Thread Drift: What Fans Want

[RobertMacQuarrie1]

Well his work could appear cluttered and hard to follow sometimes. I think his best Spidey art was on his Amazing Spider-man run with Michilinie. He's still one of my faves for purely nostaligic reasons, and for the nice shock of seeing his art style take over the Spider-man book back then.

I agree that his art style was radically different than what came before. But, personally speaking, I think the art on the book before he came on board was much better.

Sure, the characters may not have seem as big and stylized as depicted as MacFarlane, but again I think these artists understood the fundamentals a lot better. They could actually tell a story, and new how to layout a page and images. MacFarlane was good in a pinup artist style, but when it came to the basics he was lacking.

Yep--as I don't care a lick for the Ultimate Universe, I've pretty much given up on the current comics too. It's fine though--there are literally hundreds of so many good back issues that I would rather re-read and get enjoyment out of--as well as runs that I need to finish like JMD's second run on Spectacular. I've gotten tons of entertainment out of these comics over the years, that I don't mind being out of Marvel's current target demagraphic, whoever that is.

I know that when people express this type of sentiment, it may come off as fanboy bitching. But as a reader, I keep checking back in expecting runs on the character that approach the level of, say, JMS, Peter David or Mark Millar, just to use some recent examples. I know there'll be good runs again like those someday. Right now the character is just kind of in a slump. Not to beat this too much into the ground, but the last few years have been nothing but empty hype, and that goes for stories like Spider-men as well.

Of course this is all subjective, because as so many point out, the character has had a very successful past year and a half under Slott from a sales standpoint, and many readers seem like the direction things are going.

I personally don't see it as fanboy bitching, but I can understand how it can be accused as such. It's very easy to accuse someone of not liking the current direction as simply being upset that the narrative isn't like the stories that they are used to. And that can be true in a lot of cases. But I don't think it's inherently a bad thing to want the series to be better, and to point to examples of these past period as what someone felt was when the book was doing well.

One of the most frustrating things to deal with as a fan is to have those that simply refer to earlier periods that you may enjoy as just being inherently bad, without context. More than once I've seen a few fans who have accused JMS' run as just being completely bad, without providing context. Or just used the words "Totem Saga" as an example of a horrible story, without providing why. It just was bad. And as someone who enjoyed those runs and stories, it does come become irritating when those stories that you enjoy are treated as if they were the worst stories that Spider-Man has ever experienced. But I don't understand why those fans don't face the same sort of accusation as just being "bitchy fanboys" and are somehow more in tune with the underlying themes and philosophies of the mythos than everyone else.

I think the biggest issue that has afflicted the Spider-Man fanbase in the past little while is the notion that there has to be one, set ideology for Spider-Man, and that anyone that disagrees with that is just wrong or has some form of ulterior motive. Someone can like JMS, and not like Slott, and it doesn't mean that they don't understand the character. The same is true of those that like Slott but didn't care for JMS. It doesn't have to be one way or the other, and there needs to be more acceptance of different ideologies and philosophies, without the need to claim that one view over the other is inherently superior.

[Metamorphosis]

I think the biggest issue that has afflicted the Spider-Man fanbase in the past little while is the notion that there has to be one, set ideology for Spider-Man, and that anyone that disagrees with that is just wrong or has some form of ulterior motive. Someone can like JMS, and not like Slott, and it doesn't mean that they don't understand the character. The same is true of those that like Slott but didn't care for JMS. It doesn't have to be one way or the other, and there needs to be more acceptance of different ideologies and philosophies, without the need to claim that one view over the other is inherently superior.

True--having said all that though, I think there are some eras that are universally loathed, that there is a consensus on. I'd say the Mackie / Bryne relaunch years fall into that category.

I'd also like to read more Web of Spider-Man, despite the fact that most considered it the weakest book during that time period.

