Ah, a thread with many brains at work! Why did I waste so much time with "Liefeld & the Bible"??

Bear with me, please, as I just digested this entire thread, and hope to make a couple of points. I'll begin with:
_________________

Rick, re: your early comment:
"I wasn't complaining about collectors, but of the lack of a reader's market which is something that should have/could have been nurtured and built. Back when I was doing SWAMP THING in the mid 80's, DC was at least making noises about going after real world readers, rather than focusing exclusively on collector's. I think VERTIGO was created with this direction specifically in mind. Fantagraphics is aimed straight at readers too."

As with all things VERTIGO, if you remember, SWAMP THING was one of the few books at that time that DID remain reader-based, rather than exploitable as a "collector" comic. The speculators missed the early issues, hence the brief rise in price enjoyed by Alan's first few issues: they were genuinely scarce, and by and large in the hands of readers who wanted to keep them.

The sales were never that high: though John, Alan, and I were never privvy to accurate figures during our run (when ST was still sold on the newsstands, until #29's loss of the Code and the subsequent decision to make it a DM-only title), the highest figure I ever heard from a DC source was 65,000, starting from #16's low of 19,000. That rise was due ONLY to readers: between #16 and #34, DC advertised the title not a whit outside of their in-house ads.

Also, if you'll recall, the title was cut from the newsstand right at the point it was gaining momentum -- PRIOR to #29's dance with the CCA. As Dick Giordano explained it to John and I, a tally of newsstand sales led to this cut -- unfortunately, the figures being assessed dated from Marty Pasko's tenure on the book, sales figures that were (at that point) over a year-and-a-half old. The newsstand process was (and most likely remains) a bit like stepping on the 1950s model of stepping on a Brontosaurus' tail: the impulse reaches the brain in the skull eons after the foot hit the meat (a model 1980s and '90s paleontology refutes). In short, the slow process of inventory, digestion of those figures, and decision-making removed ST from the newsstands just as our sales had climbed above 50,000 -- killing any chance of maintaining momentum of any kind in "the real world." From that point on, CCA controversy aside, ST was a DM only book regardless; at least the content benefitted from the decision once we were freed of the Code restrictions, and the rest (including VERTIGO) is history.

In the short run, this was very good for you and Alan and your successors -- there were actually royalties paid on the book, since the cut-off figure for a direct-market only titles were much, much lower than for a newsstand title (we never saw a nickel beyond page rate) -- but in the long run, it only contributed to the "ghettoization" of the title, removing it from the reach of all but the direct market buyers at the cusp of the wider recognition it began to earn in the mainstream, newsstand press (i.e., ROLLING STONE, FANGORIA, etc.).

Dick told me this happened to other titles, too, but I can't offer examples beyond my own experience.
_______________________

This leads to the ongoing exchanges between Pat and Nat (Jay Lynch, where are you?): This kind of ass-backward corporate behavior indeed scuttled early DC book ventures, Pat, but I have to note that some of DC's graphic novels seem to enjoy pretty sound market penetration into the bookstores these days. In the 1980s, I can think of one classic case-in-point (which Don's postings about Disney's termination of their line reminded me of), Julie Schwartz's science-fiction graphic novel line.

According to Julie himself, who detailed this to me over two lengthy conversations years ago, the line was initially approved with the long-term goal of getting the SF graphic novels into both BOOKSTORES and THE SF BOOK CLUB: that was the goal. To that end, the books were designed in a manner contrary to the marketing needs of the DM: the cover designs that minimized the size of the cover art to service the "look" of the entire line; the selection of authors whose name carried weight in the BOOK and SF market, not the comics market; etc. Though Julie had apparently argued for printings to cater to both needs, he was shot down in favor of concentrating the company's complete effort toward the ultimate goal of BOOKSTORES and the BOOKCLUB. To that end, there needed to be a certain number of titles (six? ten? I can't recall) to offer the BOOKCLUB.

Then, of course, the sales figures arrived. Since the line had not, from day one, been concieved as, for, or marketed to, the DM, those figures should have been meaningless: they had no relevance to the stated goal. Nevertheless, the line was cut, a mere title or two before it would have met the qualifying quantity for sales to the SF BOOKCLUB.

