Myth Conception: Digital Messiah!

Pocket God will not save us, kids

I hear a lot of talk about the inevitable rise of the Digital Messiah.  "It's taking over!  You can't stop it, you fossilized Luddite, the digital beast is the future!"  I really didn't mind this stuff when it first started heavy rotation....what...three years ago?  I didn't mind it then, because I was looking for a comics messiah (still am, incidentally) and the ideas weren't spread with a such a smug air.

But after listening to this noise for several years and noticing that the digital revolution has absolutely no traction in the real world, and no interest from real people, I'm ready to call digital comics what they are - ethanol.

Like ethanol, digital comics are an inferior product that nobody really wants.  Publicly, all the right people are touting the "advantages".  At this point, saying anything against digital comics is likely to earn you the wrath of the punditsphere.  If you don't recognize the inalienable right of digital to own the future, you're an anti-technology dinosaur nerd who just isn't evolved enough to grow past the printed page.  You're a flat earth troll in a post-Copernicus world, desperately clawing at the past and selfishly denying a digital future filled with four-color gum drops and sparkly unicorns.


The demonstrable truth is that digital comics are not the future, and will not save the medium.  The demonstrable truth is that nobody wants the damn things, or at least there's no evidence that significant numbers are willing to pay for them.  I don't know how to break this to y'all, but if the industry is to survive, we need somebody to actually pay for the comics they enjoy.


I remember ethanol.  I remember the smug satisfaction of its advocates demanding that our future be driven by corn gas.  To be fair, it wasn't a bad idea.  The principle - that we need a domestic and sustainable fuel to replace oil, was delicious.  The problem was that the product sucked, and nobody actually wanted the stuff.  In the end it turned out to be harmful to grocery prices, as way too much of that potentially useful corn got shifted away from food and into gas tanks.


None of that stopped the endless public clamoring for ethanol.  Mindlessly yammering about a hip concept is a good way to get elected, and an excellent method for showing folks within earshot what a progressive person you are.  And that's all digital comics are - narrative corn gas with some social cache, but no real traction in reality, and no discernible future traction, either.  Nobody wants them.


I know, I know, this all sounds like the mad ravings of a contrarian looking to stir the pot.  And I am a mad contrarian looking to stir the pot.  But if you examine some of the digital rhetoric, it isn't hard to see the cracks.  Let's start with a really vague and simple one.


Myth:  Digital comics are the future!


Truth:  Do you know anybody, even one person, and by person I mean person that currently spends money on comics, eager to switch to digital?  Let me answer that one for you - you don't.  Maybe if you live in Casper, Wyoming, and the nearest comic shop is several parsecs away, you're anticipating more mainstream comics going day and date.  It's far more likely that you've simply discovered DCB Service and are getting your books delivered to you dirt cheap.


It's easy to find a talking head in an interview, column, or blog to decree that five years from now, we won't remember what all that paper fuss was about.  It's exceptionally difficult to find a flesh human being actually thinking about making the switch from print to digital. 


Myth:  Oh, Ryan, you old dinosaur, you just don't understand.  The kids today don't share your fascination with paper, and grew up on computers.  Kids love digital comics!


Truth:  Oh, invisible devil's advocate, you just don't understand.  The kids today don't give a shit about comics in any format.  Most of them lack the attention span and discipline to read or write full words.  Reading comics is more work then reading full text, because you have interpret the images in conjunction with the available text, and you have to do a great deal of high order thinking between the gutters to connect panels in a meaningful way.  


I wish it weren't the case, but kids are simply not interested in comics.  They like games. They like movies. They like music, somewhat.  A handful of them may even enjoy some web comics...if they're available for free.  There is no data to suggest that significant numbers of people are interested in paying for digital comics.

Listen, digital comics are not new.  They've been around for years.  All kinds of cool and influential people have been telling us for years that they are the future.  So where's the model?  Where's the success story?  Where is the million selling digital comic book?

There isn't one.  It's possible, (highly unlikely, but possible) to get massive hits on a digital comic, if it's available for nothing.  But in all this time, in all the world, has there never been a talented creator telling a good story on the web?  Has everybody sucked? 


