

Let's just say I disagree.

You disagree with my numbers, or you disagree with basic marketing fundamentals?

[MacQuarrie]

Cripes, dude.

You're moving goalposts.

Not at all. The question was what does a comic produced now need to have to replicate old-school figures? Old-school figures are based on monthly sales of inexpensive periodicals.

In the general public's mind, paperback books are not comics. Watchmen may sell a million copies as a book, but will it sell a million copies a month? Would it sell a million copies if it were re-released in its original serialized form?

[howyadoin]

Everything wrong with the comics industry is because of people who work in it and know all about it and don't know a damn thing about the other 99% of the world.Are you saying that applies to Alex?

[Gingold]

Not at all. The question was what does a comic produced now need to have to replicate old-school figures? Old-school figures are based on monthly sales of inexpensive periodicals.

In the general public's mind, paperback books are not comics. Watchmen may sell a million copies as a book, but will it sell a million copies a month? Would it sell a million copies if it were re-released in its original serialized form?

You're telling me that the general public wouldn't recognize a Watchmen trade paperback as a comic book? That's ridiculous.

[Tom]

In the general public's mind, paperback books are not comics.That's absurd. If anything, the general public tends to scoff at the term "graphic novel" and prefer the term "comics," especially when the subject of the comic is an identifiable superhero.

Watchmen may sell a million copies as a book, but will it sell a million copies a month? Would it sell a million copies if it were re-released in its original serialized form?
What does that have to do with anything?

[Tom]

The average comic book sells 15,000 copies per issue.
Cite, please.
That means an average comic is bought by about 1/2000ths of the population of the US. A million copies is 1/300th of the population. A jump of that size requires a dramatic increase in awareness, interest and accessibility, and I don't see any of those things changing anytime soon. Certainly not as a result of any effort on DC or Marvel's part.

What is with this obsession with selling a million copies a month?

[howyadoin]

What is with this obsession with selling a million copies a month?I think it's from the first post in the thread.

[Tadhg]

I think it's from the first post in the thread.

Yeah, but I'd say that MacQ has gone beyond the confines of the initial post in his replies. It seemed that way to me when he started bringing up iconography and manga anyway.

[Tom]

Not strictly comcis, but back in December, I did a survey of about 30 of my non-comics friends. I asked five questions:

I'm conducting a little informal survey on pop culture references. Please identify the following words and phrases. No googling!

1. Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men?

2. "Hi-Yo, Silver!"

3. Flash Gordon

4. Buck Rogers

5. Me ________, you Jane.

Very few people responded. The typical responses:

1. Not one person recognized The Shadow. One said "Lord of the Rings, another guessed Charlton Heston or Adam West. Most said "beats me."

2. Most came up with the Lone Ranger,

3. Most people said "The guy in comics who runs really fast" or "I loved that movie when I was a kid." One person said "are you sure these are 'pop' culture?"

4. Buck Rogers is "The guy in Hee Haw who I used to watch" or "Buzz Lightyear's father" or that TV Show with the robot who went biddi biddi biddi" or "no idea."

5. Everybody knew Tarzan. Some from the Disney movie, some from the Ron Ely TV show, some just from hearing the line repeated by others.

You could also pop over to Facebook and check the results on the various "how well do you know your comic characters" quizzes.

I don't know what's more bizarre; that you are offering this as market research or that you think your friends' knowledge of increasingly obscure pulp heroes proves something about the state of the current comics industry. The general public doesn't know the minutiae of characters that haven't been published widely for a half a century. Quel surprise. They probably don't know the words to "Anything Goes" either, but that doesn't say anything about the state of the music industry.

[Tom]

I think it's from the first post in the thread.

Okay, but I don't think "a million copies a month" is a reasonable expectation, nor is it a reasonable measure of success. Of all the titles published in the last 75 years, only a handful of them ever reached that number and only for relatively short periods of time.

[dupont2005]

In the general public's mind, paperback books are not comics.

to the general public, "books" are text based

[howyadoin]

Okay, but I don't think "a million copies a month" is a reasonable expectation, nor is it a reasonable measure of success. Of all the titles published in the last 75 years, only a handful of them ever reached that number and only for relatively short periods of time.Fair point.

[mattx110]

to the general public, "books" are text based
Did I ever tell you about my text based sidescroller?

"Right, Right, Right, R, R, R, R..."

[dupont2005]

You're telling me that the general public wouldn't recognize a Watchmen trade paperback as a comic book? That's ridiculous.


That's absurd. If anything, the general public tends to scoff at the term "graphic novel" and prefer the term "comics," especially when the subject of the comic is an identifiable superhero.


i am in total agreement with both of you. being a book reader and a comic book fan, i know better than to bring up my spiderman vs venom graphic novel when discussing books if i want to be taken seriously. the binding has changed, its still a comic book. if you print the new john grisham book in 32 page 7.5"x11" monthly installments, it does not become a comic book. a comic book does not become a book when it goes from 32 pages to 300 pages

[dupont2005]

Did I ever tell you about my text based sidescroller?

"Right, Right, Right, R, R, R, R..."

i had text based pinball on my tandy

[Kid Omega]

Here is a link (http://brooklynbookfestival.com/) to the Brooklyn Book Festival programming, which is tomorrow.

Anyone who thinks that the general reading public is not interested in comics should feel free to scroll through, and count the cartoonists that speaking alongside prose authors.

Just as one example.

[Michael P]

i am in total agreement with both of you. being a book reader and a comic book fan, i know better than to bring up my spiderman vs venom graphic novel when discussing books if i want to be taken seriously. the binding has changed, its still a comic book. if you print the new john grisham book in 32 page 7.5"x11" monthly installments, it does not become a comic book. a comic book does not become a book when it goes from 32 pages to 300 pages

This strikes me as stating the obvious. Comics and prose books are different? Well, duh; one has words and pictures, the other has just words (maybe a few illustrations, but that's rare, and they supplement the story rather than comprise an integral part of it). Both can contain literature, though. And people who read are familiar with, or at least aware of, both, whether they focus on one or the other.

Moving on from that: Watchmen is a comic. Action Comics is a comic. And, I think, when discussing the penetration of the medium (artistic or financial), it's germane to include both. (Along with many others.)

[dupont2005]

Here is a link (http://brooklynbookfestival.com/) to the Brooklyn Book Festival programming, which is tomorrow.

Anyone who thinks that the general reading public is not interested in comics should feel free to scroll through, and count the cartoonists that speaking alongside prose authors.

Just as one example.

sure, its all storytelling. one is no more "legitimate" than the other, both can be great or horrible. but when walking through barnes and noble, if you want to talk about batman with someone, do you go to mystery & crime or the graphic novel section? thats all im saying. i doubt you will find anyone in the store willing to call detective comics a "comic book" and the dark knight returns a "book", even if they appreciate the art and story of comic books

[MacQuarrie]

Are you saying that applies to Alex?
No, because Alex doesn't make the decisions that drive the comic industry. People at DC and Marvel do that. But I think Joe is wrong in his statement that Alex's opinion is the only one that matter because he's in the industry and I'm not. I think my 30 years in advertising and marketing is certainly at least as pertinent as Alex's experience with Rocketship.

But I am saying that knowing the ins and outs of the comic industry is not the same as knowing how to successfully market a product.

Comics as an industry is entirely too self-referential, self-important and oblivious to anything non-comics. Alex does a great job running a good store in a niche industry that is hell-bent on destroying itself out from under him.

[Black Vespa]

at least 2/3's of the current titles out there would have to stop existing.

[Joe Rice]

I've been teaching for quite a while now. I'm pretty good at it. I wouldn't suppose that I know about teaching medicine though. It's not really the same thing.

Comics are doing fine. They're actually growing, and doing better. These are facts, and the numbers support them. Maybe comics aren't what some folks want them to be; that's fine. They'd sell worse if they were, no matter how much they believe it in their hearts.

[stealthwise]

The mob controlling distribution again.

So THAT's why hockey was so popular back in the day...

The good ol' Mafia, an appreciate for comics, hockey and fine wine, or at least some kind of 40 proof made in a gangster's bathtub...