Some of my favorite Web Vol. 1 issues, definitely worth checking out if you haven't already read them:

#8 - 9: Local (Super) Hero
#11 - 13: Peter Parker - Vigilante and Victim
#29 - 30: Spidey / Wolverine team up, Ned Leeds Hobgoblin reveal explored, Rose origin
#37: Jim Owsley slasher story
#40 - 43: Peter David's "Cult of Love" arc--very underrated
#52: Fantastic JJJ vs. Chameleon issue, one of Gerry Conway's best Spider-man issues.

[RobertMacQuarrie1]

True--having said all that though, I think there are some eras that are universally loathed, that there is a consensus on. I'd say the Mackie / Bryne relaunch years fall into that category.

I agree there are some eras that does have some general consensus about their quality. But someone can speak about their quality without addressing about their status or legitimacy as a fan.

I think an issue I have is in regards to whether or not someone likes and era, and their opinion and status as a fan being called into question as a result. Or a particular fan outright declaring an era or a period of being of poor quality, without doing anything to show why it's bad. They dislike it, therefore it's bad, and if you don't agree then that shows that you don't know what you are talking about. Part of my frustration with Spider-Man the past few years was with these types of fans, who set the tone of the discussion and expected everyone else to follow. It was that sort of thing that made the last few years the worst years for me to be a Spider-Man fan.

[Metamorphosis]

I agree there are some eras that does have some general consensus about their quality. But someone can speak about their quality without addressing about their status or legitimacy as a fan.

I think an issue I have is in regards to whether or not someone likes and era, and their opinion and status as a fan being called into question as a result. Or a particular fan outright declaring an era or a period of being of poor quality, without doing anything to show why it's bad. They dislike it, therefore it's bad, and if you don't agree then that shows that you don't know what you are talking about. Part of my frustration with Spider-Man the past few years was with these types of fans, who set the tone of the discussion and expected everyone else to follow. It was that sort of thing that made the last few years the worst years for me to be a Spider-Man fan.

That's also the tone of many people commenting on the internet generally anyway. I've learned to let it roll off my back. But point taken. There was a time it was difficult to have a civil discussion on these very boards.

Thanks for the suggestions, Cheese. I've only ever read the Web of Spider-Man issues from the Kraven's Last Hunt arc and a few others, so I haven't read any of those. I'll be sure to give those a try!

You're welcome man, enjoy. Long past time I got some of those Web issues out myself for a re-read.

[RobertMacQuarrie1]

That's also the tone of many people commenting on the internet generally anyway. I've learned to let it roll off my back. But point taken. There was a time it was difficult to have a civil discussion on these very boards.

I think that, in certain respects, it's easier to let it roll off your back in some situations than it is in others.

Back during the early days of OMD and BND, it was harder to let this stuff roll off your back because you had a certain segment of fans emboldened by the creative change, which helped to back up their personal philosophies about the franchise and those that disagreed with them. It also didn't help when you had some of the creators themselves going after the fans who disagreed with the direction of the book, which also made it difficult for anyone with an opposing view to be treated respectfully.

I think things have changed since then, at least from a personal perspective. I think some of the more nosier and confrontational elements have died down, and much of what they said would happen didn't. In addition, from my perspective, I think I've gotten better at sorting out and dealing with certain elements, and learning not to simply let others dictate the tone of the conversation. Plus, finding other avenues to express myself probably helped as well.

[mlazic]

Thing of it is, if you're like me- who isn't a fan of Dan Slott and his run on Spidey- it's even worse.

At this point, no aspect of Spider-Man really appeals to me as a fan. I'm not interested in the movies, video games, TV shows, or the comics. I'm getting my Spidey fix by buying older TPB collections and by drawing the character and his universe from time to time, but that's about it.

And the frustrating this is the nagging feeling that Marvel probably wouldn't be interested in trying to regain my business, or even if it would be financially sound for them. The key demographic that I think they would want to be going for is the 18-34 year old, and I'm at the very tail end of that. It does make more sense to try and tailor the comics for that crowd, which I will soon no longer be a part of (as in a couple of years). And while I do wish that Marvel would want to try and gain my business, I also understand from a larger perspective that they might not consider my business to be all that appealing at this time.

