I totally agree with David D about paying a premium for 'New Books' right when they come out. Nine times out of ten you will be able to find a book at a con a few months after release for less than cover price. Some of these huge retailers have vast overstock of the regular covers because they order so many to get the variants. Even at DCBS you often find books discounted to 70% off a few months after release. Unfortunately I can't always wait as I need to review books when they are very recent for my various Comic Source projects. Still if one were so inclined I think you could save a lot by waiting awhile to pick up the newer stuff. This is true for both digital and print books and of course the always popular 'waiting for the trade' method. For me it all comes down to value, as I stated before I find that a lot of independent books have more value because they contain more content, whether that be extra art, letters or other various text pages depends on the book. Still it seems comics as a whole have lost value over the last 20 years especially. When I did my series review for Rom Spaceknight a few months back, I re-read every issue. I am a fast reader generally, but some of those books took my 30 minutes to read, because there was just so much story, both in dialog and narration. You simply don't find that in most books of today. Of course today overall the books are much nicer to look at with bright colors, bigger panels and lots of splash pages, but with fewer pages and less text many are a 5-10 minute read at most. So you can see the great reduction in value 0.50-.60 for 30 minutes of entertainment as opposed to 2.99-4.99 for 5-10 minutes of entertainment.
Going back and reading older things I have never read would be a possibility for me also, but I am not to that point yet. I think I just enjoy keeping up with the current events too much. I mean the first thing I do every day when I wake up is check all the comic book news sites to make sure I am current on all the news. However, I am sure there is a point when price vs value will force me to make a change as well.
@ShaneKelly . If I could also piggy back on your $5 comic discussion.
For me, with DC the issue hasn't been price as much as it's been direction and content. However, if (and when) the big two go to $5 then I'm done. I'll concentrate on back issues and trying out the occasional Indy.
@ShaneKelly . If I could also piggy back on your $5 comic discussion.
For me, with DC the issue hasn't been price as much as it's been direction and content. However, if (and when) the big two go to $5 then I'm done. I'll concentrate on back issues and trying out the occasional Indy.
Aside from Secret Wars & the new Moon Knight series (which is on ultra thin ice at this point), I'm all about the Indy books.
@ShaneKelly . If I could also piggy back on your $5 comic discussion.
For me, with DC the issue hasn't been price as much as it's been direction and content. However, if (and when) the big two go to $5 then I'm done. I'll concentrate on back issues and trying out the occasional Indy.
Aside from Secret Wars & the new Moon Knight series (which is on ultra thin ice at this point), I'm all about the Indy books.
@ShaneKelly . If I could also piggy back on your $5 comic discussion.
For me, with DC the issue hasn't been price as much as it's been direction and content. However, if (and when) the big two go to $5 then I'm done. I'll concentrate on back issues and trying out the occasional Indy.
Aside from Secret Wars & the new Moon Knight series (which is on ultra thin ice at this point), I'm all about the Indy books.
@ShaneKelly . If I could also piggy back on your $5 comic discussion.
For me, with DC the issue hasn't been price as much as it's been direction and content. However, if (and when) the big two go to $5 then I'm done. I'll concentrate on back issues and trying out the occasional Indy.
Aside from Secret Wars & the new Moon Knight series (which is on ultra thin ice at this point), I'm all about the Indy books.
M
... And Batman???
I haven't read a current* issue of Batman since the autumn of 2006.
M
* I did read n52 Detective Comics #1 for the CGS episode. Jamie stated I had to read 1 Batman title.
I don't think that the rise in the price of comics has been consistent with inflation, but obviously that has some effect on the rise. I think a much bigger affect would be that the creators are paid more and deservedly so. ... What I am less accepting of is the rise in price due to production costs. I don't need glossy paper and all these crazy colors and super sharp printing processes if it means my books cost $5. The books today are beautiful there is no doubt, but the books of my youth were beautiful and charming too in their own way. I wish they would put out at least a few books on newsprint for us old-timers. ... I know shipping is more know [sic] as well, which could be considered a production cost.
