The short answer is no, but that’s not how one retailer felt after a tweet Kurtz put out into the internets inquiring about Justice League #1. The webcomic creator told the story on his Google+ account, seeming not to be picking a fight, but just genuinely baffled.

“”So wait, can I just buy Justice League #1 on my iPad now? Do I even need to go to a shop?”

Immediately my followers let me know the facts. Yes. I can purchase it via the comixology app. For the exact cost of the print version (no discount). If you want to skip the store today. Fair enough.

And the truth is, I do. I want to skip the store today. I do not want to drive to Lynnwood to purchase a $3.99 comic out of curiosity. I don’t collect floppies. I don’t polybag. I don’t fill longboxes. I’m fine reading this digitally with the idea that I’m kinda only “renting” the comic anyway.

Then, I got a twitter reply from a retailer who said:

“@pvponline with the disdain you seem to have for us brick and mortars, it makes me wonder why I carry PVP books in my shop”

Which I found unsettling and very telling. He followed up to let me know that “the tone of [my] post made it seem as though comic shops don’t provide any value-add or service.”"

Kurtz goes on to analyze the retailer’s statement, and finds that in some cases, the answer is unfortunately, “no, they don’t.”

He told about how personally he makes more money selling PVP books directly than he does selling them through Diamond. He talked about the simple ease of getting books digitally or from an online store.

So it does beg the question: What do retailers need to do to continue providing “value-add” to customers who have an increasing ability to pick up their wares more easily?

The spectacular Sonia Harris addresses sexual objectification in superhero comics:

When I recommend comic books, or explain that the earliest, strongest female role models I had were female superheroes, feminist friends often tell me that comic books objectify women and ask why I’m not uncomfortable with this. This shocks me, how can they be missing the half-dressed, overly muscular, totally unshakable men in these comic books? Surely no woman thinks that men are realistically portrayed in super hero comic books, at least no more than women super heroes are? I frequently explain to feminist friends that comic books have objectified men for longer than they have objectified women. While the early super hero comic books might have given men more action-oriented roles, those men were always physically perfect and wearing something skin tight. Who’s the sex object in Action Comics #1 (1936)? Is it fully-dressed Lois Lane or that big guy in the tight clothes?

Go read the whole thing.

In a spectacular edition of his Tilting at Windmills column, retailer Brian Hibbs considers the ComiXology retailer contract, DC’s shifting relationship with retailers, and why the content of modern mainstream superhero comics may have moved away from new readers:

We keep seeing attempts to bring back the mass audience to serialized periodical comics, whether it is efforts aimed at what’s left of the “actual” newsstand market (7-11′s have probably replaced the “general store” in most locales), or whether it’s pushes to get material into generalist book stores like Barnes & Noble or Hastings, and none of these experiments seem to garner anything but the mildest of responses. Some of that is that the last time comics did well on the newsstand, the average issue was extremely new reader friendly, and also generally a self-contained reading experience, which is hardly the case for most comics today; and some of that is that comics, especially with the bulk of books today being multi-issue story arcs, have lost a great measure of the perception of value-for-the-buck. But the reality of things really is that if you don’t already know comics, comics are crazy confusing, and a guide, a Sherpa, the retailer is really very valuable. Perhaps essential.

It’s good, if depressing and frustrating (on behalf of the direct market retailer community), reading. Go check it out.

Paul O’Brien asks what might be the core question in his look at Marvel sales in July:

[High-selling ongoing titles] never seen that much gain from the crossovers, presumably because the event audiences are buying them already.It’s more striking that we’re seeing the same pattern on the other tie-in books further down the chart. The impact gets more noticeable the further down we go – but not by much. Which kind of begs the question: how much did Marvel actually gain from making FEAR ITSELF into a line-wide crossover?

(more…)

Excuse me while I steal this blog for my soapbox even more than usual, but… Well, let me tell you what I thought about yesterday’s Justice League of America #60. No, wait, I can’t, because my local store didn’t get any copies. In fact, JLA was just one of a staggering thirty-eight titles that my local store was shorted by Diamond yesterday, with others including all but one of the Flashpoint tie-ins for the week, Generation Hope and X-Men: Schism and the deluxe We3 hardcover with additional story pages.