If there was an audience for digital comics, we would have already seen multiple hit books by now.  If the world was really bursting at the seems for the product, it's out there.  It's available in great reams, and surely in a world populated with endless forums and global word-of-mouth via social networking, we would have seen not one but many "lightning in a bottle" digital sensations.  Nobody wants them.  Don't take my word for it, just look at the best seller list.  There isn't one.  Nobody wants to buy digital comics.


Myth:  That's not true!  I just read that Pocket God sold more than 3 million copies!


Truth:  Don't talk to me about Pocket God.  That's a game.  There's a great deal of evidence to support the fact that kids are interested in spending money on games for their computers, phones, IPads.  There is zero evidence that kids are willing to part with cash to read digital comics.  Next!


Myth:   OK, what about that ICV2 research that says that the digital market increased ten fold in the past year while print comics took a dip?


Truth:   That's a point that deserves attention.  Digital comics did increase year over year.  It went from an estimated $500,000 in 2009 to $6M-$8M estimated in 2010.  Whatever.  Print comics did $310M in a down year, and that's 40 times the messiah.  


But that's not all.  What we're not factoring in yet is the $370M in trade sales directly generated by collecting the print comics.  A couple of those were OGNs, but that is almost entirely generated by monthly pamphlet print comics.  So now we're at $8M for the messiah vs. $680M for print comics. And that puts print comics as crushing the holy digital by 85 times the dollars.  Does that sound like the future?  

But that's not all.  How much of that digital pie is also generated by material made possible by previously printed material?  I'm sure some of that figure is purely digital books, but most of that money is comics available digitally that wouldn't be unless there was a profitable printed comic before it to subsidize it. I don't have the data to look at, but surely that's most of it.  


Myth:    Yeah, but Marvel went on record as saying that they were able to announce a price reduction on some books for 2011 because of their digital sales!


Truth:    Don't even get me started on that price reduction that Marvel lied about.  To bring it back on point, Marvel's digital sales are just gravy from their already profitable and printed comics.  They aren't really selling digital comics, they're selling reprints of popular print comics.  

If Marvel thought for one second they could make a nickel selling new digital material, they would do it in a heartbeat.  You'll notice they don't do that.  They have offered some new digital exclusive material available if you own a subscription.  But nobody is buying Marvel's DCU for that stuff.  They're going there for the archives.


Marvel doesn't produce new digital exclusive comics because again, nobody wants them, and they know that it won't be profitable.  The only market for digital comics are pundits trying to prove that they're cutting edge.  That's your market.  Real people don't buy them, and there's no evidence to suggest that they're changing their mind about that.  Digital comics are ethanol.


What I'm Not Saying
I'm not saying that I hate digital comics and that they have no place.  I'm not a Luddite or a purist, and I don't take offense at the fact that some comics are not printed on some form of wood pulp.  


Digital comics are an inferior product, not a useless one.  If you have no access to print books, digital will do in a pinch.  If I were an aspiring comic book creator, I can think of no better pitch than a web comic that demonstrates good storytelling ability.  I think that digital comics can be a profitable supplement to an already profitable print book.


There's nothing wrong with digital comic books, but their only advantage over print books is their remarkable ability to not take up physical space.  As a reading experience, which would seem sort of key in a reading material, they are inherently inferior.  There's nothing wrong with digital comic books, other than the fact that nobody is interested in buying them.  If offered at a dollar or less, I think that the digital segment could function as an excellent taste-testing feeder system to print.  Fine.


But on this planet, digital comics are not a future messiah.  Sorry! You can spout your ethanol chanting all you want, but I'm done listening or caring until someone can show me data that supports the concept.  Good luck with that.  If we want to save comics, we need to continue fostering ideas about how to drive civilian traffic toward the print books, books that actually have a paying audience. 


- Ryan





 

Myth Conception: Superhero Surplus!

Ron Marz wrote his latest weekly CBR column on the glut of superhero titles on the rack, and equates it with eating nothing but pizza every meal.  He is not alone in this assessment, and when you look at the new comics rack of your local comic shop, it feels natural to believe the industry has a superhero problem.