1) Artist page rates are on average actually lower than they were ten years ago. Very few comic book artists make more than a typical middle-class income—even though most of them work far more than the typical 40-hour work week.
2) Newsprint is no longer significantly cheaper than the paper being used today—nobody makes it anymore! In fact, switching a few comics back to newsprint (which technically was not really newsprint, but we can save that discussion for another day) would likely end up costing more.
3) Going back to a 64-color or even a 32-color palette would have absolutely no effect on costs. Technology has eliminated that as a cost worry. You might save a penny or three by eliminating the gloss coating, but it wouldn't be significant enough of a saving to make any real dent in the price of something the size of a comic. A 400-page book, yes, but a 24-page pamphlet, no.
What are the creator fees now? I mean, it use to be an artist could have a nice apartment and a decent but not grand life making comics, but now? Some of these guys are making tons and tons of money.
There are very, very few artists making six figures or more, and the majority of those guys are making that money in royalties from television and movie using properties they had a hand in creating. They're not making that money from drawing comics alone. Like David said, most artists are still in that nice apartment making a decent, but not grand life.
I believe the price for print magazines, in general, is ridiculous. A couple of years ago I was looking at picking up some magazine off the newsstand at a local grocery store and actually LOL-ed when I saw the cover price was $8.99 or something. I was dumbstruck. The last actual magazine I remember purchasing like this was at least 10 years ago and was no more than $3 or $4. I'm not saying I like any of it, but just for some perspective on the cost of magazines. One of the other podcasts I listen to is a podcast from a magazine and the publisher often talks about how they make nothing in subscriptions. In fact, they lose money. All their money is made in advertising within the magazine. As a result, newsstand cover price is about $5, but you can get a 12 month subscription for $12 (they had a flash sale the other day for $9/year).
Mass-market magazine publishers offer those cheap subscriptions to keep their circulation up. It's the same with newspapers. Keep it cheap to get more eyes. The more eyes you can guarantee, the more you can charge for your ad space. But that's getting more and more difficult to accomplish, and advertisers are looking more and more to spend their money in other places, which is why both industries are struggling to stay alive.
I don't think that the rise in the price of comics has been consistent with inflation, but obviously that has some effect on the rise. I think a much bigger affect would be that the creators are paid more and deservedly so. ... What I am less accepting of is the rise in price due to production costs. I don't need glossy paper and all these crazy colors and super sharp printing processes if it means my books cost $5. The books today are beautiful there is no doubt, but the books of my youth were beautiful and charming too in their own way. I wish they would put out at least a few books on newsprint for us old-timers. ... I know shipping is more know [sic] as well, which could be considered a production cost.
1) Artist page rates are on average actually lower than they were ten years ago. Very few comic book artists make more than a typical middle-class income—even though most of them work far more than the typical 40-hour work week.
2) Newsprint is no longer significantly cheaper than the paper being used today—nobody makes it anymore! In fact, switching a few comics back to newsprint (which technically was not really newsprint, but we can save that discussion for another day) would likely end up costing more.
3) Going back to a 64-color or even a 32-color palette would have absolutely no effect on costs. Technology has eliminated that as a cost worry. You might save a penny or three by eliminating the gloss coating, but it wouldn't be significant enough of a saving to make any real dent in the price of something the size of a comic. A 400-page book, yes, but a 24-page pamphlet, no.
What are the creator fees now? I mean, it use to be an artist could have a nice apartment and a decent but not grand life making comics, but now? Some of these guys are making tons and tons of money.
There are very, very few artists making six figures or more, and the majority of those guys are making that money in royalties from television and movie using properties they had a hand in creating. They're not making that money from drawing comics alone. Like David said, most artists are still in that nice apartment making a decent, but not grand life.
