As promised
As promised, here’s my take on ICV2’s recent interview with Marvel Publisher, Dan Buckley. All credit to them for actually doing the work and making it easy for me. Go give ‘em some hits.
Right off the bat, Buckley states that things are moving upwards in the market, even as people adjust to the change in publisher-hood (was it only a year ago that Bill Jemas was bulletproof?) at Marvel. He also had this puzzling tidbit to impart: “There is an adjustment to the loss of stuff happening within Image and CrossGen.” I’m wondering what stuff other than perhaps Jim Valentino leaving the executive level at Image (which most readers would be hard-pressed to know, realistically, and even fewer would care) he’d be talking about. Yeah, CrossGen imploded. We know. Frankly I’m unsure of the impact that’s had in the marketplace other than making high-profile ventures like CGE a lot more unlikely in the future (for good or for ill.)
Mr. Buckley goes out on a limb and says that more money is likely to go into the trade/digest side of the market. I know. His risk-taking prognostications are an example to us all. He states that Marvel’s going to be “more aggressive” with their trades. I wonder if that means putting a bigger MARVEL logo on ‘em?
I know. That’s simply not possible.
He seems to conflate the trade/digest market in some of his discussion, and I’m not able to extricate one from the other. Though it’s interesting to note that he states there’s about fifteen new collections a month coming out of Marvel. In a perfect world, a good chunk of that would be from their far more interesting backlist (but that’s a personal, not a business judgement.)
When comparing the bookstore market for Marvel (which was “nonexistent” five years ago) to the DM, Mr. Buckley says: “But the direct market is still our bread and butter, and we do very well with it and we hope that we show it the respect that it's due.” I really should invite some retailers to comment on that. Kinda surprised they haven’t, actually. No overprinting alone would make me hopping mad (“hopping mad” is TM Heidi MacDonald, by the way.)
Interestingly, Mr. Buckley out and says that the newsstand maket is dead to Marvel. Whereas over at DC, they merely downplayed it. I also get the feeling that Mr. Buckley is looking more at distribution through chain stores like Target and Wal-Mart rather than actual newsstands (which are far fewer than they used to be.) He also ties their “success” in those markets directly to the movie franchises (which I can see, as opposed to having movies drive up demand for DM comics).
When discussing bookstore “pockets” (which I’m assuming are correspondent to shelf-inches for display), Mr. Buckley doesn’t talk about manga at all, but instead focuses on the space freed up by CGE’s departure. Talk about penny wisdom. I’d suggest considering why space for manga collections has gone up astronomically, yet the space for western comics is only climbing incrementally (at least by my own unscientific observations.) Here’s the quote in question:
There might be even more pockets available for DC, Marvel, and other comic book publishers, because CrossGen did have some of those pockets. They might be available, but I don't know if it's necessarily a good mix for us to do that because we're still dealing with efficiencies and returns.
Note the reappearance of the dreaded “returns.” Remember, gentle reader, that a book in a bookstore isn’t really the property of said bookstore. Within certain parameters, it can be returned for credit (or cash, I believe) to the distributor. Not so in the DM. In the DM, retailers are taking all the risk (at a greater discount, it may be noted.) Publishers love the DM. Hell, I would, too.
Hmm. Spider-Man 2 didn’t generate the same rush in the bookstore as the first one did. Interesting. Mr. Buckley goes on to equate that with the view that the first movie made a better “jumping-on” point to become a Spidey fan than the second one did. I guess I can see that, but what you should be depending on is a steady stream of constant sales, not living on the spikes…
And on to Part 2.
Oh joy. They have more big editorial events planned for the rest of the year. Including something called “Ultimates Month.” Mark your calendars, folks. You won’t want to miss an exciting moment!
He goes onto reveal a very important Marvel House Secret. “…some guys that are very important to our business like Brian Bendis, and JMS, and Mark Millar.” You heard it on ICV2 first, folks! This, stemming from the discussion of exclusives and percentages of material created by Marvel-exclusive creators. He continues in this vein, saying that exclusives allow publishers (not just Marvel) to plan things further ahead of time and stabilizes their lines. I’m a little afraid that it means that they can plan big editorial events further ahead and that “stability” is watchword for rut-digging. But probably just a pessimist at heart, huh?
Mr. Buckley neatly sidesteps the whole “fewer copies of a lot more titles” issue by stating that it’s a “reaction”. A reaction to what? Yes, he admits that Marvel could have done a better job handling all the recent launches/cancellations, but you’d think that it’d be even better to make the bulk of your titles have some kind of continuity (no, not the bad kind) instead of repeated stutter starts and cancellations and retoolings and relaunches. I know. Probably just me…
There’s a bit of a discussion on retailer (ie, chain) exclusives, like the Barnes and Noble Marvel Masterworks softcovers, which Mr. Buckley equates to trading exclusivity for exposure. Sounds good to me, but my only question is what kind of new reader is going to be attracted to a Masterworks reprinting of a nearly forty-year-old comics series? Doesn’t make a whole lot of sense. But if it allows the hardcover Masterworks to be reprinted (as they’re effectively the same guts), then that’s certainly something to be considered. He pays lip service to expansion of the comics market, but I don’t think he’s sure how to do it.
After (basically, but honestly) punting the “manga” question, Mr. Buckley has the following to say, this about licensed material: “Licensing product, as you well know, has never been a particular strength for Marvel. We've got plenty of properties on our side. I'd never say never, but at this point I wouldn't say we are.”
Funny, but I’ve got a whole stack of Shogun Warriors, Star Wars and Conan comics that refute the “no licensing” policy. Now if he’s talking about modern Marvel, I can see that, but in the past, Marvel was quite happy to license material to derive comics from. They may, however, not be interested in this course of action now (mostly because they’re making comics to license out to other folks, not to look for licenses to make comics out of.)
This just in: Marvel not to change its no-overprint policy: “Overprinting still scares use and we're very nervous about it, and at this point I wouldn't say that's changing. I just want to say once again, never say never to anything, but we feel very comfortable with how we approach the business.” Big shocker. If the retailers are comfortable with shouldering the risk, then why should Marvel change their minds about it? Truth be told, however, how often would additional overprints actually serve to sell more comics? Mostly a rhetorical question, but if someone wants to answer it, go ahead.
Gah. If he refers to comics as “product” one more time, I might just suffer spontaneous cerebral immolation. Yes, you’re talking to an industry organ, Mr. Buckley, but at least sound excited about what you’re talking about. That said, he’s very excited about all the talent at play today and surprised with the strength of the collections market.
Rightfully, he notes that the biggest problem facing comics today is getting new readers and expanding the readership. He also repeats the mantra of “more young readers”, which is a good start, but you need teenage and adult readers, too.