Round Table Discussion: Getting and Keeping Readers

This is the place to discuss the episodes of the Comic Book Page podcast, the Comic Book Page website or pretty much anything else of interest to the Comic Book Page community...

Moderator: JohnMayo

Post Reply
SpideySavestheDay
Reviewer
Posts: 204
Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 4:07 pm
Location: Phoenix, AZ

Round Table Discussion: Getting and Keeping Readers

Post by SpideySavestheDay »

A lot of good points throughout the podcast. The one that stood out was attracting young readers and trying to keep them. My own children are experiencing comics the way I first did - choosing comics based on a cartoon and toy line. GI Joe became my gateway drug. My childrens' behavior is similar; when I give them an opportunity to pick a comic they choose one based off a toy/cartoon property (My Little Pony, Little Pet Shop, etc). The big difference between the two is the price - $1 vs. $3.99. The price point is not realistic to attracting young readers. I would be willing to add any books they wanted to my pull list if it wasn't so high. Why do the publishers set such a high price point? Obviously not to attract young readers. How many kids can find a comic shop and afford a $3.99 comic? Not enough to support the industry. Why do those comics need glossy paper with 9 variant covers? Young kids don't care. But once again these books are printed for someone else.
User avatar
JohnMayo
Host/Owner
Posts: 3282
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2007 3:12 pm
Location: Texas
Contact:

Re: Round Table Discussion: Getting and Keeping Readers

Post by JohnMayo »

When I was a kid comics were much, much cheaper than they are now. I think comics have long since priced themselves out of the range of new and causal buyers. I can't see a kid being able to justify $3.99 on 1/6th of a story. There is not enough return on that investment for it to make sense.

somewhere along the line the meme of "comics aren't just for kids" seemed to morph "comics aren't for kids" and both the content and price shifted to reflect that.
Comic Book Page: Website || Podcast || RSS || Episodes Archive
SpideySavestheDay
Reviewer
Posts: 204
Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 4:07 pm
Location: Phoenix, AZ

Re: Round Table Discussion: Getting and Keeping Readers

Post by SpideySavestheDay »

A timely example of how to attract new readers is from Warren Ellis. The first issue of Trees is free.

http://robot6.comicbookresources.com/20 ... ore-188350
bralinator
Special Reviewer
Posts: 416
Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2014 2:02 pm

Re: Round Table Discussion: Getting and Keeping Readers

Post by bralinator »

SpideySavestheDay wrote:A timely example of how to attract new readers is from Warren Ellis. The first issue of Trees is free.

http://robot6.comicbookresources.com/20 ... ore-188350
Nice.


Great discussion too.
jacovny
Contributor
Posts: 54
Joined: Fri Jun 27, 2014 11:22 am
Location: Texas

Re: Round Table Discussion: Getting and Keeping Readers

Post by jacovny »

As a school teacher, my personal budget will allow ABOUT 20 or so books per month through DCBS. (Unfortunately my childhood assumption that when grown I could read unlimited books each month like John Mayo didn't pan out.) As you can imagine, with that limitation, I am EXTREMELY selective regarding my pull list. I wanted to share some of the fairly strict criteria that I use to compose that list each month.

THINGS THAT WILL CAUSE ME TO DROP A TITLE:

1. MULTI-BOOK CROSSOVERS. I'll make exceptions for "mini" events such as "Trinity War" or "Battle of the Atom", but anything larger scale and I'm out. This has caused me to mostly ignore all of D.C.'s Lantern titles for example. The books are already too similar for me to justify devoting almost a quarter of my monthly pull list to multiple Lantern titles, particularly given how often they draw from the crossover welll. The "Wrath of the First Lantern" arc ended my readership of all but one Lantern book.

