How do we save the Comic Industry

[glennsim]

I would say the problems for BTSHC are, in order:

1. Awareness
2. Distribution
3. Content
4. Pricing/Value

Before the advent of digital, I'd have said that Distribution came first before Awareness (it doesn't do any good to tell people about things if they can't get them). But now they are in the book stores and on the Web, people just don't know it. We need more advertising and more "free samples". I have a dream about a direct-mail campaign that sends a free sampler through the mail directly to people's homes and/or e-mails them a link to a digital version of the same.

I think Content is an issue but I'm more concerned with doing things to get more teen+ female readers (or at least not turning them away) and more sci-fi/fantasy novel readers, who perhaps aren't as welcoming of some of the tropes of the super-hero genre.

I would say that Pricing/Value (price, number of pages, etc.) is a factor, but it's lower because consumers make all sorts of illogical purchasing decisions, and I think at the end of the day whether something is worth the money is a personal decision. That said, obviously if the pricing could come down or the page count go up, that would be a good thing.

All of this needs to be done as experiments first, to see what works and fine-tune the strategies. I'm willing to be wrong about some of my assumptions about what other audiences want, but I'd want to get some stuff in front of people and get feedback from them.

[glennsim]

That won't happen so easily.
1) The comics are still making a profit, even if not huge by WB standarts.
2) Any storyline has tremendous potential in other media. Those animated movies adapted from critically acclaimed stories actually made a lot of money.
3) Would really upset fans (and a lot of non-fans) without any need.
4) They can test different stuff with very little cost.
5) They could allways stumble on a new Wolverine or re-create a meaningless character. For example, the current I, Vampire series could be considered as having a good concept for a movie. The old I, Vampire was pretty much forgotten.

True but..

1. Obviously they aren't making enough of a profit to avoid having to do things like the new52 or Marvel Now to boost sales.
2. There are 70 years worth of DC storylines already available to adapt.
3. If there's not enough money being made, upsetting fans isn't an issue.
4. See #2
5. Other media is going to make changes anyway (see Blade) so really the basic concept is all they need.

[Bruce Kent]

True but..

1. Obviously they aren't making enough of a profit to avoid having to do things like the new52 or Marvel Now to boost sales.
2. There are 70 years worth of DC storylines already available to adapt.
3. If there's not enough money being made, upsetting fans isn't an issue.
4. See #2
5. Other media is going to make changes anyway (see Blade) so really the basic concept is all they need.

1) Probably because comics used to make a lot more money not that long ago. An executive probably would have a hard time believing the sales dropped so much in a few years. The low seller from a few years ago would be the current top seller.
2) Why should they stop making more? All-Star Superman is recent and was adapted 2 (?) years ago. Flashpoint is in its way to be adapted too. GL only was considered for a live action movie because of Johns' run. And plenty more examples.
3) When it's still making a profit, it is. Especially when super-hero comics are doing great. Killing comics would kill comic book movies too probably. How many pulp adaptations you see? 0. Main reason? Pulp has been dead for a long time.
4) That has no relation with #2 at all.
5) No one would look at I, Vampire as a valid concept two years ago. Now they can do so.

[glennsim]

1) Probably because comics used to make a lot more money not that long ago. An executive probably would have a hard time believing the sales dropped so much in a few years. The low seller from a few years ago would be the current top seller.
2) Why should they stop making more? All-Star Superman is recent and was adapted 2 (?) years ago. Flashpoint is in its way to be adapted too. GL only was considered for a live action movie because of Johns' run. And plenty more examples.
3) When it's still making a profit, it is. Especially when super-hero comics are doing great. Killing comics would kill comic book movies too probably. How many pulp adaptations you see? 0. Main reason? Pulp has been dead for a long time.
4) That has no relation with #2 at all.
5) No one would look at I, Vampire as a valid concept two years ago. Now they can do so.

The point is, at any time some executive could decide that the costs of producing new monthly content isn't worth whatever profit they are making, and could pull the plug. Which could actually happen at any time (because it's not about "making a profit", it's about "making the desired amount of profit") but the lower sales are, logically the more likely it is to happen. All of which is to explain why BTSHC need "saving."

All of your reasons are why it might not happen, but they could also possibly be ignored if the desired profits aren't there, with what I said being the additional justifications.

[Bruce Kent]

The point is, at any time some executive could decide that the costs of producing new monthly content isn't worth whatever profit they are making, and could pull the plug. Which could actually happen at any time (because it's not about "making a profit", it's about "making the desired amount of profit") but the lower sales are, logically the more likely it is to happen. All of which is to explain why BTSHC need "saving."

All of your reasons are why it might not happen, but they could also possibly be ignored if the desired profits aren't there, with what I said being the additional justifications.

If there's profit, the costs are justified. If DC wasn't an IP farm, you could have reasons to worry. Right now, you don't. If a Batman movie ever fails again at box office you can start worrying.

[glennsim]

If there's profit, the costs are justified. If DC wasn't an IP farm, you could have reasons to worry. Right now, you don't. If a Batman movie ever fails again at box office you can start worrying.

It's not always about making $1 more than you spend. There are obviously goals they are trying to hit. Those goals are arbitrary and subject to change depending on who is in charge. And as mentioned, they don't need to make any new Batman comics in order to make a new Batman movie. Everybody knows who Batman is.

I'm sure there might be new James Bond books coming out, but do you really think they matter? Did they need the Lone Ranger to appear in other media in order to make a movie about him? Can they not make another Highlander movie tomorrow without there being any other media around it?

