Yes, Dean, that's what I mean when I use the term 'free market'. Thanks for pointing that out.

Eric said: > I mostly take issue with your fevered accusations...<

"Fevered accusations"? You're slipping into Groth-Speak, Eric.

Eric said: >"...regarding the Journal's compromised integrity vis a vis Fantagraphics' attempts to assert itself in promoting its cartoonists, and that this is somehow unethical or resulting in some kind of self-imposed censorship or editorial castration.<

Eric, I don't have a clue about what you're suggesting here. This thread is about the Indy comics market and Gary and I going a few late rounds in our long running conflict-of-interest debate concerning TCJ newsgathering and Diamond. I don't believe I have ever critisized Fantagraphics for promoting its artists.

(Gary, I think some of your troops need a day off from the front!)

Thanks, Eric, for agreeing with me that the Diamond Select story should have been covered in TCJ. I did not label it "egregious" (more Groth-Speak), but merely was providing a sample of a big Diamond story that the JOURNAL failed to report on (as challenged by Gary). The implication shouldn't be that I think there is anything underhanded in this, but that a certain level of incompetence may be inferred.

Eric says: >But that's not the entire reason, and your passion may be clouding your perspective. The way I understand it, through probably some of the same circles you hear gossip in, is that Diamond was indeed financing manufacturing costs, but that several suppliers weren't able to pay Diamond
back.<

That's an interesting fact that should included in a well reported story, since the under-the-table perks of doing business with the Diamond Monopoly has been essentially hidden from the public's (and possibly the DOJ's) view. But the real point the story illustrates is how Diamond was moving to expand its monopoly status beyond comics at the expense of its own stores and suppliers. I certainly never suggested it was 'nefarious' of Diamond to wade into the toy manufacturing side of the Direct Sales Market, compete for customer dollars and licenses against their own suppliers, while competing with their own stores by shipping the same stuff to Wal Mart. "Piggy", maybe, but not "nefarious". That's more Groth-Speak.

Eric said: >Besides, have these concerns which manifested with the announcement almost a year ago become reality?<

I don't know. I'm waiting for some journal of record to do the hard hitting follow up. I do know that one of the biggest concerns other manufacturers expressed to me was that Diamond Select would produce low quality toys and deep six the market. What I've heard, but not reported, is that they have released a number of new figures based on old molds (to save the expense of making new ones) and these toys are indeed of incredibly low quality.

What i don't understand is did you guys know about this story and ignore it? Or just another case where NewsWatch whiffed? Will you be covering it? It sounds like you might have a good source within Diamond, Eric! Strangely enough, Roger Fletcher doesn't return my e-mails or phone calls anymore.

Eric says, > I first got ahold of the infamous DC memo outling the terms of the deal.<

I think one of the reasons I ended up in the 'paranoid' slot in Gary's mind is that during one of our debates I made the mistake of floating a rumor I had heard from within the industry that Levitz was suspected of being behind the leaking of that memo. Tom Spurgeon was convinced Paul wasn't the leakee because of his tone during the first interview. But, hey! You're the guy who can really prove Veitch is paranoid! Howzabout it? How did you come into possession of the infamous Levitz/Diamond deal memo?

------------------
Rick Veitch
Invites You To Read THE DAILY RARE BIT FIENDS
updated every day along with news of the world's most popular artform!
THE COMICON.COM DAILY SPLASHis always refreshing!
www.comicon.com/splash

God, I wanted to read every single post so I could reply in a reasonable informed manner to this thread, but I'm squirming in my seat wanting to weigh in on this one!

What was the original question? "Where have the indie buyers (readers) gone?"

