Thoughts on PD 11-22-06 #271

[Bright-Raven]

Steven Grant:

I was going to spend the day spelling out a foolproof way for any publisher to turn comics publishing into a multi-billion dollar enterprise...

And the reason you haven't just started your own company is...? :evilsmile

Rhetorical question, Steven: 1) You don't have the capital base, and 2) You've played E-I-C before and you don't want to play it again. TSR Comic modules, right?

But you've got the experience, and you and others who are like-minded to the way you think about the business and are successful talents in their own right surely have enough original content amongst you to produce.

So why would you waste yet another column telling someone else how to do it, when you've essentially already done that song and dance several times over in this column and absolutely nobody's listened?

They (the would be and the established publishers alike) haven't listened to you, or Warren Ellis, or Randy Zimmerman, or Gary Reed, or Beau Smith, or Peter David, or myself, or any number of other talents at any given level of the "food chain" in the creative community who have written any number of columns, blogs, letters in CBG or WIZARD or posted on forums all over the net about what needs to be done. And you know something? In the end, most of us are thinking on the same level. We all know what has to be done.

We just differ on how to execute it and we all have different tastes.

But that's fine. Because if we put all that aside for the moment and just get the damn structure in place - a legitimate publisher and not some corporate media group or organization more interested in licensing than publishing - I think we'd find all of us have valid points and can either produce or find the work that is worthy of being out there.

Just my opinion.

[bartl]

You've played E-I-C before and you don't want to play it again. TSR Comic modules, right?

Too bad Buzz Dixon doesn't hang around here anymore. He could give you an earful about TSR Comic "modules".

[Adam Crocker]

Too bad Buzz Dixon doesn't hang around here anymore. He could give you an earful about TSR Comic "modules".

Speaking as a D&D player from before Wizards of the Coast absorbed TSR, why does "TSR Comic modules" sound like a painful medical procedure?

[bartl]

Speaking as a D&D player from before Wizards of the Coast absorbed TSR, why does "TSR Comic modules" sound like a painful medical procedure?

You can ask Buzz Dixon. And, if you want old-timers, my gaming group back in the late 70's included Dan Gelber, Lori Walls, Greg Costikyan, Ned Horn, and David G.D. Hecht.

[NatGertler]

why does "TSR Comic modules" sound like a painful medical procedure?

I don't remember anything particularly medical about 'em.

--Nat (one of the writers of the TSR Comic Modules)

[Steven Grant]

Steven Grant:

And the reason you haven't just started your own company is...? :evilsmile

Does the phrase "being facetious" mean anything to you? I was just being colorful in blowing off the column that week.

Rhetorical question, Steven: 1) You don't have the capital base, and 2) You've played E-I-C before and you don't want to play it again. TSR Comic modules, right?

At this point, actually, I'd love to start a comics company, or at least edit comics for a few years. But I also know how much money I would need to make a go of a company; I think you've got to be prepared to lose money (though as little as possible) for a couple years and not panic about it for at least 18 months. I also would love to not be in a situation where other people are spending all their time second, third or fourth-guessing the decisions and the business plan. Or come in with their own goofy ideas about what the public wants (specifically where it involves really crappy writers or artists they happen to be friends with, or terrible concepts dear to their hearts). I do think a lot of ruthlessness is necessary, but most people are far more willing to be ruthless with other people's ideas that with their own.

But the four main ingredients needed for a comics publishing venture are money, time, taste and direction, and nobody seems very willing to invest much of any of them.

- Grant

[Steven Grant]

I don't remember anything particularly medical about 'em.

Really?

They were certainly a pain in my ass...

- Grant

[NatGertler]

Although actually, I should amend my glib response before.
The TSR comics module did well by me. I got paid a good page rate, at a time when the money was particularly useful. The one time I got coupled with a lousy artist, I had crafted an unusually crappy story, so it was no great waste -- and I got to do works I was proud of with folks like Joe Staton (and we're once again discussing collaborating on something, so this was a good relationship to take on) and Darick Robertson. There were disappointments - knowing that they were working a format that would seem like the wrong thing to two potential audiences, and that they went down when I was slated for my longest single assignment of my career to that point - but all in all, I was glad to have had the opportunity that I did have.