I believe the price for print magazines, in general, is ridiculous. A couple of years ago I was looking at picking up some magazine off the newsstand at a local grocery store and actually LOL-ed when I saw the cover price was $8.99 or something. I was dumbstruck. The last actual magazine I remember purchasing like this was at least 10 years ago and was no more than $3 or $4. I'm not saying I like any of it, but just for some perspective on the cost of magazines. One of the other podcasts I listen to is a podcast from a magazine and the publisher often talks about how they make nothing in subscriptions. In fact, they lose money. All their money is made in advertising within the magazine. As a result, newsstand cover price is about $5, but you can get a 12 month subscription for $12 (they had a flash sale the other day for $9/year).
Mass-market magazine publishers offer those cheap subscriptions to keep their circulation up. It's the same with newspapers. Keep it cheap to get more eyes. The more eyes you can guarantee, the more you can charge for your ad space. But that's getting more and more difficult to accomplish, and advertisers are looking more and more to spend their money in other places, which is why both industries are struggling to stay alive.
Great to show us how wrong we all are, so why don't you tell us why the books are so expensive?
And for the record when I am talking about books being .50 and .60 I am not talking about 10 years ago, because if you go back and listen to early episodes of CGS which were 10 years ago, you still hear complaints about how expensive the books were. I am talking about page rates being higher than they were before the big name artist boom of the late 80's/early 90's.
Isn't there an amount of time that it takes the artist to draw, as detailed as they do these days (compared to the Golden Age, and other ages too?), that should be taken into account?
Isn't there an amount of time that it takes the artist to draw, as detailed as they do these days (compared to the Golden Age, and other ages too?), that should be taken into account?
Huh. I was saying the exact same thing to my computer.
Great to show us how wrong we all are, so why don't you tell us why the books are so expensive?
And for the record when I am talking about books being .50 and .60 I am not talking about 10 years ago, because if you go back and listen to early episodes of CGS which were 10 years ago, you still hear complaints about how expensive the books were. I am talking about page rates being higher than they were before the big name artist boom of the late 80's/early 90's.
The short answer: Because fewer people are buying comics, and because companies don't like profit losses.
The long answer is rather complicated, and I don't have the necessary time to explain it myself. Here is an excellent article written when the Big Two were raising their prices to $3.99. It was written in 2011, and I don't think his theoretical fixes are completely feasible, but it's still very applicable to the current conditions.
Look, I agree that comic book prices should be lower. All I'm saying is that the difference in an average artist making $75/page in the mid-’80s and making $150/page today is a drop in the bucket when determining the price of a comic. The typical comic produced today at the Big Two costs between $8,000 and $15,000 to create—that's writing, penciling, inking, lettering, and coloring—and most skew towards the lower end of the scale. Cutting rates in half for their creative teams, besides ensuring that most of their talent would not be able to make a reasonable living working for them, would shave about 10¢, maybe 12¢ off the price of a comic across the line.
That average penciler at the Big Two can expect to make less than $50,000 a year, and that's even if they're doing twelve issues a year and doing the covers for those issues. And if they're doing twelve issues a year, plus covers, I guarantee you they're working at least 60 hours a week.
Isn't there an amount of time that it takes the artist to draw, as detailed as they do these days (compared to the Golden Age, and other ages too?), that should be taken into account?
It really depends on the artist, but most pencilers take about five weeks to draw a full story.
It's hard to equate that to the Golden Age guys, because they weren't drawing 20-something-page stories. They were drawing 12-pagers, 8-pagers, and 6-pagers for the most part, and they might not be used until six months, or even a year later. And then at the Iger Shop, for instance, you might have someone like Matt Baker drawing the main figures, with Al Feldstein doing the minor figures, and the new guy doing the backgrounds. But a page to a page-and-a-half of pencils a day was generally the goal.
