Magazines, Trades, Pamphlets, and Digests: How should comics be sold?

At the risk of answering the topical question too early in the essay, I would say 'All of the above.'

The question is foremost in my mind for two reasons.

The first is this past week's 'One Fan's Opinion', in which Erik Larsen suggested selling magazine or digest sized collections of smaller sequential art stories weekly in a larger format with a higher price point. Basically: sell less titles, more often, for more money. I don't always agree with Mr. Larsen and I think much of what he writes would be better packaged under the heading 'One Cartoonist's Opinion' or 'One Publisher's Opinion', but he writes a good column and he always makes me think. Even when I think he is completely wrong about something, I can see his logic and why he's thought things out as he has and this forces me to consider whether my initial reaction is correct.

I don't know that the weekly digest or weekly magazine is the way to go. People willing to shell out some $50 a month for all their comic books might not be willing to shell out twenty or thirty bucks a week... that would add up to a lot more per month and I think even comic book fans would know that. More importanly, most mainstream and indie comic book writers and artists have been writing for the 22 page pamphlet (or larger) for so long that the five or six page story is a lost art outside the newspapers. While digital technology may address the issues of coloring and lettering (which is a shame, because I truly wish there was someone to claim Todd Klein's mantle today) there is still the problem of writers and artists meeting a weekly deadline. Whilce Portacio and Frank Quitely, to name two fan favorites, have trouble meeting monthly deadlines. Where would they be in a weekly comics industry?

I also don't think that the digest format does full justice to modern comics artists or even writers, as it shrinks the panels and makes the readers work harder to enjoy a medium that has already been accused of requiring too much effort from its fans.

I do think that the magazine format, on the same bi-weekly, monthly, bi-monthly, and annual schedules used by various extant comics in their pamphlet form.

The second reason was a discussion of Wonder Woman's costume in the rotating 'Wonder of Wonders' column. Columnist Martin Gray suggested a new costume for Wonder Woman be launched in issue #600 and several posters noted that while this might be too short notice, such a costume launch could be connected to Wonder Woman's upcoming anniversary.

Now I'm not terribly invested in either the current costume or a costume change. I don't have a theoretical problem with a change/update. Though the basics are still the same, costume has evolved quite a bit more over the years than some others. I do admit to a certain investment in Olivia Munn dressed in the current costume that might undermine the feminist credentials I am going to attempt to establish in this thread. That doesn't change the fact that I can see the clever use of a new Wondie costume as a publicity gimmick and even support it up to a point.

The problem is that the point stops fairly short if it is just a gimmick.

As I said in one of several over-windy statements in the discussion thread of said column on CBR's Forum:

I'm not sure I see the real point to a costume change.. the way it is described here makes the change read like a straight marketing gimmick and gimmickry will only ever produce temporary results. It won't widen the audience significantly if the product isn't accessible and if the publisher doesn't keep it so.

There is something I think has a lot of potential, something I used as an example of a test case in a thread on the topic of comic book magazines: 'Wonder Woman Magazine.'

130 pages, with 122 pages dedicated to content and 80 pages (sometimes more) dedicated to actual comics content. 8 full page adds and no more. Run comics the same size, per page, as the current floppy... letter-box them with ad-space so one can cover costs without sacrificing content. Make sure the ads fit the theme of the magazine, 'girl's adventure' for teens and twenty-somethings and a bit younger/older. Nothing TOO 'girly', so that boys can read it if they like the characters, but nothing so obviously 'for boys' that girls feel left out. Set the tone of the comics content so that it appeals to the fans of Stephanie Plum and V.I. Warshawski: lots to appeal to the female reader but 'tough' enough for the boys.

There is a big market untapped by the comic book industry, superhero or otherwise. Marvel and DC know it is there and periodically flounder in spastic efforts to find some way to tap into it and then declare such efforts a failure when they either totally mismanage them or refuse to invest in them.