My reasons might not be good reasons, but I can see some executive having them.

[Darrell D.]

I was not aware it needed saving.

It actually doesn't.
The direct sales market will continue to eat its own tail, but it won't affect the books that have always sold in alternate and more viable outlets.

[glennsim]

It actually doesn't.
The direct sales market will always eat its own tail, but it won't affect the books that have always sold more in other, more viable outlets.

Other than Johnny DC type stuff, what BTSH comics sell more in outlets other than the direct market?

[Darrell D.]

Other than Johnny DC type stuff, what comics sell more in outlets other than the direct market?

Most independent graphic novels are available at Book Stores, books such as Bone was available through the Scholastic outlet.
Archie still has checkout digest racks on grocery stores (at least here in my area).
Not mention, digital, and independents and self publish guys that have web presence.

[Jadenewt]

Most independent graphic novels are available at Book Stores, books such as Bone was available through the Scholastic outlet.
Archie still has checkout digest racks on grocery stores (at least here in my area).
Not mention, digital, and independents and self publish guys that have web presence.

Or Kickstarter projects which seem to be all the rage of late.

The Bone books and most Graphic Novels are just reprints which only have to pay for publication and don't have a timely factor to them. Unlike more conventional comics which require a great deal of maintenance as far as upkeep and cycling of old merchandise. Some Archie also falls into this category.

[Bruce Kent]

It's not always about making $1 more than you spend. There are obviously goals they are trying to hit. Those goals are arbitrary and subject to change depending on who is in charge. And as mentioned, they don't need to make any new Batman comics in order to make a new Batman movie. Everybody knows who Batman is.

You do know they really don't disguise it, don't you? People at DC have admited they don't need to be 1st in the industry. They don't need to have great sales.
Stop publishing Batman. Let the character freeze in time. Eventually people will stop seing the movies and WB will take a break (it has happened). Then in 20 years let's talk about Batman.
Shazam is a perfect example of this concept. He used to be bigger than Superman, but look what getting out of print for some years made to him.

I'm sure there might be new James Bond books coming out, but do you really think they matter? Did they need the Lone Ranger to appear in other media in order to make a movie about him? Can they not make another Highlander movie tomorrow without there being any other media around it?

Non-related examples. James Bond primary media has become movies. Super-heroes are still completely connected with comics.
One of the reasons why the Lone Ranger won't ever make as much money as Batman is because he was "dead" for a long time.
Highlander is 100% movies.

My reasons might not be good reasons, but I can see some executive having them.

An executive that would be fired before being able to go throuth with it. You don't close a company making profit and that is amazingly valuable as an IP farm. Not after Disney paid 4 billion dollars for the rival company.

[AJBopp]

That won't happen so easily.
1) The comics are still making a profit, even if not huge by WB standarts.
2) Any storyline has tremendous potential in other media. Those animated movies adapted from critically acclaimed stories actually made a lot of money.
3) Would really upset fans (and a lot of non-fans) without any need.
4) They can test different stuff with very little cost.
5) They could allways stumble on a new Wolverine or re-create a meaningless character. For example, the current I, Vampire series could be considered as having a good concept for a movie. The old I, Vampire was pretty much forgotten.

1) We don't know that for sure. We assume it's not huge, but we assume that some profit exists, but we don't know how much or if our assumptions are accurate (for good or bad).
2) How critical is it that storylines originate in comics? Also, do we know that animated movies are making a lot of money (i.e. profit, not gross sales)?
3) So what? If the movies ARE making a lot of profit, then they must be doing so by reaching a much larger audience than the core comic book fans (assuming our assumptions in point 1 are valid).
4) How little? The best stuff is usually created by the most expensive talent.
5) Not relevant. It's not a smart business decision to keep doing something that makes little or no money on the chance that there might be a huge payoff somewhere down the road. Possibly. You never know. Stranger things have happened. An exec that made a decision like that wouldn't have his job long.

[Mr. Holmes]

It actually doesn't.
The direct sales market will continue to eat its own tail, but it won't affect the books that have always sold in alternate and more viable outlets.

It'll probably strengthen the industry that way, the fat gets cut with the direct market.

[AJBopp]

One of the reasons why the Lone Ranger won't ever make as much money as Batman is because he was "dead" for a long time.

The Lone Ranger was dead for a long time because, after a certain point, he didn't make money.

[glennsim]

You do know they really don't disguise it, don't you? People at DC have admited they don't need to be 1st in the industry. They don't need to have great sales.
Stop publishing Batman. Let the character freeze in time. Eventually people will stop seing the movies and WB will take a break (it has happened). Then in 20 years let's talk about Batman.
Shazam is a perfect example of this concept. He used to be bigger than Superman, but look what getting out of print for some years made to him.



Non-related examples. James Bond primary media has become movies. Super-heroes are still completely connected with comics.
One of the reasons why the Lone Ranger won't ever make as much money as Batman is because he was "dead" for a long time.
Highlander is 100% movies.



An executive that would be fired before being able to go throuth with it. You don't close a company making profit and that is amazingly valuable as an IP farm. Not after Disney paid 4 billion dollars for the rival company.

Super-heroes aren't associated with comics any more, to the general public, to any great degree. There are people who don't even know that comics are still being published. Hence the need for this whole discussion.

Comics might make OK money now, but the minute they stop, they are gone.