I was buying indie comics voraciously up until about 1994, when they started to thin out in the stores where I shopped. I was living in San Jose then, only a couple of blocks from a really good store on Bascom Avenue. Their stock of indie stuff started dwindling gradually. By the time I left the Bay area and moved back to New York, I could find almost nothing interesting at any of the stores...and that includes stores known for that sort of thing, like St. Marks's Comics in the Village. I think most stores weren't ordering indies because they were making so much money selling to the speculators and needed the room to stock all those "foil covers" and "first issues". When I started having to look through a catalog, write out a list, and fill out forms in order to get comics I liked, it started seeming like too much trouble. Previously, many of my purchases were made after picking up a book and looking through the first 2 or 3 pages. That way I got an idea as to whether it was something I would enjoy. I wasn't willing to buy something that I could only 'hope' I would enjoy.

As for the Diamond/Death of Comics versus the Everything's Just Fine debate, I have to side with Rick, largely because I think he's right and partly because I have a weakness for tilting at windmills. But to tell the truth, the politics and philosophy are for me secondary...mere explanations...for a very personal matter. I was just getting my foot into the comics business as a professional when the whole edifice began to crumble. I ranted and raved, tossed chairs across the room and stomped around, knowing without a doubt that my chance at making a living as a comic book artist was being snatched from my hands, stolen by the machinations of The Big Boys (I'm not saying that they made it impossible - only that they made the sacrifices required to accomplish that goal too great for me personally to make.) I was totally pissed. I also saw it as part of a greater movement in our lives where CHOICE is taking from the hands of the consumer; alternatives were being diminished, possibilities eliminated, opportunities removed. Microsoft, Time-Warner AOL, Disney ABC, CNN and whoever they got together with. Anybody remember a film called "Rollerball"? Dystopian future? World controlled by a monolithic corporate entity? Sound familiar? Oy, let's not even open that can!
So! What I mean to say is Yeah, the Diamond Marvel DC Blahdiddy-blah thing WAS bad and IS bad and SUCKS for everybody that isn't getting rich from it. Everybody scrambled to survive in their chosen business, and some did and some didn't. Those that did had to bow to the Conquering Ones. Rick may do work for companies that he criticizes...because he wants to be a comics creator and not a night watchman. Gary glosses over his disagreements with the Power Structure because he'd rather publish books than unload them from trucks. We all have to eat. And unless you live in the woods, making all your own clothes and gathering your own food, using no electricity and no public water, then you've made a deal with somebody. I didn't survive in the business because I wasn't IMPORTANT enough to make a deal! And I wasn't willing to make my family live in a shack while I convinced the readership that they'd love my books.

BTW, let's stop slamming Fantagraphics for publishing pornography. Pornography has been around ever since the Willendorf Venus. It's at least as old as the cave paintings, which so many connoisseurs like to evoke when proclaiming the legitimacy of comics. I remember a great R. Crumb piece about the evolution of art where this skinny helpless Cro-Magnon 'artiste' survives by turning out salacious sculptures for the Tribal Big Boys. "It's funny 'cause it's true!" as Homer (Simpson) would say. At least it's porno by artists, not amateurs with a cheap 35mm camera.

RICK WROTE:
"Indy publishing has contracted and those readers who would have stuck around or would have been drawn into comics if there was anything cool to read are taken out of the equation."

This seems to be very central tyo your thesis. Here's all the data I was able to scrape up this a.m.:

For the month of December 1992, Diamond reported that the Top six publishers (Marvel, DC, Malibu [Image], Valiant, Dark Horse, and Wizard) represented 94.47 percent of the comics market share.

For the calendar year 1994, Diamond reported those same suppliers as comprising 84.96 percent of the overall comics market.

For the same year, Capital reported those same suppliers comprised 80.09 percent of their overall comics market share. So, yes, they were moving more indies than Diamond, but only slightly, and Diamond's greater market share always mostly made the numbers a wash.

For the calendar year 1996, a Marvel-less Diamond reported that 73.32 percent of the comics Diamond distributed were from the top six publishers (DC, Image/Maximum, Dark Horse, Topps, Wizard, and Acclaim). In other words, the indie audience actually represented a larger piece of the pie for Diamond in 1996 than at any other time up to that point in the 1990s, near as I can tell.

For the calendar year 1997, with Marvel added back into the mix of publishers above, the "biggies" represented 77.95 percent of Diamond's comics market. I'm actually surprised that percentage didn't grow more; even with Marvel back in the fold, Diamond was moving a greater percentage of indies than Capital was in 1994. The exclusives are firmly in place by this time, of course.

