Wither Comics?
Here’s a universal business parable in the form of a subject of interest to practically nobody: the future of the American comic book business. For years, comics in the US existed exclusively as periodicals. They were sold cheap on newsstands, and later more expensively at specialty comic shops. As their mass audience dwindled, the publishers who remained catered more and more to the hardcore fans, until the subject matter became so narrow and self-referential that all but the most curious and determined could find little to capture their fancy.
As all appeared lost, comic characters were suddenly discovered by movie makers – a disproportionate number of whom could be counted among the remaining fans/readers of the actual magazines. This brought in an influx of interest, and while myopic publishers rarely maximized the opportunity they were given, they did manage a few changes in form, if not content. Most significantly, comics made themselves more presentable by packaging collections of stories into softcover trade paperbacks, printed on better paper and suitable for sale in actual bookstores, not just comic shops.
Today, trade paperback collections and “graphic novels” are the hottest thing on the market, and, on the face of it, a win-win situation for everyone involved. The publishers are doing great, because they are rushing their often-extensive back catalogs of material into print as graphic novels. Readers are loving it, because they no longer have to seek out scarce and pricey back issues to enjoy classic storylines – and graphic novels often present the material in a better format than the originals anyway. Those creators lucky enough to own their creations or have good residual deals with their publishers get a windfall from the resale of old stuff without additional effort, and any creator currently in the business is probably producing work with one eye towards having it collected and sold as a graphic novel down the line.
But instead of lifting the comic industry to new heights, it has twisted the business model into a pretzel.
The problem is this: true full-length graphic novels take time to produce. Lacking the resources of traditional publishing, comic publishers cannot or will not offer creators advances against future sales. Since few creators can afford to take 8-10 months to work on their masterpiece without getting a paycheck, most opt to stay inside the traditional periodical format, producing longer (6-8 part) works in 22-page monthly (in theory…) installments. While this serves the graphic novel market well, it serves the single issue market poorly, because it provides incentives for creators to produce exactly the kind of complex, insular and slow-moving stories that have alienated comics from the vast majority of potential readers for the last 20 years.
It poses additional problems for fans. Trade paperbacks offer a number of advantages over periodical comics. They collect entire stories, with no waiting for the next episode, so they are a more satisfying reading experience. Often the packaging is superior (better color, better paper, no ads), and books are more easily stored than flimsy issues. Some graphic novels include extra pages not seen in the original run, or other new material. And they are more cost-effective, at $10-15 for a collection of six-eight issues individually priced at $2.50-3.00.
Consequently, there is a tendency for readers to sample an issue of a series, and, rather than buy every issue, simply wait around for the trade paperback. But, if no one buys the individual issues, the publisher has no reason to issue a volume that collects a series that is, by all indications, unpopular. It may even be cancelled before the story concludes, leaving readers and creators both high and dry.
The industry has created a situation where there is every incentive to not buy their core product in favor of a derivative – except, of course, that without the one, there is no other. Some folks, like writer Peter David (who covers this subject in a terrific piece in this week's Comic Buyers' Guide) have urged publishers to devote some editorial energy toward producing single-issue comics (“done in one” stories as they’re known to fans), giving the periodicals an independent raison-d’etre than simply being feeder-pipes to graphic novels. He also suggests increasing the length of time between the conclusion of a series and the appearance of the trade paperback collection – a period which is now approaching zero – to reduce the cannibalization of the market. Unfortunately, those are impractical solutions because they would require foresight on the part of comic publishers, and they would require someone to pay attention to what Peter David has to say – neither of which has proven to be a common occurrence in the history of the medium. The other possibility is for comic publishers to bite the bullet and pay advances on the production of graphic novels. But that probably won’t happen until the publishers are so hard up against it that they have no choice, at which point they won’t have the money.
The irony is that as the industry is going through this wrenching identity crisis, the quality of the product is higher than it’s ever been. Today comics offer a diversity of styles, formats and subject matter of potential interest to a wide readership. Creators are better at their craft, and some of the very brightest talents in both writing and art are working in the medium of “graphic storytelling.” But the publishers – often old-time comic fans in corner offices – simply lack the skills to manage the transition of their business model. It’s a tough one, and I’d love to know if any civilians out there with more perspective on the problem can see the way to a workable solution.
4:11:53 PM 
|
|