[MacQuarrie]

You're telling me that the general public wouldn't recognize a Watchmen trade paperback as a comic book? That's ridiculous.
I'm telling you that the general public didn't know Watchmen existed until a film was made of it, and that if DC had re-released it as a 12-issue limited series the way it was originally published, it would not have sold to even 1/10th as many readers as the book is selling. And the number one reason for that is distribution.

But anyway, I did not say they don't recognize it as a comic. I said they don't think of it as one. Comics are those things that used to be sold on spinner racks at the 7-11, and some people may even know that they are still being sold at that comic shop in the strip mall that they never go to.

See, one of the funny things about marketing is that how people behave has very little connection to what they know or think. People may know that comics aren't for kids anymore, but they still thought of Batman as children's entertainment right up until the Dark Knight came out. And even then, that's not the first thing they think of when they hear the word Batman.

People may "recognize a Watchmen trade paperback as a comic book" but they don't know it was originally published as one, weren't interested at the time, and would not buy it in comic book form if it were offered that way. If it weren't coming out as a major motion picture, they wouldn't be buying it at all. They recognize it as a comic, but they're interested in it as a movie, and they think of it as a movie-related product.

[MacQuarrie]

Cite, please.
Actually, I was overly generous. The average comic sells in the low thousands.

http://comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=17986

What is with this obsession with selling a million copies a month?
It's the number that was given at the start of the thread. "Back in the 40's, Captain America Comics #1 almost sold one million copies."

[Black Vespa]

Okay, but I don't think "a million copies a month" is a reasonable expectation, nor is it a reasonable measure of success. Of all the titles published in the last 75 years, only a handful of them ever reached that number and only for relatively short periods of time.


furthermore, - not all that reached that high-water mark equated to a great quality read, either.

[MacQuarrie]

i am in total agreement with both of you. being a book reader and a comic book fan, i know better than to bring up my spiderman vs venom graphic novel when discussing books if i want to be taken seriously. the binding has changed, its still a comic book. if you print the new john grisham book in 32 page 7.5"x11" monthly installments, it does not become a comic book. a comic book does not become a book when it goes from 32 pages to 300 pages
It becomes a book (in the buyer's mind) when it gets purchased at a book store and ends up on a bookshelf.

It doesn't matter what you call it; comic book or graphic novel. That's irrelevant. What's relevant is that the overwhelming majority of people who read WATCHMEN will never set foot in a comic shop, will not consider themselves comic readers, will not in any way change their perception of comics, and will probably not seek out any other work by either Moore or Gibbons. Most of them will never know that Alan Moore also wrote V for Vendetta (or that it was also a comic) or From Hell (likewise). WATCHMEN is an anomaly in their experience.

[MacQuarrie]

Okay, but I don't think "a million copies a month" is a reasonable expectation, nor is it a reasonable measure of success. Of all the titles published in the last 75 years, only a handful of them ever reached that number and only for relatively short periods of time.
I didn't ask the question, I'm trying to answer it. The question was how can comics get back to selling a million copies a month.

Personally, I think they can get back to that number, but it's not going to be by gimmicks like variant covers and appealing to the speculator market. It will happen by taking a radical approach ("Radical" from the latin,radix, "root", meaning to go back to the root and start over and go in a different direction).

I think comics began going wrong in the '50s, when they tried to keep the price at 10¢ for years, then tried to hold it at 12¢ for years, and so on, each time by cutting down the size and number of pages. If they had kept the cover price current with equivalent-priced products such as movie tickets or other publications like TIME or LIFE magazines, comics today would be about the same price they are now, but they would be 8-1/2" X 11" size, 80 to 100 pages, roughly 30 to 40% ad pages, aimed at a general audience ranging from 10 years old and up, and would be distributed in the same places other magazines are sold. They would also probably not feature superheroes as their dominant genre.

Of course, comics are an anomaly in publishing anyway, since only the most narrow-niche publications are circulation-supported. Most publications are advertiser-supported. Magazines exist to carry ads. The money generated from subscriptions and retail sales is only a fraction of the revenue generated.

Make a comic the size of People Magazine, with the same number of ad pages and the same ad rates, put it on the checkout stands of every supermarket in the country and it will sell over a million copies a month. Disney's "Disney Adventures" digest routinely sells over a million copies; their"Comic Zone" digest sold 20% better, but it was canceled and labeled a failure because of low ad sales. Nickelodeon Magazine (http://www.nick.com/all_nick/everything_nick/enter_mag.jhtml) sells 6 million copies per issue, 10 issues a year, and has done it for 11 years. The comics section is one of its most popular features.

[mikekerr3]

That's the reason why it's okay to throw them away once you are done with them.

But stock mania happens again and again. Real Estate mania happens again and again. Aren't stocks and real estate objects? Gold mania happens once and awhile, too.

Not knocking your theory at all, I don't think there will ever be a Tulip or a Comic Book or a Beany Baby Mania again. But why do some objects get mulit-mania?


Because they have some intrinsic worth, both Stocks and real estate can make money without depending on speculation.

[MacQuarrie]

Here is a link (http://brooklynbookfestival.com/) to the Brooklyn Book Festival programming, which is tomorrow.

Anyone who thinks that the general reading public is not interested in comics should feel free to scroll through, and count the cartoonists that speaking alongside prose authors.

Just as one example.
Let's see:
12:00 p.m. International Influences. Graphic novelist Adrian Tomine (Shortcomings) and novelist John Wray (Canaan’s Tongue), two celebrated Brooklyn-based writers, discuss the pleasure of discovering literary voices from abroad and the ways in which international writing has shaped their own work.

12:00 p.m. Cartooning Today. Critically acclaimed cartoonists Kyle Baker (How to Draw Stupid, Why I Hate Saturn) and Mo Willems (The Pigeon Wants a Puppy/Elephant & Piggie Books) in conversation.

3:00 p.m. Inked In. The world of comics and graphic novels is brought to life by three leading artists and writers: Ariel Schrag (Awkward, Definition, Potential, and Likewise), Ivan Velez, Jr. (Tales of the Closet, Dead High Yearbook), and Brian Wood (DMZ, Demo, The New York Four).

5:00 p.m. Mama’s Boyz. Grab a pencil and some paper. Nationally syndicated cartoonist, Jerry Craft, will invite the audience to join him in learning how to create a cartoon.

That's all I found. Did I miss some?

[MacQuarrie]

I've been teaching for quite a while now. I'm pretty good at it. I wouldn't suppose that I know about teaching medicine though. It's not really the same thing.
That's a false analogy.

I've worked on marketing campaigns for audio equipment, musical instruments, the Department of Water and Power, automobiles, Cable TV networks, TV programs, self-help seminars, diet programs, barbecues, sporting goods, educational products, books, jet skis, banks, retail clothing stores, religious organizations, home video (including Star Wars), computer components, and lord only knows what else, and marketing is marketing regardless of what's being marketed. The same principles apply across the board.

If you wanted to teach medicine, you'd have to go to medical school and become a doctor. If I wanted to work in the marketing department of a lingerie company or a heavy equipment manufacturer or a political campaign or a comic book company, I need the exact same skill set.

Comics are doing fine. They're actually growing, and doing better. These are facts, and the numbers support them. Maybe comics aren't what some folks want them to be; that's fine. They'd sell worse if they were, no matter how much they believe it in their hearts.
That's a relative assessment. Comics are doing better than they have in the last few years, but no way are they doing better than they did in the '80s or the '60s or the '40s. But let's define "better"? Better in quality? Better in sales? Better in public awareness? Better in licensed merchandise? Each of those has a different assessment.

[dupont2005]

furthermore, - not all that reached that high-water mark equated to a great quality read, either.

i think the more substance a comic book has, the less appeal it will have to a non-comic book person.

[dupont2005]

what the hell? wheres my post?

[Gingold]

I'm telling you that the general public didn't know Watchmen existed until a film was made of it, and that if DC had re-released it as a 12-issue limited series the way it was originally published, it would not have sold to even 1/10th as many readers as the book is selling. And the number one reason for that is distribution.

But anyway, I did not say they don't recognize it as a comic. I said they don't think of it as one. Comics are those things that used to be sold on spinner racks at the 7-11, and some people may even know that they are still being sold at that comic shop in the strip mall that they never go to.