I refer in the quoted text to 'girl's adventure.' I don't use this term as a pejorative, but rather to describe fiction with an action/adventure/suspense focus written by women in a manner broad enough to be comfortable for male readers but particularly respectful of and sensitive to the tastes of a female readership. This 'ubergenre' boasts a significant portion of crossover spans who cover all the traditional fictional genres: action/suspense thrillers (the FBI novels of former romance novelist Catherine Coulter), mystery/crime fiction (the above mentioned characters Stephanie Plum and VI Warshawski, as well as Kinsey Millhone and other hard-boiled ladies... Tami Hoag has no series characters, but her individual novels are great and her ability to team a hero/heroine pair is amazing), fantasy (of which the Heralds of Valdemar probably take center stage though more than a few excellent writers have written strong novels or series with male and female leads themselves... and it is here that writers like Julian May and Mercedes Lackey have shown the ability to write male leads as well as female leads), science fiction (the Dragonriders of Pern and the various heroes and heroines of the Darkover novels take center stage here, though I am also very fond of the genre-busting sci-fi/fantasy of C.S. Friedman and, again, these ladies write men as well as they write women), and horror (though I don't like the Anita Blake novels personally, the character is tremendously popular and her more recent clone Sookie Stackhouse is even moreso, and the Diana Tregarde novels are well worth hunting down) and the list goes on.

Marvel has some properties that could appeal to this audience and DC has more than just Wondie, but no single character carries the potential to appeal to this audience like Princess Diana. There are many people with a great attachment to Wonder Woman who do not read the comics, but the question can be raised: how many of them would read the comics if they were available in the supermarket magazine aisle or their nearest bookstore? How many of them would read them if they were written in a vein more in line with the general sensibilities of the 'girl's adventure' ubergenre than with the essentially adolescent male sensibilities of the direct market comic book readership?

The idea that comes to my mind as I described above started out as a random example of one comic book magazine in a discussion of possibilities for comic book magazines. In a thread dedicated to more concrete ideas for the actual marketing of Wonder Woman comics to a broader audience, it crystallized. I think it bears merit, to the point that I am now genuinely disappointed in DC for not having tried it before I thought of it.

A 130 page magazine sounds thick, but that is actually the perfect length. It leaves room for ad space without allowing ad space to dominate the magazine. It means that the first issue (and perhaps every six to twelve issues) can lead with a full length Wonder Woman origin story and that every subsequent issue can lead with a shorter (5 or 6 page) recap of the origin. The beauty of 122 pages of content and 80+ of comics content is that 5 or 6 pages can be dedicated to the origin story every issue, so new readers always have an immediate point of entry, in the very front of the book without ongoing readers feeling cheated of new content. The centerpiece of the magazine should be a 22 page (the length of the typical Marvel or DC comic book, in content) Wonder Woman feature. In addition, the centerfold should be made available for a two page spread as the centerpiece of each story. So 24 pages for Wondie's feature, in total. Add to that two 18 page co-features: 'Birds of Prey' (to hit the international thriller angle) and either 'Catwoman' or 'The Question' to hit that hard-boiled detective angle. I leaned toward the latter because I am such a huge fan of Renee Montoya, but Selina would pack a lot of punch as well. Include a shorter 14 page regular back-up feature with either Power Girl or Supergirl written from a sci-fi angle. I lean toward Power Girl, because I (and some friends who happen to be women, which might be more important) tend to see Supergirl as kind of insipid and annoying but Supergirl could have a great effect on a teen audience and certainly enjoys more name recognition. She also allows for 'Legion of Superheroes' guest stories that would expand the sci-fi theme of the back-up feature. So she might be the better choice, despite my belief Power Girl is a stronger character who would benefit from the placement.

So we've got 30 pages of Wonder Woman (allowing for a six page origin and the two page spreads), 18 pages each of BoP and either Catwoman or The Question, and 14 pages of either Power Girl or Supergirl. That's 80 pages of comics content right there, every issue, and 42 pages that can be used for overflow (when one wants to run another full size WW origin or add a special 22 page lead to play with other deserving characters) and non-comics content. A letter section (a page or three, let's say two and leave an even twenty) is a classic, and I think it would have a specific appeal to Wonder Woman fans... though I could be wrong about that and it could be dropped if it didn't work. I also think that a fanfic or slashfic (tasteful, nothing porn-y!) contest is a must-have feature for a full size comics magazine. Dedicate ten pages to this and another ten to editorial content, essays on Wondie or her supporting cast or the other featured characters, and maybe (as cheesy as it sounds) a 'What Would Wonder Woman Do?' advice column for younger readers.