It's kind of hard to express the notion of what it feels like to be a fan of Spider-Man, but feel that there really is nothing for you in the current creative direction from all mediums.

The good (and bad I guess) thing about comics is nothing lasts forever, no creative team, no status quo, no costume, no power set etc Even if you don't like the current Spidey comics there's nothing to say in say 5 years time things could be completely different and you could be loving what you read again.

[RobertMacQuarrie1]

The good (and bad I guess) thing about comics is nothing lasts forever, no creative team, no status quo, no costume, no power set etc Even if you don't like the current Spidey comics there's nothing to say in say 5 years time things could be completely different and you could be loving what you read again.

Oh, absolutely. And I don't reject the notion that it could change.

But the issue that kind of makes being a fan frustrating or disappointing is twofold. First is that while things can change, the idea of waiting five years for something to possibly get better or turn around is a bit daunting. I would like to enjoy the character now, not possibly at some later date which could be five, ten or twenty years later. Secondly, while things are capable of changing, it's questionable as to whether or not the concerns that I and others have addressed will be listened to. The same issues that are making things difficult for certain fans may continue with a new direction. The creative parties may continue the pattern of ignoring fan concerns in favor of trying to reach the nebulous new readers or trying to make the franchise align more with their philosophy of what the franchise should be rather than what a lot of people would actually enjoy reading.

So while things can and will change, the idea that it would change to a status that would be satisfactory, or that it would change within an acceptable time frame, is not something that is all that comforting.

[Metamorphosis]

I think that, in certain respects, it's easier to let it roll off your back in some situations than it is in others.

Back during the early days of OMD and BND, it was harder to let this stuff roll off your back because you had a certain segment of fans emboldened by the creative change, which helped to back up their personal philosophies about the franchise and those that disagreed with them. It also didn't help when you had some of the creators themselves going after the fans who disagreed with the direction of the book, which also made it difficult for anyone with an opposing view to be treated respectfully.

This has been going on at least since the Bill Jemas / Joe Queseda era, where they very vocally dismissed readers who didn't like what they were doing in interviews.

Oh, absolutely. And I don't reject the notion that it could change.

But the issue that kind of makes being a fan frustrating or disappointing is twofold. First is that while things can change, the idea of waiting five years for something to possibly get better or turn around is a bit daunting. I would like to enjoy the character now, not possibly at some later date which could be five, ten or twenty years later. Secondly, while things are capable of changing, it's questionable as to whether or not the concerns that I and others have addressed will be listened to. The same issues that are making things difficult for certain fans may continue with a new direction. The creative parties may continue the pattern of ignoring fan concerns in favor of trying to reach the nebulous new readers or trying to make the franchise align more with their philosophy of what the franchise should be rather than what a lot of people would actually enjoy reading.

So while things can and will change, the idea that it would change to a status that would be satisfactory, or that it would change within an acceptable time frame, is not something that is all that comforting.

I have to play devil's advocate here, and point out that what the fans usually want (which there probably isn't a consensus on) and what Marvel needs and wants for the health and longevity of the franchise are usually at odds with eachother.

But why they don't bring Peter and MJ back together, at least as a couple, or come up with stories that no Spider-man fan would want to miss like an actual Norman Osborn / Doc Ock battle (one that doesn't take place off panel, in some past continuity like in Superior Team Up, or with a mind-controlled Ock like the short skirmish in Marvel Knights) is beyond me. Everytime they do a Green Goblin vs. Hobgoblin battle, even, it just doesn't seem like anyone's heart is really in it (though the recent one in Superior was probably the best GG / Hobby fight we've gotten yet). Those should be issues for the ages.

[RobertMacQuarrie1]

This has been going on at least since the Bill Jemas / Joe Queseda era, where they very vocally dismissed readers who didn't like what they were doing in interviews.