This kind of kamikaze nonsense has constantly stymied schemes to reach the book market. I saw it time and time again at Mirage and Tundra (and both: the Simon & Schuster TMNT comic reprint volumes, which was a classic case of suicidal publishing schemes), and I've no doubt it's happened countless times elsewhere.

Such risks only ADD to the risks the DM retailers have taken and continued to take. It trades on their best efforts, which are often undone by the very nature of the projects (i.e., the cover designs on the DC SF novels were death in the DM).

Though each of these case histories are murky with mislaid opportunities and motives, there is one consistent element. The problem is simple: investment eventually outweighs the interest in the stated goals. It take so long to earn back investments in the book market, that even the best intentions are often scuttled because the money spent just cannot be justified within the means (and/or short attention spans) of most publishing ventures. More on this below.
________________________

WITHIN the book market, we can all look back at the failures: the HEAVY METAL Simon & Schuster books (yielding only one success, Archie Goodwin and Walt Simonson's ALIEN: THE ILLUSTRATED STORY, which hit the NY Times paperback best seller list); Byron Priess' many failed attempts, with THE STARS MY DESTINATION prominent (and one aesthetic success, THE ILLUSTRATED HARLAN ELLISON); PINK FLAMINGOS (the fashion-industry graphic novel, not the John Waters' film: this was the book industry's response to MAUS!!); Penguin Books' experiments with RAW and Spiegelman's aborted "Pulp Lit" line; etc.

The successful graphic albums from Raymond Briggs, Edward Gorey, Larry Gonick, Jules Feiffer, etc., like the PEANUTS, GARFIELD, and CALVIN AND HOBBES collections, are NEVER associated with "comic books" by either the Book market or the DM. Precious few comic shops I have ever been in carry the items bookshops do, or visa versa. Never the twain shall meet, it seems.

This, as I've railed about elsewhere on this board, is one of my primary complaints about our own community. We need to reassess, reclaim, and reassert "our own." We HAVE to, because the Book Market some of you are still looking to can't and never will. They don't know what comics and graphic novels are, much less what makes one "good" and one "bad," or "sellable" or "unsellable."

As long as bookstores associate graphic novels with BATMAN and X-MEN before Briggs, Feiffer, and Schultz, we're in trouble; and as long as the comics community continues to exclude its own finest practioners clinging to archaic definitions of what comics "are" or "are not," we remain our own worst enemy.
___________________________

Pat, the risks associated with the book market are enormous. It is NOT a greener pasture inviting grazing; that is an illusion. Returnability requires enormous print runs, accompanied by looooong waiting periods for money the publisher may never see. There's a sobering book IN COLD PRINT that's over a decade old detailing the insanity of the floating debts-vs.new product that the book market somehow carries, and a number of articles in the ensuing years (THE NEW YORKER, etc.) have documented the ongoing risks of the book market. Amazon.com is a pretty galvanizing example of the "new model" with high visibility and non-existent profits. The Book Market is makes the DM look positively cozy; we should have listened -- REALLY listened -- to Will Eisner's distributor show speeches all those years, he spoke from hard experience.

Though I know it has been touched on in other threads by Rick, it bears mention here that the chains -- Virgin, Tower, etc. -- have their own ideosyncracies. Rick, care to relate (or refer us to a prior posting about) your experiences with the short-lived, briefly-successful Tower Records graphic novel sales window ... one... more... time???

My own meager bookshop experiences have been amusing. One of the ongoing problems is the fact that comics STILL don't fit into the mix: I still occasionally peddle TABOO to local Barnes & Noble chains (in association with signings on other book projects), and they inevitably stick the additional copies they buy from me in Humor (and pay for the books six-nine months later). COMIC BOOK REBELS, which was published by Donald I. Fine in 1993 and sold through the usual market venues, was impossible to find: in my cross-country travels during the Spirits of Independence tour, it was a hobby of sorts to go into a bookstore and play "find CBR". Was it Antiques/Collectibles, Humor, Literary criticism, or science fiction? Oh, wait, there it is -- in Film and Media. Two followups to publisher enquiries about TYRANT made it clear it would have to be "cleaned up" for placement in Childrens, "but wait, that's not our department, you should talk to --" (and in the one case I did follow this lead through on, the Children's division was aghast, and asked why I was presenting this work to them and not the science-fiction editor).