See, one of the funny things about marketing is that how people behave has very little connection to what they know or think. People may know that comics aren't for kids anymore, but they still thought of Batman as children's entertainment right up until the Dark Knight came out. And even then, that's not the first thing they think of when they hear the word Batman.

People may "recognize a Watchmen trade paperback as a comic book" but they don't know it was originally published as one, weren't interested at the time, and would not buy it in comic book form if it were offered that way. If it weren't coming out as a major motion picture, they wouldn't be buying it at all. They recognize it as a comic, but they're interested in it as a movie, and they think of it as a movie-related product.


And this has nothing to do with anything. Watchmen is clearly a comic book. It's clearly selling well. Of course, interest in the movie is driving the sales. So what? When Superman comics were in their hayday, they were tied into a radio show, movie serials, Pep cereal, etc., which certainly had an impact on sales. If they drove kids to pick up comics, it didn't change the fact that they were, you know, comics. People my age often first encountered comics characters through underoos, Mego dolls, and Superfriends- didn't mean that we didn't understand that the comics featuring them were, um, comics.

You're obssessed with an argument about the halcyon days of spinner racks in the convenience store vs. the big bad direct market that is about a decade out of date. Comics are more widely available than they have ever been- at least in my life time. There is a greater public awareness about the diversity, availability, and influence of comics than has ever existed in this country. Manga is everywhere. Borders and Barnes and Noble have huge comics sections. Libraries are stocked with comics. Comics are reviewed in pretty much every major newspaper and in pubications like Time, Newsweek, Entertainment Weekly,etc. Bone is making Schoolastic a ton of money. I could go on and on. Comics are doing just fine.

[JeffreyWKramer]

I find it interesting that the WATCHMEN trailer has sparked a big sales boost to the WATCHMEN trade collection. In general, movies based on comic characters don't seem to spark a lot of sales of the comic books. The Superman, Batman, X-Men, Spider-Man, etc. movies, at least from what I've heard, didn't do much of anything to the sales of the books, and especially not on any lasting basis.

Any idea why this seems to be different for WATCHMEN? Is it because a lot of people already have an idea about who Spidey, Batman, the X-Men and such are due to growing up with those characters and their having tons of cartoons over the years, but the Watchmen characters are unfamiliar to them?

BTW, did 300 or SIN CITY bring any significant increase in sales of those books, and have the SPIRIT trailers translated to any increased interest in the SPIRIT comics?

[Davideaux]

It doesn't matter what you call it; comic book or graphic novel. That's irrelevant. What's relevant is that the overwhelming majority of people who read WATCHMEN will never set foot in a comic shop, will not consider themselves comic readers, will not in any way change their perception of comics, and will probably not seek out any other work by either Moore or Gibbons. Most of them will never know that Alan Moore also wrote V for Vendetta (or that it was also a comic) or From Hell (likewise). WATCHMEN is an anomaly in their experience.

So most of these people won't read the "About the Author" part of the book where it probably lists Alan Moore as a comic book writer. And if these people enjoy the book, they won't seek out other Moore works and discover that he writes comics. If I read a book I enjoy (let alone a comic), I'll seek out other works by the creator. I'm confused by your argument here.

[Michael P]

I find it interesting that the WATCHMEN trailer has sparked a big sales boost to the WATCHMEN trade collection. In general, movies based on comic characters don't seem to spark a lot of sales of the comic books. The Superman, Batman, X-Men, Spider-Man, etc. movies, at least from what I've heard, didn't do much of anything to the sales of the books, and especially not on any lasting basis.

Any idea why this seems to be different for WATCHMEN? Is it because a lot of people already have an idea about who Spidey, Batman, the X-Men and such are due to growing up with those characters and their having tons of cartoons over the years, but the Watchmen characters are unfamiliar to them?

I think it's because movies like Watchmen, Sin City, and 300 are branded with a kind of "hipness" that makes seeking out the originals more socially acceptable for urbane adults (remember, the ads for those movies all say "based on the graphic novel by" rather than "based on comic books published by"). These are genre movies for thinking adults, the logic goes, and not just action blockbusters. I mean, when was the last time you saw someone go buy a James Bond novel because there was a new Bond movie out?

Plus, there's a more definite connection; buy Watchmen, and you'll get the story that's in the Watchmen movie; buy a Spider-Man trade, and you'll get something that's similar to the movies, but at the same time wildly different.

[JeffreyWKramer]

I think it's because movies like Watchmen, Sin City, and 300 are branded with a kind of "hipness" that makes seeking out the originals more socially acceptable for urbane adults (remember, the ads for those movies all say "based on the graphic novel by" rather than "based on comic books published by"). Plus, there's a more definite connection; buy Watchmen, and you'll get the story that's in the Watchmen movie; buy a Spider-Man trade, and you'll get something that's similar to the movies, but at the same time wildly different.



But *did* those hip, urbane adults seek out 300 and SIN CITY? That's part of what I was wondering.

I have no idea whether or not sales on those books spiked after the movies, which is why I was asking.

[Michael P]

But *did* those hip, urbane adults seek out 300 and SIN CITY? That's part of what I was wondering.

I have no idea whether or not those books spiked after the movies, which is why I was asking.

Yes, they did. Or at least they did in New York City

[JeffreyWKramer]

Yes, they did. Or at least they did in New York City

That's cool to know. Alex or anyone else have overall sales figures related to the movies?

[dupont2005]

It becomes a book (in the buyer's mind) when it gets purchased at a book store and ends up on a bookshelf.

if i buy something at a gas station does that make it gas?

[dupont2005]

But *did* those hip, urbane adults seek out 300 and SIN CITY? That's part of what I was wondering.

I have no idea whether or not sales on those books spiked after the movies, which is why I was asking.

a comic book movie makes the related comics sell a little higher on ebay for a short while from what i have seen.

[howyadoin]

I find it interesting that the WATCHMEN trailer has sparked a big sales boost to the WATCHMEN trade collection. In general, movies based on comic characters don't seem to spark a lot of sales of the comic books. The Superman, Batman, X-Men, Spider-Man, etc. movies, at least from what I've heard, didn't do much of anything to the sales of the books, and especially not on any lasting basis.

Any idea why this seems to be different for WATCHMEN? The fact that the book doesn't have 40-odd years of confusing continuity behind it might have something to do with that.

[Slam_Bradley]

The fact that the book doesn't have 40-odd years of confusing continuity behind it might have something to do with that.


I think this is spot-on. You want to read Watchmen...you read one book and have a story. Same with 300. To a lesser extent with Sin City, but still there are only a handful of books and they're numbered...not much more daunting than Harry Potter or any number of mystery novel series'.

But if you want to read Batman or a Spider-Man or an X-Men book you are faced with an incredible array of options from across eras, that may or may not have fed out of 40+ years of other stories. It's daunting for people who know what to look for, much less a casual reader popping in to the local B & N.

[JeffreyWKramer]

I think this is spot-on. You want to read Watchmen...you read one book and have a story. Same with 300. To a lesser extent with Sin City, but still there are only a handful of books and they're numbered...not much more daunting than Harry Potter or any number of mystery novel series'.

But if you want to read Batman or a Spider-Man or an X-Men book you are faced with an incredible array of options from across eras, that may or may not have fed out of 40+ years of other stories. It's daunting for people who know what to look for, much less a casual reader popping in to the local B & N.

So, I'm assuming that the Marvel/DC hero movies not only haven't done much for the sales of the monthly books, but also haven't had much impact on the sales of Spidey/Batman/X-Men/etc. trades, ESSENTIALS and all that?

And, assuming this is the case, how can we really be sure this phenomena has anything to do with the continuity stuff? How would a person even know about that continuity stuff unless they picked up the books?

To me, it still seems at least as likely that the failure of movies to produce significant increases in sales for books featuring the familiar heroes is that viewers (and potential viewers) feel familiar enough with the traditional superheroes that they don't feel any need to look up those books. After all, multiple generations now have grown up with Superman, Batman and Spider-Man, and a significant chunk of the current moviegoing demographic grew up watching the various cartoon versions of X-Men.

The "one book" thing, or just a few, that one does make some sense to me, though. If someone goes to the graphic novel section of Borders, they're probably faced with a couple dozen different Batman or Spiderman choices, none of which have any clear order to them or anything like that, as opposed to one WATCHMEN book, or SIN CITY vol. x-z.