Of course, most Golden Age artists were using photo reference when they had it—most guys kept swipe files of pictures cut out of magazines in filing cabinets—but drawing generic cars, generic buildings, etc., in the backgrounds wasn't exactly frowned upon either. It's a lot easier to find photo reference these days, but given that it's so easy to get exactly what you need, there's also a certain amount of expectation that requires artists to use it for everything.
I think the biggest difference comes from the fact that much of what is being printed today simply would not have been reproducable with the Golden Age printing press technology. I mean, that's why we have inkers in the first place—they were needed to make the artist’s lines reproducable on the printed page. As technology has improved, so have the artists’ options as to what they can do in their work. And that's led to greater expectations of artists from their publishers and their readers, which has led to artists slowing down in an effort to produce the best work they can, not just the best work that can be reproduced.
No analogy will be a perfect analogy, but I would guess that lovers of vinyl records, or model trains, have probably have the same complaints as we do, as the thing they loved went from being a popular amusement to a more and more specialized thing. And add an industry that has so few competitors that they can basically price fix at a high price point.
Totally agree with you @David_D. Although over here in the UK, and I'm very happy to say this, Vinyl has made a very big resurgence in recent years. There are a few new stores in my town, Portsmouth, alone that are Vinyl only, and one particular favourite of my mine called Pie and Vinyl. A place to go and get a great homemade pie (savoury pies), mash and mushy peas, and your new and used vinyl. One of my favourite places down here.
I buy exclusively in vinyl when I want to purchase a hard copy of the music I listen to. It's a recent change and one I don't regret.
Isn't there an amount of time that it takes the artist to draw, as detailed as they do these days (compared to the Golden Age, and other ages too?), that should be taken into account?
It really depends on the artist, but most pencilers take about five weeks to draw a full story.
It's hard to equate that to the Golden Age guys, because they weren't drawing 20-something-page stories. They were drawing 12-pagers, 8-pagers, and 6-pagers for the most part, and they might not be used until six months, or even a year later. And then at the Iger Shop, for instance, you might have someone like Matt Baker drawing the main figures, with Al Feldstein doing the minor figures, and the new guy doing the backgrounds. But a page to a page-and-a-half of pencils a day was generally the goal.
Thanks for those details. Having been an artist/drawer myself (Industrial Design) "a page to a page-and-a-half" seems low. In current comics, even given a month I don't think I could match the quality of some pages. However the simplicity of Golden Age comics has me guessing that I could complete several pages in one day.
No analogy will be a perfect analogy, but I would guess that lovers of vinyl records, or model trains, have probably have the same complaints as we do, as the thing they loved went from being a popular amusement to a more and more specialized thing. And add an industry that has so few competitors that they can basically price fix at a high price point.
Totally agree with you @David_D. Although over here in the UK, and I'm very happy to say this, Vinyl has made a very big resurgence in recent years. There are a few new stores in my town, Portsmouth, alone that are Vinyl only, and one particular favourite of my mine called Pie and Vinyl. A place to go and get a great homemade pie (savoury pies), mash and mushy peas, and your new and used vinyl. One of my favourite places down here.
I buy exclusively in vinyl when I want to purchase a hard copy of the music I listen to. It's a recent change and one I don't regret.
Which, first of all, is cool. My dad loves records and I grew up around them, and used them a lot during my college radio years, and if I were a serious music fan and had them as an option, I might do that, too, as I love the experience of vinyl.
But I would guess (and I actually don't know so I am guessing) that per unit you end up paying more for music on vinyl than you would music on CD, as they probably press a lot fewer of them these days, right?
Isn't there an amount of time that it takes the artist to draw, as detailed as they do these days (compared to the Golden Age, and other ages too?), that should be taken into account?
It really depends on the artist, but most pencilers take about five weeks to draw a full story.
