Looking over Marc Olivier Frisch’s comments on the second month sales of DC’s New 52, I noticed that sales increased on Wonder Woman, Batwoman, Catwoman and Supergirl, all of which are in the top 40 (Wonder Woman and Batwoman are both in the top 20, in fact), and it made me think about the fact that Marvel’s only two female-led solo books have just been canceled for low sales. The success of these DC female-led books stands in sharp contrast to the fates of their Marvel equivalent, which made me wonder: Why?
Is it that DC has more familiar female characters and the overall sales promotion of the New 52 worked on a wide enough audience that reacts to the characters they remember? Is it the approach of the books (An odd comment, perhaps, but it struck me that neither Wonder Woman nor Batwoman really reference gender at all, and neither does Supergirl, either, if that makes sense)? Is it the “status” of the creative teams within the industry at large (I doubt it; I can’t imagine that Michael Green and Mike Johnson are really that better known that Marjorie Liu or Rob Williams at this point)? I’m genuinely curious as to why DC can seemingly make female solo books work when Marvel can’t – Having four books within the top 40 raise sales in the second month is definitely working. But… what’s the X (or XX, perhaps) factor?
(Also worth reading: Paul O’Brien’s Marvel sales analysis for October.)
November 23rd, 2011 at 10:42 am
I’ve seen it suggested that DC’s female characters are more iconic. Certainly Wondy is. And Batgirl and Supergirl are without a doubt famous if still derivative.
But Marvel has tried more than once with Spider-Woman and Spider-Girl, and with She-Hulk. Bendis loves writing Jessica Drew. Tobin’s Arana/Spider-Girl got great reviews. The entire line of Hulk books seems to be strong. And Jen Walters in particular has a loyal (if small) fanbase. So I don’t get what is wrong at Marvel that at least one of these characters can’t find decent sales.
And then there are the women of the X-Men. Claremont gave Marvel some very strong, totally original female characters, especially Storm. I don’t get why she isn’t in her own book by now. Or is Marvel so sure that a book with an African American woman is DOA that they don’t even try?
I keep seeing news from Marvel, and I have this odd feeling that despite a strong line of books, despite acclaimed writers and beloved character, the longtime number one company is losing its edge. DC has mishandled its female characters and talents and readers over and over, and yet Marvel misses the chance to take advantage of it. Something is not right here.
November 23rd, 2011 at 10:55 am
I would love to see Storm in her own book.
November 23rd, 2011 at 11:18 am
I would hardly use Wonder Woman as an example of a historically high selling comic.
November 23rd, 2011 at 12:03 pm
And Graeme hardly did that. Wonder Woman has had bad sales periods (sometimes for years), but the character has stuck around in almost continuous pubication for decades.
November 23rd, 2011 at 12:28 pm
The problem with the X-Women is that as long as the movie rights for the mutants are over at Fox, Marvel is not going to put in any extra effort to X-books aside from what they can sell by putting Wolverine or Deadpool on the cover. The X-line as a whole is fairly self-sustaining, so no one’s at real risk for cancellation, but there’s also little drive to make any new “breakout” X-stars, men or women.
Marvel really dropped the ball on Runaways, though. There’s really no excuse for that.
I can only hope that with the Alias TV series both Jessica Jones and Carol Danvers get enough of a spotlight to generate interest in new books about them.
November 23rd, 2011 at 12:54 pm
Marvel’s cut off point or minimum sales numbers have also been traditionally higher. The DC numbers will be more accurate reflection after the hype and hysteria over new 52 has died down. Pre-relaunch the numbers of certain DC female titles were ridiculously low as well.
November 23rd, 2011 at 1:28 pm
WW sells like shit 90% of the time. DC keeps her title around because she sells ancillary products.
November 23rd, 2011 at 2:56 pm
A trend I was also curious about recently:
http://www.newsarama.com/comics/hey-thats-my-cape-marvel-reigning-men-111116.html
November 23rd, 2011 at 4:16 pm
DC has made their own mistakes with their female characters but I do think that, in general, they have more famous women in their arsenal.
