The Kirkman/Bendis Debate

magwea

Ok, this PW article is a bit wordy, number heavy and speculative: i still found it a interesting read.

For those unfamiliar with Robert Kirkman's infamous call to arms in which he urges creators to move from Marvel work for hire to creator owned work and the ensuing spat with Bendis this mightn't be so interesting, the article is nevertheless an eye opener for anyone who is interested in publishing their own comic.

The great difficulty of turning any profit let alone make a living in publishing comics is made very clear: the slim profit margins and the huge lag between publishing and payment means that individual creators are going to be bearing almost untenable risks should they publish indepedent of the large publishers. This speaks for why there are so few good books published in this way that are succesful through diamond.

Anyone have any thoughts?

Fysh

The thing I'm most curious about is the direct-market focus that a lot of creator-owned comics seem to have. I know that having at least a partial focus on the DM is most likely a good idea since it gives you access to an established audience who are at least theoretically fans of the medium. But when you look at things like Gears Of War selling 450,000 copies of its first issue (most of which were apparently outside of the DM( or the stories about the launch of Ultimate Spider-man shifting 100,000 units in comic shops but of the order of 8 million units in other non-free promotions (more here if you're interested, it's towards the end), it makes me wonder why people doing creator-owned comics would stick to the direct market as their main audience. When you look at things like Vertigo books being cancelled based on single-issue sales and reportedly ignoring sales of the TPBs (or even sales outside of North America) you have to wonder whether there's an intrinsic bias against publishing comics whose success or core audience is outside (or perceived to be outside) the confines of the Direct Market.

Regarding the money side of things, I think slim profit margins are an issue for self-publishers everywhere, not just in comics. The issue will be exacerbated in comics due to the time and work involved in creating the artwork, but it's not unique. I suspect that there's a certain lack of business knowledge or awareness that comes up quite a bit amongst people who want to make and sell their comics, the "build it and they will come" mentality so to speak. Very few businesses can successfully operate on that model, least of all ones in the entertainment industry, but because of the weird little niche that comics have historically occupied in modern culture the mentality has been allowed to continue. (It's one thing to have an amateurish and unpolished approach to a webcomic, for example, but quite another to expect that same webcomic to turn a profit for you, much less turn enough of a profit for you to turn it into your day job).

magwea

Would a great exodus of creators from the big two into creator owned make much of a difference to the comics we would be reading, and the sort of living these guys be making was more what i was aiming for.

I think the build and they will come mentality did work, and exceptionally well for some, Jeff Smith and Eastmen being the first examples that come to mind. They both definitely had their eyes set on a bigger market than comic shops alone.

BlaasForRafa

magwea wrote: »

Would a great exodus of creators from the big two into creator owned make much of a difference to the comics we would be reading, and the sort of living these guys be making was more what i was aiming for.

I think the build and they will come mentality did work, and exceptionally well for some, Jeff Smith and Eastmen being the first examples that come to mind. They both definitely had their eyes set on a bigger market than comic shops alone.

Mark Millar put his oar into this debate as well and said his creator owned work for image and avatar and others sold a fraction of what his marvel work sold.

A lot of comics buyers are creatures of habit and want their spiderman or batman and won't necessarily follow a creator to their creator-owned work.

Garth Ennis also said his War-based stories for DC and Marvel and dynamite sold nowhere near what the punisher or ghost rider sold.

If a creator wants to go farther than the normal comic shop/bookstore market they need to be phenomenal entrepreneurs and hucksters like Todd Mcfarlane, Mark Millar, Kevin Eastman etc.

Fysh

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

Mark Millar put his oar into this debate as well and said his creator owned work for image and avatar and others sold a fraction of what his marvel work sold.

A lot of comics buyers are creatures of habit and want their spiderman or batman and won't necessarily follow a creator to their creator-owned work.

Garth Ennis also said his War-based stories for DC and Marvel and dynamite sold nowhere near what the punisher or ghost rider sold.

