The online behavior of Comic Book Professionals

[Lars C]

I really do not think that those "hook lines" are meant for fans. They are meant for the casual observer and or the vendor that does not have their finger on the pulse of whats hot in comics. Why? Because controversy sells! Think what you will about the tactics used to boost sales, but at the end of the day, comics exist to make money. Marketing to your fans is a waste of time. You don't need to advertise to the fans, they will by the book regardless of the "Hook lines" in the industry solicitations. You market for the "New Reader" in hopes to turn them into a fan.

To market to the "new reader" is just fine and well, as it should be. You are right that the fans will buy the book (almost) no matter what, but is there really a reason to mock that loyalty? Also, it is possible to make comics that make money without this kind of "marketing". We see it all the time, in like every other comic in the top 20.

[mistergoodman]

Come on...those guys were just playing around with the fans and people took what they said far too seriously and literally.

Other responses are to specific individuals for other reasons.

It's certainly not a general attitude towards all the fans.

That's how I took it. I only watched the video letters page right now (I normally read the digital versions of the comics, which lack the AR codes) but it seemed to have some fun with some specific histrionic reactions to the announcement of SSM. It was hardly an attack on the book's readership. Most comic book fans were likely savvy enough to understand from the start that Peter's death would be temporary. The only real question was when would Peter return (waaaay sooner than people expected, it turns out) and how good would the story be (pretty darn good).

[Schmed]

To market to the "new reader" is just fine and well, as it should be. You are right that the fans will buy the book (almost) no matter what, but is there really a reason to mock that loyalty? Also, it is possible to make comics that make money without this kind of "marketing". We see it all the time, in like every other comic in the top 20.

I get it, you don't like Wackers behavior. End of story. Can you spare us another 20 pages of you droning on and on about it? Please?

[Lars C]

That's how I took it. I only watched the video letters page right now (I normally read the digital versions of the comics, which lack the AR codes) but it seemed to have some fun with some specific histrionic reactions to the announcement of SSM. It was hardly an attack on the book's readership. Most comic book fans were likely savvy enough to understand from the start that Peter's death would be temporary. The only real question was when would Peter return (waaaay sooner than people expected, it turns out) and how good would the story be (pretty darn good).

You can use the AR app even if you read digitally, but you need two devices. I view the AR stuff by opening the comic on my iPhone and opening AR on my iPad. It works fine enough.

[Mister Mets]

Well, that might be a good analogy, I'm sure people like Wacker and Slott has to take loads of crap from comic geeks, but they don't have to make videos and whatever to ridicule them/all us readers. I remember when being a comic geek used to feel like we were part of a gang, a community. Sure it was just an illusion, but I still miss that feeling...wait, isn't that something people like Neil Gaiman, Brian K. Vaughan, Scott Snyder really seem to value? Yeah, it can be done today too. They don't have to ridicule their fans, I still find it just wrong.

Of the writers you mention, only Snyder works on a monthly with an existing character.

On a book by BKV or Neil Gaiman (who doesn't do much comic book work nowadays) the biggest draw will be the writer, rather than the character.

The exception would be Gaiman's episodes of Doctor Who, although he isn't the showrunner on that.

that's definitely a fair assumption to make about someone based on opinions on Spider-Man.

or maybe

I spend my life sacrificing my time with my family, and possibly my life, in service to my country. so maybe you don't know as much as you think.

I don't get what your military service has to do with your response to Lars.

[Scorpiodisc]

To market to the "new reader" is just fine and well, as it should be. You are right that the fans will buy the book (almost) no matter what, but is there really a reason to mock that loyalty? Also, it is possible to make comics that make money without this kind of "marketing". We see it all the time, in like every other comic in the top 20.

The "mocking" in this case is completely subjective. I did not feel like I was being mocked in the slightest by the solicitations or by reactions to fan outrage. I think fan outrage is hilarious.

[mistergoodman]

You can use the AR app even if you read digitally, but you need two devices. I view the AR stuff by opening the comic on my iPhone and opening AR on my iPad. It works fine enough.

For whatever reason Superior Spider-Man lacks the AR codes in the digital editions though. I checked on both my iPad and my Nexus 7. I had to dig out my paper comics to see the videos. See for yourself, they're not there.

[Lars C]

For whatever reason Superior Spider-Man lacks the AR codes in the digital editions though. I checked on both my iPad and my Nexus 7. I had to dig out my paper comics to see the videos. See for yourself, they're not there.

Yeah, I often can't see the symbol, but it's still possible to view the video. I knew what page it was.

[ShaggyB]

The "mocking" in this case is completely subjective. I did not feel like I was being mocked in the slightest by the solicitations or by reactions to fan outrage. I think fan outrage is hilarious.

Thats my problem with it as well. How is it 100% clearly mocking when its subjective at best?

[Lars C]

The "mocking" in this case is completely subjective. I did not feel like I was being mocked in the slightest by the solicitations or by reactions to fan outrage. I think fan outrage is hilarious.

Whenever something's subjective (as it is here), there's always more who feel the same. I mean, I'm not the only one who's reacted to that video or anything else.

[ShaggyB]

Whenever something's subjective (as it is here), there's always more who feel the same. I mean, I'm not the only one who's reacted to that video or anything else.

Sure, but reactions, like people, are different. Some may agree with you for various reasons.... but it still seems you are portraying it as a universal constant when it clearly isnt.

[mistergoodman]

Yeah, I often can't see the symbol, but it's still possible to view the video. I knew what page it was.

Huh. You're right. I'll be damned.

[Mister Mets]

In the first page of Amazing Fantasy #15, Stan Lee mocked superhero comics with the totally unnecessary joke that people in the industry refer to them as "long underwear characters" before saying they're "a dime a dozen."

I am outrageously outraged at this outrageous outrage.

[Jim Thompson]

I don't get what your military service has to do with your response to Lars.

He's in the Air Force, not the military.

[Lars C]

Of the writers you mention, only Snyder works on a monthly with an existing character.

On a book by BKV or Neil Gaiman (who doesn't do much comic book work nowadays) the biggest draw will be the writer, rather than the character.

The exception would be Gaiman's episodes of Doctor Who, although he isn't the showrunner on that.

Heck, I could go on. Grant Morrison, Brian Michael Bendis (he's got a history of getting flak from fans, but he handled his transition to the X-verse very gracefully and humbly IMHO), Mark Waid, Geoff Johns, Chris Samnee...I mean, there are so many comic creators out there that don't get into these kinds of discussions.