[JeffreyWKramer]

a comic book movie makes the related comics sell a little higher on ebay for a short while from what i have seen.

That probably has to do more with idiotic speculators than anything else. Some people never learn.

[dupont2005]

That probably has to do more with idiotic speculators than anything else. Some people never learn.

yeah, but i know when to unload my silver surfer comics

[MacQuarrie]

And this has nothing to do with anything. Watchmen is clearly a comic book. It's clearly selling well. Of course, interest in the movie is driving the sales. So what? When Superman comics were in their hayday, they were tied into a radio show, movie serials, Pep cereal, etc., which certainly had an impact on sales. If they drove kids to pick up comics, it didn't change the fact that they were, you know, comics. People my age often first encountered comics characters through underoos, Mego dolls, and Superfriends- didn't mean that we didn't understand that the comics featuring them were, um, comics.
Is the spike in sales of WATCHMEN driving any sales of any other comics? When Batman hit it big on TV in 1964, it had a dramatic impact on the entire comics industry, spiking sales of not only Batman comics, but also the entire DC, Marvel, Archie, Dell, Gold Key, Western and Harvey lines. We're not seeing that today. Why not?

You're obssessed with an argument about the halcyon days of spinner racks in the convenience store vs. the big bad direct market that is about a decade out of date. Comics are more widely available than they have ever been- at least in my life time. There is a greater public awareness about the diversity, availability, and influence of comics than has ever existed in this country. Manga is everywhere. Borders and Barnes and Noble have huge comics sections. Libraries are stocked with comics. Comics are reviewed in pretty much every major newspaper and in pubications like Time, Newsweek, Entertainment Weekly,etc. Bone is making Schoolastic a ton of money. I could go on and on. Comics are doing just fine.
I'm not obsessed with anything. But I completely disagree with you.

Comics are more readily available than they have been in the past 20-odd years... but only for adults. The comics industry has utterly abandoned, in fact actively driven away the market segment most likely to buy and keep buying their product, which is those between the ages of 8 and 18. The six million kids who buy Nickelodeon magazine would love to buy comics, but there are none for them to buy. Certainly not anything with Spider-Man, Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, Iron Man, Captain America.... those characters are the province of old men now.

It's not because Marvel and DC suddenly forgot how to reach that market (they did eventually, but not overnight); it's because they deliberately chose to reposition themselves as a product exclusively for their existing customer base, a base that is steadily aging and shrinking and will go away eventually.

Comics are doing great, but that depends on how you define "comics." The monthly sales figures for the top 300 comics show that a handful sell over 100,000 copies, while the majority are in the 1,000 to 4,000 range. That's not great. If we're talking about the monthly publications that the average person would identify as "comics", they are most assuredly not doing "great."

If we're redefining the term to mean manga and graphic novels, you run into a number of problems, because the book industry is entirely different from the magazine industry, and regardless of the content, graphic novels are functionally books. They have different productions schedules, different payment rates, different publication and distribution models, and different expectations. Once we change the subject to graphic novels and manga, the original question becomes moot, as Tom pointed out earlier.

Libraries are full of graphic novels and manga. Borders and Barnes & Noble have huge graphic novel and manga sections. There are no comics to be found in any of those places, at least not in the sense that the word is generally understood.

If the evolution of the comic book is complete, and the trade paperback is now the default form, so be it. But that means that all the expectations and assumptions that have driven the industry for 75 years are now obsolete.

DC and Marvel can continue to crank out self-referential installments of their soap operas until the last fanboy croaks, but that's really just out of habit and legal obligations. Publishing a bunch of short-run comics (check with the companies that print any other kind of publication; 150,000 copies is a short run) is a simple way to keep the trademarks valid while they are developed for other media. But it's a dead end.

The answer to the original question here is, "comics can never again reach the kind of sales that Captain America did in the '40s, because that kind of comic no longer exists. That business model no longer exists."

http://www.nostalgiazone.com/doc/zine/05_Q2/funnybusiness.htm

[MacQuarrie]

if i buy something at a gas station does that make it gas?
No, but if you bought your gas in 1-liter bottles at the store, you might not balk as much at the price. Packaging and presentation are extremely important. Starbucks coffee costs $18.75 a gallon.

[howyadoin]

If we're redefining the term to mean manga and graphic novels, you run into a number of problems, because the book industry is entirely different from the magazine industry, and regardless of the content, graphic novels are functionally books.You say that like content is some insignificant factor, though. And it isn't. If we're setting aside content, then there's no difference between music, movies, comics, novels, magazines... in which case, what is there to even talk about?

[MacQuarrie]

I don't know what's more bizarre; that you are offering this as market research or that you think your friends' knowledge of increasingly obscure pulp heroes proves something about the state of the current comics industry. The general public doesn't know the minutiae of characters that haven't been published widely for a half a century. Quel surprise. They probably don't know the words to "Anything Goes" either, but that doesn't say anything about the state of the music industry.
It proves nothing about the state of the industry, but it proves something about the state of the potential audience.

Every one of the properties I listed has been the subject of a film or TV show in the last 10 to 25 years. Moreover, their catch phrases are deeply embedded bits of pop culture; people who've never heard of the Lone Ranger might still reference "Hi Yo Silver" or call someone "kemo sabe."

The one bit in particular that was significant to me was the inability to distinguish between Flash Gordon (a character that starred in a major motion picture when all the respondents were teens, and appeared in cartoon shows on TV, and appeared in an ill-fated TV show about a year ago) and The Flash (a character that starred in a TV series 15 or so years ago, appears on the Justice League TV cartoon, and has been featured on Smallville not too long ago). The people I asked were completely oblivious to the difference. This is not minutia, it's brand recognition.

People know that the name "Flash" is associated with a comic book, but that's all they know about it. Which was my point.

[MacQuarrie]

jim, I don't know what to tell you.

My experience, selling comics to a general audience leads me to believe your completely off-base.

Someone not knowing the difference between a shazam shirt and a flash shirt only means they're not obsessive, not that they don't want to read a superhero comic.
It's analogous to not being able to tell the difference between Gatorade and Powerade. It's a brand recognition thing, and the fact is, people recognize both t-shirts as vaguely comic related, and depending on their own background they are slightly more familiar with one character or the other, but they aren't really interested in either. Nothing obsessive about it.

WATCHMEN sold over a million copies over the summer. The general public is not afraid to pick up a superhero comic.
Is WATCHMEN a superhero comic now? I thought it was a deconstruction of them, a commentary on them, an exercise in exploring the form of them, and a satire of them. WATCHMEN is a superhero comic in the same way that Schindler's List is a war movie.
You may not like the current state of capes books. That doesn't mean the rest of the world agrees.
The sales figures indicate that they do.

[MacQuarrie]

You say that like content is some insignificant factor, though. And it isn't. If we're setting aside content, then there's no difference between music, movies, comics, novels, magazines... in which case, what is there to even talk about?
It's not an insignificant factor, but it's far from the most significant factor as concerns the original question.

[MacQuarrie]

You say that like content is some insignificant factor, though. And it isn't. If we're setting aside content, then there's no difference between music, movies, comics, novels, magazines... in which case, what is there to even talk about?
Also, for purposes of discussing revenue streams, artist compensation, audience awareness, and distribution, then all those things vary greatly in every respect without content ever being mentioned. Audio books have functionally the same content as paperbacks and differ in every other respect, especially in regard to the questions of distribution, revenue and profit. Which is what I was talking about in the context of the bit you quoted.

[Black Vespa]

i think the more substance a comic book has, the less appeal it will have to a non-comic book person.


i think you might could substantiate a correlation there.

[Kid Omega]

It's analogous to not being able to tell the difference between Gatorade and Powerade. It's a brand recognition thing, and the fact is, people recognize both t-shirts as vaguely comic related, and depending on their own background they are slightly more familiar with one character or the other, but they aren't really interested in either. Nothing obsessive about it.


Is WATCHMEN a superhero comic now? I thought it was a deconstruction of them, a commentary on them, an exercise in exploring the form of them, and a satire of them. WATCHMEN is a superhero comic in the same way that Schindler's List is a war movie.