2. BIG "EVENTS". This isn't to say that I avoid event titles such as "A v X" and "Forever Evil". Rather, the publishers have taught me that in order to enjoy an event which incorporates multiple characters, I can in most cases drop their individual monthly titles, as they'll likely be shoe-horned into the event continuity but not essential to the overall story. During the aforementioned "A v X" run, I stopped buying the periphery Avengers and X-Men titles. They were unnecessary reading, while AvX gave me considerable bang-for-the-buck (an essential factor when limited to 20 books).

3. DOUBLE-SHIPPING. In my monthly game of pull-list "musical chairs", if your book is going to be awarded TWO slots, then it had better be pretty darned special. Very few achieve this level, and in my experience writers often negatively take advantage of the extra monthly issue to further decompress stories. As someone who last bought comics in the early 90's when comics had triple the amount of text compared to today, the adjustment to modern decompression has been frustrating enough without this further unnecessary dilution. "Iron Man" was my most recent pull-list casualty, having violated this rule without sufficient story quality to justify itself.

4. QUADRUPLE SHIPPING. Sorry "Batman Eternal", I'm sure you're excellent and I'll ask Santa for the trade, but for now you're out of the question.

5. CHARACTER DEATHS. The most gimmicky of gimmicks. As a 12-year-old I might have gotten goosebumps over a "Death of Wolverine" solicit; now the older, wiser, jaded version merely rolls his eyes and says, not THIS again.

6. NON-CONTINUITY. When I know going into an event or arc that the story will have no effect on the timeline proper, then I'm less inclined to sample it. I believed "Age of Ultron" when its solicits told me of "repercussions" which would affect the 616 continuity for "years to come". I won't be burned again. ("Future's End", I'm looking in YOUR direction....)

Now a gimmick which DOESN'T make my list: MARVEL'S INCESSANT RENUMBERING. I originally found it off-putting, and to a degree I still find it insulting to my intelligence, but now I'm warming to it and here's why: due to modern decompression, a "short" story arc may last 6 issues (half a year). Some run far longer, i.e. "Superior Spider-man". I've been often frustrated when attempting to jump into a series cold, in the middle of an arc, due to the inaccessibility of the story. Renumeration actually provides me with a reliable access point for new titles. I don't like the WAY Marvel is doing it; I think they could decrease reader irritation significantly by doing something as simple as putting VOLUME NUMBERS on all their titles. It would be especially helpful when discussing a title with friends or browsing back issues.

I'd be interested to hear anyone else's thoughts.
User avatar
JohnMayo
Host/Owner
Posts: 3282
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2007 3:12 pm
Location: Texas
Contact:

Re: Round Table Discussion: Getting and Keeping Readers

Post by JohnMayo »

Crossover and events don't influence buy purchasing as I'm usually getting everything involved already. If I weren't, I can see how a crossover could easily push me out of some titles if what I was reading was in the minority of what all was in the crossover. That having been said, crossovers and events do impact my thoughts on titles. I'm ready for Superman: Doomed to be over as it feels like it is the only Superman story being published these days.

Funny you mention Iron Man in terms of double shipping. Including the annual and .INH issue, they have published 11 issues of Iron Man since the start of the year. That is crazy fast. while I'm enjoying the title, it feels like it is coming out too quickly. I'm starting to get a little overwhelmed by the influx of new comics these days.

Weekly comics are a bit of a different thing for me. Since they tend to have a larger scope and writing staff, they operate slightly better for me. I can understand waiting for the collections on these. Taking up four slots out of 20 does seem like a deal breaker unless the title is brilliant.

I agree that character deaths are overplayed and have completely lost meaning. Drew and I were recording the next Weekly Comics Spotlight tonight and were talking about Batman and ...". I think Tim Drake is the only Robin that hasn't died. Half the Justice League and X-Men have all died. I'm reasonably certain each of the core Fantastic four members all died are one point or another. Death now lacks any dramatic impact in comics.