Apparently, this isn’t even an uncommon occurrence these days. Sure, most weeks don’t see 27% of the titles ordered not show up in time thankfully, but from asking around, it seems that it’s far, far more rare that Diamond shipments show up complete to any store in the area than show up missing at least one title or with a number of damaged copies (Another local store apparently had more than 100 books arrived damaged this week). From what I’ve heard, this is just the way things are these days: Retailers order books, and maybe they’ll show up on time, and maybe they won’t.

This is insane. I get that Diamond is essentially a monopoly and therefore can get away with this kind of behavior because of that, but, I mean, seriously. Retailers have pretty much no recourse here; they can (and, I’m sure, do, on a regular basis) call up their Diamond rep and complain, but beyond that, what can they do? They can’t go elsewhere. So who can fix this? Readers? Publishers? Everyone ganging together and demanding that Diamond improves shipments? I have no idea, and really just wanted to vent my frustration on behalf of the various retailers who, it seems, are getting completely screwed by their distributor here. Consider this an open thread for retailers to commiserate, Diamond reps to explain why distribution is so spotty, and everyone to agree that this kind of thing is what may make DC’s day-and-date New 52 more of a success than they might have expected.

For those of us who assumed that the Marvel Season One OGNs might be primarily based at a Disney Store audience, David Gabriel has an interesting response during an iFanboy interview on the line:

I want to be clear that the direct market is still our #1 source for getting this type of material out to all consumers. It’s up to us and our retail partners to work on methods of driving new faces into those stores. This content in everySeason One story is what we believe is perfect for bringing new readers into both comics and comic stores.As far as book store markets go, while of course we are all dismayed at what has happened with Borders, keep in mind that there is still a vibrant market for graphic novels out in the world. The point here is to get fresh new content out there and work with those existing book market retailers to do what we can to make this as successful a launch as possible.

Don’t forget, the fans are still out there, the readers and consumers still exist. They will find places to go and our job is to now get these titles into as many outlets as possible so they have the widest selection.

I’m not sure whether the “the direct market is our #1 source” is meant to be a reassurance to DM retailers, or just a statement of fact as to the way things are right now. Certainly, saying “our job is to now get these titles into as many outlets as possible” implies pushing outside of the DM, and the Disney Store seems like an obvious next step for Marvel. Digital, too, but there’s every possibility that Marvel might be purposefully lagging on that to see how DC’s linewide day-and-date goes when it launches in September.

Today’s Must-Read: David Brothers on Miles Morales being “Black Spider-Man”:

“Black Spider-Man” otherizes Miles Morales. (It also ignores that he’s half-Puerto Rican, but that’s another conversation entirely.) He’s not Spider-Man. He’s black Spider-Man. He isn’t the new Spider-Man first, or Ultimate Spider-Man first. He’s black Spider-Man. Which is funny, because Barry Allen and Wally West were just the new Flashes. Hal Jordan is a Green Lantern, but John Stewart is the black Green Lantern.

It foregrounds Miles’s race in a conversation where his race should be irrelevant. His race is probably going to end up being just as big a part of his character as it was for Peter Parker–which I do think was a fairly significant part of that character–but in terms of who the character is and how we refer to him, “black Spider-Man” is garbage.

It sets up the adjective-less Spider-Man as the default, and therefore superior, version. Black Spider-Man will always be second-best because he wasn’t first. Comics fans in particular like to prize the original flavor, or whichever flavor was dominant whenever they began reading, so you can’t tell me that isn’t true. Every time I read “black Spider-Man” I taste battery acid. It feels mean, like the most important part of Miles’s character is that he’s (whisper this with me) not white!

So much more in the link, including DC’s labeling of Batwing as “The Batman of Africa.” Seriously smart stuff that you should go and read right now.

I kind of love the randomness of this news story: Toby Scammell, who works at an investment firm in California, has been charged with insider trading for buying up Marvel stock after finding out from his girlfriend – who works in Disney’s corporate strategies department – that the House of Mouse was planning to buy the House of Ideas. But, wait, it gets better: The money he used to buy the stock, which rose in value 25% once the Disney deal was made public? It wasn’t even his; he took the money from his brother’s bank account, which he had access to while his brother was serving in Iraq.

Scammell – and that name is almost too perfect, don’t you think? – reportedly made around $192,000 in profit when he sold his stocks soon after the Disney/Marvel buyout was announced. Rosalind R. Tyson, director of the SEC’s Los Angeles Regional Office, said that Scammell “exploited his romantic relationship for a financial windfall,” leading to the SEC asking for him to pay back all $192,00 with interest, as well as seeking a permanent injunction on his working in investments ever again. Clearly, he didn’t get his moral compass from comic books. If he had, he’d have known in advance that crime never pays.