And that's really a big issue that I had with my relationship with Spider-Man the past few years.

It's one thing to dislike the direction a series is headed in. It's another when the creative parties behind said direction come out and say that anyone who dislikes it is ignorant, or that they have secret agendas wanting the character to grow old with them and die, or that they are selfish, or any other things that are simply untrue.

It makes things worse when not only do you get the notion that your concerns are going to fall on deaf ears, but that you are going to be actively vilified in order to justify the current direction.

I have to play devil's advocate here, and point out that what the fans usually want (which there probably isn't a consensus on) and what Marvel needs and wants for the health and longevity of the franchise are usually at odds with each other.

I actually disagree, because I don't think that it is as complicated than that. I think that the creators and some fans make it seem like that in order to justify not doing a story that they personally disagree with. In addition, I think that there are very good ways to find out want fans want, or more importantly, what they dislike.

Yes, if you just wait for the fans to come up and tell you what they want to see, you are going to get a hundred different answers. People those people are dedicated enough to the franchise that they will go out of their way to express their ideas. But if the creators go out and ask the people who aren't speaking up, who aren't going online or who are writing in, but are fans, what they liked or dislike, you might get a more accurate answer. It's the difference between someone telling them "This is what I want to see" verses them going to someone and asking "What do you think needs improvement?"

And this is something that practically every business does. The fact that Marvel still apparently doesn't do market research is baffling.

But why they don't bring Peter and MJ back together, at least as a couple, or come up with stories that no Spider-man fan would want to miss like an actual Norman Osborn / Doc Ock battle (one that doesn't take place off panel, in some past continuity like in Superior Team Up, or with a mind-controlled Ock like the short skirmish in Marvel Knights) is beyond me. Everytime they do a Green Goblin vs. Hobgoblin battle, even, it just doesn't seem like anyone's heart is really in it (though the recent one in Superior was probably the best GG / Hobby fight we've gotten yet). Those should be issues for the ages.

Because, quite frankly, it feels that the modus operandi of the creative parties is a bit messed up. As I stated previously, Marvel- or any other comic company it seems- doesn't do market research. Now, granted, this doesn't mean that they should craft polls and tell stories specifically based on that. But simply talking to fans and finding out what they like, dislike or are interested in, seems to be so basic that it astounds me that it is absolutely ruled out by the creators. And it's not that the creators are above doing what they think will interest fans. The problem is that they simply guess what will interest them, rather than ask what they are interested in. This seems counterproductive, as it assumes the creators know what the fans want which in many cases is just not true. If they want to appeal to fans, ask what they want. Be proactive. Don't wait until the creative changeover is roasted over the coals in the press before you do something about it.

[Mister Mets]

Thing of it is, if you're like me- who isn't a fan of Dan Slott and his run on Spidey- it's even worse.

At this point, no aspect of Spider-Man really appeals to me as a fan. I'm not interested in the movies, video games, TV shows, or the comics. I'm getting my Spidey fix by buying older TPB collections and by drawing the character and his universe from time to time, but that's about it.

And the frustrating this is the nagging feeling that Marvel probably wouldn't be interested in trying to regain my business, or even if it would be financially sound for them. The key demographic that I think they would want to be going for is the 18-34 year old, and I'm at the very tail end of that. It does make more sense to try and tailor the comics for that crowd, which I will soon no longer be a part of (as in a couple of years). And while I do wish that Marvel would want to try and gain my business, I also understand from a larger perspective that they might not consider my business to be all that appealing at this time.

It's kind of hard to express the notion of what it feels like to be a fan of Spider-Man, but feel that there really is nothing for you in the current creative direction from all mediums.

Why would it be financially sound for Marvel to change their policies so that you would read and buy the comics? Perhaps the things that you care for would put off more readers.

I agree there are some eras that does have some general consensus about their quality. But someone can speak about their quality without addressing about their status or legitimacy as a fan.