[Bright-Raven]

Sorry I haven't been able to come back to this thread sooner. Holiday weekend and then our realtor attempted to have an open house to show the place on top of it. (Can anyone explain to me the logic in attempting to show a property during a weekend where the last thing one is likely to be doing is home shopping? But I digress...)

Steven Grant:

Does the phrase "being facetious" mean anything to you? I was just being colorful in blowing off the column that week.

That's cool. It's just that in MOTOs and PDs past you've made enough comments that were legitimate discussions on matters in which the industry could improve or even consider as possible ways of how to think and function when trying to create a reasonably devised business plan for an upstart company, if one were inclined to pursue it. My apologies if I mistook your statement as an intent of continuance of such presentations or better yet a more formal grouping of such presentations.

To others, RE: the TSR Comics Modules--

Sorry if some of you haven't been here all along. Steven did at least one column on the experience back in the MOTO days (I vaguely recall it possibly being a two-parter?).
I'm not sure anyone would care to delve into that particular scenario again. I was merely referring to the experience that Steven and others (some of whom have been mentioned and are acknowledging it here in the thread since) had while involved as one of the many lessons on how NOT to run an operation, which they all learned firsthand. That's all.

Steven Grant:

At this point, actually, I'd love to start a comics company, or at least edit comics for a few years. But I also know how much money I would need to make a go of a company; I think you've got to be prepared to lose money (though as little as possible) for a couple years and not panic about it for at least 18 months. I also would love to not be in a situation where other people are spending all their time second, third or fourth-guessing the decisions and the business plan.

We're in absolute agreement here. When you say you'd 'love to start a company', are you thinking in terms of periodicals, trade format, or both? Obviously there are different business structures and schedules to consider, and the capital base requirements differ accordingly.

As far as 'backseat publishing' is concerned, if you're running your own company... I think you'd likely try to be smart about it and not let internal matters get splattered all over the internet for the general public's consumption. Unlike just about everyone else out there today. I also think you'd hire people who understood your direction and accepted it / agreed with it and knew what they were getting into.

I think these days many would be startup publishers say what they think others want to hear to get them to join on, then reality sets in and the house of cards falls and everyone starts finger pointing as to whose fault the failure was / is.

Or [people] come in with their own goofy ideas about what the public wants (specifically where it involves really crappy writers or artists they happen to be friends with, or terrible concepts dear to their hearts). I do think a lot of ruthlessness is necessary, but most people are far more willing to be ruthless with other people's ideas than with their own.

There's truth to that, although in many cases I've found one of the reasons some people are more ruthless with others' ideas than their own is because they're fronting their own money and would rather take the risk on themselves than others. Which is understandable, one supposes. It's not the best way to run a business by any means, and it's an ill based logic dictating the practice, but it is a logical progression of thought nonetheless.

More thoughts later.

[Steven Grant]

Steven did at least one column on the experience back in the MOTO days (I vaguely recall it possibly being a two-parter?).

It probably just seemed that way.

The short version: TSR opened a branch called TSR-West to publish comic books. At the time, DC was publishing comics based on TSR's ADVANCED DUNGEONS AND DRAGONS, which weren't even doing very well for DC. At an advanced stage of development, TSR's management (to use the term very loosely) suddenly went into a panic that Paul Levitz wouldn't like them anymore if TSR started openly competing in DC's market, and he might even stop publishing AD&D comics. Believe me, I did point out that if that happened they would have their own comics company that could keep the license alive in comics. They just couldn't quite get that, and as far as I know Paul had never approached them on the subject nor had they ever had any talks with him about it. They then decided to call the comics "comics modules" in order to appeal to gamers, except none of the series were connected to existing games. (Well, Agent 13 might have been... not sure anymore...) And to convince DC they weren't really publishing comics they completed the illusion by filling the backs of the books with gaming material of dubious interest; I'm not sure if any of it connected to existing games either. The other idea was that "comics modules" would convince bookstores to stock the comics on the TSR shelf with other games and modules. Ultimately the idea helped drive off comics fans, who didn't want the gaming material, and gamers, who didn't want the comics material. Not to mention confusing retailers across the board.