In 1998, the top seven (DC, Marvel, Image, Dark Horse, Wizard Topps and Awesome (formerly Maximum) were 77.63 of the market, a negligible decrease from the previous year.

In January 2000 (I couldn't find any 1999 year-end numbers), the top six publishers (DC, MArvel, Image, Dark Horse, Wizard and Viz) were only 64.58 of the market for Diamond.

Amidst all of this, I have a rough estimate that comics have dropped 15-20 percent over the last five years in terms of how much they represent for Diamond's overall product.

Obviously, you can view these numbers in a lot of different ways, and they're hardly conclusive, but I see nothing that indicates how exclusive deals have somehow eroded this giant indy-buying base that supposedly existed when the decade began.

What really happened is that Image entered the market and immediately grabbed a large piece of the pie, squeezing out some smaller publishers of retailers' budgets. Image, Dc, Marvel, etc. caused the speculator boom, which put a serious cash flow strain on retailers who began ordering more conservatively than ever, as Hanley and Rory have pointed out. Marvel panicked and bought a distributor. DC blinked. Image blinked. Everybody got fucked.

I subscribe to Hanley's theory that Diamond's biggest problem is one of not understanding how to sell independent comics. I've been lobbying Diamond on this front for years now (when I'm not conspiring for editorial coverage, of course). As the only game in town, I believe they now have a responsibility to the artform that they didn't necessarily have when it was an open playing field, and it's silly to ignore it because self-preservation should dictate it's stupid to continue to focus so much on superheros. But they don't really understand this completely, as an institution.

I think that both you and Gary might have a slightly skewed perspective of how things have changed over the last several years. Gary has 24 years of slow growth that have, in some ways, made things easier for Fanta to show up on Diamond's radar. He might not exactly know how things would be different in Fanta started in the mid-1990s. Nobody does.
For your part, Rick, you made a name for yourself in the late-1980s, in a crucial period in comics, and traded on your mainstream success when you began doing art/indy comics. You might not know how much that clouds your perspective of the salad days of the first Spirits tour, and how many people were buying Rare Bit Fiends because you did Swamp Thing and Maximortal, and how many people quit buying it because it was too "weird."

You stated that you heard a lot of people state that they "didn't trust color comics." No offense, but in a decade of attending several conventions a year, selling some of the best black and white comics on the market, I've *never* heard this from a reader. It's a phrase that inherently smacks of the type of fanboy mentality you hope to escape. I can't imagine, say, giving a reasonable girlfriend who never read comics before a copy of Eightball, only to have her respond, "Wow. Black-and-white. I don't trust color comics." Huh? Only someone who's read too much CEREBUS would say that.

I don't understand your priorities, really. You are obsessed with Gary and Sim, and yet say, in somewhat chummy fashion, that you enjoy "razzing the shit out of Larry Marder." Seeing as Larry made the decision we both agree was most damaging, shouldn't he deserve at least as much ire as Gary or Dave?

RICK WROTE:
"While I don't question the logic of 'fewer outlets, smaller sales,' I'd have to add 'fewer titles, smaller readership.'"

It's absurd to argue that there are fewer titles now, indy or mainstream. Cold Cut's and FM's current catalogs are bigger than PREVIEWS was in 1990. That's a fact. Your average issue of PREVIEWS in 1990 was less than 100 pages, and the fonts were about 4 points larger across the board than they are now.

Gary's right in pointing out that it's not harder to sell comics through Diamond because of "hurdles that have been erected since the exclusives." That's just not true. There's been a dramatic proliferation of the amount of comics produced in the 1990s, from wannabe Marvels with capital investors to a lot of amateurish self-publishers who never would have been published in the 1980s. Drawn & Quarterly, one of the finest publishers in North America, isn't being squeezed out by Marvel, they're being squeezed out by a lot of really amateurish small presses who are competing for retailer budgeted indy dollars.

