Over at The Engine, creators are discussing why anthologies, historically, don’t sell well. It all starts with Postcards’ Jason Rodriguez:
I have a bit of vested interest in anthologies and firmly believe that an anthology will sell well with a concept that goes beyond “a collection of unrelated stories”, a descriptive title and a quick pitch, and solid creators.And it’s a nice belief but there are a lot of examples of comics that should have sold well but didn’t.
WESTERN TALES OF TERROR, which I edited, had a solid concept, a title that let people know exactly what they were getting (and acted as the pitch, really), and great creators every issue. First issue broke the top-300 and sales steadily decreased until we decided to go out on a high note (issue 5).
I remember a thread on the Engine about EVENT HORIZON – a book with all of the above and the prestige format hardcover to give it a longer shelf life – and Liam was trying to figure out why it wasn’t doing well.
And it could be chalked up to “indie comics don’t sell well” but you have SOLO, which made up for the “collection of unrelated stories” thing with amazing creators and a very simple concept, and it lasted for 14 issues, I believe.
But on the flip-side you have Adhouse’s wonderful PROJECT books, Kazu and Ballantine’s FLIGHT, Fantagraphics’ MOME (which really destroys my theory on what makes an anthology successful) , and plenty of other examples of anthologies that sold well enough to allow the creators to continue putting out more of them.
So, what’s the difference? Is it that the first set was marketed predominantly towards the direct market and the second set was marketed to bookstores? Is it the type of talent – mainstream guys in indie anthologies won’t necessarily attract their mainstream audience but indie guys will pull their fans right in? Does using the word “anthology” handicap you right out the gate?
Writer Andrew Foley puts forward the first theory:
It seems to me that the hurdle anthologies have to overcome is notion that you’re paying for a certain amount of material you don’t particularly want. Option A is spending $4.50 or whatever on work by a creator or in a genre you know you’re inclined to like. Option B is spending $4.50 on a relativvely unknown quantity which has as many chances as there are stories to fail to impress.
I’d suggest that the ideal format for the comic anthology is something akin to newsstand magazines–multiple stories presented in a format that’s relatively inexpensive and therefore disposable because it’s supported substantially by ad revenue. Disposability is the key–if I buy a Rolling Stone and only enjoy the political article, I won’t feel like I got burned because there was a Britney Spears review next to it.
It’s something that AiT/Planet Lar’s Larry Young agrees with:
I think it was Hibbs who famously said “Anthologies only sell as well as the worst story in them.” Which speaks to that ROLLING STONE point; you’re still getting value, even if you’re uninterested, but only as much as the one you like the least. I routinely read, anecdotally, an issue of VANITY FAIR from front to back that I originally pick up only for a single article on Al Gore, or George Lucas, or what-have-you. But that’s a quality thing, much like the perceived-value of FLIGHT to which you refer. You know what you’re getting.
I think the thing with anthologies in comics has traditionally been a non-cohesiveness, and refers to Hibbs’ quote, above. If you read NEGATIVE BURN for “Mr. Mamoulian,” you weren’t exactly getting value because all the other stories were by not-Brian Bolland, you know?
Aaron Weisbrod has another thought:
I’m a *huge* fan of anthologies, but I think one of the biggest problems is that they have a tendency to become a bit of a dumping-ground for stories by design… Heck, remember those several excellent anthologies by Vertigo from the late 1990’s and into 2000? Even those series — which all but guaranteed quality creators every issue with fairly self-explanitory themes (Heartthrobs, Gangland, Weird War Tales, etc.) were tough sells because, despite a host of A-List talent being involved, some of the stories were little more than throw-away ideas put to paper to fill space. (See: Garth Ennis’ “Satanic” riff on “Titanic” in one of the first issues of Flinch as a prime example.)
For an anthology to be truly successful I feel that quality control must be the #1 priority. Heck, look at the Hellboy: Weird Tales anthology (SWEET!) or even those Dark Horse Book of… hardcover anthologies! It’s top-notch stuff that, even accounting for varying tastes, still smack of 100% quality with each issue… and that’s the key to having a successful anthology in my humble opinion.
From there, the conversation turns to a discussion over the point of anthologies - Trailers for longer pieces, or work complete in itself? - and whether choosing one approach over the other impacts the perceived value mentioned above… Well worth a read.