To stigma of either being out-of-continuity, or worse, irrelevant-to-continuity can be the kiss of death for a series or miniseries. If the company publishing the story doesn't think the story is worth remembering, why should I? At which point, why should I read it? Sales plummet at that point. Personally, I'm an easy mark for comics and get a lot of these anyway if they are set in the Marvel or DC universe but it is why I don't get as much outside of those universe as some other people. While I like being entertaining in and of itself, the added bonus of stories building a larger universe can help justify reading an otherwise average story or title.

My personal annoyance with the reuse of titles is how it make crunching the sales data a bit of a pain. The fact that it is a transparent gimmick to get readers also annoys me. I respect titles like the Walking Dead which have earn the readership based on telling a compelling story rather than based on marketing ploys.

Your point about long running titles being easier to jump onto is a great point. I don't think older titles need to be hard to jump onto but I agree they tend to be. That and how many are really not new volumes in any real way but just continuations of the previous volume/storyline. If you haven't checked out Astro City, you should. Many issues are self contained and the start of each new story is usually an excellent jumping on point. Jumping into Walking Dead now would be like getting into Lost late in the game. You can do it but you are better off starting at the beginning via trades.

A coworker of mine has the Marvel DCU and seems to really enjoy it. If you are fine with waiting at least six month before reading new material, and frankly it isn't like that is any sort of hardship for the most part, it is a great deal. I can see how people like you might drop Iron Man and get the DCU subscription and be able to keep reading it on a bit of a time delay. Seems like a win for you and a potential loss for Marvel. But, if it does cause Marvel to lose sales, that is on them, not the readers.
Comic Book Page: Website || Podcast || RSS || Episodes Archive
the1captain
Reviewer
Posts: 158
Joined: Fri Nov 25, 2011 6:57 pm

Re: Round Table Discussion: Getting and Keeping Readers

Post by the1captain »

This was a very interesting discussion. Walking Dead does deserve a lot of credit for its climb to the top. But there is a reason you will never see this out of DC or Marvel. Their strategy seems to be for boosting sales on a short term basis. They do not appear to have the patience for slow and steady to build a potential reliable audience. The sad part is it wasn't always this way. People forget Sandman wasn't a hit right out the gate when it first came out. It needed a year or so to find its audience. Now DC has a nice library of trades that sell well even after 20 years.
jacovny
Contributor
Posts: 54
Joined: Fri Jun 27, 2014 11:22 am
Location: Texas

Re: Round Table Discussion: Getting and Keeping Readers

Post by jacovny »

the1captain wrote:This was a very interesting discussion. Walking Dead does deserve a lot of credit for its climb to the top. But there is a reason you will never see this out of DC or Marvel. Their strategy seems to be for boosting sales on a short term basis. They do not appear to have the patience for slow and steady to build a potential reliable audience. The sad part is it wasn't always this way. People forget Sandman wasn't a hit right out the gate when it first came out. It needed a year or so to find its audience. Now DC has a nice library of trades that sell well even after 20 years.
Concur. Instead of improving story quality, consistency, and accessibility, the big two seem more likely to re-number or simply cancel a title and cut their losses. My mind always goes back to Gerard Jones's "Green Lantern: Mosaic", which in my opinion was the "Firefly" of comic books in terms of its overall quality and the inexplicable brevity of its run.
fudd71
Master Reviewer
Posts: 563
Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2010 4:46 pm
Location: Los Angeles

Re: Round Table Discussion: Getting and Keeping Readers

Post by fudd71 »