I think an issue I have is in regards to whether or not someone likes and era, and their opinion and status as a fan being called into question as a result. Or a particular fan outright declaring an era or a period of being of poor quality, without doing anything to show why it's bad. They dislike it, therefore it's bad, and if you don't agree then that shows that you don't know what you are talking about. Part of my frustration with Spider-Man the past few years was with these types of fans, who set the tone of the discussion and expected everyone else to follow. It was that sort of thing that made the last few years the worst years for me to be a Spider-Man fan.

You're holding internet commentators to a high standard. Often there are explanations behind various opinions, but in some contexts it is just too time-consuming to go into detail on that stuff.

This has been going on at least since the Bill Jemas / Joe Queseda era, where they very vocally dismissed readers who didn't like what they were doing in interviews.



I have to play devil's advocate here, and point out that what the fans usually want (which there probably isn't a consensus on) and what Marvel needs and wants for the health and longevity of the franchise are usually at odds with eachother.

But why they don't bring Peter and MJ back together, at least as a couple, or come up with stories that no Spider-man fan would want to miss like an actual Norman Osborn / Doc Ock battle (one that doesn't take place off panel, in some past continuity like in Superior Team Up, or with a mind-controlled Ock like the short skirmish in Marvel Knights) is beyond me. Everytime they do a Green Goblin vs. Hobgoblin battle, even, it just doesn't seem like anyone's heart is really in it (though the recent one in Superior was probably the best GG / Hobby fight we've gotten yet). Those should be issues for the ages.

I can understand the argument that it's a bad time to be a fan if you feel that the professionals are insulting you personally in interviews, although that gets a bit tough. The fans who strongly disagree with a direction, and are aware of the comments of the pros, are a small segment of Spider-Man readers.

Fans can be really divided on things, which is one reason that it would be tough for Marvel to come up with stories no Spider-Man would want to miss. Readers who think it was a bad idea for Norman Osborn to come back from the dead won't care for a big fight between him and Doc Ock. Some fans of older Spider-Man comics don't care for Venom, so they wouldn't care for a story that has anything to do with him. Some fans of Miles Morales may think it would be better for comics if the Peter Parker of the regular comics was killed off, and replaced with Miles.

[RobertMacQuarrie1]

Why would it be financially sound for Marvel to change their policies so that you would read and buy the comics? Perhaps the things that you care for would put off more readers.

And that could very much true, and that's the problem that does dog me and makes it difficult to be a fan. Particularly because the company doesn't seem to care about my opinion or those who share my opinion.

You're holding internet commentators to a high standard. Often there are explanations behind various opinions, but in some contexts it is just too time-consuming to go into detail on that stuff.

Yet they are willing to engage in long conversations with people online, often demanding others disprove their definition of the mythos and setting the tone of the conversation.

It may be too time consuming in a lot of cases. But when someone is clearly willing to spend hours online anyway, it kind of shows that it's not time consuming to them.

I can understand the argument that it's a bad time to be a fan if you feel that the professionals are insulting you personally in interviews, although that gets a bit tough. The fans who strongly disagree with a direction, and are aware of the comments of the pros, are a small segment of Spider-Man readers.

And you can prove this how?

Fans can be really divided on things, which is one reason that it would be tough for Marvel to come up with stories no Spider-Man would want to miss. Readers who think it was a bad idea for Norman Osborn to come back from the dead won't care for a big fight between him and Doc Ock. Some fans of older Spider-Man comics don't care for Venom, so they wouldn't care for a story that has anything to do with him. Some fans of Miles Morales may think it would be better for comics if the Peter Parker of the regular comics was killed off, and replaced with Miles.

And that comes from balancing fan expectations with legitimate concerns. Replacing Miles with Peter in the 616 doesn't seem to be that practical of an idea. But- for example- given the amount of people who expressed a dislike of OMD, and given the history that shows that a married Peter doesn't deter fans or creators, and that how it has gotten criticism from both fans and creators, then it seems unlikely that undoing it would be a bad idea. Arguing that undoing it might cause problems later means nothing for people who are looking to be satisfied now.