Ron Marz

My response?  Bull excrement.

My piece here is not an attempt call out Marz or lambaste his ideas, which make sense for the most part.  I get why he comes to the conclusions he does.  He's just wrong.  While it seems intuitive and has traction with highly regarded geniuses, the idea that comics' problems have anything to do with the number of superhero titles offered is demonstrably false.

What's interesting is that Marz has the antidote to his own false assumption buried in the argument:

"There are more good, diverse comics being published now than ever before. I firmly believe that. But in terms of copies sold, superheroes still rule the direct market roost. So we end up with a majority of what's published directed at a very narrow audience, and much less product directed at everyone else. Why is that? Are there too many superhero titles because that's what the existing audience demands of publishers? Or are there too many superhero titles because that's what publishers are forcing down the throats of the existing audience? Kind of a chicken-and-egg question, isn't it?"

 There are more good, diverse comics being published now than ever before.  That is the truth.  If the situation were that comics publisher stifled creativity or shelved new ideas in other genres, we would have a problem.  Particularly if the Big 2 were to stop trying to innovate or test different kinds of work, the medium could be artificially stunted.  But this is most demonstrably not the case.

Historical Fiction

Think about it carefully and ask yourself: what type of storytelling isn't readily available in comic book form?  I defy you to find one.  It's very easy to name off genres and find not one but a half dozen of every kind, whether you're interested in mysteries, horror, comedy, romance, biographies, period pieces, political thrillers, or westerns.  There are comics and in fact entire lines tailored to suit the tastes and needs of everyone from the youngest of new readers to the most sophisticated elite.

Are there a great many superhero titles on the racks?  Certainly.  But there is also Queen & Country, (black & white realistic spy book)and Fables, (modern fairy tales) and Beasts of Burden, (cute animals solving mysteries) and Age of Bronze,  (historical fiction about the Trojan War) and Jonah Hex, (straight John Wayne style gunslingin')and Scalped, (pure noir crime fiction) and Archie, still the king of teenaged romance and comedy.

NOT supehero fare

We have a comic currently being published at Image called Meta 4 in which an amnesiac astronaut is assisted in his search for self by a muscle-bound woman named Gasolina, and you mean to tell me that there isn't enough choice available?  I just saw on a comics rack recently a comic called The Saga of Rex, in which an adorable little fox is abducted by aliens and transported to the magical world of Edernia, where he befriends a quirky biomorph with a flying saucer.  And somebody wants to make a case that comics lack diversity???  It's nonsense.  Absolute nonsense.

But of course they don't sell.  They're always around, and nobody buys them.  Marz wonders if the cause is the audience or the publishers jamming things down our throats.  In point of fact it's the non-superhero titles that are jammed into holes that don't want them, and they fail time after time.  Where is that Minx line, any way?  It's gone.  Nobody wanted it, least of all the young women it courted.

So what's the problem, then?  If DC had created three of four Minx lines, would that have crowded the technicolor supers off the rack and made it fly?  I guess we'll never know, but I put the odds long against that.

ACME Novelty Libray Vol 20

Do the non-superhero titles suffer from lack of exposure?  I wonder if we could really make a case for that.  Ask yourself this: has any comic material in recent memory ever received as much love as Asterios Polyp?  I can't think of one, with the possible exception of the obligatory affection heaped annually upon Chris Ware and his ACME Novelty Library series.

Look at Comic Book Resources recent "Top 100" comics of 2010, and notice how it is incredibly representative of the unpurchased indies and away from the standard superhero fare.  Ifanboy's 2010 "Book of the Year"?  Afrodisiac, Adhouse books.  I'm not suggesting that it wasn't an honest or worthy choice, but I know this - you don't demonstrate your expertise or "cool factor" by extolling the virtues of The New Avengers.  Comics propaganda, where it is exists, slants always toward the hip and path less taken.  And I'm fine with that, by the way.