The sales figures indicate that they do.

never mind never mind never mind

[MacQuarrie]

Spawn, Hellboy, Steel, The Mask, Barb Wire, Wanted (OK, so they were villains, and it all got changed, but still), Mystery Men, The Crow (OK, so the book started coming out in 89, but that's pretty damn close)...
Would you classify Hellboy, The Mask, Barb Wire, Wanted and The Crow as superhero movies? Mystery Men was a comedic riff on the genre and owed very little to the source material. Spawn and Steel are best forgotten.

But I'll apologize for my earlier hyperbole and give a more nuanced version of my original statement.

There's a reason that the producers of the recent superhero movies have generally been based on storylines from prior to 1990, for example, X-Men (the Claremont-Byrne run from the early '80s), Spider-Man (the original Ditko stories from the '60s), Daredevil (Frank Miller's early '80s run), Batman Begins (equal parts Miller's Batman Year One from the early '80s and the Denny O'Neal/Neal Adams Ras al Ghul comics fr0m the '70s), Iron Man (equal parts the Larry Lieber origin story and the '80s Micheline/Layton run), etc and so on.

[MacQuarrie]

i think you might could substantiate a correlation there.

Depends on how you define "substance." Would you say "Maus" is lacking in substance? "Persepolis"?

Tom Beland's "True Story Swear to God" has consistently lost money for Image. If the trade paperback had been published by Bantam or HarerCollins or Hyperion, it might have made a huge profit. It's not the content, it's the marketing.

[dupont2005]

sure there is, lots of reasons. one being the secret wars would have zero appeal to someone who is not into comic books. another being a lot of those movies showed the origin of the character. one thing the movies are not doing, is imitating the vintage look of the characters. they look as up to date as the comic books do

[Joe Rice]

Those goalposts are in another stadium now. It's pretty amazing.

I also like the idea that marketing teaches you anything about anything.

[mattx110]

Those goalposts are in another stadium now. It's pretty amazing.

I also like the idea that marketing teaches you anything about anything.
It teaches you how to sell an image instead of anything useful or substantial.

Which is very important in politics, I hear.

[dupont2005]

i don't even remember what we were talking about

[Michael P]

Is the spike in sales of WATCHMEN driving any sales of any other comics? When Batman hit it big on TV in 1964, it had a dramatic impact on the entire comics industry, spiking sales of not only Batman comics, but also the entire DC, Marvel, Archie, Dell, Gold Key, Western and Harvey lines. We're not seeing that today. Why not?

Probably because back then there weren't also Batman cartoons, DVDs, video games, Legos, iPods, and fully-functional vibrating dildos. The entire entertainment industry has changed since then, and one of the biggest changes is that people need a lot more incentive to take up reading *anything* as a serious, long-term hobby anymore. They'll read whatever's got its hooks in the cultural consciousness, but they won't necessarily read anything else. Consider The Da Vinci Code. Or Harry Potter; how many of those people do you think have gone back to Barnes & Noble since the last book was released?

Mac, I honestly have no idea what you're arguing anymore. You're bringing up models, statistics and events from half a century ago as if they're relevant to the circumstances of today, and that just ain't so. The 32-page entertainment periodical is perhaps in its last gasp, and at best a faded imperial power trucking along heroically, but so what? Comics are much more than that one format, and have been so for quite some time. Plenty of kids are reading the crap out of Bone, Naruto, The Babysitter's Club, and while I might wish more of them were reading Marvel Adventures Avengers, the Barks/Rosa collections, or Amelia Rules!, the fact remains that they're reading. And there's a whole generation of manga-influenced would-be artists and writers (to say nothing of editors) who are about to blow the freaking top off of mainstream comics in the next ten-fifteen years.

On the subject of marketing, the age of cross-cultural brand marketing is either dead or dying. Niche markets rule the day and have for a while; even modern mega-conglomerates simply break down their output into niches and try to cover as many bases as they can, rather than trying to sell all their products to every group. (As usual, porn is leading the way on this.) The old rubrics don't really apply anymore.

Comics are doing fine. They could be doing better, but you could say that about a lot of things, particularly anything printed. And hell, comics aren't even exclusively printed anymore. Regardless, as far as things go for Marvel and DC, which seem to be the crux of your argument, either they'll recognize the way things are going and shift accordingly (see the above comment regarding the next ten-fifteen years), or they'll succumb to the forces of evolution, in which case someone will come along to fill the vacuum. Comics, however, will continue to truck along, probably in ways most of us can't yet predict.

[Michael P]

And I'll say another thing about the halcyon days of million-selling comics and spinner racks: All that profit was going straight into the pockets of crooks and tyrants. If the cost of artists being able to produce a living and negotiate their intellectual property to their benefit is people not being able to tell between Flash Gordon and Flash, I'll take it.

[Kid Omega]

Well said in both posts, Mike.

Very well said.

[Joe Rice]

Probably because back then there weren't also Batman cartoons, DVDs, video games, Legos, iPods, and fully-functional vibrating dildos. The entire entertainment industry has changed since then, and one of the biggest changes is that people need a lot more incentive to take up reading *anything* as a serious, long-term hobby anymore. They'll read whatever's got its hooks in the cultural consciousness, but they won't necessarily read anything else. Consider The Da Vinci Code. Or Harry Potter; how many of those people do you think have gone back to Barnes & Noble since the last book was released?

Mac, I honestly have no idea what you're arguing anymore. You're bringing up models, statistics and events from half a century ago as if they're relevant to the circumstances of today, and that just ain't so. The 32-page entertainment periodical is perhaps in its last gasp, and at best a faded imperial power trucking along heroically, but so what? Comics are much more than that one format, and have been so for quite some time. Plenty of kids are reading the crap out of Bone, Naruto, The Babysitter's Club, and while I might wish more of them were reading Marvel Adventures Avengers, the Barks/Rosa collections, or Amelia Rules!, the fact remains that they're reading. And there's a whole generation of manga-influenced would-be artists and writers (to say nothing of editors) who are about to blow the freaking top off of mainstream comics in the next ten-fifteen years.

On the subject of marketing, the age of cross-cultural brand marketing is either dead or dying. Niche markets rule the day and have for a while; even modern mega-conglomerates simply break down their output into niches and try to cover as many bases as they can, rather than trying to sell all their products to every group. (As usual, porn is leading the way on this.) The old rubrics don't really apply anymore.

Comics are doing fine. They could be doing better, but you could say that about a lot of things, particularly anything printed. And hell, comics aren't even exclusively printed anymore. Regardless, as far as things go for Marvel and DC, which seem to be the crux of your argument, either they'll recognize the way things are going and shift accordingly (see the above comment regarding the next ten-fifteen years), or they'll succumb to the forces of evolution, in which case someone will come along to fill the vacuum. Comics, however, will continue to truck along, probably in ways most of us can't yet predict.

And I'll say another thing about the halcyon days of million-selling comics and spinner racks: All that profit was going straight into the pockets of crooks and tyrants. If the cost of artists being able to produce a living and negotiate their intellectual property to their benefit is people not being able to tell between Flash Gordon and Flash, I'll take it.

Nail on the head.

EDIT: Damn you, Cox!

[Michael P]

If I had my druthers, I'd rather DC, Marvel, and 32-page entertainment periodicals stick around; I like them, and I think there's use for them. But if they don't, then they don't; I lived when they cancelled Brisco County and Firefly, I lived through the Simpsons descending into an inescapable Tartarus of suck, and I'll live through this.

And, upside, eventually all those trademarks and copyrights become available, and then I *really* get to have fun.

[MacQuarrie]

Those goalposts are in another stadium now. It's pretty amazing.

I also like the idea that marketing teaches you anything about anything.

How can I be accused of moving the goalposts when every third post I re-quote the original question and address it again?

But of course, we've already established that your pal with three or four years in the comic retailing industry knows a lot more than a guy whose worked in marketing, advertising and publishing for 30 years does about comic publishing, marketing and advertising.

[MacQuarrie]

It teaches you how to sell an image instead of anything useful or substantial.

Which is very important in politics, I hear.
No, it teaches you how to find what's important and substantial about what you're selling, and then how to articulate and convey that to the customer in a way that moves him to buy it. Very important in selling something as ephemeral and unnecessary as comics.