If a creator wants to go farther than the normal comic shop/bookstore market they need to be phenomenal entrepreneurs and hucksters like Todd Mcfarlane, Mark Millar, Kevin Eastman etc.

The problem with all of these debates is that Marvle & DC tend to only release the sales numbers for the Direct Market rather than for the entire global market. This means things like subscriptions or foreign sales or foreign reprint sales aren't included, so the comparison is all but impossible. You can't compare the probable sales numbers, the likely costs involved, or what sort of regular salary they could expect to make

And yes, pitching a creator-owned comic against the big two in a direct market store whose chief profits come from the big two is never going to be easy.

On the other hand, Gears Of War #1 from Wildstorm reportedly sold 450K, and very few monthly titles from DC or Marvel come anywhere close to that.

Nonetheless, you look at the european or japanese markets and these issues just aren't there. So part of the problem is the Direct Market audience being conditioned to look only for the kind of material that is regularly sold through the Direct Market. Creator-owned works can't easily compete in that market, so the smart thing to do is to find another market. But where? That's the hard part.

magwea wrote:

I think the build and they will come mentality did work, and exceptionally well for some, Jeff Smith and Eastmen being the first examples that come to mind. They both definitely had their eyes set on a bigger market than comic shops alone.

I'm guessing we're talking about Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles and Bone here, right? I don't really know anything detailed about how they were pushed by their creators so it would be good to know more about how they achieved success.

On a general note, I imagine that going creator-owned in comics would equal having a harder time making a living in the same way that making an independent film free of studio interference is harder to finance than, say, Star Wars Episode 93: The George Lucas Still Isn't Dead Saga. Whether or not the current batch of creators decide to go creator-owned all the way, DC and Marvel won't change their approach until they start losing significant amounts of cash.

ztoical

I wasn't going to reply to this thread cus as far as I can see there is no debate. Some people want to work for a big publisher, they want to work with the big iconic characters and draw the big summer cross over event. Its like someone wanting to be a movie director and wanting to direct the big summer blockbuster, nothing wrong with that any more then the guy who wants to direct just low budget art house films. Some people can only view success in certain terms, I've seen it on this forum and in other comics circles - working for Marvel means you've "made it" and thats fine but not everyone views success in the same terms. I know plenty of cartoonists that make a living in comics having never worked for DC or Marvel [look at someone like Hope Larson] and know plenty who've no interest in working for them. Some artists create their comics cus they feel they need to tell a story and don't think of it in terms of whose going to publish it/read it/buy it etc

Saying everyone should do creator owned books is all fine and well but the fact is not every artists/writer out there has a creator owned book in them. Just check the likes of comicxpress or lulu's stores to see some of the self published stuff that is just a rehash of everything that's already out there. Some artists just want a job that pays, creator owned titles equal risk, more work and effort. The creator owned titles success stories like say TMNT didn't make money for the creators via sales of the comic, that broke them even and got them notice, they made money from licensing the **** out of the characters. Which brings up another down side to creator owned titles - ones that are being made just so they can be made into a tv show/movie/animated series - in cases like that why not focus on making a tv show/movie/animated series from the start?

If your after money, why waste the time and effort of creating a whole comic book series - get into newspaper comics and just create a good character that you can stick on mugs, towels, other assorted crap.

If your only goal in comics is to make money then go do porn, thats were the money is and the more niche the porn the better the money - just ask some of the artists who make a living doing furry art. You certainly won't get fame but fame and money are two different things. In the 70's all the big cartoonists and illustrators where fighting to get into Penthouse and Playboy as they paid more then any other publisher but they wouldn't put the work they did for them in their books or list it on their CV's.

And of course we are once again focusing on one area of the comics industry - the american direct market. The simple fact is countries like France and Japan are producing more comics then the american mainstream market and they don't have this huge hang up on the direct market. I spent a large chunk of the last month locked up a mountain with comics people from 15+ countries [all europe and asia countries no americans] and not once was the word diamond or direct market mentioned. The Japanese seemed almost confused when I tried to explain it.

magwea

ztoical wrote: »

Some artists just want a job that pays, creator owned titles equal risk, more work and effort.