Blame the post-San Diego crush for my missing this spectacular quote from Mark Millar about his upcoming Millarworld line of comics:

Millarworld is our full time job and getting together with these artists feels as exciting as 1992 must have felt when Todd and Jim and Rob and the guys all got together and carried their mainstream success over into their own company. Something they owned and could pass along to their children. The guys and I have been working away in the background, and between now and Christmas, there’s some sensational announcements. Anyone who knows me knows I don’t like to do things by half. I really, genuinely want to make this the Big Three instead of the Big Two. I think the plan laid down in 2012 is going to surprise a lot of people with the scale of the ambition.

Well, you can’t fault him for ambition, or for his choice in collaborators – In the same interview, he lists his artists on the upcoming books as John Romita Jr., Lenil Francis Yu, Steve McNiven, Frank Quitely and Dave Gibbons – but I have more than a few doubts that any line that small will break the market share of someone like a Dark Horse, IDW or Image to measure up to Marvel or DC’s (Especially with those artists – Millar talks about this somewhat in the piece, saying that Quitely, Gibbons and Yu will be full-time on the Millarworld books, but Romita and McNiven will surely be prioritizing their Marvel work over the creator-owned stuff, surely…? And doesn’t Quitely still have his Multiversity work for DC to finish before he even starts on this…?). Still, it does sound like there’s more up his sleeve than we know about, so who knows? If nothing else, it’d be fun to see him try.

So, let me get this straight. Marvel explains away its “Comics for Comics” program with SVP of Publishing David Gabriel saying “In these tough economic times, [we] feel it’s our duty to help,” and then they announce a promotional variant that requires the retailer to order two thousand additional copies? Putting aside the fact that this is the worst variant deal I can remember, I can only hope that (a) the 2000 figure is wrong for some reason (200, maybe, but 2000 extra copies? Seriously), (b) David Gabriel explains why this variant idea is somehow helping retailers in these tough economic times, and (c) DC suggests that it will offer a special limited edition variant of their own in exchange for copies of Amazing Spider-Man.

Editor: Apparently I missed our original piece about the offer, in which Albert pointed out last July’s offer of Marvel for Marvel:

“Marvel offered retailers a very similar deal in January 2010, with a Siege #3 variant offered for Blackest Night tie-in books. Last July, they offered their own unsold comics as part of the program.”

So there you go. Still weird, though!

I admit, the whole “Tear off your Flashpoint tie-in covers to get a Fear Itself variant” thing has kind of left me cold; the “How could Marvel do that?” aspect is gone, because they did it before with Blackest Night and it’s the kind of cheap stunt that only really works in terms of PR shock once, and at least the McGuinness cover is better than the terrible Deadpool variant they offered for Siege way back when. But I was interested to see Tom Brevoort say this over on Twitter, in response to a fan complaining that Marvel should’ve offered the variant for returned Fear Itself tie-ins:

We’ve done this with Marvel books in the past too, but nobod[y] covers that because it’s not provocative.

Two things:

1. Isn’t the provocative nature the entire point of this offer? Complaining that people are covering it because it’s provocative feels as false as claiming that this is only being done to help retailers (which it can do, sure, but it’s really a PR exercise, let’s face it).

2. Has Marvel really done this in the past with Marvel books? I don’t remember any such offer offhand, but I’m sure someone out there will remember if it’s happened. To be clear: I’m asking whether Marvel has previously publicly announced a variant edition of one of their books in exchange for stripped covers of their own books as specified by title and issue, not just whether Marvel has offered variants in exchange for hitting specific order levels or whatever. Any retailers out there who can help me out here?

Here’s Warren Ellis on recent rumors around the Big Two publishers’ editorial practices:

I’m hearing a lot lately about writers being put into foot races on gigs.  And not only do they not know who else is running for the job – but many of them seem not to be told they’re in a foot race at all.  Writers who assumed they were writing the gig are being told that they never had the gig at all, that other writers have been run parallel to them.  Even though they were put through multiple drafts.  They didn’t know they were in competition. (more…)

Here’s some unexpected good news for the comic industry: It’s not dying everywhere.