[MacQuarrie]

Actually, I agree with most of what you said here, and in fact it mirrors what I've actually said here, if not what Joe and Alex choose to pretend I said.

Probably because back then there weren't also Batman cartoons, DVDs, video games, Legos, iPods, and fully-functional vibrating dildos.
That's just it, there were. Or at least the equivalents. Batman was on EVERYTHING in 1965. There were Batman 8mm movies, cartoons, jammies, play sets, Hot Wheels, etc. and still a demand for more. Sales of the comic nearly quadrupled, and sales of all the other comics also increased.

The entire entertainment industry has changed since then, and one of the biggest changes is that people need a lot more incentive to take up reading *anything* as a serious, long-term hobby anymore. They'll read whatever's got its hooks in the cultural consciousness, but they won't necessarily read anything else. Consider The Da Vinci Code. Or Harry Potter; how many of those people do you think have gone back to Barnes & Noble since the last book was released?
That was exactly my point back when I said

The answer to the original question here is, "comics can never again reach the kind of sales that Captain America did in the '40s, because that kind of comic no longer exists. That business model no longer exists."

Mac, I honestly have no idea what you're arguing anymore. You're bringing up models, statistics and events from half a century ago as if they're relevant to the circumstances of today, and that just ain't so. The 32-page entertainment periodical is perhaps in its last gasp, and at best a faded imperial power trucking along heroically, but so what? Comics are much more than that one format, and have been so for quite some time.
See, that's just it. I'm not arguing anything. I'm examining and discussing the topic from a variety of directions. Unfortunately, some self-appointed experts think that conversations have to have winners, and that looking at one factor is supposed to be read as a refutation of another. Here in the real world, people deal with messy and contradictory truths, and not every conversation has to be a debate. Certainly I've also refuted a lot of shibboleths and nonsense that "everybody knows", so I guess I was arguing those points. Other than that, I'm just continuing to address the original question.

Plenty of kids are reading the crap out of Bone, Naruto, The Babysitter's Club, and while I might wish more of them were reading Marvel Adventures Avengers, the Barks/Rosa collections, or Amelia Rules!, the fact remains that they're reading. And there's a whole generation of manga-influenced would-be artists and writers (to say nothing of editors) who are about to blow the freaking top off of mainstream comics in the next ten-fifteen years.
That's true. It'll be interesting to see what happens. But I think there's still a place in the market for a cheap, transitory chunk of escapist entertainment you can roll up and stick in your back pocket, especially if it were made with kids in mind. Given the relative spending power of today's kids, it could be an extremely lucrative market. But since American comic companies sneer at that audience and tell them "go away kid, these toys are ours now", they've gone to manga. If you want to get the kind of numbers Captain America got in 1944 (and don't forget, the population has more than doubled since then), you need that audience.

On the subject of marketing, the age of cross-cultural brand marketing is either dead or dying. Niche markets rule the day and have for a while; even modern mega-conglomerates simply break down their output into niches and try to cover as many bases as they can, rather than trying to sell all their products to every group. (As usual, porn is leading the way on this.) The old rubrics don't really apply anymore.
Reports of its demise are premature. We've gone through the mass marketing, and to some extent through the "me" centered individual approach, but there's a new "us" centered, group-based dynamic now, and it does cross cultural bounds a lot. Marketers have found (through failure) that targeted marketing doesn't work unless it's genuine and executed by people within the target culture. But you can market to different culture groups by focusing on the elements in common between groups, and those elements have not changed one iota since Shakespeare's day. People want what they've always wanted.

Comics are doing fine. They could be doing better, but you could say that about a lot of things, particularly anything printed. And hell, comics aren't even exclusively printed anymore. Regardless, as far as things go for Marvel and DC, which seem to be the crux of your argument, either they'll recognize the way things are going and shift accordingly (see the above comment regarding the next ten-fifteen years), or they'll succumb to the forces of evolution, in which case someone will come along to fill the vacuum. Comics, however, will continue to truck along, probably in ways most of us can't yet predict.Again, that's a relative thing. The best selling comics today are selling numbers that would have gotten them canceled back when they were published as entertainment magazines rather than as collectibles.

But sure, they're doing fine. How much better could they be doing if the people responsible for making and selling them treated it like a business that's supposed to turn a profit rather than as an excuse to keep trademarks enforceable? Since the mid '80s comics have been entirely focused on keeping their existing readers and luring readers from other companies, while entirely ignoring and actively discouraging the 97% of people who don't read them. Every storyline references an earlier one, every book has to relate to every other one, and the only way to buy them is to join a secret fraternity of Fandom.

Originally Posted by Michael P View Post
And I'll say another thing about the halcyon days of million-selling comics and spinner racks: All that profit was going straight into the pockets of crooks and tyrants. If the cost of artists being able to produce a living and negotiate their intellectual property to their benefit is people not being able to tell between Flash Gordon and Flash, I'll take it.
That's a false dichotomy; why does it have to be one or the other? Why can't it be both? Why can't artists make a good living, retain their intellectual property rights and still sell a million copies a month?

[MacQuarrie]

One more thing...
The entire entertainment industry has changed since then, and one of the biggest changes is that people need a lot more incentive to take up reading *anything* as a serious, long-term hobby anymore.
There's the problem in a nutshell.

Comics were at their most successful when they were anything but serious, they assumed a total readership turnover every 4 to 7 years, and nobody considered it a hobby, any more than watching TV is a hobby.

Publish comics people can read without having to commit to, that entertain, amuse, distract and occasionally move them, and that are readily available in a multitude of locations, and you might once again make them a mainstream thing.

[Joe Rice]

But of course, we've already established that your pal with three or four years in the comic retailing industry knows a lot more than a guy whose worked in marketing, advertising and publishing for 30 years does about comic publishing, marketing and advertising.


First off, it's more like 10. Secondly, yes, exactly. None of those fields are as universal as you'd seem to claim.

Thirdly, it's not that comics are no longer the disposable entertainment they once were; it's that our culture doesn't have that at all anymore. Even bad television is more "owned" by the viewer than that; everything gets tied to identity culture. We don't dispose of our media anymore. We make it a part of ourselves.

[Kid Omega]

How can I be accused of moving the goalposts when every third post I re-quote the original question and address it again?

But of course, we've already established that your pal with three or four years in the comic retailing industry knows a lot more than a guy whose worked in marketing, advertising and publishing for 30 years does about comic publishing, marketing and advertising.

Do you really have to do this to make your point?

[Tom]

The one bit in particular that was significant to me was the inability to distinguish between Flash Gordon (a character that starred in a major motion picture when all the respondents were teens, and appeared in cartoon shows on TV, and appeared in an ill-fated TV show about a year ago) and The Flash (a character that starred in a TV series 15 or so years ago, appears on the Justice League TV cartoon, and has been featured on Smallville not too long ago). The people I asked were completely oblivious to the difference. This is not minutia, it's brand recognition.

People know that the name "Flash" is associated with a comic book, but that's all they know about it. Which was my point.

It's not much of a point. Twenty, thirty, forty years ago, people would have been no more likely to differentiate between Flash and Flash Gordon.

[Kid Omega]

It's not much of a point. Twenty, thirty, forty years ago, people would have been no more likely to differentiate between Flash and Flash Gordon.

The thing is, not only are you correct, but that's not even a relevant yardstick. (And further, I think due to the JLA cartoon, anyone with kids is likely to know the flash... moreso than anyone at the height of the book's popularity. I see parents all day every day who are well versed in characters but have never read a comic... but this is all beside the point.)

These things only matter if you are categorizing comics and boxing genres to suit the needs of an argument.

Do monthly superhero comics outsell SPORTS ILLUSTRATED? No. But they make plenty of money, and DC was the only arm of Warner Publishing to make any money last year, and that's just book sales, not liscensing.

BONE sells in the millions. Book festivals routinely mix comics programming with everything else. I saw this:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v304/Kamandi/IMG_0387.jpg

... at a bestseller kiosk in Grand Central Station recently.

All the arguments of "that's a book, not a comic" or "that's a movie tie-in" are a lot of double talk. They are comics, and they are selling, and selling to a mainstream book-buying audience.

[Slam_Bradley]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v304/Kamandi/IMG_0387.jpg

... at a bestseller kiosk in Grand Central Station recently.