It's hard to equate that to the Golden Age guys, because they weren't drawing 20-something-page stories. They were drawing 12-pagers, 8-pagers, and 6-pagers for the most part, and they might not be used until six months, or even a year later. And then at the Iger Shop, for instance, you might have someone like Matt Baker drawing the main figures, with Al Feldstein doing the minor figures, and the new guy doing the backgrounds. But a page to a page-and-a-half of pencils a day was generally the goal.
Thanks for those details. Having been an artist/drawer myself (Industrial Design) "a page to a page-and-a-half" seems low. In current comics, even given a month I don't think I could match the quality of some pages. However the simplicity of Golden Age comics has me guessing that I could complete several pages in one day.
Well, there were certainly guys who could knock out two or three pages a day, but they weren't overly common.
Keep in mind that in the early days, a large number of the artists were working in studios where they would have a quota. If they happened to be fast, they could get all their work done in plenty of time, and then goof off while pretending to be working the rest of the time. Quite a few guys did that.
No analogy will be a perfect analogy, but I would guess that lovers of vinyl records, or model trains, have probably have the same complaints as we do, as the thing they loved went from being a popular amusement to a more and more specialized thing. And add an industry that has so few competitors that they can basically price fix at a high price point.
Totally agree with you @David_D. Although over here in the UK, and I'm very happy to say this, Vinyl has made a very big resurgence in recent years. There are a few new stores in my town, Portsmouth, alone that are Vinyl only, and one particular favourite of my mine called Pie and Vinyl. A place to go and get a great homemade pie (savoury pies), mash and mushy peas, and your new and used vinyl. One of my favourite places down here.
I buy exclusively in vinyl when I want to purchase a hard copy of the music I listen to. It's a recent change and one I don't regret.
Which, first of all, is cool. My dad loves records and I grew up around them, and used them a lot during my college radio years, and if I were a serious music fan and had them as an option, I might do that, too, as I love the experience of vinyl.
But I would guess (and I actually don't know so I am guessing) that per unit you end up paying more for music on vinyl than you would music on CD, as they probably press a lot fewer of them these days, right?
Not DRASTICALLY much more than you'd think. I pay anywhere between $15 - $25 for a vinyl these days.
I actually made the switch not too long ago. I posted my reasoning on Facebook (doesn't everyone):
"RESOLVED: If I buy anymore modern music in hard copy form, I'm buying vinyl. I know it's a "niche" thing now and alot of "hipsters" are doing it but consider.
1) The car I just bought doesn't have a CD player. It's got AM, FM, XM, Aux, USB, and bluetooth streaming.
2) I don't own a CD player walkman.
3) My home stereo system has a GREAT speaker setup, but the console itself is old and worn out, the CD changer won't even open anymore, but that doesn't matter because I only hook my iPod up via AUX when I want to listen to music.
4) CD's and their cases are thick, vinyl may be bigger overall, but they're MUCH thinner.
5) They're unique. By that I don't just mean not alot of people have them, but also the records themselves are unique. Like my Eve 6 'Speak in Code' album isn't regular black vinyl, it's a transparent RED vinyl. It's SUPER cool.
6) Records can't just be PLAYED, they can be DISPLAYED. The records themselves are works of art because of the size of the album cover.
I know records require more upkeep and care, but I think vinyl is for me from now on. Digital for everything but the music I REALLY love will be also purchased in hard copy on vinyl."
Great to show us how wrong we all are, so why don't you tell us why the books are so expensive?
And for the record when I am talking about books being .50 and .60 I am not talking about 10 years ago, because if you go back and listen to early episodes of CGS which were 10 years ago, you still hear complaints about how expensive the books were. I am talking about page rates being higher than they were before the big name artist boom of the late 80's/early 90's.
The short answer: Because fewer people are buying comics, and because companies don't like profit losses.
The long answer is rather complicated, and I don't have the necessary time to explain it myself. Here is an excellent article written when the Big Two were raising their prices to $3.99. It was written in 2011, and I don't think his theoretical fixes are completely feasible, but it's still very applicable to the current conditions.