Wonder Woman is obviously incredibly popular even just from a branding perspective even if her comic didn’t always sell well. She is selling much better in the new 52 because she finally has some press and an author on the book who actually cares about her. Batgirl is selling well due to the iconography of Barbara Gordon. (Still preferred her as Oracle though.)
Then you’ve got someone like Lois Lane. She’s a civilian hero. She’s not a cape. But she’s a cultural icon as a career woman before career women were even culturally acceptable. She’s been at the forefront of 3 different television series now—4 if you count the animated series. So you’ve got the Superman franchise that is a male driven franchise but you have a woman in the franchise who is arguably more famous than some of the capes and has her own set of fans/iconography. Marvel doesn’t really have any civilian women like that. I like Mary Jane Watson fine. But she’s no Lois Lane. Does Marvel even have any famous civilian women like Lois Lane?
I don’t really know what the answer is here. I think DC has their own share or problems in the way they treat their female characters. I don’t think DC treats their female characters well most of the time. In many ways, I think DC manages to have the more iconic female characters because they have been featured so well in other media. Wondy had her own TV show with Lynda Carter and the appeal carried over.. Barbara Gordon was on the Batman show. Lois Lane has co-starred in several TV shows at this point. Does Marvel really have that?
November 23rd, 2011 at 5:25 pm
Marvel’s female characters appear as if they were intentionally written as background characters in team books in order to facilitate reader interest in the more popular male characters and their more interesting power sets.
Say what you want about Wonder Woman or Lois Lane but it’s apparent that there was a concerted effort by DC to target the young female demographic back then that has continued on to today. That is something that Marvel has never bothered with and never will.
November 24th, 2011 at 11:55 am
@Elle
As you rightly identified, some of DC’s females characters are more recognized ( like Batgirl, Supergirl or WW) because multimedia incarnations. DC for a longer part of their history were part of a multimedia conglomerate like Time Warner while Marvel didn’t have that luxury. Interestingly, for the “icon” your beloved Lois is, she can never seem to hold down a single look in pop culture like MJ can who has been consistently depicted in multimedia.
@ Keith
The notion that Marvel’s female characters are background fillers is just false.
November 24th, 2011 at 4:26 pm
The fact that no Marvel female character has been unable to sustain a solo book for more than ten years, and the fact that Marvel is unwilling to devote significant resources to maintain a female solo book regardless of sales is enough to convince me they treat their females as background filler.
As other posters have previously noted, Wonder Woman is not a top selling title for DC, and yet they will never ever pull the plug on such a long-running iconic character. Marvel on the other hand ….
November 24th, 2011 at 8:13 pm
@ Keith
wrong,Spider-girl can(100+ issue)
November 25th, 2011 at 10:46 am
@edge
Spider-Girl lasted 100 issues before being cancelled and relaunched again with volume 2 #0. 100 issues does not equal 10 years.
10×12=120. She’s 20 issues shy of a ten year run with no break or relaunch in-between.
And seriously, Spider-Girl somehow makes up for Marvel’s lack of support of female characters? Well, dagnabit, I guess you Marvel fanboys are always right and DC just plain sucks again.
November 25th, 2011 at 12:04 pm
“The fact that no Marvel female character has been unable to sustain a solo book for more than ten years, and the fact that Marvel is unwilling to devote significant resources to maintain a female solo book regardless of sales is enough to convince me they treat their females as background filler.”
You say that Marvel is unwilling to sustain a female solo book regardless of sales
November 25th, 2011 at 12:09 pm
“The fact that no Marvel female character has been unable to sustain a solo book for more than ten years, and the fact that Marvel is unwilling to devote significant resources to maintain a female solo book regardless of sales is enough to convince me they treat their females as background filler.”
You say that Marvel is unwilling to sustain a female solo book regardless of sales when the May Day Spider Girl survived time and again because of reader petitions and despite years of low sales. Ten years ago Marvels was facing bankruptcy. The publishing division of Marvel has always been quicker to look at numbers and sales first. There is a reason why there is no Vertigo line at Marvel. Marvel never had a corporate parent to subsidize some books. Time Warner seemed to have little idea of DC books before the reorganization of DC entertainment.
November 25th, 2011 at 12:13 pm
And it’s not like Marvels hasn’t tried launching one or two female led books since the 2000s. Each and everyone has lackluster sales. They are under no obligation to publish books for a loss.