Paradoxically, there is truth to Gary's assertion that there are more decent and downright brilliant books being published now, even as it's harder to take risks on relatively unknown artists.
You wrote that "the growth of indy publishing stopped in 1995." This statement outs your own insularity, Rick. Highwater is a perfect example of the kind of new model indy publishing you seem to want to champion; they avoid Diamond at all costs, by choice, and are doing okay. They're further removed from the trappings of the direct market than any comics publisher I can remember from the last 20 years.

You mentioned that creator-owned projects are no longer welcome at the majors. Could you explain that? DC and Image still seem actively invested in creator-owned projects, even if the vast majority of them are moronic. Gilbert Hernandez and Pete Bagge have done one recently. Joe Sacco had to choose between us and DC for his 240-epic about the war in eastern Bosnia. DC would never have bid on it ten years ago.

Okay, I'm tired and my lunch date just showed up. Gotta run. I do admire your tenacity and activistic spirit, Rick.

RICK WROTE:
"What i don't understand is did you guys know about this story and ignore it? Or just another case where NewsWatch whiffed? Will you be covering it? It sounds like you might have a good source within Diamond, Eric! Strangely enough, Roger Fletcher doesn't return my e-mails or phone calls anymore."

I had a feeling you'd ask this. I'm not a TCJ editor or news writer anymore, Rick. I'm the Fanta publicist. Believe me, it's important I not muddy the two and butt into TCJ business. Hell, it wouldn't be fair to the perfectly capable Mike Dean, who is a much better writer than I ever will be.

I learned about these rumors after the fact, at a time when I was beginning to look into the possibility of an Fanta-related action figure. I hear a lot of gossip that doesn't get reported in TCJ.

More later...

Eric Reynolds wrote:

"Paradoxically, there is truth to Gary's assertion that there are more decent and downright brilliant books being published now, even as it's harder to take risks on relatively unknown artists.
You wrote that "the growth of indy publishing stopped in 1995." This statement outs your own insularity, Rick. Highwater is a perfect example of the kind of new model indy publishing you seem to want to champion; they avoid Diamond at all costs, by choice, and are doing okay. They're further removed from the trappings of the direct market than any comics publisher I can remember from the last 20 years."

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by this, Eric, but Highwater is indeed distributed by Diamond (and by other direct market distributors and stores). At first they tried to avoid that route, but Diamond's 30-day payment is just too enticing--no one else pays such a big chunk of money so fast. So of course Highwater hustles to sell directly to shops, deals with smaller distributors like FM and Last Gasp, and gets their books out to the book trade through LPC Group--but they certainly don't shun Diamond.

What is really different about them is that they don't even bother selling comics books, much less periodical comic books. There are a few exceptions (Highwater distributed an educational comic about the environment that Megan Kelso did), but generally their products start as squarebound books. SO the whole deal of having monthly (bimonthly, quarterly--whatever) comics is negated with Highwater. But that's obviously still very important to Diamond. SInce Diamond's catalog comes out every month (which is a pretty amazing feat when you think about it), you don't see Highwater in every issue of Previews. It may therefore seem like they disdain Diamond--but every book they publish is solicited through Diamond.

Not that this is a main point in anyone's argument. I just thought I'd jump in and spout off way off on some tangent, as is my habit.

I guess that means I'm the only actual pornographer among us.

------------------
My Page: www.clockworkstorybook.com

Robert -

I misspoke about Highwater. I was remembering a conversation Tom and I had early on in Highwater's existence, when Tom was indeed considering that route.
That said, I still think Tom is actively resisting any impulse to have Highwater to operate within traditional modes, as emphasized most prominently by his aesthetic interests. And I still maintain that Rick's assertion that indy publishing died in 1995 is ridiculous; Highwater represents inderpendence and alternative comics as much as anything that existed pre-1995.

RICK WROTE:
"You're the guy who can really prove Veitch is paranoid! How did you come into possession of the infamous Levitz/Diamond deal memo?"