[Metamorphosis]

And that's really a big issue that I had with my relationship with Spider-Man the past few years.

It's one thing to dislike the direction a series is headed in. It's another when the creative parties behind said direction come out and say that anyone who dislikes it is ignorant, or that they have secret agendas wanting the character to grow old with them and die, or that they are selfish, or any other things that are simply untrue.

It makes things worse when not only do you get the notion that your concerns are going to fall on deaf ears, but that you are going to be actively vilified in order to justify the current direction.

I actually disagree, because I don't think that it is as complicated than that. I think that the creators and some fans make it seem like that in order to justify not doing a story that they personally disagree with. In addition, I think that there are very good ways to find out want fans want, or more importantly, what they dislike.

Yes, if you just wait for the fans to come up and tell you what they want to see, you are going to get a hundred different answers. People those people are dedicated enough to the franchise that they will go out of their way to express their ideas. But if the creators go out and ask the people who aren't speaking up, who aren't going online or who are writing in, but are fans, what they liked or dislike, you might get a more accurate answer. It's the difference between someone telling them "This is what I want to see" verses them going to someone and asking "What do you think needs improvement?"

And this is something that practically every business does. The fact that Marvel still apparently doesn't do market research is baffling.

Because, quite frankly, it feels that the modus operandi of the creative parties is a bit messed up. As I stated previously, Marvel- or any other comic company it seems- doesn't do market research. Now, granted, this doesn't mean that they should craft polls and tell stories specifically based on that. But simply talking to fans and finding out what they like, dislike or are interested in, seems to be so basic that it astounds me that it is absolutely ruled out by the creators. And it's not that the creators are above doing what they think will interest fans. The problem is that they simply guess what will interest them, rather than ask what they are interested in. This seems counterproductive, as it assumes the creators know what the fans want which in many cases is just not true. If they want to appeal to fans, ask what they want. Be proactive. Don't wait until the creative changeover is roasted over the coals in the press before you do something about it.

I don't know for sure that they don't do any kind of market research. Perhaps the comics are such a small piece of the pie (compared to licensing where, let's face it, they really make big money off of the characters) that they don't feel compelled to do such stuff. There may be a feeling that the publishing arm of Marvel is such a small subset to their larger business that they don't particularly care to do research. I know that lots of these writers spend lots of time at conventions, meeting fans. You know those con attendees are talking to creators about what they want to see (like bringing Mayday Parker back into the 616 or something, probably). Maybe the writers get tired of the constant barrage of samey requests from fans.

(I can't help but feel there is a palpable level of contempt on the part of comic writers for their readers these days).

But a couple of examples I can think of just on these forums: the guy who was practically demanding that Cardiac be brought back, that found a way to bring it up in every thread. Sure enough, Cardiac showed up again ("because you demanded it" as they say).

Another was Peter David doing 2099 again. We talked about that on here for years, and perhaps due to the circumstances being right (I know PAD had some health problems a year or so ago), we now finally have a new SM2099 title. I don't know that Marvel gives a crap what people were saying on this message board about what they wanted, but Wacker and Slott used to frequent these boards.

Really though, I think readers have shown that the more controversial stuff Marvel does, the more the readers will eat it up, and the more the books sell, even if it isn't the best long term model. The Clone Saga, The Other, and Superior flew off the shelves--all stories with Peter "dying" or being replaced. They probably think they're giving us what we don't even know we want.

Fans can be really divided on things, which is one reason that it would be tough for Marvel to come up with stories no Spider-Man would want to miss. Readers who think it was a bad idea for Norman Osborn to come back from the dead won't care for a big fight between him and Doc Ock. Some fans of older Spider-Man comics don't care for Venom, so they wouldn't care for a story that has anything to do with him. Some fans of Miles Morales may think it would be better for comics if the Peter Parker of the regular comics was killed off, and replaced with Miles.

Which is why I said that there seems to rarely be a true consensus as to what the fans want. And probably why comic writers are more likely to think, "screw it, I'm gonna write what I want".