So: Graphic novels, with few exceptions (noted on this board), still have no coherent niche in the Book Market. And Book Market "comics" like PEANUTS, GARFIELD, Briggs, MAUS, etc., are rarely visible in DM shops. This remains a problem.

The greater problem for many: the financial risks of entering the book market without the protective umbrella of a mainstream established publisher are daunting, and most often self-destructive. I've seen bookstore distribution KILL a number of independent magazine and book publishers via the collapse of the few paying indy distributors, and the outright refusal of those still in business to pay "lesser" accounts.

In the book market, financial returns are unlikely and always very late in coming. Far, far more likely after the initial investment and a long waiting period is the massive material returns of product a year or more after printing, shipping, etc. have exhausted any available resources, scuttling even modest book market success. The floating "debt vs. product flow" economy that drives the book chains and major standing publishers excludes new entries by its very nature.
_____________________

With the exception of Feiffer, Briggs, Gorey (whose format for his little books -- a standard for Gorey since the 1950s -- has earned him special showcasing) and a few others, "comic book" and graphic novels remain neither fish nor fowl in the book market.

From my experience in the book market and as an active member of a writer's organization for over a decade, I can tell you that Book Market Editorial doesn't understand the form of comics or graphic novels. They don't know what makes them tick, how to produce them, or what they are, really. Nor can they get a handle on a book form that takes, on the average, five (STUCK RUBBER BABY) to ten or eleven years (MAUS, FROM HELL) to complete. They can't imitate or reproduced such "successes," which in any case were each subsidized in manner alien to the book market: Gay beneficiary grants for Howard Cruse, the Guggenheim for Spiegelman, a trio of publishers and subsidy from outside earnings (i.e., FROM HELL film option money, Image income) for Eddie and Alan. These are not inviting specs to interested book editors, however remarkable the finished product.

In a conversation we had this weekend about the collected FROM HELL, Rick Veitch commented that such a masterwork makes you wonder what a creator like Alan or Eddie could accomplish if they were able to focus, REALLY focus, on one project at a time. The sad fact is there is no feasible economic plan to permit such a thing; luckily, Alan and Eddie are fecund and nimble enough to leapfrog between publishers and projects as necessary, and still finish some of their most ambitious schemes despite the enormous odds against such ventures. And Alan and Eddie Campbell, need I add, are extraordinary exceptions, persevering where others have failed or simply succumbed.

This is a crucial crossroads comics, as a medium, remains at. There is no logical, coherent, pragmatic real-world model for any creator or creative team to apply to the creation of an ambitious and genuine "graphic novel." Serialization in periodic form remains the most "dependable" vehicle, but that is fraught with problems (primary among them the associative relationship with a publisher in for the long haul and able to financially subsidize such a venture) and utterly dependent on the shrinking DM. Some works -- STUCK RUBBER BABY, MAUS, FROM HELL -- resist such efforts, either by their very nature (in the case of Cruse's work) or the vagaries of collapsing publishers and/or means (MAUS, FROM HELL -- it's a miracle either was completed!).

This, in a nutshell, is the greatest risk factor for the creative community. How do creators continue to buck such incredible odds, and yet how do they create any work of ambitiion or merit without doing so? (I haven't any answers; TYRANT was my best shot, and you all know how that went.)

This is the crisis of the medium at this point in time. How will it continue to evolve without such efforts and landmarks -- but how will such works be realized without a sane economic model to subsidize them?
___________________________

Continuing on the Book Market discussion:

The rest of the archaic comic-book industry baggage -- superhero characters, arcane associative links (1950s DC SF comics??), and most of all PUBLISHER-oriented markets and consumers (more on that in a moment) -- only adds to the albatross we've been dragging around our collective necks for decades.