All the arguments of "that's a book, not a comic" or "that's a movie tie-in" are a lot of double talk. They are comics, and they are selling, and selling to a mainstream book-buying audience.


I might add that the local B & N has Persepolis and Maus in the Biography section and the relatively new Willie & Joe collection in the History section.

They're still comics, however.

[dupont2005]

a few years back i read a rolling stone article about some "gonzo style" journalist i guess you could call him, who does his stories comic book style. the article was about him interviewing mercenaries living in the carribean if i remember correctly. lost the issue and do not remember his name though:frown:

[Tadhg]

a few years back i read a rolling stone article about some "gonzo style" journalist i guess you could call him, who does his stories comic book style. the article was about him interviewing mercenaries living in the carribean if i remember correctly. lost the issue and do not remember his name though:frown:

Are you thinking Joe Sacco who wrote about the Bosnian War?

[K Von Doom]

it's not that comics are no longer the disposable entertainment they once were; it's that our culture doesn't have that at all anymore.

Back in the boom of the early 90s I had no compunctions throwing away two copies of X-Men #1, because I bought all five variant covers and had a lot of disposable income. Now I'd be reluctant to throw away an issue of New Avengers I bought 2 months ago because I have less money to spend on comics.

[mattx110]

No, it teaches you how to find what's important and substantial about what you're selling, and then how to articulate and convey that to the customer in a way that moves him to buy it. Very important in selling something as ephemeral and unnecessary as comics.
(I thought I was in the election thread, don't tell anyone...)

[Matt Algren]

Is the spike in sales of WATCHMEN driving any sales of any other comics? When Batman hit it big on TV in 1964, it had a dramatic impact on the entire comics industry, spiking sales of not only Batman comics, but also the entire DC, Marvel, Archie, Dell, Gold Key, Western and Harvey lines. We're not seeing that today. Why not?
Wasn't Batman the only superhero comic-related TV show running? Now there's not just Watchmen, but Batman movies, Superman movies, a Superman TV show, X-Men movies, Fantastic Four movies, Spider-Man and Hulk movies...

When Batman hit it big, superhero comics had been largely irrelevant for half a generation. They were tapping a new audience. The same environment doesn't exist now, so obviously you won't find the same effect.

Comics are more readily available than they have been in the past 20-odd years... but only for adults. The comics industry has utterly abandoned, in fact actively driven away the market segment most likely to buy and keep buying their product, which is those between the ages of 8 and 18. The six million kids who buy Nickelodeon magazine would love to buy comics, but there are none for them to buy. Certainly not anything with Spider-Man, Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, Iron Man, Captain America.... those characters are the province of old men now.

It's not because Marvel and DC suddenly forgot how to reach that market (they did eventually, but not overnight); it's because they deliberately chose to reposition themselves as a product exclusively for their existing customer base, a base that is steadily aging and shrinking and will go away eventually.Okay. So what? There are comic books printed by companies other than Marvel and DC, and many/most of those companies ignore Diamond and sell through standard book store channels.

Comics are doing great, but that depends on how you define "comics."I define comics as books in which the story is told primarily through pictures and text rather than text alone. How else is there to define it?

The monthly sales figures for the top 300 comics show that a handful sell over 100,000 copies, while the majority are in the 1,000 to 4,000 range. That's not great. If we're talking about the monthly publications that the average person would identify as "comics", they are most assuredly not doing "great."
I don't care how the average person would define "comics". The word means what it means and we don't change that to make a point more salient.

If we're redefining the term to mean manga and graphic novels... See above.

...you run into a number of problems, because the book industry is entirely different from the magazine industry, and regardless of the content, graphic novels are functionally books. They have different productions schedules, different payment rates, different publication and distribution models, and different expectations. Once we change the subject to graphic novels and manga, the original question becomes moot, as Tom pointed out earlier.

Libraries are full of graphic novels and manga. Borders and Barnes & Noble have huge graphic novel and manga sections. There are no comics to be found in any of those places, at least not in the sense that the word is generally understood.Goalpost moving. Comics=Comics, not Comics=Comics MINUS manga MINUS graphic novels MINUS comics sold by companies other than DC or Marvel MINUS relatively successful comics so your point makes more sense.

Words mean things, as they say.

If the evolution of the comic book is complete, and the trade paperback is now the default form, so be it. But that means that all the expectations and assumptions that have driven the industry for 75 years are now obsolete.

DC and Marvel can continue to crank out self-referential installments of their soap operas until the last fanboy croaks, but that's really just out of habit and legal obligations. Publishing a bunch of short-run comics (check with the companies that print any other kind of publication; 150,000 copies is a short run) is a simple way to keep the trademarks valid while they are developed for other media. But it's a dead end.

The answer to the original question here is, "comics can never again reach the kind of sales that Captain America did in the '40s, because that kind of comic no longer exists. That business model no longer exists."

http://www.nostalgiazone.com/doc/zine/05_Q2/funnybusiness.htmI'm with you. DC/Marvel suck. Haven't seen anything come out of DC that excites me (with the notable exception of All-Star Superman) in well over a year. Longer for Marvel.

But that doesn't mean that comics are unsuccessful, it just means that the former big guns in the industry are less important to the big picture.

I might add that the local B & N has Persepolis and Maus in the Biography section and the relatively new Willie & Joe collection in the History section.

They're still comics, however.
Here too. Took me forever to find Persepolis because the people who worked there were surprised it was in that section too. Likewise with Fun Home. Bone tends to be stocked in the children's section. I never did find American Born Chinese at B&N, but I'm assuming it gets stocked in the teens section.

All of those books are also comics, of course.

[dupont2005]

Are you thinking Joe Sacco who wrote about the Bosnian War?

i think that may be him but i cant find the article. i would know for sure if i saw it

[MacQuarrie]

Do you really have to do this to make your point?

Alex, you're talking to the wrong guy here. You should have addressed that question to Joe. He's the one who copped an attitude and basically did his usual arrogant horseshit, declaring that because you own a comics shop, you're the ONLY person in the thread who knows anything, everybody else is making stuff up without knowing what they're talking about. Frankly, he does that all the time. Because he's a teacher, he's the only person who has ever taught and is the world's only expert on child development and education, and anyone who disagrees with him is talking out their ass because he is THE Teacher. In this case, because HIS pal the comic shop owner has spoken, The Divine Truth has been revealed, and anyone with a differing opinion must bow and to it, regardless of their own knowledge and experience.

The original question, in context, implied "Comics" meaning the standard 24-to-32 page monthly periodicals featuring superheroes. That was the question asked, and that was the question I tried to answer.

Here it is again, with emphasis added:

Back in the 40's, Captain America Comics #1 almost sold one million copies. Today, it's given that even the bestselling title gets nowhere near that figure.

What would need to be included in a new comic title (plots, characters, etc) produced now to get that same figure in today's market per month? Also, how would the book have to be marketed and what would the marketing include?

NOTE: This does not include factors outside the book itself and marketing. Even taking into account the current market factors today (fans, readers, then vs now, etc.), what would a publisher have to do to at least try replicate that number using only the book itself and marketing factors alone?

That's the question as asked. Given the inferences that we are talking about a monthly comic with continuing characters, as compared to the example given, Captain America, are comics (as described in the question) really doing fine?

The Dark Knight is rapidly heading toward being the biggest money-making movie in film history. Billions of dollars of tie-in merchandise is being sold as a result, and yet the monthly Batman comic can barely sell 100,000 copies. The only reason for that is failure on the part of the publishers, to either make a product that appealed to the people who liked the movie, or to put it where they could find it. And that's just stupid.

Here's my point, which I've managed to not explicitly state all along. It's common wisdom that the monthly comic as we all knew it is dying, supplanted by the trade paperback, graphic novel, online distribution, and so forth. But the fact is, those things could thrive and prosper without having the regular comic wither and die. They didn't have to replace the comic book; the market is far from saturated, there is ample audience for all formats. The reason periodical comics are failing is because of gross incompetence on the part of the publishers, and a strangling monopoly on distribution. And it doesn't have to be that way.