I feel like there are some writers that just tow that line a lot better than others, between what fans may like and what makes for a good story for Marvel's purposes. Peter David is certainly one, Mark Waid is another (although a lot of Waid's Spider-man work since BND left me pretty cold, but I've still yet to read the new OGN).

[RobertMacQuarrie1]

I don't know for sure that they don't do any kind of market research. Perhaps the comics are such a small piece of the pie (compared to licensing where, let's face it, they really make big money off of the characters) that they don't feel compelled to do such stuff. There may be a feeling that the publishing arm of Marvel is such a small subset to their larger business that they don't particularly care to do research. I know that lots of these writers spend lots of time at conventions, meeting fans. You know those con attendees are talking to creators about what they want to see (like bringing Mayday Parker back into the 616 or something, probably). Maybe the writers get tired of the constant barrage of samey requests from fans.

Comics are a small piece of the pie in regards to revenue for the company, that is true. Marvel makes more from it's licensing division than it does from the comics.

But the comics still need to turn a profit. Which means that it's more important to deal with the fans, not less.

But a couple of examples I can think of just on these forums: the guy who was practically demanding that Cardiac be brought back, that found a way to bring it up in every thread. Sure enough, Cardiac showed up again ("because you demanded it" as they say).

Another was Peter David doing 2099 again. We talked about that on here for years, and perhaps due to the circumstances being right (I know PAD had some health problems a year or so ago), we now finally have a new SM2099 title. I don't know that Marvel gives a crap what people were saying on this message board about what they wanted, but Wacker and Slott used to frequent these boards.

Which just goes to show that the notion of "We can't listen to fans" isn't something that is absurd or irrational. It's something that happens more often than not. So to have creators come out and tell fans that they can't do that, ever, because it would mean the ruination of the franchise, seems a bit misleading.

Really though, I think readers have shown that the more controversial stuff Marvel does, the more the readers will eat it up, and the more the books sell, even if it isn't the best long term model. The Clone Saga, The Other, and Superior flew off the shelves--all stories with Peter "dying" or being replaced. They probably think they're giving us what we don't even know we want.

Well, that sort of thing has more to do with the speculator interest in the titles, and purchasing issues that seem to be important for a collection or later use. Much like how the Obama issue sold like gangbusters, but it didn't really result in higher sales after the title.

Which is why I said that there seems to rarely be a true consensus as to what the fans want. And probably why comic writers are more likely to think, "screw it, I'm gonna write what I want".

But that's an easy trap to fall into. That's the result of not asking questions, and just making assumptions.

Yes, it does seem like you have a lot of conflicting ideologies just by waiting for fans to come to you. You're likely to only get the really passionate, really devoted fans who are alreay buying or who have bought for years. Their issues will most likely be developed through what they want to see for the franchise. It's less about the quality of the series and what is holding them back, and more about what their individual vision for the franchise is.

But if you go out and talk to fans, ask them what they want or what is holding them back, or what they like or dislike, you're probably going to get a more substantial vision.

Just from my personal experience, this is a very common aspect in my job. People often come into my place of work to find items for their home, but they don't often know exactly what they are looking for. That's why I ask questions- When do you need it? Do you have a style you like? Do you want round or square? Chrome or brushed nickle? It's about getting to the root of the customers wants by investigating and asking questions, rather than outright telling them what they want, and hoping that they like it. I don't come out and just assume what the person wants, or think they don't know what they want, just because some people came in and gave contradictory statements about what they would like. Those people were the exception, and not everyone has a good idea of what they would like beyond a general idea. Hence why you have to investigate and listen, and not just treat every customer like they don't know what they want and they have to be told. Often they do, they just have trouble expressing it.

[Mister Mets]

And you can prove this how?

It's more of a mental exercise than proof.