DC females have some cross cultural recognition because of their multimedia depictions not because their characters are better written or plain better than Marvel ones.
November 25th, 2011 at 4:15 pm
Again with Spider-Girl. Marvel facing bankruptcy ten years ago, or not subsidising a Vertigoesque line of books is irrelevant when this company has been around since the 1960s (There stupid Timely comics in the ’30s notwithstanding). Marvel has had plenty of opportunity and at one time major collateral to have backed several female driven books during the ’60s, ’70s and ’80s when they were completely and utterly burying all competition.
I remember reading many of these titles from Spider-Woman to Sensational She-Hulk to Red Sonja back in the day. What happened? Oh yeah, they cancelled some of my favourite books. If you’re wondering why I have such a bone to pick with people defending Marvel’s idiocy in regards to how they treat their female characters, this is it.
You say that Marvel has no obligation to publish books at a loss, well I have no obligation to support a company that treats their readers like utter crap by canceling good books and continuously raising prices. You can have your Spider-Girl where Marvel will tease you with a relaunch saying they have big plans for the character, and then cancel the idea two days after their initial announcement.
DC may not treat some of their female characters with a lot of respect (Women in refrigerators, current Catwoman and Starfire), but at least I know they’ll have several solidly written long running comic books at the stands that feature female leads. This was never about which company has better characters. This is about how one company over time decided that money trumps how you treat their characters and their fans. Thank-you Marvel editorial for destroying 30 years of fond memories in only 10 years. You know who you are Q and B.
November 25th, 2011 at 5:05 pm
@Keith
If you want Marvel to keep publishing female led books then the best support to give them is to buy them when they are actually published and spreading the word on good books. I don’t see how Marvel editorial is treating “readers like crap” by cancelling books which are unsustainable financially and affect the overall financial health of your publishing division. As far as Marvel publishing policies in the 60s, 70s or 80s I am not privy to them. I don’t know what the reasoning behind cancelling well selling titles back then was and I was talking about the present.
The present spate of cancellations has nothing to do with the 60s, 70s.
Marvel has no issue with making money, if any female led book published was profitable, it wouldn’t get cancelled. Simple as that. I don’t see how Marvel has mistreated characters in the past decade by refusing to publish books at a loss.
Answering McMillan’s question, the current sales bump on female books at DC is because of “new 52″. Numbers before the relaunch were poor and DC was in dire straits when the “hold the line” promotion failed to boost diamond numbers. And DC traditionally seems to publish sub 25000 books longer.
November 25th, 2011 at 10:18 pm
I think this is more of a marketing problem more than anything else.
It could also be that Marvel’s superheroines don’t stand out design-wise the way some of DC’s characters do. Batgirl has the Bat symbol, Supergirl has the S-shield etc. Maybe their characters need more logos or take advantage of some of their characters’ unique looks. Make Tigra more like a Thundercat, plaster a thunderbolt on Storm’s chest and give her back that mohawk she used to sport, Ms Marvel could have like a cute pig mascot that follows her around.
I don’t know, I’m speculating here.
November 25th, 2011 at 11:44 pm
@ Keith
actually the original run of SG officially ended in Amazing Spider-Girl #30.
i dont consider the original run of SG cancelled at #100,if it does theres no need for the announcement of it title changing into ASG inside issue #100,they even put the cover of ASG on it.
it be same with saying Captain America was cancelled at #619,when in reality it just being renumbered(&split).
beside even Wonder Woman had even more break & relaunch in-between her entire runs&outside WW none had reach #100 without break&relaunch.
November 26th, 2011 at 12:17 am
@edge
Wonder Woman vol 1 ran for more than 380 issues and vol 2 for more than 200, all consecutively. I know this because I own the last few of volume 1 and have most of volume 2.
So, how is it that this character who has had a long history of poor storytelling and characterisation continue for as long as it has? Support. DC will support Wonder Woman no matter what. Marvel throughout their entire history as a company should’ve tried harder. That is all that I am getting at here. I love their characters but Marvel’s decisions … yikes.