Does anybody with even a passing interest in comics NOT know about Love & Rockets, or Joe Sacco, or Blankets?  Are these well kept secrets that a backwards industry is shoving into a dark corner to force superheros onto a duped clientele?  Maybe I'm wrong about this, but I really don't think so.

Top Seller at Comix Experience

Certainly comic shops could help themselves a little more.  These books don't sell partially because retailers often don't sell them.  Asterios Polyp did well at Comix Experience in San Francisco because owner Brian Hibbs knows his customers and sold them the book.  He knew the product, matched it with customers who could reasonably be expected to enjoy it, and physically put it in their hands.  He offered store credit on a return if they weren't satisfied.  If you aren't talking up the gold you're sitting on, you don't have a genre problem - you have a commitment to your business problem.

I don't know. Perhaps there are comic shops out there that only order the X-Men and Batman.  I believe that such a shop exists.  Even so, this has never stopped a trend in the past.  The history of comics has (until recently) been a story of changing tastes from comic strip reprints to superheroes, to crime comics, to horror comics, etc.  Even in the midst of the superhero domination, a cult sensation like a black-and-white book about mutated ninja turtles will take the country by storm, if the country feels so inclined.

And that was back before the age of the internet and forum chatter.  Can anybody imagine a comics readership secretly pining for a new genre, if only they knew it existed?  It's completely preposterous in a day where word-of-mouth advertising is literally instant and global.  The idea that there is this huge dormant population of comics fans who simply don't know there's a superhero alternative is so absurd in 2011, and so distracting from the real issue.

Not helping...at all

The real issue is that nobody seems inclined to visit a comic shop anymore.  And it isn't just that civilian would-be readers aren't going, but of course they aren't.  I doubt most civilians even understand that comic shops still exist.  Even as the intellectual properties of comics produce billions at the box office, you'd never understand that from watching those films, because they either can't or simply won't mention it.  The problem is that even the existing base of comics readers is dwindling. It's hard to sell even superhero comics these days.

There are lots of reasons for that, none of which have to do with the superhero genre.  I have heard a lot of pithy punditry from a variety of sources about how "guys in underwear bashing each other" just can't sustain interest.  One hears this from all corners; from the esoteric and grouchy Alan Moore to the affable everyman Jimmy Palmiotti.  I think that argument is weak and does not hold up to even casual scrutiny.

To boil superhero books down to "guys in underwear bashing each other" is to engage in the laziest of reductive thinking.  Does that sound like James Robinson's Star Man?  Not to me, it doesn't, or any other rational human. How about Irredeemable?  Is that just a guy in underwear bashing things, or is that an examination of power and trust gone wrong?

Neil Gaiman maintains that comics are a medium, not a genre.  It's an empty glass that you can fill with almost anything.  He is correct.  I maintain that you can also fill the superhero genre with almost anything, and the reason why I maintain that is because I'm living and reading it. 

The sublime Secret Six

Ron Marz claims that superhero comics are just an endless stream of pizza.  I wonder if he's still reading them.  Some of the trappings look similar, but Ed Brubaker's Captain America and Palmiotti & Gray's Power Girl scratch very different itches.  They don't do the same things, are not constituted with the same nutrients.  They're both superhero books.  Compare Gail Simone's Birds of Prey with Secret Six.  Not only the same genre, but the same writer!  Are you going to read those two titles and tell me that they're homogeneous?  They're on different planets in terms of tone, theme, audience, objective.

The bottom line is that I detect no predilection on the publisher's parts to slavishly follow the superhero formula.  There's no conspiracy to keep non-superhero titles off the stands.  Marz never directly implicates the publishers, but if it isn't implied, what's his thesis then...that the retailers are mucking it up, or the customers should want things they don't want?

No, there is no conspiracy.  Marvel, in particular, is only interested in collecting its next nickel.  If they can do that selling books about puppies, they will do that.  If they can earn two nickels publishing adaptations of the Rachel Ray show, they will switch to that.  We have superheroes because that's what we want right now, and when we want something else, we'll just buy more copies of what's already out there.  Because if you always wanted to read about alien abducted foxes....comics have you covered.

- Ryan