the1captain wrote:This was a very interesting discussion. Walking Dead does deserve a lot of credit for its climb to the top. But there is a reason you will never see this out of DC or Marvel. Their strategy seems to be for boosting sales on a short term basis. They do not appear to have the patience for slow and steady to build a potential reliable audience. The sad part is it wasn't always this way. People forget Sandman wasn't a hit right out the gate when it first came out. It needed a year or so to find its audience. Now DC has a nice library of trades that sell well even after 20 years.
While I understand and agree with the praise given to the phenomenon of the Walking Dead. The writer, artist, publisher and most others have tried to replicate this model, and none have been able to. There is a bit of a "lighting in a bottle" phenomenon with the timing, culture, television deal and everything else that has lead to this success. Everyone seems to think no one is trying to replicate the Walking Dead's success, that is false everyone is. And no one really knows why the walking dead is as successful as it is. This idea that no one is patient enough to build as audience this way is also not true. Fables started around the exact same time as Walking Dead and has the same formula (given time, same writer, same artist, optioned for TV about the same time) but Fables sells 13-14K and Walking Dead around 70K. No one knows exactly why the Walking Dead is so popular, if they did someone would copy that.
jacovny
Contributor
Posts: 54
Joined: Fri Jun 27, 2014 11:22 am
Location: Texas

Re: Round Table Discussion: Getting and Keeping Readers

Post by jacovny »

fudd71 wrote:
the1captain wrote:
While I understand and agree with the praise given to the phenomenon of the Walking Dead. The writer, artist, publisher and most others have tried to replicate this model, and none have been able to. There is a bit of a "lighting in a bottle" phenomenon with the timing, culture, television deal and everything else that has lead to this success. Everyone seems to think no one is trying to replicate the Walking Dead's success, that is false everyone is. And no one really knows why the walking dead is as successful as it is. This idea that no one is patient enough to build as audience this way is also not true. Fables started around the exact same time as Walking Dead and has the same formula (given time, same writer, same artist, optioned for TV about the same time) but Fables sells 13-14K and Walking Dead around 70K. No one knows exactly why the Walking Dead is so popular, if they did someone would copy that.

I've heard quite a bit of hype for Fables, and I didn't realize sales were so light. That being the case, what do you feel is the difference then, between a title like "Fables" and one like "Legion of Superheroes", one of DC's more controversial cancellations? In the case of "Legion", I do feel that 2 years is a fair amount of time to give a title to find an audience, and the book couldn't manage it. But given "Legion"'s long history, many in the industry spoke out and criticized D.C. for allowing it to fail. Titles like "The Movement" (12 issues) and "Green Team" (I want to say 8 issues) had small devoted followings but again, DC didn't see those titles paying off and they were axed. So why do you think management is more willing to stick with something like "Fables" given the sales figures you mentioned?
User avatar
JohnMayo
Host/Owner
Posts: 3282
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2007 3:12 pm
Location: Texas
Contact:

Re: Round Table Discussion: Getting and Keeping Readers

Post by JohnMayo »

jacovny wrote:I've heard quite a bit of hype for Fables, and I didn't realize sales were so light. That being the case, what do you feel is the difference then, between a title like "Fables" and one like "Legion of Superheroes", one of DC's more controversial cancellations? In the case of "Legion", I do feel that 2 years is a fair amount of time to give a title to find an audience, and the book couldn't manage it. But given "Legion"'s long history, many in the industry spoke out and criticized D.C. for allowing it to fail. Titles like "The Movement" (12 issues) and "Green Team" (I want to say 8 issues) had small devoted followings but again, DC didn't see those titles paying off and they were axed. So why do you think management is more willing to stick with something like "Fables" given the sales figures you mentioned?
Part of the difference is trade sales. Fables, like many Vertigo titles, does very well on the trades side of things.

Legion of Super-Heroes is an interesting case. I think part of what has crippled that property is the multiple versions of the team over the years. Depending when you started reading the title, you might consider the original characters the "real" version or the Zero Hour reboot the real version or maybe you liked the 5 years later version. By having so many different versions of the property, the audience has been fractures enough that it can't/won't sustain any particular version of the team.

The Movement and the Green Team were new properties and therefore had no prior fan base to support them. Yes, The Green Team originated in an issue of First Issue Special but this was a revised take and it wasn't like the original version lasted ore than the single issue.