Do you think, for a moment, the readers of Stephen King or Danielle Steele GIVE A SHIT who publishes their novels?? The whole "DC-Marvel" thing -- readership determined by imprint -- is a senseless non-commodity in the book market. Author and creator names carry weight in that market -- hence the brief (and all-too-late) success Eclipse had shuffling their Clive Barker adaptations into the book market, where Barker was and is a known commodity.

DC, Marvel, Dark Horse, Image -- who cares? There are meaningful parallels in the book market -- brand names like the Harlequin romances, Hardy Boys/Nancy Drew, Goosebumps, Christopher Pike, etc. --which sell like crazy, but this doesn't attract book publishers to the arcana of comics a whit. There aren't any easily imitated or understood formulas to follow in their market with graphic novels or collections, and they remain aberrations that occasionally earn attention and sales, then fade away.

The most damning way this company/imprint mindset and factionalism plays against the points discussed by you all on this thread is in the attempts to mount some sort of public awakening to comics as a viable entertainment medium. Who will finance such an undertaking? Well, the companies. And what do companies divert such undertakings to in every single case? Not the elevation of comics into the public eye, but the shameless promotion of their licensed characters, titles, and properties. As long as public promotions of the comics medium are necessarily linked with trademarks like Spiderman, Superman, Batman, and the Hulk, the medium will remain a bastardized form of children's literature in the eyes of the public.

I have participated in a number of organized attempts to mount such campaigns, from the "Black List" group (remember that year, Rick?) to Tundra's brief flirtation with a Graphic Novel Book Club (a proposal mounted and thoroughly investigated by Starwatcher Graphics), and in every case, the understandably capitalist assertion of a PUBLISHER's self-promoting agenda above the collective "good" originally inspiring the discussion scuttled any hopes of a meaningful change. Sadly, THE COMICS JOURNAL remains our only standing example of a meaningful promotion of the medium above marketing; in that matter, I much concede Gary's current TCJ editorial is correct.

Until the community as a whole rises above this dilemma, a public promotion of the medium will remain a pipe dream.
________________________________

That said, I do believe DC has made significant inroads with their BIG BOOK and SANDMAN collections. I'm surprised where and how often such books turn up. But -- and this is most important -- note that SANDMAN has done so in conjunction with Neil's own rising cache in the book market since his collaborative novel GOOD OMENS, and the BIG BOOK line has been smartly marketed AS a line in and of itself, and continues to come out now and again with fresh material. The models here -- linkage with an individual author's growing stature AS an author, and the invention and nurturing of a specific imprint -- cannot be ignored or downplayed.

The Book Market IS worth the shot -- my current creative life has embraced that detour, but NOT by putting my comics foot forward first -- but please, don't think the salvation of the comics industry or medium lies there. This will take many creative and business minds, each dedicated to their own path, chipping away at the problems from many angles and given opportunities.

Comics have had a place in the Book Market for almost a century, with occasionally vital work -- Lynd Ward, in particular, comes to mind -- emerging from its nooks and crannies.

But I believe it's silly to say we DON'T owe the once-vital DM for the leaps and bounds comics have enjoyed over the past two decades, and that my generation and those who followed have played a part in. Phil Seuling was the New Messiah for comics, and we haven't seen a similar innovation until this goddamned internet offered fresh avenues.

There are exceptions -- RAW was packaged and primarily sold outside the DM initially, I believe, and MAUS certainly owed little of its evolution and completion to the DM -- but from CEREBUS to BONE, LOVE & ROCKETS to THE ACME NOVELTY LIBRARY, DAREDEVIL to VERTIGO, and so on, comics would be in pretty dire straits if the alternative of the DM hadn't coalesced when and as it did. I remember those dry years of the mid-1970s very well, and will never forget the revelation of my first visit to a comic shop (MILLION YEAR PICNIC).

The problem now is facing HOW we can collectively continue in the face of the real possibility of the DM ending in the forseeable future. This thread is one of the most constructive discussions of the topic I've found anywhere. Carry on!

"The industry risks" are far, far greater than we seem to comprehend. The industry and the medium of comics are at great risk, but the promise has never been greater, either.

Sorry I rambled on so long there, but this is a key discussion, and I wanted to weigh in a bit. Thanks.

[This message has been edited by Stephen R Bissette (edited 02-29-2000).]

