Actually, Fantagraphics need to be slammed hard for their hypocrisy about putting out a Comics Journal and at the same time putting out a comix line of their own (Eros). That is a bit of what so many are accusing (and a good point too)Wizard of.

Imagine if Marvel decided to put out a comic related magazine to report news about the industry, that wouldn't be wrong at all would it folks? And it wouldn't be slanted or biased either, would it?

Oh, by the way, my compliments to Kim Thompson who HAS kept his word about not coming on these boards.

Too bad certain other individuals couldn't follow his example.

Sam

Yeah, it really sucks when someone jumps on to argue substantive issues, when this time and space could be better spent whining out loud our opinions of various posters.

I didn't give anyone my "word". C'mon, Sam, stop reading Superman comic books and applying its moral terminology to real people. Someone to whom I owe some loyalty suggested I stop by and maybe contribute to a discussion he thinks is important. I think the discussion is important enough for me to suck it up and jump on here. If Rick can welcome me back while we beat on each other, please find it in your heart to respect his hospitality. I guess Gary should have spent the entirety of the Frank Miller interview hooting at him for being a hypocrite and talking to the Journal again?

In other words, Sam, I don't know you. I'm sure you're a great guy. I'm sorry I disappointed you. But if you want to call me names or moan about me, can you at least move it to another thread so the people who want to read about Diamond issues don't have to read it?

It might be worth mentioning again for people who want to take sides based on personal loyalties that despite the fact that we're having a Blood and Thunder-style argument in our loud Harvey Pekar voices and probably sound mean-to-arrogant to people who are friends of the person being argued against, we're really professionals reasonably respectful of each others' opinions or we wouldn't be having the argument in the first place. Don't get mad on Rick's behalf when he's probably not that mad.

Back to the show:

Rick, love you, man, but we disagree about the nature of my completely fair, unbiased, kick-ass article regarding your situation. Hey, you're not reporting all of my responses to why the lack of those interviews didn't change a thing of substance about the piece, and the fact that I've been intending to do an article for months and months doesn't mean shit regarding the collection of information for one portion of one sub-article. I had the information I needed, and I was relieved to find after reading a few responses that came in later that I would have added nothing of substance from that information. Incidentally it was good info, but for a different article. Spin the results any way you want, but the whole thing sounds like one of Pat's (I know, man, sorry) rhetorical constructions where every article is split into two camps of pro- and con- and the article's effectiveness is decided by the cumulative weight of argument time that can be read on behalf of either camp. I reject the construction.

And the article wasn't "late," any more than a feature about presidential politics that reports on the Bush Administration war room is late. I guess the Journal could have covered the incident when it happened, but outside of a report focusing on Diamond's relationship to the small press, a crisis of confidence by a self-publisher isn't exactly the Hearst Company potentially busting one of its unions.

Hopefully, we can put that one to rest again. I stand behind my story, and you stand behind my story waiting for it to bend over so you can kick it in the ass.

And Rick, the fact is nobody at the Journal thinks you're sucking up to the Time Warner man. It's just that the same framework of logic could be used to indict you that you're using to indict Gary. I can give you a list of potential DC articles I'd like to see Splash do that they haven't done. The fact that you aren't in reality kissing TW butt is an argument that that kind of accusatory framework is unfair.

I think you use it as a goad to get Gary to pay more attention to issues you think are important, more than you actually believe it, incidentally. Trust me, Gary and the Journal guys take criticism seriously, but they're mature enough to follow their own paths.

Yes, I plan on meeting head-on the issue of wheedling and benefits vis-a-vis Diamond and publishers. Given the okay by Mr. Geppi, that is.

The real thing I want to know here: What does Sam Catalino think of my decision to get back together with my old girlfriend?

Okay, not really. Here it is: Rick, how do you feel that the exclusives have specifically hurt you, separate from market realities and separate from past Diamond/Capital de facto policy? For instance, in a non-exclusives world Jeff Smith could easily get Bone on a Previews cover. That's a pretty direct link. And you...?

RICK WROTE:
"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?"