I'm not going to tell you, but I can say that IT WAS NOT PAUL LEVITZ. My guess is that someone at DC purposefully leaked that rumor in an attempt to save face.

RICK WROTE:
"I don't believe I have ever criticized Fantagraphics for promoting its artists."

But you have. You've alleged that we've parttaken in some kind of backdoor politicking as a publisher that has compromised our ability as journalists. What you don't understand is that, yes, I wheedle Diamond wherever I can for perks, as we did before "exclusivity" ever entered the direct market vernacular. It has no bearing on or relevance to our news coverage in the Journal. If I'm misunderstanding you, my apologies.

"...vs. Everything's Just Fine."

Everything's NOT just fine. Everything could be a hell of a lot better. But it could be a hell of a lot worse. For instance, this venue right here wouldn't exist, and frankly, Rick, it was horrible how you and Steve were treated by DC; nevertheless, in your case, it resulted in, out of necessity and inspiration, building something better. No? Dialectics in action. Hell the existence of the internet, and partly of this site and TCJ's, are about the only reason I've even HAD any sales. Good with the bad, you know.

But I think what's being missed is that, despite Gary's words' venomous texture(and really, come on, I think if that bothers us all by now we haven't been paying attention), if you look at wyhat he's actually saying it's very optimistic. I read what he said carefully and I'm afraid I really didn't see the "Gary Looks Into The Abyss" motif. And believe me, I've read it before.

I may be wrong, but in fact you aren't as far apart as you would at first appear in this debate. And to see Gary get optimistic is in itself something I didn't think I'd live to see. [img]http://207.69.158.95/ubb/wink.gif[/img]

Eric,
Thanks for bringing in the numbers. It would seem to me for this discussion, the important ones are contained in this part of your post:

Eric said >>For the calendar year 1996, a Marvel-less Diamond reported that 73.32 percent of the comics Diamond distributed were from the top six publishers (DC, Image/Maximum, Dark Horse, Topps, Wizard, and Acclaim). In other words, the indie audience actually represented a larger piece of the pie for Diamond in 1996 than at any other time up to that point in the 1990s, near as I can tell. For the calendar year 1997, with Marvel added back into the mix of publishers above, the "biggies" represented 77.95 percent of Diamond's comics market. I'm actually surprised that percentage didn't grow more; even with Marvel back in the fold, Diamond was moving a greater percentage of
indies than Capital was in 1994. The exclusives are firmly in place by this time, of course.>>

Yeah, these figures in particular have me scratching my head. Marvel's market share was in the 40% range in those days wasn't it? How could it have such a small impact on Diamonds' totals? Do these numbers represent a huge INCREASE in Indy publishing that year?

>>In 1998, the top seven (DC, Marvel, Image, Dark Horse, Wizard Topps and Awesome (formerly
Maximum) were 77.63 of the market, a negligible decrease from the previous year. In January 2000 (I couldn't find any 1999 year-end numbers), the top six publishers (DC, MArvel, Image, Dark Horse, Wizard and Viz) were only 64.58 of the market for Diamond.
Amidst all of this, I have a rough estimate that comics have dropped 15-20 percent over the last five years in terms of how much they represent for Diamond's overall product.<<

So the 77% and 64% numbers represent just comics or the total Diamond sales? If its just comics, and these numbers are correct, I'm ready to eat some crow! If its total sales, then it doesn't really help us and we would need to break out comics sales figures (before Gary can serve up that plate of shit-bird;-).

Eric states>>You stated that you heard a lot of people state that they "didn't trust color comics." No offense, but in a decade of attending several conventions a year, selling some of the best black and white comics on the market, I've *never* heard this from a reader. It's a phrase that inherently smacks of the type of fanboy mentality you hope to escape. I can't imagine, say, giving a reasonable girlfriend who never read comics before a copy of Eightball, only to have her respond, "Wow.
Black-and-white. I don't trust color comics." Huh? Only someone who's read too much CEREBUS
would say that.<<

Quite the opposite, and of course I'm only speaking from my personal experience. We're talking 'alternative culture' readers (for want of a better term), who were coming from outside of comics, attracted by the content of Independents and suspicious of corporate color comics (I'm sure they would quickly get past the color to enjoy 'Acme' or 'Frank and the River').