Comics publishers (not just DC and Marvel, but everybody who publishes superhero comics) have gone out of their way to drive away everyone but their target demographic. They chose to manufacture a product that does not appeal to children, women, or 90% of men, and then chose to limit the distribution of their product only to people who were already customers. They have chosen a steadily shrinking and aging audience for what was once their core product. That's like McDonalds getting so caught up in infinite variations on the McFlurry that they abandon the hamburger market.

But someday, somebody will come along and make a comic that kids and adults want to read, will ignore all the common wisdom and institutionalized rules about how comics are supposed to be distributed and sold, and will make a fortune while kick-starting the comic book periodical market. They will do it by ignoring the collectors and continuity wonks and selling comics to the 95% of the market who didn't know they'd like comics.

[Joe Rice]

It should be noted that I don't think Alex is the only person who knows what he's talking about here. I think he knows more than most, due to his daily experience for ten years or so in the actual business being discussed, but other folks know things, too.

I don't think Mac knows what he's talking about in this arena, though. But most people seem to understand things fairly well.

[MacQuarrie]

It should be noted that I don't think Alex is the only person who knows what he's talking about here. I think he knows more than most, due to his daily experience for ten years or so in the actual business being discussed, but other folks know things, too.

I don't think Mac knows what he's talking about in this arena, though. But most people seem to understand things fairly well.

Funny thing though, when I've discussed these facts with professional comic book writers, artists and editors, they often agree with me. If I had the money, I'd be carrying out these notions that I clearly don't know anything about, and I've got about a dozen or so comics pros who have expressed interest in doing it.

[Joe Rice]

Funny thing though, when I've discussed these facts with professional comic book writers, artists and editors, they often agree with me. If I had the money, I'd be carrying out these notions that I clearly don't know anything about, and I've got about a dozen or so comics pros who have expressed interest in doing it.

Good luck, then. I hope it does well, honestly. I don't think it would, and I don't even expect creators to really know the business side, but good luck.

Here's to Mac and Scott!

[StoneGold]

The Dark Knight is rapidly heading toward being the biggest money-making movie in film history.

Sorry, randomly feeling like nitpicking that. Inflated movie prices and ticket costs change that, and DKR is not the merchandising machine of previous Batman films. No video game tie-in, no fast food besides calling a pizza at Dominos the Gotham pizza, no breakfast cereals, smaller toy output in a time where action figures don't sell as well, fewer kids shirts than even the last movie... I don't know, but I'm willing to bet that 89 was more profitable. And I doubt any movie was more profitable than Star Wars, with all the tie-ins.

[mattx110]

Sorry, randomly feeling like nitpicking that. Inflated movie prices and ticket costs change that, and DKR is not the merchandising machine of previous Batman films. No video game tie-in, no fast food besides calling a pizza at Dominos the Gotham pizza, no breakfast cereals, smaller toy output in a time where action figures don't sell as well, fewer kids shirts than even the last movie... I don't know, but I'm willing to bet that 89 was more profitable. And I doubt any movie was more profitable than Star Wars, with all the tie-ins.
And I can't find the stupid black chocolate reese's peanut butter cups anywhere!! Did I imagine those, or something?

[StoneGold]

And I can't find the stupid black chocolate reese's peanut butter cups anywhere!! Did I imagine those, or something?

I've seen them at the 99 Cent Store.

[mattx110]

I've seen them at the 99 Cent Store.
Shit, I'll check the one near me.

I want them so bad. More than a dark-haired girl with hazel eyes and a smile that could stun a tiger.

[StoneGold]

Shit, I'll check the one near me.

I want them so bad. More than a dark-haired girl with hazel eyes and a smile that could stun a tiger.

You really can't taste the darker chocolate for the peanut butter.

[Kid Omega]

Funny thing though, when I've discussed these facts with professional comic book writers, artists and editors, they often agree with me.

I discuss these things with professional comic book writers, artists and editors, and they often agree with me.

What are we proving with this?

[dupont2005]

And I can't find the stupid black chocolate reese's peanut butter cups anywhere!! Did I imagine those, or something?

one time i had special holiday pumpkin pie flavored cola



ONE TIME......


:mad:

[MacQuarrie]

Good luck, then. I hope it does well, honestly. I don't think it would, and I don't even expect creators to really know the business side, but good luck.

Here's to Mac and Scott!
Thanks, I appreciate the sentiment.

[MacQuarrie]

Sorry, randomly feeling like nitpicking that. Inflated movie prices and ticket costs change that, and DKR is not the merchandising machine of previous Batman films. No video game tie-in, no fast food besides calling a pizza at Dominos the Gotham pizza, no breakfast cereals, smaller toy output in a time where action figures don't sell as well, fewer kids shirts than even the last movie... I don't know, but I'm willing to bet that 89 was more profitable. And I doubt any movie was more profitable than Star Wars, with all the tie-ins.
That's all true. But seriously, a magazine-sized Batman comic book, with stand-alone accessible-to-a-general-audience content, sitting at the checkout stand at the supermarket, priced comparably to PEOPLE, would have to move a million copies, and if it contained a comparable ad count, it would be profitable practically from the first copy sold. Problem is that DC doesn't know how to do that anymore.

[dupont2005]

how did savage sword of conan sell compared to conan the barbarian?

[MacQuarrie]

I discuss these things with professional comic book writers, artists and editors, and they often agree with me.

What are we proving with this?
Not bloody much.

Obviously we're talking past each other.

So let's try it again, maybe with a little less confrontation.

Like any business, there are market segments and divisions. In comics there are (limiting it to print) graphic novels, trade paperback collections of previously-published comics, manga, comics in other publications (newspapers, magazines, etc.), and monthly periodicals. Agreed?

Some of those divisions are doing very well indeed. The one that's not doing well is the traditional comic book, sometimes referred to sneeringly as "floppies" or "pamphlets", the 24-to-32-page, 6-5/8" x 10-1/4" publication that most often features the adventures of costumed superheroes. This segment is currently selling at a tiny fragment of what it once did. Agreed?

So now let's move to where we disagree.

The question, then, is whether this format is doomed to extinction. Is the entire industry moving to other formats, and is this a necessary progression?

The common wisdom says it is. I disagree. But the only way it will work is to make comic books that appeal to people who don't currently read them, and right now the whole industry is focused instead on fighting over the existing readers more than enlarging the pool. Marvel wants to steal DC's readers, and vice-versa, and it's been that way ever since general distribution was abandoned in favor of the direct market 20-odd years ago.

It's not a zero-sum game. Graphic novels do not need to replace comics. One format does not need to fail in order for another to succeed. Unlike HD vs Blu-Ray, there are no compatibility issues with comics. Both can exist. Both should exist.

There is absolutely no reason for the current state of affairs. These characters are among the most recognizable and best-loved characters in the history of fiction, and yet for some reason the people who publish them can't figure out how to sell them in their primary format to more than a fraction of 1% of the available market. That's insane, it's bad business, and there is just no reason for it.

It's great that comic-related movies make billions of dollars. It's stupid that nobody can figure out how to sell comics to the millions of people who see those movies.

It's great that graphic novels are growing in popularity and visibility. It's stupid to think that this means monthly comics have to die.

The usual excuses, too much competition from video games, cartoons, movies, web, etc., don't hold water. Those things don't stop kids from buying manga. People will buy things that engage their interest, and it's not the format that determines that. Manga isn't popular because of big eyes and optional noses; it's the story.

Comics are doing just fine. The periodical segment is not just dying, it's being murdered. And that's a damn shame.

[MacQuarrie]

how did savage sword of conan sell compared to conan the barbarian?
I think it did reasonably okay, considering it was black & white, compared to the color comic. But at the time, both were available to the general public in regular magazine outlets.


http://www.mycomicshop.com/comicbooks/item?IID=8546441
Savage Sword of Conan (1974 Magazine) #99
Marvel: Apr 1984
Original cover price: $1.50
Part of series Print Run Statistics
Conan stars in "The Informer!" Plot and pencils by John Buscema, script by Michael Fleisher, inks by Ernie Chan. Conan also stars in "One Night at the Maul." Script by Jim Owsley, pencils by Stan Woch, inks by Ned Sonntag. The letters page contains a statement of ownership--average print run 220,048; average paid circulation 133,285. Armando Gil frontispiece. Joe Jusko cover.

By today's standards, that would be phenomenal.