Look, I agree that comic book prices should be lower. All I'm saying is that the difference in an average artist making $75/page in the mid-’80s and making $150/page today is a drop in the bucket when determining the price of a comic. The typical comic produced today at the Big Two costs between $8,000 and $15,000 to create—that's writing, penciling, inking, lettering, and coloring—and most skew towards the lower end of the scale. Cutting rates in half for their creative teams, besides ensuring that most of their talent would not be able to make a reasonable living working for them, would shave about 10¢, maybe 12¢ off the price of a comic across the line.
That average penciler at the Big Two can expect to make less than $50,000 a year, and that's even if they're doing twelve issues a year and doing the covers for those issues. And if they're doing twelve issues a year, plus covers, I guarantee you they're working at least 60 hours a week.
First let me say that re-reading what I wrote, I realize I may have come across as snarky and that was not my intention nweathington, so I apologize if you took it that way. Also I want to be sure you understand that while I believe comics are too expensive I in no way support lowering the rates for creators. Nor do I believe it to be the overriding factor for the increase in comics pricing, just a contributor.
First let me say that re-reading what I wrote, I relaize I may have come across as snarky and that was not my intention nweathington, so I apologize if you took it that way. Also I want to be sure you understand that while I believe comics are too expenesive I in no way support lowering the rates for creators. Nor do I believe it to be the overriding factor for the increase in comics pricing, just a contributor.
No worries, Jason. I wasn't sure of the intent, but I always give the benefit of the doubt in online discussions, so I took no offense. But I thank you for the sentiment. Likewise, I hope the succinctness of my first post wasn't taken the wrong way.
Yes, higher creator rates means a higher price tag for comics. I just wanted to point out that those creator rate increases are totally in line when adjusting comic book prices for inflation. That is to say, more money for creators is one of the reasons comics are more expensive, but not one of the reasons comics are overpriced. I think that is an important distinction.
First let me say that re-reading what I wrote, I relaize I may have come across as snarky and that was not my intention nweathington, so I apologize if you took it that way. Also I want to be sure you understand that while I believe comics are too expenesive I in no way support lowering the rates for creators. Nor do I believe it to be the overriding factor for the increase in comics pricing, just a contributor.
No worries, Jason. I wasn't sure of the intent, but I always give the benefit of the doubt in online discussions, so I took no offense. But I thank you for the sentiment. Likewise, I hope the succinctness of my first post wasn't taken the wrong way.
Yes, higher creator rates means a higher price tag for comics. I just wanted to point out that those creator rate increases are totally in line when adjusting comic book prices for inflation. That is to say, more money for creators is one of the reasons comics are more expensive, but not one of the reasons comics are overpriced. I think that is an important distinction.
For sure, and I did read that article you posted. I found it to be extremely informative. It certainly makes the case for publishers to lower there prices to attract new readers. It is an entirely different. but likewise complicated issue whether or not comics at a lower price could compete with the disposable and interactive entertainment found every for people these days. From cell phones, to dvr, video on demand, wide-spread use of tablets, it just seems to me that comics might be fighting to much of an uphill battle. Still a lower price couldn't hurt circulation numbers, yet I doubt they will try it.
I'm also cutting my monthly books way back. I've discovered Marvel Unlimited and I'm really enjoying going back and reading older Marvel stories that I have never tried before. I've started reading at Avengers #1 and Fantastic Four #1 and have been working my way up the list for $60 a year its well worth the money . It is the first time I have ever read work by Stan Lee and Jack Kirby and I am loving it.
Good episode! And I'm enjoying the forum comments, too! TV/Movie/Video Talk: Interesting. I need to catch up with some of the series. /Yeah, comic book prices should JUST NOT be as high as they are! And yet, they'll probably go even higher. Grrr! I probably spend over a 100 bucks a month for comics and that's not even counting international shipping! So, this year, I'm gonna start cutting back. Probably just to the point where shipping equals comic book costs. / Good job on not being Muddled, Murd! That was awesome (especially that batmobile answer!) / Walking Dead? Interesting discussion, but I'm only on Trade #4. Haha...