Eric says>>I don't understand your priorities, really. You are obsessed with Gary and Sim, and yet say, in somewhat chummy fashion, that you enjoy "razzing the shit out of Larry Marder." Seeing as Larry made the decision we both agree was most damaging, shouldn't he deserve at least as much ire as Gary or Dave?<<

Sorry. Eric. but I'm not 'obsessed' (Groth- Speak) with Gary and Sim. I just find it extraordinary that those two, who were so strident in their vocal opposition to the hegemony of the majors, turned silent (in their respective print vehicles) when Diamond moved to monopoly status. I am far more disgusted with the actions of Geppi, Levitz, whoever was in charge at Marvel, Richardson, Marder, MacFarlane and the other Image crew, who made the REALLY BAD decisions that led us to where we are today. The difference is all those guys acted right in character. Gary and Dave changed very suddenly, acting like the old lions hibernating in their winter quarters.

Eric says>>You mentioned that creator-owned projects are no longer welcome at the majors. Could you explain that? DC and Image still seem actively invested in creator-owned projects, even if the vast majority of them are moronic. Gilbert Hernandez and Pete Bagge have done one recently. Joe Sacco had to choose between us and DC for his 240-epic about the war in eastern Bosnia. DC would never have bid on it ten years ago.<<

Image of course is seen as the lifeboat that most self publishers are trying to get into. These self publishers apparently perceive the same barriers I do to non-exclusivety, and are attracted to the Exclusive deal that Image provides. Image is only a publishing service though. There is no seed money to get a project going at Image, so creators have to go through that long period of working with no money that makes getting a project going that much harder. Then of course sales tend to be low on the b&w Image books too, so after the Image fee is taken out, profits are skimpy (or so I hear). I do find it interesting that there seems to be a mini migration of long time Fantagraphics people to DC. I can tell you that a lot of freelancers who were in great demand for creator-owned and company owned projects at DC and Marvel are crying the blues these days.

Eric says>>I'm not going to tell you, but I can say that IT WAS NOT PAUL LEVITZ. My guess is that someone at DC purposefully leaked that rumor in an attempt to save face.<<

So can we infer that it was someone at DC (rather than at Diamond)? Not to put too fine a paranoid point on it, but can the hand of Paul be reasonably ruled out if it came through one of his people?

Eric says>>RICK WROTE: "I don't believe I have ever criticized Fantagraphics for promoting its artists."
But you have. You've alleged that we've parttaken in some kind of backdoor politicking as a publisher that has compromised our ability as journalists. What you don't understand is that, yes, I wheedle Diamond wherever I can for perks, as we did before "exclusivity" ever entered the direct market vernacular. It has no bearing on or relevance to our news coverage in the Journal. If I'm
misunderstanding you, my apologies.<<

You've misunderstood in respect to "critisizing Fantagraphics for promoting its artists". I've provoked Gary into revealing some of the 'wheedling' and 'perks' because I believe these are examples of how Diamond *might* be leveraging its monopoly status in today's market. Most readers of comics, and even many people who try to follow the business, have no idea such 'back of the store' dealing exists, much less any of the details. I would think such material about all the different publishers, would be essential to any journalistic analysis of the Diamond/Exclusives situation (and to the DOJ). Maybe Tom Spurgeon is hard at work on this as we write?
In the JOURNAL's situation, such back door goings on *suggest* yet another conflict-of-interest perception problem (especially in a monopoly market). In my mind, the only solution to such a perception problem is simple: aggressive enterprise reporting. My comments have nothing to do with promotion of Fantagraphics artists or titles.

Thanks for mentioning that you are Fantagraphics' publicist.

------------------
Rick Veitch
Invites You To Read THE DAILY RARE BIT FIENDS
updated every day along with news of the world's most popular artform!
THE COMICON.COM DAILY SPLASHis always refreshing!
www.comicon.com/splash