We're in absolute agreement here. When you say you'd 'love to start a company', are you thinking in terms of periodicals, trade format, or both? Obviously there are different business structures and schedules to consider, and the capital base requirements differ accordingly.

If we're talking about fantasy publishing, I think it would be optimal to have a structure where the material could be published in whatever format best suits it instead of forcing talent to shoehorn work into set formats. If someone actually plopped, say, five mil in front of me and said "Go forth and start a comics company," I'd take a closer look at the realities of the moment and figure out the best direction.

As far as 'backseat publishing' is concerned, if you're running your own company... I think you'd likely try to be smart about it and not let internal matters get splattered all over the internet for the general public's consumption. Unlike just about everyone else out there today. I also think you'd hire people who understood your direction and accepted it / agreed with it and knew what they were getting into.

Seeing how any company I'd run would be played very close to the vest and probably eliminate most staff positions in favor of freelance posts, there wouldn't be much way for things like that to leak out unless I leaked them. Boom! Studios has a pretty good staff structure in that regard. I think way too many comics companies take on way too many employees before they can afford them, and that was one of my setup points for TSR-West: a skeleton publishing company.

Which, of course, they immediately ignored...

I think these days many would be startup publishers say what they think others want to hear to get them to join on, then reality sets in and the house of cards falls and everyone starts finger pointing as to whose fault the failure was / is.

Almost everyone starts out very underfunded, on the dream that what they're publishing will be so compelling and appealing that it will turn into a runaway mass hit on initial release and all their money problems will be over. And putting out as many books that will appeal to as many different customer bases as possible will ensure that. "Slow build" isn't a concept a lot of publishers want to hear, but things are rigged against anything else and even that's no picnic...

There's truth to that, although in many cases I've found one of the reasons some people are more ruthless with others' ideas than their own is because they're fronting their own money and would rather take the risk on themselves than others. Which is understandable, one supposes. It's not the best way to run a business by any means, and it's an ill based logic dictating the practice, but it is a logical progression of thought nonetheless.

Yes, but spending your own money on your own ideas is an argument for being more ruthless on your own ideas, not less. And far more ruthless on realization, which is ultimately far more important than the idea itself. Far too many people take the innate superiority of their ideas and talent as a given, and while confidence is certainly a plus, misplaced confidence can get kind of suicidal... If you're not your own toughest critic, you're going to run into an awful lot of people more than happy to take the job...

- Grant

[NatGertler]

They then decided to call the comics "comics modules" in order to appeal to gamers, except none of the series were connected to existing games. (Well, Agent 13 might have been... not sure anymore...)

The Buck Rogers material was connected to a game, which is why it was marketed as XXVc (a term comics readers are likely to have been unfamiliar with) rather than Buck Rogers (a name with prior presence in comics, film, TV...)

[Bright-Raven]

Steven Grant:

If we're talking about fantasy publishing, I think it would be optimal to have a structure where the material could be published in whatever format best suits it instead of forcing talent to shoehorn work into set formats. If someone actually plopped, say, five mil in front of me and said "Go forth and start a comics company," I'd take a closer look at the realities of the moment and figure out the best direction.

Based on this statement, I understand that you would prefer such things be determined on a case by case basis, per project. Sounds reasonable enough.

Seeing how any company I'd run would be played very close to the vest and probably eliminate most staff positions in favor of freelance posts, there wouldn't be much way for things like that to leak out unless I leaked them. Boom! Studios has a pretty good staff structure in that regard. I think way too many comics companies take on way too many employees before they can afford them.

A valid point. So you're saying instead of having the staffers and the expense therein, you'd have freelance posts for handling various internal business matters? That's very interesting. Not sure how that might work or how one would go about acquiring the right people there. I suppose it's a matter of knowing who you trust and want to work with in that regard.

Almost everyone starts out very underfunded, on the dream that what they're publishing will be so compelling and appealing that it will turn into a runaway mass hit on initial release and all their money problems will be over. And putting out as many books that will appeal to as many different customer bases as possible will ensure that. "Slow build" isn't a concept a lot of publishers want to hear, but things are rigged against anything else and even that's no picnic...