No, I don't think so. There may be a few reasons, but I'm guessing (I'd have to do some research to find out for sure) that it may be that Marvel came back into the fold later in the year and as such didn't impact the year-end totals as much as you'd expect for an entire calendar year. More importantly though, and perhaps someone with a better understanding of economic theory could explain this to us, I suspect that regardless of who comes and goes from the marketplace and how particular market shares rise and fall, the percentage that the big guns make up collectively doesn't change much. In other words, if Marvel suddenly stopped publishing comics tomorrow, their 30 percent market share (or whatever it is these days) wouldn't shift to publishers like us and result in a decrease of the big five or six's collective presence, it would just be absorbed by DC, Image, etc. and remain about the same.

RICK WROTE:
"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;-)."

Those percentages I cited were all referring to just the comics end of Diamond. Time to eat some crow, pal.

RICK WROTE:
"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')."

I'm still suspicious that someone would say that, but I'll of course take you at your word. I've certainly had people tell me they distrust or hate or have no interest in *corporate* comics, but to be distrustful of color still seems to me like a line that could only be drawn with some understanding of comics culture.
Also, and we'll probably have to agree to disagree about this, but I ran a CBLDF booth at the Seattle stop on the first or second (can't remember which) SPIRITS tour, and my experience tells me that you're romanticizing the fans who attended at least that particular leg of the tour. They were indeed indy friendly, but they were still Comic Book Fans, by and large.

RICK WROTE:
"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."

Rick, I just think you're wrong to imply or assume that there is some connection between the monopoly status and this silence you perceive (in Groth's case; I have no idea about Sim). Since you can't prove a negative, I don't know what else to tell you.

RICK WROTE:
"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."

But, and take it from someone who has seen Gary most every day in the last seven plus years, he didn't change at all. He just had less time to write, for various reasons. And perhaps because you suddenly became a progressive activist around the same time via comicon.com, you're being hypersensitive to something relatively inocuous by assigning an unfair motive to a lack of column inches. Does that make sense?
Honestly, I wish Gary had written more editorials the last five years myself, but I'd guess that his obligations as a father (bear in mind that his son was born in 1994 and certainly has had some bearing on how much he's able to write) and as a publisher whose industry was going though a massive sea-change took precedence over being an activist and muckracker. If it's any consolation, I've read his next editorial, and it's a doozy. I think you'll like it.

"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."

But is that because creator-owned projects are in less demand, or because a company like DC has found a new generation of creators who sell better?

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?

Not to put too fine a point on it, but but regardless of the answer to your first question, the answer to the second is yes.

RICK WROTE:
"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."

But our point of view is that we and any other publisher that isn't a moron have been wheedling for attention since before the exclusives. So why would we report on something that *might* be happening if we think it isn't?

"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."

Well, here are the details: You publish a book. You distribute it through Diamond. You have a brand manager assigned to you. You hammer away at that brand manager to make Diamond pay attention to it. You tell him why they should help you sell the book, and hope they agree.

"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)."

I'm not sure I follow you. I mean, we published the terms of Diamond's deal with DC. That hasn't changed. Maybe there are some aspects to it that could be explored to greater detail in a news feature like Tom's that would be of interest to people, but I'm not sure how much more hard news there is. Maybe I'm wrong; since I stopped writing news, I don't pay as close attention to these matters as I used to.

"In the JOURNAL's situation, such back door goings on *suggest* yet another conflict-of-interest perception problem (especially in a monopoly market)."

Well, you know, I can't worry about the suggestion of a perception, monopoly or not. We can just do our best to act responsibily, and we do. In a world where Viacom and Time-Warner own everything, there are far more harmful conflicts-of-interest to worry about, as I'm sure you know. It amuses me that the same people who express righteous indignation over the fact that Fanta publishes comics and the Journal (please know I'm not referring to you) probably never blink at, say, watching a Brian Wilson interview on ABC's 20/20 just days before ABC begins airing a Beach Boys miniseries (to cite one extremely minor but recent example of compromised television journalism, which is seemingly getting worse by the minute).

