|
Post by optimus on Oct 31, 2014 13:32:33 GMT -5
This has been brought up a few times in the podcast so I thought it would be a good thread to start a discussion on. What do people think of this new strategy. My 2 Cents I think it is good for the following reasons: - It gives people there issues #1 without having to do crazy reboots all the time
- It give the writers, even if the book is not successful, to finish there story arc before being canceled
- People who may have stop reading a book are more likely to stay when if they now it is going to end in 12 issues anyway
- If a writer wants to not be stuck a book for a long time they have the ability to jump off every year
- If a writer wants to stay on longer he has an opportunity every year to bring in new readers
- People who buys trades can easily find the book they are looking for "Captain Marvel 2013" vs. "Captain Marvel Vol.2 Book 3"
|
|
|
Post by Czor on Oct 31, 2014 17:22:57 GMT -5
I also think is a good way to do business in order to get new people...I can't count how many times I heard people (friends or strangers) saying they cannot get into comics due to the confusion of volumes and high numbers.
Not only this method gives good jumping on points to new and/or older fans checking a character/series, but also by switching (or not in the case of Daredevil) the creative team it brings a fresh thing or things without screwing with the previous issues.
|
|
|
Post by pacino on Nov 1, 2014 12:41:49 GMT -5
I also like it. The jumping on and off points are great for readers. You know when a story starts and ends.
|
|
|
Post by TealProductions on Nov 3, 2014 8:04:45 GMT -5
Not a fan. The confusion arguments never sit with me. Movies, long running TV series and soap operas are always picking up new consumers. I feel that's just an aspect of the 'lazy, cater to me' attitude that is very prevalent today. If a property has you confused YOU do the legwork to catch up rather then expecting someone else to do it for you. If you are truly interested it shouldn't be a problem.
The continual catering to 'new' readers is pointless because those are the folks that will bandwagon like nobody's business. Instead to maintain the product the producers should cater more to the long term customers that have been purchasing the product for the past umpteen years.
Trade waiting is a huge money sink for comics. If everyone waited for the trade how long would we have any particular title?
|
|
|
Post by Raider30 on Nov 5, 2014 20:35:02 GMT -5
Personally I hate it. One of the things I like most about comics is(was) the air of history they carry. Maybe its just me, but I've never heard a single person complain they can't jump into a series because their are too many issues that came before. To me that's just a silly statement to make - a) If you aren't in it for the collecting aspect then who cares how many issues have come before - wait for a story arc to begin and jump in, and b)if you are in it for the collecting aspect, then um...that's sort of the point, trying to get the back issues(ie. collecting).
Not to mention that I see a constant restarting of comics as a surefire way to lose all sense of continuity. It's just so much easier to give people a "new take" on an old character when you can just restart every 12 months.
- Beau
|
|
|
Post by optimus on Nov 6, 2014 12:23:09 GMT -5
I think the big issue here is not around people like us unfortunately
Mass market going into a comic book looks at the cover of something and potentially buy it right there
If not the next thing they look at is the number
They don't investigate where it is in a story arc or the writer that is doing it etc
If that number is 1 they are very likely to buy it....if it is 8 but the cover interested them they might buy it and try to collect the other 7.
They will most likely not do that on issue 49 like we would
Trades are different in it highlights the story arc and removes any since of numbers. It is almost like buying a big single issue
Now jumping from year to year does not need to end the story
Once the book is in hand they are reading they can be hooked like rest of us
It is just getting past that initial purchase
|
|
|
Post by WiccanBeyond on Dec 8, 2014 1:54:33 GMT -5
I can't make up my mind about this issue. I guess whatever happens, I will roll with, but for what it's worth, these are some of my thoughts. I am coming at this as a person who has work at comic book stores for nearly eight years, nearly quit reading comics altogether when the New 52 happened (tried it for six months, hated it and wanted my classic DCU back, but you know, sailed ships and all) and now I read Marvel, Image, Indy, manga and am really excited about the upcoming Jem and the Holograms book from IDW. So there, some of my biases.
As much as I agree that all them young kids have a sense of entitlement, what with their X-Station Us, their drugs and their irregular hygiene habits. And we have to be weary of making things too "on a silver platter" for them and while I cannot for the life of me understand why people are shy about jumping into comics...really, just anywhere they find interesting, but do not feel the same hesitation when it comes to their other media consumption, I will have to acknowledge, for better or for worse, that fear is very much real. However, we as consumers are being more and more catered too. Our television habits are no longer "Same Bat-time, same Bat-Channel," we now have Hulu, Netflix, the WWE Network among others that allow us to decide when we will watch our shows. Not even touching too deeply on the digital revolution that has forever changed how we experience, music, books and comics (if we had the numbers, I think there would be a good case that digital is keeping a lot of print books going).
As a fan, as a collector (it's time to admit that's what this has come to considering I just got a storage unit for my long boxes) I don't like the idea of seasonal comics. I like watching the number in the corner ratcheting higher and higher (#### you, DC!!) I like that it represents that the story I am reading is ultimately a part of a greater one, one that has been going on for decades (at least in the case of Marvel Comics). If comics moved into a seasonal numbering we might lose that sense of direct continuity.
The other side of me wants as many people reading comics as we can get. And seasonal comic numbering would be an easy way to make that happen. It would take away the intimidation factor people feel. Again, I don't understand that intimidation, I started reading Magneto at the beginning of Axis and don't really feel the need or the desire to read the previous issues. And it might be less of financial risk for the publishing companies, they might more readily take a risk on a title that might not sell, especially if it had a clear endpoint.