Not just the publishers, but would be investors, too. It's very difficult to sell people on long term plans in this age of instant gratification. More than once I've had investors back out of potentially helping me get a company started because of such attitude.

Spending your own money on your own ideas is an argument for being more ruthless on your own ideas, not less. And far more ruthless on realization, which is ultimately far more important than the idea itself. Far too many people take the innate superiority of their ideas and talent as a given, and while confidence is certainly a plus, misplaced confidence can get kind of suicidal... If you're not your own toughest critic, you're going to run into an awful lot of people more than happy to take the job...

Again, we agree. It's just been my experience all over the small press with people who have hired me freelance as an editor. I've probably had my name dropped from the credits on some forty indy books over the past six years because the publisher wouldn't take criticism and advice on how to improve the work to a level that was worth the actual effort of publishing.

To me personally, a credit box listing isn't worth being associated with crap. Sometimes I don't know which is worse - having your name out there on garbage product, or not having your name out there at all.

[Steven Grant]

Based on this statement, I understand that you would prefer such things be determined on a case by case basis, per project. Sounds reasonable enough.

Honestly, I don't think there's any other way to do it. It always helps to have a philosophical viewpoint, but as a practical matter you have to do whatever's the best thing for present circumstance. Doctrinairity will kill you. While I don't think publishers should go into business to just publish anything, supposedly the objective of having a company is to have a functioning company and, as Machiavelli put it, in order to exact revenge once must first win. You don't necessarily achieve all your goals right off the bad, sometimes you have to work toward them.

A valid point. So you're saying instead of having the staffers and the expense therein, you'd have freelance posts for handling various internal business matters? That's very interesting. Not sure how that might work or how one would go about acquiring the right people there. I suppose it's a matter of knowing who you trust and want to work with in that regard.

Well, you know... why have an on-staff accountant, for instance, when you can enlist a CPA to come in once a week and manage your finances. If we're talking about small companies. It might look great to have a personal secretary, but it's a lot cheaper to pay for an answering service. That sort of thing.

Not just the publishers, but would be investors, too. It's very difficult to sell people on long term plans in this age of instant gratification. More than once I've had investors back out of potentially helping me get a company started because of such attitude.

I don't blame them. Publishing is a high risk, slow-growth proposition. People who just want to make money can find businesses that are a lot more immediately profitable investments, and most people don't want to tie up large sums of money for several year periods unless the rate of return will be big, and that's rare in publishing too. The only reason to invest in publishing is if you believe in the publishing operation. (When I was studying communication arts in college, one assignment was to pick a community and calculate how much it would cost to wire that community for cable TV, given the going rates of pretty much everything at the time from the cost of labor to the price of permits, and what kind of profit you could expect to make by the end of two years, and his written comment on my paper, despite my very good grade, was "Open a liquor store.").

To me personally, a credit box listing isn't worth being associated with crap. Sometimes I don't know which is worse - having your name out there on garbage product, or not having your name out there at all.

It depends, really. The dividing line between stupidity and genius is success, and it's better to have your name attached to a really successful piece of crap than to have it attached to nothing at all. Unsuccessful pieces of crap, no, not worth being connected to and sometimes harmful. The problem is that you can never tell in advance what piece of crap will suddenly catch fire. The best you can do is play the odds...

- Grant

[bartl]

One quick question for Grant, just in case I win Mega Millions one day; how much would you say a comic book company would need in start-up money to have a reasonable chance at success?

[Bright-Raven]

Bart:

One quick question, just in case I win Mega Millions one day; how much would you say a comic book company would need in start-up money to have a reasonable chance at success?

Not sure, but I think he might have possibly answered that already, Bart.

Steven Grant:

If someone actually plopped, say, five mil in front of me and said "Go forth and start a comics company," I'd take a closer look at the realities of the moment and figure out the best direction.

Not to suggest five million is anything other than an arbitrary figure, but it's not a bad starting benchmark, either. All depends on what you want to do and how shrewd you are with your budget.