Price it at $8.95 an issue. This is on the high side for a magazine, but the content is worth it and it is the equivalent of something close to four full single comics in comic book content alone... and that is a savings of nearly three bucks (compared to four $2.99 comics) or seven (compared to four $3.99 comics) for nearly the same content! I think what I've described is a good buy for $8.95. I pay that price per issue for 'The Ring', which is the same size (130 pages, generally 122 with content of some kind) and with slightly less content than I would read than a quality comics magazine. Established readers can kiss off the origin story and older readers can kiss off the advice column and/or the letters page to boot and people still won't feel cheated. One could realistically charge a lower cover price with the increased ad space available to the format. I am deliberately pricing it high to make a point regarding the content.

Wonder Woman is not the only Marvel or DC property that can be marketed in this format, but she is the most obvious and the one with the most potential for success and the most ready made market. The next two franchises with the potential to really sell in magazine format are 'Justice League' and 'Avengers', with the magazine format giving the double advantage of regular team exposure and more frequent solo exposure for popular characters unable to carry their own books who always end up on one of these two teams as a result. 'Green Arrow & Black Canary' may be hit and miss selling on their own, but could add real punch to 'Justice League Magazine.' Prince Namor always gets the short stick in solo books, but as a steady feature in 'Avengers Magazine' he might really be a hit.

There is one drawback to the magazine format. It requires strict adherence to deadlines and monolithic ownership of content. This means it will work great in the work-for-hire format but may prove problematic in a creator-owned environment. Marvel and DC, the companies with the most potential to succeed with this format, are the companies least likely to try it. More innovative companies face more challenges in bundling content into one book and keeping creators happy. Dark Horse has the most potential for success here with possibilities like 'Hellboy Magazine' (bundling the main Hellboy title with 'BRPD' and 'Lobster Johnson' co-features in lieu of separate books) or 'Sword and Sorcery' (with a Conan feature and Solomon Kane and King Kull as co-features) coming forward at once.

Companies that simply help publish creator-owned comics and true, self-published indies would probably have to rely on the existing pamphlet format and graphic novel and the natural trade and digest sized collections that flow from same. They would also likely depend more on the direct market than companies with either a strong work-for-hire system or an easily collected set of associated material by one or associated creators. However, more comics in the general retail market would mean more exposure to comics and more advertising for comic book shops. This would be good for the direct market in the long run and what is good for the direct market is good for the indies that burnt-out superhero fans discover when they are just about to give up on comics.

The problem is that all this requires a major shift in the thinking of the people who publish and market comic books. These aren't people who believe in the virtues of risk-taking or the positive nature of change. Having destroyed the mass media market for comic books once by instituting no-return policies that removed most comic books from news-stands, it is hard to see them taking the necessary steps to carry out a successful strategy to return comic books to prominence in general retail outlets.

Kinda sucks, really.

Print is Dead? Or is it really the future?

I don't write here very often. For a long stretch my involvement with my political blog (and the other blogs with which I engaged in one manner or another) consumed all of my blogging time. Recent medical issues had me away from the computer for longer stretches and I find that politics are depressing me more and more. Worse (for me, at any rate, as I always expect to be depressed by politics) is the fact that I am actually beginning to get frustrated by the argument/debate that goes along with this activity. This is rather significant for me, as I love an intelligent argument and this love was one of the reasons I began blogging.

However, as I have begun to recover, I have been spending more time at Comic Book Resources than I did before my illness. I still haven't begun to budget reading comics back into my monthly luxury allowance (I dropped them when I was let go from my last job working for someone else) but I am planning to do so and like to keep an eye out at what I think is the best fan site out there.

