It is fun to imagine the possibilities for the movies and comics for a few minutes but this would be bad for the industry. Not just from a monopoly point of view but, from experience, when a company is bought out, the first thing they do is not talk about making any changes immediately until they figure out what they have.
The second thing they do is consolidate.
Less editors, proofreaders, color artists, etc. hired. Consolidate the offices to one location. And maybe there are some fanboy axes to grind with people being happy if Alonso or Didio or Quesada are gone but it means less people working in an industry.
And if they are the only big boy in town (with respect to Image, IDW, etc.), creators can't play off of one company for the other for higher rates. Maybe there comes an influx of creators into those smaller companies but with such a high supply of creators they don't have to give as lucrative of a contract. And Disney becomes all that more powerful pressing their weight over reprint royalties, suing, distribution, etc.
I think a monopoly like that would be the death knell of all creativity in the comic book industry. It will be GONE. One big old swish of some corporate board's decision to consolidate printing for the BIG ONE, draconian laws against fan art, and boom. You will "get in" ONLY if you are related to someone, somehow. It's the death of the American comic book industry.
The American comic book industry is more than just superheroes, and more than just two companies. I think Daniel Clowes, Marjane Satrapi, Craig Thompson, Alison Bechdel, Chris Ware, Brian O'Malley and a zillion others continue to work the same whether Marvel-DC merge or not.
I really doubt that. Consolidation has meant nothing but trouble in my lifetime. Merger> "downsize"> then ride the companies into the ground, only not before leaving a heap of destruction in its wake.
It IS more than two companies and those indie creators will always be there to make comics. But I believe Marvel and DC do more to prop up the industry rather than hold it back. For better or worse, the big two are still the face of comics in the USA.
It IS more than two companies and those indie creators will always be there to make comics. But I believe Marvel and DC do more to prop up the industry rather than hold it back. For better or worse, the big two are still the face of comics in the USA.
I think that is getting to be less and less true. Sure, to certain generations, when we think of comic books we think of the ones we grew up on, which is Marvel and DC. But in the book market, which is larger than the periodical comic book market, the Big Two are less and less the whole story.
For example, look at the current NY Times Bestseller list for graphic albums (basically the trade and OGN bestseller list):
It IS more than two companies and those indie creators will always be there to make comics. But I believe Marvel and DC do more to prop up the industry rather than hold it back. For better or worse, the big two are still the face of comics in the USA.
I think that is getting to be less and less true. Sure, to certain generations, when we think of comic books we think of the ones we grew up on, which is Marvel and DC. But in the book market, which is larger than the periodical comic book market, the Big Two are less and less the whole story.
For example, look at the current NY Times Bestseller list for graphic albums (basically the trade and OGN bestseller list):
It's interesting when you actually stop and look at the list in that format. It appears that a blockbuster movie is required for one of the big two to get on the top ten list of paperbacks. The big two fare just a bit better when you look at the hardbacks:
I wonder if the big two's inability to introduce very many new characters the last few decades has something to do with this? Also, interesting to note that 'capes' don't dominate either of these lists.
It IS more than two companies and those indie creators will always be there to make comics. But I believe Marvel and DC do more to prop up the industry rather than hold it back. For better or worse, the big two are still the face of comics in the USA.
I think that is getting to be less and less true. Sure, to certain generations, when we think of comic books we think of the ones we grew up on, which is Marvel and DC. But in the book market, which is larger than the periodical comic book market, the Big Two are less and less the whole story.
For example, look at the current NY Times Bestseller list for graphic albums (basically the trade and OGN bestseller list):
It's interesting when you actually stop and look at the list in that format. It appears that a blockbuster movie is required for one of the big two to get on the top ten list of paperbacks. The big two fare just a bit better when you look at the hardbacks:
I wonder if the big two's inability to introduce very many new characters the last few decades has something to do with this? Also, interesting to note that 'capes' don't dominate either of these lists.
What about "Injustice"
Some of the ones on the top of the list, are the ones that are always on the top of the list and have been for many years. I think the Amazon list is more intersting because its based on actual sales, whereas the new york times list is based on "It is based on weekly sales reports obtained from selected samples of independent and chain bookstores and wholesalers throughout the United States." So they do a survey of chains and independants. I don't think it includes online sales of comics or graphic novels.