And Spider-Girl and Amazing Spider-Girl are two different titles. You may not consider the original run of SG to have ended at #100 but Marvel as a company and its editors sure do, and I’m also pretty sure any comic buyer’s guide would also agree.
November 26th, 2011 at 10:18 am
“Wonder Woman vol 1 ran for more than 380 issues and vol 2 for more than 200, all consecutively.”
I’m not even sure Marvel female characters’ solo titles COMBINED have as many issues as Wonder Woman herself has had.
November 26th, 2011 at 2:41 pm
“it be same with saying Captain America was cancelled at #619,when in reality it just being renumbered(&split).
beside even Wonder Woman had even more break & relaunch in-between her entire runs&outside WW none had reach #100 without break&relaunch.”
So then, since titles get breaks, sometimes a decades worth, and are then relaunched Marvel doesn’t really have a problem selling female solo titles whatsoever, thus making this article completely redundant. Ok, check.
November 28th, 2011 at 7:20 am
theres no way to compare a character thats has been around since golden age to a character that only be around since 13 years ago.
@silvanthalas
off course,she a golden age character
@M
i didnt say that,i only stated it since Keith only seem to care for character that can sustain a title more than ten year without break(in which last time it happen long time ago)
fact is: no other DC female title outside WW that had reach issue #100 without break&relaunch.
and for WW as one of the Trinity,she the only 1 still has to proof herself(of its sustainability of readership)compared with the other 2.
November 28th, 2011 at 2:59 pm
[Deja vu, the discussion of Marvel's being (ethnically) diverse, now with being gender (somewhat) balanced.]
Expectations and Commitment.
What’re Marvel’s expectations?
What’s Marvel’s level of commitment?
Are they introducing a totally new character in a solo book? Then what are their expectations in light of the trend for ANY new character in a Big Two solo book to have *relatively* poor sales?
In light of a history of relatively poor sales in general, then what is their level of commitment to said new character? Is it merely a numbers game? profit and loss? Are they factoring in the potential PR gain of having a more diverse line–and thus in turn increase the goodwill and potential sales on an ever wider demographic market?
As noted previously, and I personally believe and have stated elsewhere, DC traditionally has had more iconic characters where Marvel traditionally has had more realistic characters. In part, as mentioned previously, is because DC has had more crossover multimedia adaptations to live action tv shows, animations and movies. Also in part simply because their heroes’ costumes rarely, if ever, change, unlike Marvel’s tendency to redesign the costumes on their heroes every other week.
The flipside, about expectations in light of a history of poor relative sales of solo books introducing totally new characters, what is the history of creating diverse supporting character that becomes popular with fans and earn getting their own solo book? Isn’t that what happened to Jennifer Walters aka She-Hulk? May Parker aka Spider-Girl?
Could the same be said of Invisible Woman (hey, how many groups have Wolverine been in and yet he still has had solo books, just saying, altho what are Sue Storm’s personality traits and interests outside of family?)? Jean Grey? Storm? Kitty Pryde? Jubilee?
With the rise of digital comics, couldn’t Marvel finally broaden out their line-up with less of a financial risk they would take in producing hard copy series?
– Ken from Chicago
P.S. One thing in Marvel’s favor over DC, as in Invisible Woman, Jean Grey, Storm, Wasp, She-Hulk, Scarlet Witch, Black Widow, Elektra vs Wonder Woman, Supergirl, Batgirl, Huntress, Zatanna, Black Canary, Power Girl, Marvel’s major (well-known, long-published) superheroines are more likely to wear pants appropriately in combat as part of their costumes.
November 28th, 2011 at 6:51 pm
“off course,she a golden age character”
Yeah, but you’d think Marvel could at least get ONE female character to sustain a book for more than a few years.
Even most of those that have managed to last longest, such as Spider-Girl and She-Hulk, are derivatives.
I mean, you look at the female character in just the X-Men, the one who’s held their own title longest was… Dazzler!?
November 28th, 2011 at 9:33 pm
“fact is: no other DC female title outside WW that had reach issue #100 without break&relaunch.”
@edge You need to check your facts, because are 100% wrong.
Lois Lane, who is probably tied with Wonder Woman as the most famous female in comics history, had her own book that ran uninterrupted for over 100 issues,from 1958-1974.