According to sales data presented at the pre-SDCC ICv2 Comics, Media & Digital Conference, bookstore sales rose 7% in the first half of 2011, ending a downward trend that’s plagued that market since 2009. Interestingly enough, the bookstore growth more than offsets the 6% drop in graphic novel sales in the direct market, resulting in an overall 3% increase in GN sales across all markets, due to the larger size of the bookstore market than the DM.

The data also suggests that a rise in sales of all-ages/kid-centric GNs offset a decline in adult-oriented fare, and that manga as a whole is still declining, but at a slower rate than before; 10% drops, instead of 15% last year. Now, if only we could work out some way to stop the bookstore market as a whole from collapsing, then we could maybe turn this whole thing around…

What does a Supreme Court decision about video games have to do with comic book censorship? As Jeff Trexler explains in the latest of his spectacular series of posts on the Comics Code Authority at the Comics Journal, everything:

Look carefully at the comics community and you’ll see that the work traditionally done by such industry groups as trade associations or unions–legal guidance and advocacy, collective business promotion, provision for the needs of employees–is now performed by a network of charities and commercial companies that aren’t themselves publishers. The San Diego Comic-Con is a charity, but it functions in many ways like a trade show. The Hero Initiative cares for creators in need, while comic and cartoon museums highlight the value of characters, creators and companies. Reed, a for-profit venture, brings together nonprofits and comics-themed businesses in a commercial con. Each of these–and any number of other groups–promotes the comics industry, but the industry itself lacks the sort of collective voice that we continue to see in film, television and music.The main reason for the withering away of the trade association is that the traditional comics industry no longer exists. The mainstays of the CMAA have become platform-agnostic. Instead of maintaining a commitment to comics as a medium, the post-comics industry has evolved into a network of IP farms that have internalized content regulation as an integral part of brand management. An industry code has become corporate social responsibility–not paternalistic rules imposed by external industry police but an organic extension of each brand’s defining values.

Censorship, Trexler argues, may have been seen to have lost the battle, but it’s won the war by becoming so ingrained in the culture that publishers may not even be aware that they’re doing it. It’s a good read. Go check it out.

It’s sad news that Peter Laird has announced the end of the Xeric Award for upcoming indie cartoonists, especially looking at Laird’s explanation as to why:

When I began the Xeric Foundation back in 1992, things were very different. The Internet — and web-based publishing — was in its infancy. This has changed, radically, and the Xeric Foundation needs to change accordingly.

The advent of essentially free web publishing has forever altered the way aspiring comic book creators can get their work out into the public eye. With this in mind, I have decided that it makes sense that the Xeric Foundation will no longer provide grants to self-publishing comic book creators, and instead devote all of its available grants funds to charitable organizations.

Ignoring that webcomics and print comics are two different beasts – and that the rise of one does not necessarily mean a drop-off in those wanting to pursue the other – I’m surprised that Laird is dropping the grant altogether, instead of perhaps offering smaller grants for webcomic creators. After all, “essentially free” is not the same as “actually free,” and the more popular a webcomic, the greater the server costs.

I’m not begrudging the donations to charitable organizations – Just the opposite – but I do wish there had been some way to keep the support system for new creators in addition to that. After all, it’s not like there are multiple Peter Lairds out there offering money to the next generation of comic creators…

As if the relaunching of First Comics wasn’t interesting enough, co-founder Ken Levin offers this surprising bit of news very casually in an interview with CBR:

My understanding is that the initial First Comics titles will be made available to retailers in November, and that First Comics will be directly marketing to comic book stores rather than go through distributors. Retailers at Comic-Con will be able to arrange for books at the First Comics booth, #2001 (mnemonic “Space Odyssey” — it’s the only booth number I remember). Their press runs aren’t so many that they can’t deal with stores directly or that stores can’t deal with them directly. Fortunately not my problem; they’ll get it figured out.

Going directly to retailers? Is this just the first releases, or an ongoing program? It’s an interesting thought – Bypassing Diamond means that the books will be absent from the sales charts, but also means that their print runs can be as small as they need to be without falling afoul of Diamond rules that would see them dropped from Previews. But without the books appearing in Previews in the first place, will enough retailers know they exist in order to buy them directly from the publisher…?