It IS more than two companies and those indie creators will always be there to make comics. But I believe Marvel and DC do more to prop up the industry rather than hold it back. For better or worse, the big two are still the face of comics in the USA.
I think that is getting to be less and less true. Sure, to certain generations, when we think of comic books we think of the ones we grew up on, which is Marvel and DC. But in the book market, which is larger than the periodical comic book market, the Big Two are less and less the whole story.
For example, look at the current NY Times Bestseller list for graphic albums (basically the trade and OGN bestseller list):
It's interesting when you actually stop and look at the list in that format. It appears that a blockbuster movie is required for one of the big two to get on the top ten list of paperbacks. The big two fare just a bit better when you look at the hardbacks:
I wonder if the big two's inability to introduce very many new characters the last few decades has something to do with this? Also, interesting to note that 'capes' don't dominate either of these lists.
What about "Injustice"
Some of the ones on the top of the list, are the ones that are always on the top of the list and have been for many years. I think the Amazon list is more intersting because its based on actual sales, whereas the new york times list is based on "It is based on weekly sales reports obtained from selected samples of independent and chain bookstores and wholesalers throughout the United States." So they do a survey of chains and independants. I don't think it includes online sales of comics or graphic novels.
I'm not sure I am following- yes, the Amazon charts are also interesting, and also based on sales, through one (mega)retailor. And I think an Amazon chart will also support my point that the comics industry is not just the Big Two anymore.
The NYT list is curated based on sales data from a variety of retailers, including chains, wholesalers, and participating tiny indie shops. And Amazon reports their sales to NYT, so their data is in the mix, too. So it is a snapshot of what sold best in a week at Amazon and a lot of other places, as best as can be determined by the data available.
I'm not saying the NYT list is perfect, but are you suggesting it doesn't represent actual sales?
It IS more than two companies and those indie creators will always be there to make comics. But I believe Marvel and DC do more to prop up the industry rather than hold it back. For better or worse, the big two are still the face of comics in the USA.
I think that is getting to be less and less true. Sure, to certain generations, when we think of comic books we think of the ones we grew up on, which is Marvel and DC. But in the book market, which is larger than the periodical comic book market, the Big Two are less and less the whole story.
For example, look at the current NY Times Bestseller list for graphic albums (basically the trade and OGN bestseller list):
It's interesting when you actually stop and look at the list in that format. It appears that a blockbuster movie is required for one of the big two to get on the top ten list of paperbacks. The big two fare just a bit better when you look at the hardbacks:
I wonder if the big two's inability to introduce very many new characters the last few decades has something to do with this? Also, interesting to note that 'capes' don't dominate either of these lists.
What about "Injustice"
Some of the ones on the top of the list, are the ones that are always on the top of the list and have been for many years. I think the Amazon list is more intersting because its based on actual sales, whereas the new york times list is based on "It is based on weekly sales reports obtained from selected samples of independent and chain bookstores and wholesalers throughout the United States." So they do a survey of chains and independants. I don't think it includes online sales of comics or graphic novels.
I'm not sure I am following- yes, the Amazon charts are also interesting, and also based on sales, through one (mega)retailor. And I think an Amazon chart will also support my point that the comics industry is not just the Big Two anymore.
The NYT list is curated based on sales data from a variety of retailers, including chains, wholesalers, and participating tiny indie shops. And Amazon reports their sales to NYT, so their data is in the mix, too. So it is a snapshot of what sold best in a week at Amazon and a lot of other places, as best as can be determined by the data available.
I'm not saying the NYT list is perfect, but are you suggesting it doesn't represent actual sales?
I'm saying the way they tabulate has been critiqued plenty. Its based on a survey, somewhat similar to how Radio and TV ratings.
Not trying to start an argument, but if you care to see what I'm referring to you can see a couple of examples Hereand also here.
I'm not sure if Amazon actually reports to the New York times or not. I don't think that information is publicly available as its a "trade secret". Amazon uses the NYT list as a way to market books to potential customers, but I can't find anything that says Amazon is part of the NYT survey.