Vague names probably didn't help the titles either. Doing a Google image search for the Green Team yields lots of results, virtually none of which were for the comic. A Google image search for The Movement returns a few more results for the comic but not many.
Comic Book Page: Website || Podcast || RSS || Episodes Archive
the1captain
Reviewer
Posts: 158
Joined: Fri Nov 25, 2011 6:57 pm

Re: Round Table Discussion: Getting and Keeping Readers

Post by the1captain »

fudd71 wrote:
the1captain wrote:This was a very interesting discussion. Walking Dead does deserve a lot of credit for its climb to the top. But there is a reason you will never see this out of DC or Marvel. Their strategy seems to be for boosting sales on a short term basis. They do not appear to have the patience for slow and steady to build a potential reliable audience. The sad part is it wasn't always this way. People forget Sandman wasn't a hit right out the gate when it first came out. It needed a year or so to find its audience. Now DC has a nice library of trades that sell well even after 20 years.
While I understand and agree with the praise given to the phenomenon of the Walking Dead. The writer, artist, publisher and most others have tried to replicate this model, and none have been able to. There is a bit of a "lighting in a bottle" phenomenon with the timing, culture, television deal and everything else that has lead to this success. Everyone seems to think no one is trying to replicate the Walking Dead's success, that is false everyone is. And no one really knows why the walking dead is as successful as it is. This idea that no one is patient enough to build as audience this way is also not true. Fables started around the exact same time as Walking Dead and has the same formula (given time, same writer, same artist, optioned for TV about the same time) but Fables sells 13-14K and Walking Dead around 70K. No one knows exactly why the Walking Dead is so popular, if they did someone would copy that.
And if Fables was launched in the last two or three years do you think DC would have the patience to try to find its audience? There was a lot of experimentation at DC ten years ago when Walking Dead started. The DC of today appears to have a slightly different model for generating sales.

My humble guess at some of the reasons Walking Dead has had success is it is a comic book for people that don't read comics. I know a lot of people that have never had any interest in comic books, but love reading this book. I know there's more to it than that. Just my humble opinion.
SpideySavestheDay
Reviewer
Posts: 204
Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 4:07 pm
Location: Phoenix, AZ

Re: Round Table Discussion: Getting and Keeping Readers

Post by SpideySavestheDay »

fudd71 wrote:
the1captain wrote:This was a very interesting discussion. Walking Dead does deserve a lot of credit for its climb to the top. But there is a reason you will never see this out of DC or Marvel. Their strategy seems to be for boosting sales on a short term basis. They do not appear to have the patience for slow and steady to build a potential reliable audience. The sad part is it wasn't always this way. People forget Sandman wasn't a hit right out the gate when it first came out. It needed a year or so to find its audience. Now DC has a nice library of trades that sell well even after 20 years.
While I understand and agree with the praise given to the phenomenon of the Walking Dead. The writer, artist, publisher and most others have tried to replicate this model, and none have been able to. There is a bit of a "lighting in a bottle" phenomenon with the timing, culture, television deal and everything else that has lead to this success. Everyone seems to think no one is trying to replicate the Walking Dead's success, that is false everyone is. And no one really knows why the walking dead is as successful as it is. This idea that no one is patient enough to build as audience this way is also not true. Fables started around the exact same time as Walking Dead and has the same formula (given time, same writer, same artist, optioned for TV about the same time) but Fables sells 13-14K and Walking Dead around 70K. No one knows exactly why the Walking Dead is so popular, if they did someone would copy that.
I don't think Walking Dead's success story can be duplicated, but Image has learned a thing or two from that success.
JohnMayo wrote:Part of the difference is trade sales. Fables, like many Vertigo titles, does very well on the trades side of things.
Looking at the trade sales for May, the first thing that jumped out to me was Walking Dead's surplus of volumes. It has 22 trades in the top 300. That is nearly half of Image's total (48) and a third of Marvel's (61). The question becomes - "Can Walking Dead's longevity be recreated?" Image appears to believe so. As pointed out many times on The Mayo Report: Trades, Image's entry point is by far the most affordable at $9.99 and they dominate that price point versus Marvel and DC.

