Why don't you *listen*?
The above is not a permalink. I know, I often link over to Steven Grant's Permanent Damage, but it's generally for a good reason. This is the case today. As the current zeitgeist in the comics air seems to smell markedly of "Holy Crap!"-ness, and people are getting twisted knickers about mainstreaming comics (see today's BEAT for that one, true believers), folks are giving serious thought to exactly where we're sitting.
I mean, take a look at what Brian Hibbs has to say about 2006. Scroll down a bit. It's not cheery. But it shouldn't be cheery. We're working (well, I'm *trying* to, anyways) in an industry that's largely beholden to a single distributor who's primarily interested in servicing its two biggest clients, who usually work with a single printer and said printer has minimum print runs that have to be met, and oh yes, we're selling our wares in a single market that's tough for some people to get to. Maybe you see where I'm going with this. The eggs are in one basket, and we're walking around in early January, when the ground is at its most slippery.
Anyways, Steven has some firm admonitions that folks might want to pay attention to. This series is my current favorite:
Most independent publishers, excluding self-publishers, break down into two groups: those that want to be Marvel or DC, and those that don't want to be Marvel or DC. The former group are the ones who've bought into the myth that market presence=market success, and the way to achieve market presence is to put out a lot of different comics. The latter group are the ones who base their publishing decisions on what Marvel or DC wouldn't do. Virtually no independent publisher projects a viable independent self-image, nor do many demonstrate a coherent game plan with their publishing. Market presence doesn't mean pumping out a lot of books, especially when most of those books are half-assed, derivative or empty. It means projecting an identity that suggests dependability to customers. The right kind of dependability.
I know, because I'm following the business pretty regularly, the sorts of things that Image stands for (most of the time--they still sometimes chuck a curveball my way), but it's difficult for me to actually articulate it. I've a far better idea of what AiT/Planet Lar does: "HBO on paper," comes to mind, and I think that's a quote. What about a company like Claypool? What about Speakeasy? Oni? Even Dark Horse to a degree suffers from this.
I defy you to wave an IDW and a Dark Horse book at a non-comics reader (or even their entire lines) and have them spot a difference (other than the cover price.) Both depend on licensed titles as their backbones to keep a steady stream of cash supporting their other, more diverse works. And I'm not saying this is a bad thing. Quite the opposite: it's eminently sensible, assuming it's actually working.
But aside from the logos and the price points, what's the difference? What does one do that the other doesn't?
Yes, as comics readers, we know that "Image isn't the Big Two" and that's their primary difference to readers. To creators, the differences run *a lot* deeper, that being the difference between owning what you work on and just cashing a steady check. But to the casual comics reader, exactly what's the difference? I mean, other than the colors of spandex being displayed, what's the difference between Marvel and DC? Most folks wouldn't know. Or care.
Anyways, give the column a read. Yes, a lot of the ground has been covered before, but sometimes you have to walk on the bridge a couple of times before you realize exactly how rickety it is, and how much those pilings need to be shored up. Or that you need another bridge.