Other than that I was really referring to the "capes" part of your comment, as I think they kinda do dominate the Amazon list although there is a healthy amount of the others too.
@Planeis sure, the NYT system is not perfect, nor are any other way to track ratings and sales of things. Heck, even the Amazon sales rankings are vulnerable to manipulation (there have been some instances even within comics of ways that publishers, or even single authors, have found to juke their stats around a release day). But for all the (valid) critiques, the NYT Bestseller list carries weight for a reason. A lot of people report to it, including Amazon, and take it seriously, as retailers are themselves stakeholders in trying to know who and what is successful in the market.
The capes comment wasn't mine, actually, but my point was that the Big Two publishers typically don't dominate the graphic novel/OGN list. At NYT or Amazon. Looking at Amazon at this moment, they only have 3 books on the top 20, and their highest is, currently, a GotheG collection at #13.
I only brought this up to say that, in the context of this conversation, an (unlikely, I think) Marvel/Time Warner merger or acquisition might have a huge impact on the superhero genre, sure, but that genre and those two publishers are less and less the whole story of the comics industry. Especially when you are talking about the book market.
Comments
The second thing they do is consolidate.
Less editors, proofreaders, color artists, etc. hired. Consolidate the offices to one location. And maybe there are some fanboy axes to grind with people being happy if Alonso or Didio or Quesada are gone but it means less people working in an industry.
And if they are the only big boy in town (with respect to Image, IDW, etc.), creators can't play off of one company for the other for higher rates. Maybe there comes an influx of creators into those smaller companies but with such a high supply of creators they don't have to give as lucrative of a contract. And Disney becomes all that more powerful pressing their weight over reprint royalties, suing, distribution, etc.
Bad for business.
For example, look at the current NY Times Bestseller list for graphic albums (basically the trade and OGN bestseller list):
http://www.nytimes.com/best-sellers-books/paperback-graphic-books/list.html
Notice the publishers that aren't dominating?
but maybe they're not die hard fans after all lol
http://www.nytimes.com/best-sellers-books/hardcover-graphic-books/list.html
I wonder if the big two's inability to introduce very many new characters the last few decades has something to do with this? Also, interesting to note that 'capes' don't dominate either of these lists.
Some of the ones on the top of the list, are the ones that are always on the top of the list and have been for many years.
I think the Amazon list is more intersting because its based on actual sales, whereas the new york times list is based on "It is based on weekly sales reports obtained from selected samples of independent and chain bookstores and wholesalers throughout the United States." So they do a survey of chains and independants. I don't think it includes online sales of comics or graphic novels.
The NYT list is curated based on sales data from a variety of retailers, including chains, wholesalers, and participating tiny indie shops. And Amazon reports their sales to NYT, so their data is in the mix, too. So it is a snapshot of what sold best in a week at Amazon and a lot of other places, as best as can be determined by the data available.
I'm not saying the NYT list is perfect, but are you suggesting it doesn't represent actual sales?
Not trying to start an argument, but if you care to see what I'm referring to you can see a couple of examples Hereand also here.
I'm not sure if Amazon actually reports to the New York times or not. I don't think that information is publicly available as its a "trade secret". Amazon uses the NYT list as a way to market books to potential customers, but I can't find anything that says Amazon is part of the NYT survey.
Other than that I was really referring to the "capes" part of your comment, as I think they kinda do dominate the Amazon list although there is a healthy amount of the others too.
The capes comment wasn't mine, actually, but my point was that the Big Two publishers typically don't dominate the graphic novel/OGN list. At NYT or Amazon. Looking at Amazon at this moment, they only have 3 books on the top 20, and their highest is, currently, a GotheG collection at #13.
http://www.amazon.com/Best-Sellers-Books-Comics-Graphic-Novels/zgbs/books/4366/ref=zg_bs_nav_b_1_b
I only brought this up to say that, in the context of this conversation, an (unlikely, I think) Marvel/Time Warner merger or acquisition might have a huge impact on the superhero genre, sure, but that genre and those two publishers are less and less the whole story of the comics industry. Especially when you are talking about the book market.
Then again...maybe Disney taking over DC stuff isn't a bad idea after all...