As I was working today, two articles caught my attention. The topic was digital media versus print media and how digital media would affect the comics market. The first article I read was by Brian Hibbs in his 'Tilting at Windmills' column. Mr. Hibbs was championing print over digital and explaining why there was not going to be an immediate digital revolution.

The second was by Erik Larsen in his excellent, but sometimes inaccurately named, column 'One Fan's Opinion.' Mr. Larsen's article was championing digital media over print and explaining why the digital revolution, regardless of its immediacy, is inevitable.

While there is some appearance of opposition in these articles, they are actually less opposed to one another than they first appear. Mr. Hibbs does an excellent job of outlining the reasons for which the digital revolution will not be immediate and I agree with him one hundred percent... but Mr. Larsen points out just how quick and easy it would be for a smart businessperson (perhaps an oxymoron today, especially in the comic book industry, but one never knows) to eliminate those obstacles and get the digital revolution rolling very soon thereafter.

Now, I have very selfish reasons for preferring print media to digital media: I am nearsighted and wear glasses to do everything but read a book in my hands. My computer screen is at just the right range that I have to wear my glasses to read my screen and type. It is much easier for me to read a book without my glasses and with no risk of eyestrain from staring at my computer screen. I do have several comics on my computer, but they often sit there unread for long periods and I cannot devour them the way I can a print booklet or a trade. It's just unpleasant for my eyes. If I want something badly enough for repeat reading then I buy it in print unless it is simply impossible for some reason. As soon as it becomes possible, I get it.

I agree with Mr. Larsen that the digital revolution is inevitable in some form. When someone markets an affordable reader and prices content reasonably, we will see an increase in electronic media for reasons of convenience, disposability, and storage.

I understand why Mr. Larsen, as a creator and publisher (and let's be frank, it is creators and publishers to which the digital medium primarily appeals, for economic reasons that his column outlines very eloquently) would be drawn toward the opportunities created by digital media. Nor is it hard to see why Mr. Hibbs, as a retailer (the people with the most to lose from a digital revolution), feels very much the opposite. The fact that I agree with Mr. Hibbs' sentiments but think Mr. Larsen's predictions are likely accurate does not sit well with me.

The problem with digital media is that, despite the statements to the contrary made by supporters of the internet, digital media is not democratic but rather fundamentally elitist. It presupposes the existence of disposable income to purchase a means of viewing digital media. Whether that is a personal computer, a cellular phone, or a Kindle is beside the point. One pays an added cost to view digital media that one does not pay to view print media, and it is generally a far more significant cost than charged for the content itself. Reading comic books already tends to the expensive side and the current comic book readership is very likely to own a personal computer. So this does not appear a significant obstacle at first glance.

Creators, publishers, retailers, and critics all note the need for comic books to pull in a wider readership than they do at the present time. Sure, when things are great they ignore this and many publishers address the issue poorly even when they pay it attention: a case in point is the (very good, but quality is not the sole point in drawing in a wider readership) attempt to bring in more female readership by Marvel with their 'White Tiger' mini of a few years back (or the Daughters of the Dragon series before that, or the Dakota North mini before that, or the original Daughters of the Dragon mini, or Spider-Woman... see my point?) which attempted to drag in female readers with a female main character and a popular young adult novelist writing the title. The concept was perfect, but the book was Daredevil with a female lead rather than a book designed to appeal to a different audience than Daredevil already reached. Despite this failure of execution, however, even publishers agree they need to reach a wider audience.

Which turns back on the elitism of digital media. I just don't see the typical casual reader abandoning books for Kindles on a large scale. People who don't buy comics because of the price tag aren't going to buy digital readers.

I don't mean to say that the comics book industry won't do better than it is now by switching to a digital medium. They might.

I do mean to say that the elusive wider audience we all wish comics would pull in is not hiding on the internet. The people who will buy digital comics are the people buying print comics now. The industry may make more money off them, but as difficult as the project has been the wider audience is in print. Not in silicon.

The digital medium just might be successful enough to drive people like Mr. Hibbs out of business, however.

The history of American business suggests that this is inevitable, but I don't have to like it.

Hopefully, I'm not the only person who doesn't care for the eyestrain that comes from reading comics on the computer and that will make the difference.