"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."

Fair enough, but I think we're doing that. Mike Dean is a very good journalist; one of the best TCJ's had. Spurgeon is, in my opinion, the best editor TCJ ever had and is one of the best writers the magazine's ever had, and he's doing a good job with his Diamond stories. The story may not have been exactly what you wanted, but it's my experience that news stories rarely end up the way the subjects want them to.

Enjoy your weekend!

Tom,

You made that issue in another thread. Just reminding you of it.

As for your decision to get back to your old girl friend, why did you break up in the first place? What motivated you to get back together with her? Since you asked....

I like Superman and costumed heroes. What is your point? If you want to like something else, hey it is a free country, at least before Clinton taxes you more for it...

Nothing personal against you Tom. You seem to be one of the most level headed of TCJ group, and I applaud that. Heck, I have had civil conversations with Darren Hick and (dare I say it) Gary Groth. No further comments on others..

I usually don't even bother to comment on the theatrical antics of Gary Groth (I had better things to do in San Diego) and company, but sometime I can't resist. Like now.

My best to you and your girl friend. Hope all works out well and you have nothing but bliss...

Sam

Can anyone tell me what the above post had to do with anything?

As to Sam's opinion that Fantagraphic's The Comics Journal is biased because it also sells comic books, I would say that a completely objective magazine about anything would be far too clinical for the average man to read, and should be reserved for medical, mathematical, or scientific theory magazines (and if you've ever read those, you'd know that even they have opinions). There is no room for objectivity in art, in my opinion.

As to Sam's hypothetical example of Marvel comming out with their own comics magazine: I think that may make Marvel readers happy, but only the ones that read... so, basically, its rediculous to contemplate.

Bye,

Me [img]http://207.69.158.95/ubb/smile.gif[/img]

[This message has been edited by Tadzio (edited 01-29-2000).]

Tadzio, dear lad,

Ya didn't get my point. I meant if Marvel decided to put out a magazine just for comics, to review them (that is any one of them, including DC, Image, Dark Horse, Independents), I would be just a tiny bit skeptical of their objectivity.

I feel the same way about Fantagraphics.

Just when I think I am being so obvious,oh well what is the use...

Sam

Eric Reynolds said,

"But is that because creator-owned projects are in less demand, or because a company like DC has found a new generation of creators who sell better?"

Realistically, most comics are going to sell whatever the companies average is, factoring in promotion. Sales figures are used to justify the "aesthetic taste" of an editor but in my experience had actually nothing to do with my never working there again, i.e. the sales on my DC project where actually better then average.

When Archie Goodwin and I talked about my lack of future at DC again he made it clear that it had nothing to do with sales figures and everything to do with the taste of the people in charge. Mike Carlin told me that, I was failure no matter how many books I sold, because "he did not like my work."


The sad thing about this is I suspect the potential comics audience has more diverse taste then the editorial staffs at mainstream companies. Unfortunatly those in charge don't want a rich and diverse comics business.

Just a little personnal experience from the coal mines. back to the tit for tat over capitalism's follies.

Mark Badger
e-comics at www.lemoncustard.com

Haunted Man 3 times a week,

www.darkhorse.com
coming to stores in March with a retro print comic too!

Mark,

I hope this isn't too off-thread but thanks for confirming a couple of opinions I've had for some time:

1. A Marvel or DC book will sell 20-80,000 almost regard of the quality. The exact same book from virtually any other publisher will sell a maximum of 15-20,000.

2. Selection of creative teams often has very little to day with the marketability of their work. Sure Todd McFarlane could pick up work at Marvel or DC more or less at will and regardless of any antipthy between him and the management of those companies because it would probably sell through the roof.

But for 90% of the creators in the industry, the personal taste of the editors and their personal relationship with the creator is what counts.

Usally when I post this paragraphe the thread stops, sow hopefully the third time would be the good one:

"The original sin of the direct-market system


The answer non-exclusivity!