In order for a majority of fans to feel personally insulted by professionals in interviews, overwhelming majorities of fans would have to meet particular criteria. If 70 percent of fans disagree with the current direction, and 70 percent of those fans are both aware of comments by pros directed at detractors AND interpret those comments in a way that guides them to personal offense, it still falls short of a majority.

I don't know for sure that they don't do any kind of market research. Perhaps the comics are such a small piece of the pie (compared to licensing where, let's face it, they really make big money off of the characters) that they don't feel compelled to do such stuff. There may be a feeling that the publishing arm of Marvel is such a small subset to their larger business that they don't particularly care to do research. I know that lots of these writers spend lots of time at conventions, meeting fans. You know those con attendees are talking to creators about what they want to see (like bringing Mayday Parker back into the 616 or something, probably). Maybe the writers get tired of the constant barrage of samey requests from fans.

(I can't help but feel there is a palpable level of contempt on the part of comic writers for their readers these days).

But a couple of examples I can think of just on these forums: the guy who was practically demanding that Cardiac be brought back, that found a way to bring it up in every thread. Sure enough, Cardiac showed up again ("because you demanded it" as they say).

Another was Peter David doing 2099 again. We talked about that on here for years, and perhaps due to the circumstances being right (I know PAD had some health problems a year or so ago), we now finally have a new SM2099 title. I don't know that Marvel gives a crap what people were saying on this message board about what they wanted, but Wacker and Slott used to frequent these boards.

Really though, I think readers have shown that the more controversial stuff Marvel does, the more the readers will eat it up, and the more the books sell, even if it isn't the best long term model. The Clone Saga, The Other, and Superior flew off the shelves--all stories with Peter "dying" or being replaced. They probably think they're giving us what we don't even know we want.



Which is why I said that there seems to rarely be a true consensus as to what the fans want. And probably why comic writers are more likely to think, "screw it, I'm gonna write what I want".

I feel like there are some writers that just tow that line a lot better than others, between what fans may like and what makes for a good story for Marvel's purposes. Peter David is certainly one, Mark Waid is another (although a lot of Waid's Spider-man work since BND left me pretty cold, but I've still yet to read the new OGN).

Comics seems to be a particularly poor fit for market research.

Sales aren't high enough to warrant it.

Readers can do a poor job of articulating what they want. It's a visual medium, so much of what makes a comic effective is difficult to convey in a questionnaire without a finished product.

It also takes a long time for an artist to finish an issue, which makes course-corrections difficult.

Writers and artists don't seem to like the idea of having new reasons for editorial interference.

The method of market research is to publish what they can, and see how it sells.

[RobertMacQuarrie1]

It's more of a mental exercise than proof.

In order for a majority of fans to feel personally insulted by professionals in interviews, overwhelming majorities of fans would have to meet particular criteria. If 70 percent of fans disagree with the current direction, and 70 percent of those fans are both aware of comments by pros directed at detractors AND interpret those comments in a way that guides them to personal offense, it still falls short of a majority.

That's not a mental exercise. That's an assumption on your part. And there's nothing to show that it isn't a biased assumption.

So when you say "The fans who strongly disagree with a direction, and are aware of the comments of the pros, are a small segment of Spider-Man readers" you can't really then say that a mental exercise backs that up. You need proof, that doesn't simply rely on thinking the exact way you do. Otherwise, it's just speculation.

Comics seems to be a particularly poor fit for market research.

Sales aren't high enough to warrant it.

Why? They are still putting out a product that needs to sell. Wouldn't it make more sense to increase that audience by actually asking people who are or who could buy what they want to see?

It also takes a long time for an artist to finish an issue, which makes course-corrections difficult.

But not as long as it takes to make a video game, or make a movie, or a television show- live action or animated. In fact, it takes less time. And those mediums often listen to their customers and try to improve upon their product the next time around.

Writers and artists don't seem to like the idea of having new reasons for editorial interference.

Editorial interference will exist regardless.

The method of market research is to publish what they can, and see how it sells.

No, the method of market research is to find out what people might like, and produce a product that might fit that want.