And far greater rewards, like not seeing your work making other people millions, as is heartbreaking the way comics have been doing business in north America.

It seems as though hackish work is always going to be let fly with the already established franchises, why are some very talented people wasting their time with dead ends, out of fear of not making a living which isn't necessarily true. Certainly, while i'm sure it is for some, its not the case that all of them are doing it out of love for the work itself.

ztoical wrote: »

If your only goal in comics is to make money then go do porn, that's were the money is and the more niche the porn the better the money - just ask some of the artists who make a living doing furry art.

This is meant tongue in check right? The Tijuana bible model of making money is just above the bread line i would have thought.

As for mostly focusing on the American model: i'd imagine its because these are the comics that we mostly read, or at least that i can read. Its pretty lame but the healthier the American market is the better the comics are that i get to read, because there is effectively no other English language market for comics.

Sure, the Japanese have nailed medium of comics for the masses and are definitely slowly taking over the north American and French market, heck all of Europe. Is that really going the best way forward? Should the younger generation of creators all want to work for Kodansha, since that is what is where the trend is going.

ztoical

magwea wrote: »

And far greater rewards, like not seeing your work making other people millions, as is heartbreaking the way comics have been doing business in north America.

Thats the risk with any business. Sadly most creator owned titles fail not because the artist or the writing is weak but because the creative team know nothing about the business side of things. The question shouldn't be should all writers and artists just do creator owned titles but maybe they should think about forming a union to get a better deal. Tv writers will write for other tv shows and never come up with or develop their own idea but they at least get a fair deal on the stuff they do write for others.

The way Japanese comics work is much closer to how an animation studio works - you have the director which in the case of comics is the main creator and they do the key drawings which are then passed to the assistants who fill in all the blanks then its passed to the designer who put it all together and then its off to the printers - this system allows for faster turn around time, theres more jobs for artists and its easier for the assistants to show the publishers their own ideas for a comic. Please note I'm taking about the production of Japanese comics not the style. In Japan you can actually find comics in every style but only the super anime/manga style is popular outside of Japan so thats all we ever really see.

magwea wrote: »

This is meant tongue in check right? The Tijuana bible model of making money is just above the bread line i would have thought..

Actually I didn't mean this as tongue in check at all. I have one friend in new york who pays new york rent and all her bills by doing furry commissions online and going to furry cons and doing sketches. One sketchbook - 10 pages pencil drawings sold for $800. Another friend in London bought a house off doing graphic design work for porn websites - the down side is nither has time to do any other work and they can't/won't use that work in their professional books thus finding it hard to get none furry/porn related work and also you have to not be squmish about the work. I've done some work for porn sites and it paid very well but again the only way your going to find it is by going to that site and even then my name isn't attached to it thus it can look like I spent a big track of time doing nothing. Yaoi and Hentai make up a huge chunk of the Japanese market. Now I'm telling everyone to go out and start looking for work in porn, I'm just saying there is a huge market of comics out there that people aren't even aware of.

magwea wrote: »

Sure, the Japanese have nailed medium of comics for the masses and are definitely slowly taking over the north American and French market, heck all of Europe. Is that really going the best way forward? Should the younger generation of creators all want to work for Kodansha, since that is what is where the trend is going.

A month ago I would have agreed and not wished to see comics go down a japanese style road but my entire view of comics has changed since going to Japan, seeing how the industry really works there and also talking with comics people from so many different countries. The current Irish comics scene is very like what is happening in comics in Korea at the moment. Their entire industry is dominated by Japanese comics and its very hard there to either get korean comics out to the masses or for people to read any comics that aren't Japanese. Here were are flooded by the american market [and to a much lesser extent the British market] and its hard to [a] get irish comics out there and get comics that aren't american - even the manga and french comics we get are the american publications of them, we don't even get the British publications.

magwea

I am still fundamentally for creators owning the work they create, be that working as a team or solo.