The system was based on non-returnability and specialized stores. But the problem was in the making of the distribution companies. everyone one of them could distribute all the comics of all the publishers.
This led to two factors:
1)-Super-heroes being the most popular genre sold the most and all were distributing the said genre, it was not in their interests to focus and built an audience for other genres. For economic reasons these companies had conservative nature and contributed to the Fosilization ( I don't know if the word existes but I meant making a fosile out of them)of the Medium
2)-The distribution sector is a service sector. But a service sector that is suposed
to service the publishing industry; it offers the possibility to stock comics place
and distribute them to retail stores. In fact it became a service Sector for retailers;it is "an offer to fill the store with all that it needs". That reinforced the cultural conservatism I was speaking about and evacuated half the role of distribution:
Diffusion ( french industry word for rack placement and marketing aimed at retail).
So it became not in the interests of distributers to nurture new and small
publishers.

As an answer to Rick, the existence of many distributers is not an solution but the existence of many distributers each exclusively handeling an certain amount of publishers is.

Okay, I've got the lovely baked crow on the plate. I've smothered it in worcestshire sauce. I'm holding my nose and I'm taking a tiny nibble and you know what? It tastes INTERESTING! But I'm just not quite ready to swallow it.

Not to refuse direct evidence with Pat-like stubborness, but to apply a healthy dose of scepticism to these numbers, lets go back and look at what they might and might not represent.

Eric's original quote said: "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 did a quick search on the net to see if any statistics were available and did find the numbers for 1997 posted on the icomics site. While the 77% unit sales market share for the exclusives is quoted, there is also a figure for "dollar" market share. I'm not sure how this factors in since Eric doesn't use it in his figures, but the icomics site puts the Exclusives' dollar share of the 1997 market at only 57%.

Eric said: "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."

These figures blow my mind since they describe a *13% gain in market share for Independents* (actually maybe MORE since VIZ could be lumped in with the non-exclusives, right?) in only a year. At first glance one could trumpet that the revolution has happened and we are moving into the Next Golden Age of Indy Publishing! Or maybe that the Exclusives scheme is a GOOD thing! But the numbers ask more questions than they answer: the 2000 figures Eric quotes are for a single month in January rather than the full year totals for 1999 (and thus could be skewed by Indy hickups in the market). More importantly (in my mind anyway) is that they don't jive with Eric's follow up figure:"That comics have dropped 15-20 percent over the last five years in terms of how much they represent for Diamond's overall product." My immediate suspicion would be that the 15-20% drop is an understatement and that comics volume sales have fallen much more dramatically. I say this because it appears to me that if all the above statements are correct, then Indy VOLUME sales would be skyrocketing, and I don't think anyone is saying that (or are they?) I mean to be positively Reagenesque: Is there an Indy cartoonist anywhere who is better off than he or she was in 1997?

What I need here is more info and better analysis before I take that big gulp of crow, but so far, Eric's reasoned arguments and reliance on statistics are beginning to sink in with me. Can anyone out there add to this discussion? Are the figures we need to chew on this (sorry) posted on the net anywhere? Eric, can you explain how Fantagraphics rising market share fits in with dollar share and volume since the dawn of exclusivity?

As to the other aspects of of your post concerning my observations of perceived TCJ conflict of interest, with all due respect, nothing you've stated alters my opinion. I hope you recognize i bring it up to help form a better, stronger, more responsive TCJ, not to tear it down. The questions you ask of me have been answered in complete and excrutiating teeth grinding (sorry) detail in my ongoing Super Bowl matchup with Gary, Kim and Tom over the last six months, so I'm going to direct you to do a search of the various threads with 'malaise' in the title here. I think 'New Malaise--A New Beginning' or something like that was the title of the one in which Gary challenged me to provide a single important Diamond story the Journal had flubbed or missed. My pointing out the Diamond Select example was a direct response to that challenge (he ignored it for many months after I posted it). Maybe we got a little bird in the oven for Gar, too?

I do thank you for being levelheaded and courteous (even if you do lapse into Groth-speak once in a a while;-) about all this though. Gary tends to create an unfortunate public image of Fantagraphics as peopled with homicidal fiends.

------------------
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