A number of the comics folk who talk about the salvation that the book market would offer seem to misunderstand the situation that the book field is in at the moment. They act as though everything would be getting Stephen King (or at least Laurie King) sales in the bookmarket. However, books have been going through the same experience that most other media have: an increasing amount of product in ever-more-specialized categories, with smaller sales on individual titles. The typical GN is not going to be the next Harry Potter. The book I did that sold around 50,000 was considered a "monster" seller by the publisher; one I did that sold around a quarter of that was worthy of a follow-up volume. Even the "monster" seller didn't earn me quite a reasonable year's worth of income -- which is not a problem when you're creating the book in three months, but would be if you were filling the book with original artwork rather than computer screen-shots.
==================================
I suspect that Byron Preiss was one of the problems. Too many times when publishers were willing to put out book-format comics, they aligned with that company. They have amazed me with their usual (though not constant) ability to draw lifeless work out of quality creators.
==================================
It's often disappointing that when adaptations from comic books get attention, the source material goes overlooked in the mainstream market. When Angela's Ashes, the movie, came out, there were piles of the paperback novel at the bookstore. But when Mystery Men came out, they seemed more interested in carrying the novelization of the movie than in the source material. I don't have high hopes of seeing Bitchy-Bitch collections getting good positioning once that hits the small screen. The stores are more interested in comics derived from movies (Star Wars, etc.) than in comics that movies were derived from.

True, Nat; and the sales you have mentioned fall into the "mid-list problem" I have been hearing about since I entered the book world a decade ago. That is, sales between (get this) 5,000-100,000 are a "problem" in the book market, despite the low advances many writers work with these days. Having just cranked out a co-authored book in about 11 weeks flat, I can't imagine how books requiring a year or more earn writers their keep... much less graphic novels requiring two-ten years for completion.

Touched on briefly in Steve's post above, but seminal to any discussion of massmarket sales are returns; at one of the DC meetings with retailers the usual debates about expanding the presence of graphic novels in bookstores led to these revelations. Warner Books had sold a large quantity of The Dark Knight Returns into the returnable markets. time passed and DC was attempting to deal with royalties, well W.B.'s stated that all returns were in DC cut a six figure check to Frank, and surprise a large bookstore chain finaly returned there copies, long after their deadline for doing so, big surprise !
Well DC transfered those copies to the DM and eventualy sold them, but imagine a small press or selfpublisher coping with that cash flow disaster. Actualy you don't have to; And/or Press had a best seller on their hands with one of the first Zippy books. and were forced into bankruptcy while awaiting payment/ returns from a national chain of bookstores.

[This message has been edited by Rory D. Root (edited 02-29-2000).]

Steve spake:

>>The successful graphic albums from Raymond Briggs, Edward Gorey, Larry Gonick, Jules Feiffer, etc., like the PEANUTS, GARFIELD, and CALVIN AND HOBBES collections, are NEVER associated with "comic books" by either the Book market or the DM. Precious few comic shops I have ever been in carry the items bookshops do, or visa versa. Never the twain shall meet, it seems. <<

It is mystifying to me in a pamphlet driven 30 day world that collections and GN's will sell, but they DO, and quite well.

Because of the tight way my partner Mark orders in the store, I am given a lot of leeway for what I call eyecandy or impulse items. Books that have no necessary relationship to comics in general, books like steve describes above. Without fail, every "experiment" has been a success...something that continues to mystify me. It also spreads through word of mouth with the readership when things like that are available. I can and do sell many of the trades like Calvin and Hobbs and Peanuts, and many many others, like Wind in the Willows and the large Weird Fax books and books like Jar of Fools to non comics people who come in the store for one reason or another who arent regular comic book readers. Because of trades, I am able to pierce the veil to a group of otherwise unassociated potential comic book readership.

Owing to the large number of postings on why folks buy GN's and collections over single connected sequential issues, I have to weigh in with Steve B about "play the category". That would be one of the major stumbling blocks to selling through bookstores, I mean you would have NO trouble finding TABOO for example in my or any other comic store if it were in stock. Bookstores, however, can be really daunting.