As a reader that started 5 years ago, I lived through $2.99 to $3.99, and now Marvel #1's going up to $4.99. It does price me out to an extent. My income doesn't seem to rise as quickly as the prices of these books do, and as such I am slowing my purchasing down.
I like the way Image, and now to an extent Marvel, are pushing out their trades quicker. It allows me to still be interested in a book by the time it comes out. I also (as I have stated numerous times on other threads) love the Marvel digital codes. At least I feel like I am getting more - and in fact I am. I really like having some issues on the go with me in digital. Silver Surfer is a book that almost pops even more on the iPad, as the colors are so bright and vivid.
Comments
Going back and reading older things I have never read would be a possibility for me also, but I am not to that point yet. I think I just enjoy keeping up with the current events too much. I mean the first thing I do every day when I wake up is check all the comic book news sites to make sure I am current on all the news. However, I am sure there is a point when price vs value will force me to make a change as well.
For me, with DC the issue hasn't been price as much as it's been direction and content. However, if (and when) the big two go to $5 then I'm done. I'll concentrate on back issues and trying out the occasional Indy.
M
M
* I did read n52 Detective Comics #1 for the CGS episode. Jamie stated I had to read 1 Batman title.
2) Newsprint is no longer significantly cheaper than the paper being used today—nobody makes it anymore! In fact, switching a few comics back to newsprint (which technically was not really newsprint, but we can save that discussion for another day) would likely end up costing more.
3) Going back to a 64-color or even a 32-color palette would have absolutely no effect on costs. Technology has eliminated that as a cost worry. You might save a penny or three by eliminating the gloss coating, but it wouldn't be significant enough of a saving to make any real dent in the price of something the size of a comic. A 400-page book, yes, but a 24-page pamphlet, no.
4) Shipping is absolutely a production cost. There are very, very few artists making six figures or more, and the majority of those guys are making that money in royalties from television and movie using properties they had a hand in creating. They're not making that money from drawing comics alone. Like David said, most artists are still in that nice apartment making a decent, but not grand life. Mass-market magazine publishers offer those cheap subscriptions to keep their circulation up. It's the same with newspapers. Keep it cheap to get more eyes. The more eyes you can guarantee, the more you can charge for your ad space. But that's getting more and more difficult to accomplish, and advertisers are looking more and more to spend their money in other places, which is why both industries are struggling to stay alive.
Great to show us how wrong we all are, so why don't you tell us why the books are so expensive?
And for the record when I am talking about books being .50 and .60 I am not talking about 10 years ago, because if you go back and listen to early episodes of CGS which were 10 years ago, you still hear complaints about how expensive the books were. I am talking about page rates being higher than they were before the big name artist boom of the late 80's/early 90's.
The long answer is rather complicated, and I don't have the necessary time to explain it myself. Here is an excellent article written when the Big Two were raising their prices to $3.99. It was written in 2011, and I don't think his theoretical fixes are completely feasible, but it's still very applicable to the current conditions.
Look, I agree that comic book prices should be lower. All I'm saying is that the difference in an average artist making $75/page in the mid-’80s and making $150/page today is a drop in the bucket when determining the price of a comic. The typical comic produced today at the Big Two costs between $8,000 and $15,000 to create—that's writing, penciling, inking, lettering, and coloring—and most skew towards the lower end of the scale. Cutting rates in half for their creative teams, besides ensuring that most of their talent would not be able to make a reasonable living working for them, would shave about 10¢, maybe 12¢ off the price of a comic across the line.
That average penciler at the Big Two can expect to make less than $50,000 a year, and that's even if they're doing twelve issues a year and doing the covers for those issues. And if they're doing twelve issues a year, plus covers, I guarantee you they're working at least 60 hours a week.