I don't agree to with the Japanese model because it almost forces creators into a studio system. In animation or film i can understand the need, for comics this is absolute nonsense, and is only good for churning out comics which makes sense from a purely business perspective.

Its no wonder the French who remain auteur driven getting annoyed with manga creators with their reams of anonymous assistants flooding the market.

Moebius who was instrumental in getting manga into France, hilariously compared manga to "a machine of war without scruples. It has divided the world in market segments and is taking advantage of the weakness of the young men. It is a mental chewing gum, attracts but destroys the brain. And, which is worse, mines the freedom of the creators, putting them to the service of the imperialistic interests of their country. The worst thing of everything is that there is no way of stopping it. It would be necessary a third atomic bomb”

OK, maybe he feels a bit burnt.

ztoical

magwea wrote: »

I am still fundamentally for creators owning the work they create, be that working as a team or solo.

I don't agree to with the Japanese model because it almost forces creators into a studio system. In animation or film i can understand the need, for comics this is absolute nonsense, and is only good for churning out comics which makes sense from a purely business perspective.

Its no wonder the French who remain auteur driven getting annoyed with manga creators with their reams of anonymous assistants flooding the market.

Moebius who was instrumental in getting manga into France, hilariously compared manga to "a machine of war without scruples. It has divided the world in market segments and is taking advantage of the weakness of the young men. It is a mental chewing gum, attracts but destroys the brain. And, which is worse, mines the freedom of the creators, putting them to the service of the imperialistic interests of their country. The worst thing of everything is that there is no way of stopping it. It would be necessary a third atomic bomb”

OK, maybe he feels a bit burnt.

Like I said in the other post a month ago I would have agreed hands down but after taking with people working in that system it does make a little more sense. The DC/Marvel model is no less a factory system with Penciler/writer/inker/letter off to printer system. The issue with creator owned books is the gap between issues will be massive which is what cause artists to lose money - its one of the main reason Tokyopops OEL manga lined failed - waiting over a year between issues isn't going to put bread on anyones table. The french model goes to the other extreme and you end up with alot of very fine arts crap. I always find it funny when people go on about manga artists having all these assitants when most fine artists have tones of namesless assistants as well. Find the balance in between.

It comes down to a balance between business and art - from an art view it is always better to keep as much control in the artists hand but from a business point of view that doesn't always work cus artists get distracted easy. Some artists get the balance right, they do their share of contract work but also self publish as well. At the end of the day it comes down to the artist, those with wives, kids and bills might just want a regular pay check, those with no ties might be all about "their art", everyone is different in their motivation. If they don't want the big publisher earning millions off their design they don't have to sign the contract. The publishers are taking advantage of poorly educated artists [by that I mean poorly education in contracts, copyrights and their rights] I've a friend in spain who recently got sent a contract from Image that said they would own the rights to all her work that she did for them, she crossed out that section of the contract, signed it and sent it back. Image had no issue with this. Alot of artists don't know they can do that. Some publishers will send the contract back and say you can alter but the vast majority just have standard contracts they send everyone and its up to the artist to make alterations. If you were working a job and not getting paid what you thought you should for the work you either shut up and put up with it, talk to your boss about or get another job.

magwea

ztoical wrote: »

It comes down to a balance between business and art

So its the Japanese who have perfected the mix between the two, and are publishing the best comics in the world?

ztoical

magwea wrote: »

So its the Japanese who have perfected the mix between the two, and are publishing the best comics in the world?

the best comics in the world? no I never said that, like other places they produce just as much rubbish as good stuff. The debate was about creator owned titles vs the big publisher road and from that view the model most publishers use in Japan offers more control to the artists - I don't think its prefect as several artists I spoke to felt they got stuck in a style that proved popular and now weren't able to draw in any other style as the publisher pushed for the popular one but you find that in fine arts as well, artists have a popular series and the Gallery system forces them to continue on that road even though they've lost interest in it. In a prefect world artists could work in whatever style/medium they wish and control all their creative out put but were back to the massive gap between works. Without either a publisher to handle things or assistants to help it would be very hard for a creator to put out work regular enough to make a living.