But hasn't it always been this way as markets grow? The independents clear the brush, and then the established market comes in with its pap and doesnt have time to take care of each and every individual seller. I can remember when Chasman in Bem in Burlington was seen as the "threat" to Mom and Pop bookstores like the Little Professor, because his Buying Power gave him favorable discounts and larger margins when he hooked himself up to the major chains of distribution. He bought like a bigger store, so he got discounts and promotional items the smaller stores couldnt get so he was able to do better business, eventually driving the Professor, as an example out of business. Guess who was the loudest when Border's set up in downtown Burlington? Chasman and Bem, now seen as the little guy being squished by corporate level buying stores. Just another step up isnt it?

I think it might behoove the industry more for comicbook shops to start thinking more like bookstores and less like card and hobby shops. I love the pleasure the trades and gn's bring, and it opens me to a wide variety of store material, which we and our customers appreciate.

>>Anyone think Dark Horse would be more successful if they published Oh My Goddess #38 instead of Oh My Goddess One-shot Special of the month? I've always thought so but I've been drowned out by the nay-sayers.<<

My favorite title from them is Oh My Goddess, and points out one of the reasons Japanese comics are so successful in Japan crossculturally. As CHAOS discovered also, the miniseries sold BETTER than the contining series. Why has Marvel Knights been reasonably succesful, arent these all miniseries? Each story has a beginning and an end, it ties into both aspects of what comic readers seem to like best, whole story and sequential installments.

Jack wrote: My favorite title from them is Oh My Goddess, and points out one of the reasons Japanese comics are so successful in Japan crossculturally. As CHAOS discovered also, the miniseries sold BETTER than the contining series. Why has Marvel Knights been reasonably succesful, arent these all miniseries?

Japan does not publish 30 page comics. They print 100+ pages of comics in a volume that seems more like a book than a comic. If DH published 100 page or even prestige format comics I could see publishing them as numberless editions.
The Choas mini series, much like the Venom mini-series from years ago, sold well initially. There is a diminishing returns as each mini series goes on. This has been true with Aliens, Predator, and the Chaos stuff in my stores.

Phil Boyle
Coliseum of Comics

Basicly, a first issue is a giant "try me sign." By publishing three mini-series a year, you put out three issues that say "hey, if you think this looks good, give it a try." I think however, without an outside force like a TV show or Lucas movie, by the third first issue you have been judged by all the comic fans we have. Maybe they tried it, maybe they judged your book by the cover, but I don't expect any of them to pick up the fourth mini if they passed on the first three, not unless something has changed, the same kind of changes that might cause someone to pick up issue 78 of Cool Guy: New writer, new direction, new artists, tie-in with other comics, great ads. So, I'd say, in the first year when your title is getting established, sure. I think the best format is probably ashcan, one-shot,mini-series, series. Do you really think Robin would sell better if it was still a mini-series? Aside from reprints from overseas, what's the most issues anyone has done in the repeating mini-series format?

Rik

[This message has been edited by Rik (edited 03-01-2000).]

From Don Markstein:



Don, when did Disney Comics promise a five-year commitment, and do you recall who promised it?

I was there at the time, as one of the line's founding editors and eventually its senior editor, and I don't remember the company making such a commitment.

I'm not saying that it didn't happen. I just don't remember it, and I'd love to know who said it.

Thanks.

Rory said: "Well DC transfered those copies to the DM and eventualy sold them, but imagine a small press or selfpublisher coping with that cash flow disaster. Actualy you don't have to; And/or Press had a best seller on their hands with one of the first Zippy books. and were forced into bankruptcy while awaiting payment/ returns from a national chain of bookstores."

Thanks for the info -- the DC/Warner book case histories I had heard about, but the And/or Press story was news to me. What a tragedy -- and that money owed certainly went somewhere, as it always does. There are many similar horror stories, particularly in the magazine market; in short, the book store market is pretty much the territory of the existing players, or those able and willing to risk fortunes and more time than self-investors can give it.

I would, however, love to know how e-commerce has altered this playing field, if anyone can respond with facts rather than speculation.

[This message has been edited by Stephen R Bissette (edited 03-02-2000).]