3 7.01 $9.99 IMA Black Science v1: How to Fall Forever 7,540 7,540
6 5.05 $9.99 IMA Manifest Destiny v1 5,434 5,434
11 4.12 $9.99 IMA Saga v1 4,433 107,082
15 3.58 $9.99 IMA Sex Criminals v1 3,851 13,967
23 2.68 $9.99 DC Coffin Hill v1: Forest of the Night 2,885 2,885
37 1.77 $9.99 IMA Umbral v1: Out of the Shadows 1,905 1,905
47 1.65 $9.99 IMA Rat Queens v1: Sass and Sorcery 1,779 7,606
52 1.53 $9.99 IMA East of West v1: The Promise 1,645 22,476
55 1.51 $9.99 IMA Pretty Deadly v1 1,626 6,996
89 1.01 $9.99 IMA Adventures of Apocalypse Al v1 1,087 1,087
165 0.62 $9.99 MAR Marvel Universe Ultimate Spider-Man Digest v6 667 667
221 0.47 $9.99 IMA Lazarus v1 509 9,974
274 0.39 $9.99 IMA Nowhere Men v1: Fates Worse Than Death 420 7,629
140 0.73 $9.99 IMA Chew v1 789 52,626

A new reader looking for recommendations can affordably sample many of Image's top titles' first story arcs. If the story appeals, then a new reader most likely will buy the next trade or monthly comic. Keeping that reader will depend on the art and story and that's another successful part of Walking Dead.

This is where Marvel and DC are dropping the ball on their reboots. To sample a story arc, the price point is significantly higher for their first volumes.

112 0.9 $17.99 MAR Superior Spider-Man v1: My Own Worst Enemy (Now) 966 1,922
157 0.65 $14.99 DC Wonder Woman v1: Blood (N52) 699 11,679

They can't even get new readers to sample let alone keep them.
User avatar
JohnMayo
Host/Owner
Posts: 3282
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2007 3:12 pm
Location: Texas
Contact:

Re: Round Table Discussion: Getting and Keeping Readers

Post by JohnMayo »

A number of the newer Image titles like Chew and Saga are looking to be potential evergreen titles on the trade side. Time will tell if that is really the case or not. Those are the kinds of titles that are most likely to duplicate the success of Walking Dead if anything can.
Comic Book Page: Website || Podcast || RSS || Episodes Archive
jacovny
Contributor
Posts: 54
Joined: Fri Jun 27, 2014 11:22 am
Location: Texas

Re: Round Table Discussion: Getting and Keeping Readers

Post by jacovny »

JohnMayo wrote:Part of the difference is trade sales. Fables, like many Vertigo titles, does very well on the trades side of things.

A new reader looking for recommendations can affordably sample many of Image's top titles' first story arcs. If the story appeals, then a new reader most likely will buy the next trade or monthly comic. Keeping that reader will depend on the art and story and that's another successful part of Walking Dead.
.[/quote]

Thank you for the insight -- that makes a lot of sense. Incidentally it does speak to one of my general frustrations as a reader since returning to comics. I hear you on your podcasts, and guys down at the comic shop, and online, discussing the latest issue of "Walking Dead". I want to engage in the same discussion and be a part of those fun conversations. But because of the way stories are written now with decompression, extensive story arcs, and the resulting reliance on trades, I have to do a LOT of catching up. I ordered the first trade this month from DCBS, so I'll get to read it in a couple of months. From that point, if I continue to order a trade a month, it'll take me approximately 2 years to catch up to the current monthly comic. It's not that I don't enjoy the serialized story telling; I just wish writers were able to find ways to make new issues more accessible to new readers.
Post Reply