But... I also want to say clearly that I also don't think the numbers or the continuities are comics' biggest problem. The biggest problem is that the comic book industries advertising is done in a circle. Most comic promotion happen in advertisements in comic books that are being seen by people already buying comics, and I would venture that most comic book stores don't have a very large advertising budget. I don't know why, every time there is a comic book movie they are not also having trailers for their comics. Archie is one of the biggest publishers to this day because they are still in super markets and drug stores, while everyone else has retreated from there.
Honestly, I don't have a strong position on either side. I am in a "wait and see" stance.
|
|
|
Post by BarefootRoot on Dec 8, 2014 12:05:44 GMT -5
I think it depends on how it's handled. what I would like to see would be something along the lines of (and this is me making stuff up) "Avengers: Time Runs Out" where you get 12 issues that tells one big story and then ends. maybe they follow it up with "Avengers: Someone fixed the clock", another 12 issue series with a defined story arc. What I don't want to see is "Avengers #1" and a year later "Avengers #1". Lame. They could also use it as an opportunity to do something different and self-contained; think Fraction's Hawkeye, or Bendis' Moon Knight from a few years ago. kind of like putting out mini-series instead of a single infinite story.
I think for the most part what we're seeing is a natural progression in volume-ing (not sure that's a word) to reflect how the stories are told. When I first started reading comics back in the late 80's early 90's, there were still a fair amount of issues that were one or two shot stories (or look at Days of Future Past; I think that was just 2 issues) and the big series were made up of potentially hundreds of one shots (or maybe stories <3 books long). Today everything seems to be done in 5-6 book arcs so every time a new arc starts you could potentially start an entirely new volume, with the notable exceptions of things like Peter David's X-Factor stuff (which seems much longer-form), Rick Remender's X-Force (what was that, like 30 issues long?) or Dan Slott's Superior Spider Man (31 issues before an extra was added for spider-verse?)
So I guess to make a long story short (too late) of we just see a continuous stream of X-Men #1's or Avengers #1's every year, I am against it, but if we start seeing stuff like X-Men: Let's have a tea party #1 (well, maybe not that specific story) with the subtitle changing every year, I could go for that.
|
|
|
Post by toxicsooner on Dec 9, 2014 1:35:01 GMT -5
Like most things there are pros and cons and best answer likely lies somewhere in the middle. As someone who, within the last 3 years, has jumped back into reading comics this is a good thing. I remember how difficult it was to find a jumping on point. This provides an easy way to figure that out. That being said, I could see where this might put pressure on creators like Bendis, Remender, and Hickman, who have a long game in mind for a title to rush a story to squeeze it into 12 issues to appease the masses.
I do agree that by doing this the market will be over saturated with "all-new" #1's (hell, it already is) and really de-value what makes a #1 issue special.
All things considered, as long as the quality doesn't suffer I will still buy titles that I feel are good books and I enjoy, regardless of the # of the cover.
|
|
|
Post by thegiaimo on Dec 18, 2014 5:29:05 GMT -5
I think the marketers at Marvel, as well as the majority of other publishers, are overlooking the REAL problem when it comes to sales. I don't think that it's intimidation by the issue number or even the lack of marketing. Of course, those things play a part, but what I think is really killing comics is the cover price. With so many entertainment options out there, a $3.99 cover price is unreasonable for 5-8 minutes of entertainment that will most likely never be revisited. You can get a full paperback novel for a buck more! When you think about the number of comics that you give a second read to versus the ones that you read and then stuff away to never again see the light of day, $3.99 becomes more and more daunting. This mystical new reader would probably rather download a game on their smartphone for that price and get hours upon hours of entertainment out of it. Now I recognize that it costs money to make comics and that cover price is meant to satisfy those fiscal needs and still turn a profit. But here's the thing: It costs virtually NOTHING to release that same, already-produced comic digitally, yet that too is being sold for that same cover price. WHY? Because if it was cheaper, people wouldn't buy the physical copy? I seriously doubt that. The majority of the long-time readers and collectors would probably still get the physical because they want it in their collection. But to suck in those new readers, drop that price-point down to $.99, and you'll get those readers. Most people don't even think twice about that $.99 purchase, whereas the $3.99 makes you stop and say, "waaaaaaait a minute, this isn't really worth it." And it's NOT. Not to the new reader who hasn't already invested the time and passion that WE have into it. Especially now that these characters are so widely available in other media (i.e. movies, tv shows, video games).
If Marvel wants new readers, if ANY publisher wants new readers, they've gotta' drop that price point, and the .99 digital is the sweet spot.
|
|
|
Post by jonathansoko on Dec 22, 2014 20:16:49 GMT -5
To me, it's Irrelevant. But im not their target. I already buy everything i like, they don't need to worry about me buying books because im going to do so any ways and they know that.
If I could choose, i wouldnt have it that way. Im that crazy guy who liked to have isssues 1-300 lined up in a box in my room blocking my walking paths.
They want to bring new readers in, but i think the brutal reality is, alot of the people who like comics are the ones who consistently buy the books. You might get someone new to try an issue or two, but i think we all know those people drift away. While the same people who bought issue one, will be the one buying issue 39. It seems that they are so invested in trying to boost issue sales on the first few issues, then rely on whatever extra they made off of those to cover the following issues that sell less.
In my humble opinion, they should take care of their loyal fans who buy everything, they seem to forget about us and focus on new readers. We're all important.
|
|
|
Post by BarefootRoot on Dec 23, 2014 11:11:34 GMT -5
a thought occurs: what if it isn't completely about bringing in new readers? I mean, typically a #1 means "this is a good spot to jump on", so it's still a factor, but what if planning everything in 12 issue batches is also an easy way for them to plan out when to bail on a book? think of it like a season in television, where the network buys an order of 13 episodes, and if those episodes do well then they order 13 more... maybe they are going to tell creators "you have 12 issues, and if things go well you can have another 12. If it goes poorly we'll probably close up and try a different book."
|
|