It's hard to equate that to the Golden Age guys, because they weren't drawing 20-something-page stories. They were drawing 12-pagers, 8-pagers, and 6-pagers for the most part, and they might not be used until six months, or even a year later. And then at the Iger Shop, for instance, you might have someone like Matt Baker drawing the main figures, with Al Feldstein doing the minor figures, and the new guy doing the backgrounds. But a page to a page-and-a-half of pencils a day was generally the goal.
Of course, most Golden Age artists were using photo reference when they had it—most guys kept swipe files of pictures cut out of magazines in filing cabinets—but drawing generic cars, generic buildings, etc., in the backgrounds wasn't exactly frowned upon either. It's a lot easier to find photo reference these days, but given that it's so easy to get exactly what you need, there's also a certain amount of expectation that requires artists to use it for everything.
I think the biggest difference comes from the fact that much of what is being printed today simply would not have been reproducable with the Golden Age printing press technology. I mean, that's why we have inkers in the first place—they were needed to make the artist’s lines reproducable on the printed page. As technology has improved, so have the artists’ options as to what they can do in their work. And that's led to greater expectations of artists from their publishers and their readers, which has led to artists slowing down in an effort to produce the best work they can, not just the best work that can be reproduced.
But I would guess (and I actually don't know so I am guessing) that per unit you end up paying more for music on vinyl than you would music on CD, as they probably press a lot fewer of them these days, right?
Keep in mind that in the early days, a large number of the artists were working in studios where they would have a quota. If they happened to be fast, they could get all their work done in plenty of time, and then goof off while pretending to be working the rest of the time. Quite a few guys did that.
I actually made the switch not too long ago. I posted my reasoning on Facebook (doesn't everyone):
"RESOLVED: If I buy anymore modern music in hard copy form, I'm buying vinyl. I know it's a "niche" thing now and alot of "hipsters" are doing it but consider.
1) The car I just bought doesn't have a CD player. It's got AM, FM, XM, Aux, USB, and bluetooth streaming.
2) I don't own a CD player walkman.
3) My home stereo system has a GREAT speaker setup, but the console itself is old and worn out, the CD changer won't even open anymore, but that doesn't matter because I only hook my iPod up via AUX when I want to listen to music.
4) CD's and their cases are thick, vinyl may be bigger overall, but they're MUCH thinner.
5) They're unique. By that I don't just mean not alot of people have them, but also the records themselves are unique. Like my Eve 6 'Speak in Code' album isn't regular black vinyl, it's a transparent RED vinyl. It's SUPER cool.
6) Records can't just be PLAYED, they can be DISPLAYED. The records themselves are works of art because of the size of the album cover.
I know records require more upkeep and care, but I think vinyl is for me from now on. Digital for everything but the music I REALLY love will be also purchased in hard copy on vinyl."
First let me say that re-reading what I wrote, I realize I may have come across as snarky and that was not my intention nweathington, so I apologize if you took it that way. Also I want to be sure you understand that while I believe comics are too expensive I in no way support lowering the rates for creators. Nor do I believe it to be the overriding factor for the increase in comics pricing, just a contributor.
Yes, higher creator rates means a higher price tag for comics. I just wanted to point out that those creator rate increases are totally in line when adjusting comic book prices for inflation. That is to say, more money for creators is one of the reasons comics are more expensive, but not one of the reasons comics are overpriced. I think that is an important distinction.
I like the way Image, and now to an extent Marvel, are pushing out their trades quicker. It allows me to still be interested in a book by the time it comes out. I also (as I have stated numerous times on other threads) love the Marvel digital codes. At least I feel like I am getting more - and in fact I am. I really like having some issues on the go with me in digital. Silver Surfer is a book that almost pops even more on the iPad, as the colors are so bright and vivid.