Talking of Robot 6, the blog also premieres Image Comics’ ad campaign for 2012, emphasizing creativity over intellectual property:
According to Eric Stephenson,
We’re doing one of these a week over the course of the year, each focusing on a different creator, and there will be some video components to the campaign as well.The message is pretty simple: Our business thrives on creativity.
Everyone else throws their weight behind characters, behind IP. We put ours behind the people create those characters and develop that IP. The men and women who write and draw comics are Image’s–and this industry’s–most valuable resource. It takes a certain amount of bravery to create something of your own and share it with the world. We support those people, and we salute them.
Considering some recent commentary by Stephenson, this definitely seems to be the Image branding for the year: Creation versus Maintaining Intellectual Property. It’s a bold, and smart, idea that definitely sets Image apart from Marvel and DC, even if it fudges some truths (Vertigo may not be creator owned, but with the exception of Hellblazer, all the series there are younger and more “newly created” than, say Spawn or Savage Dragon. And isn’t the revival of the Extreme line the kind of intellectual property development/renewal that this campaign is quietly condemning?), and I hope it pays off for them; anything that pushes the importance of new ideas and new stories is always a good thing.
January 2nd, 2012 at 4:01 pm
I am all for creativity, but I maintain that you can have both creativity and corporate properties. Image’s efforts seem more like a poke at my love of DC than a real reason to buy their comics.
January 2nd, 2012 at 5:34 pm
I think Image is pitching to their strengths. In their wheelhouse, people follow creators, and it makes sense, because you get a few Kirkman books, you follow him around, that works. You read Brubaker or Hickman, you’re following the writer. Yes, the Extreme line may not quite work for that, but neither does Top Cow. Those are specific examples, but I don’t think that’s what Stephenson and co. are pitching.
Now, I think DC and Marvel need to realize that the opposite should be true for them. I think Marvel started, and then DC followed, making the creators more important than the characters (and certainly more important than the stories). Which means that when those creators go, it’s a scramble to get a bigger name on those books to almost save face, let alone make good comics. I’m all for recognizing a creator’s work, and I might single out someone I’d follow from title to title, but does it make sense to pitch Mark Millar or Brian Bendis over the names of Captain America or Spiderman? Which is going to give you more long-term? You’re a company built around the characters you own… That’s your strength (good or bad). Taking care of your creators is great, and I completely support that. But do it behind the curtains. Don’t make every exclusive signing your selling point. Your selling point should be Peter Parker, Matt Murdock, Steve Rogers, etc. In the public eye, you need to do right by those guys.