Fysh

magwea wrote: »

I am still fundamentally for creators owning the work they create, be that working as a team or solo.

I don't agree to with the Japanese model because it almost forces creators into a studio system. In animation or film i can understand the need, for comics this is absolute nonsense, and is only good for churning out comics which makes sense from a purely business perspective.

Ah come on, let's be serious here for a minute. The American industry has a bunch of long-standing properties which are used as cash cows in the exact same way as the Japanese industry appears, from the outside, to use studios. The "new" Captain America, the rejuvenation of Spider-man, the preponderance of Ultimate and Year One titles, the number of Marvel and DC top-tier titles are properties that have existed for decades.

To believe that those titles, which make up most of the top-selling American mainstream comics, are made for creative and artistic motivations rather than commercial ones, is to buy into the lie that Stan Lee first used to sell Marvel comics in the sixties.

magwea wrote: »

So its the Japanese who have perfected the mix between the two, and are publishing the best comics in the world?

In your earlier post you suggested that you were wondering whether "a great exodus of creators from the big two into creator owned make much of a difference to the comics we would be reading, and the sort of living these guys would be making".

I'm not sure that creator-owned vs corporate-owned has any bearing on better comics vs worse comics; being creator-owned isn't a guarantee of quality any more than being a superhero comic guarantees a comic is corporately owned...

I still don't think that DC and Marvel have the English-language comics industry quite as stitched up as you suggest, though. In terms of commercial distribution in Ireland that might be the case, but that's a local issue rather than a problem across the board.

magwea

Fysh wrote: »

I'm not sure that creator-owned vs corporate-owned has any bearing on better comics vs worse comics; being creator-owned isn't a guarantee of quality any more than being a superhero comic guarantees a comic is corporately owned...

While it certainly doesn't always, i honestly believe that creator owned work is substantially better than work for hire. Either way what would you rather more spiderman comics or a new creator owned books even if there is no guarantee that they are going to be much better. Or would it make no difference.

Fysh wrote: »

I still don't think that DC and Marvel have the English-language comics industry quite as stitched up as you suggest, though. In terms of commercial distribution in Ireland that might be the case, but that's a local issue rather than a problem across the board.

It was the fact that most of the comics we read are published by American publishers for an American audience, Ireland is the greyest of the grey markets, the comics we read here are mostly only available because they are profitable in north America. Maybe, i should have phrased it better earlier.

Fysh

magwea wrote: »

While it certainly doesn't always, i honestly believe that creator owned work is substantially better than work for hire. Either way what would you rather more spiderman comics or a new creator owned books even if there is no guarantee that they are going to be much better. Or would it make no difference.

Work for hire isn't necessarily superhero work though, although I know that's more common over in the US. The Beano, Dandy, and 2000AD are work-for-hire as far as I know and yet I'd still happily check them out. I get why creators are better served by creator-ownership contracts, but I don't think it has a definite influence on the work.

I'd like to see more good comics, regardless of what kind of work they are. Being creator-owned means that a creator is better able to protect their project in the event that a publisher wants to interfere, but not all creators are necessarily going to want to make something that invites publisher interference. Likewise, not all creators want to have to handle the business aspect of funding, publishing, and marketing their work.

magwea wrote: »

It was the fact that most of the comics we read are published by American publishers for an American audience, Ireland is the greyest of the grey markets, the comics we read here are mostly only available because they are profitable in north America. Maybe, i should have phrased it better earlier.

I agree about the American publishers side, I'm just wary of simplifying the list of American publishers down to Marvel and DC. I know that D&Q, Fantagraphics, IDW, Dark Horse, Image etc aren't anywhere near as big as Marvel and DC combined but they do shift units and they have access to markets that the Big 2 don't - art books and licensed properties, for example.