The announcement of Marvel’s new retailer initiative – the New Stores initiative, to give it it’s proper title – is an interesting one, both in terms of timing (Coming, as it does, at a time when DC seems to be concentrating on opening up its digital space as much if not more than it is concentrating on print) and what it’s actually offering – or, more specifically, who it’s offering it to. (more…)

With Marvel already teasing December comics as part of its pre-SDCC strategy, I find myself feeling conflicted. On the one hand, the December date seems oddly comforting, as it suggests that Marvel will happily sit back and let DC’s relaunch take up retailers’ time, money and brainspace for a few months – X-Men relaunch aside, of course – which is… good? surprising? unlike Marvel’s traditional attitude towards industry dominance? (All of the above, most likely). There really is something wonderful about the idea that Marvel will back away from the big projects and massive hype until DC’s move has begun to be processed by the industry at large, even if it’s accidental (I suspect the timing of Fear Itself‘s finale may have more to do with the December launches than kindness on Marvel’s part). But on the other hand: We’re already talking about things that are coming out five months from now? (more…)

Why do publishers spoil the endings of large storylines in mainstream media? Comics Alliance’s Laura Hudson asked Marvel’s Arune Singh, and to the surprise of no-one, the answer is “Because it works”:

We’ve seen huge results [in terms of sales]. We make sure to only attach this kind of promotion to our biggest books and those books invariably carry a much higher readership after the push than before the push. I think we can all agree the industry can use new readers and we’ve found these kinds of mainstream media pushes do just that, based on feedback from retailers– most recently with Fantastic Four #587 and the subsequent FF launch. More fans check out the books, retailers sell more copies and have high orders than before this promotion. That’s a winning situation for not just Marvel, but the whole industry– anything we can do to bring in and retain readers benefits us all. Going to a mainstream outlet is what will get lapsed readers and new potential readers to check out our books– we’re going to non comic fans where they get their news to make them aware of our big stories.

I’m always curious about how the demographics of these things breaks down. I’d love to know how many non-comics readers picked up Fantastic Four #587, and of them, how many went on to stay with the story as the series was relaunched as FF. Orders definitely rose overall with the death and relaunch, but was that from comic readers who weren’t previously reading that particular comic, or from readers new to comics?

There’s something important about the answer to that, I suspect; if Fantastic Four and FF are bringing in non readers and retaining them, can we then look at why that works when other comics haven’t, and then work out how to do it again? Is it merely that people need to be reminded that comics exist, or something more (I suspect Steve Epting)?

(Also, something else I’ve always wondered: Are there ever people who were planning to buy a comic, but didn’t, because the end was spoiled for them?)

Well here’s something you don’t hear everyday. Actor Andy Serkis, who served as the visual map and voice for Gollum in the Lord of the Rings trilogy, has just announced Peter Jackson asked him to serve as the second-until director on both of The Hobbit films.

Serkis said it was a fantastic surprise when Jackson emailed him out of the blue. “I think I understand Peter’s sensibility and we have a common history of understanding Middle Earth,” Serkis told The Hollywood Reporter. “A lot of the crew from The Lord of the Rings was returning to work on The Hobbit. There is really a sense of Peter wanting people around him who totally understand the material and the work ethic.”

IMDB.com lists the actor as having acted as a second unit director just once before, on the video game Heavenly Sword, but even that is sublisted as “dramatic director.” Though Serkis is named as a director on another project called Freezing Time, listed as announced.

Serkis told the website his directing duties would go beyond performance capture. “It is wide ranging and encompasses a lot of directing aspects of filmmaking and story. Yes, there is some performance capture, but I will be very much on the live action sets and locations helping Peter to tell the story,” he said. In the same way Lord of the Rings was an interpretation of the book, The Hobbit is being treated the same way,” Serkis said. “It will be faithfully represented with a fresh interpretation.”

“The learning curve is The Hobbit is being shot in 3D,” he added, noting that the 3D would be used “dramatically, to give a point of view.” Or, to make extra money, in this authors opinion.

Serkis just completed his role in the film which is still shooting currently in New Zealand. “He is very much a Gollum that people will recognize,” Serkis said, also adding that the character would be seen in his “truest form.” “When we created Gollum the first time, performance capture was it its infancy,” he said, noting that today, “within the industry, there is more appreciation for it as an acting art form. It’s all about character, learning what the character thinks, feels, how he carries pain.”

THR also mentioned Serkis has two more motion capture roles set for the near future. He will play Caesar in the Planet of the Apes prequel Rise of the Apes and Captain Haddock in The Adventures of TinTin: The Secret of the Unicorn.