Spider-Offices Kremlinology

[The Negative Zone]

In 2007 series 3 was airing and the DVD set was released in region 1 later that same year. I'm also pretty sure it was airing on BBC America at the time. It was available.

I'm failing to see your argument on how pirating TV is any different from pirating comics. Piracy is piracy. You're either okay with it or you're not.

Look, I don't even have the slightest issue with Slott downloading Doctor Who to watch it. I just don't think we should pretend that downloading Doctor Who to watch is okay but reading comics online for free isn't. It's the exact same thing.

Okay, my mistake of wording here.

What I'm comparing is Slott possibly pirating DW episodes that were not made available under any US venue, not just any sort of TV show. This is what I assumed he was pirating.

Like how people pirate foreign media that isn't translated or sold in American markets. I've also admittedly pirated comic books, but only stuff that Marvel has not reprinted or digitized.

My stance on piracy is if you can easily and legally obtain it, you shouldn't pirate it. If you feel the need to pirate stuff you can buy, then your hobby probably is in control of you not the other way around.

[Kaitou D. Kid]

Brevoort's making a business point. It's one seen in the news media as well. Negative reactions draw in more money than positive ones. If you don't want controversial stories that put people on edge, you have to convince all the people that are spending time and money to be outraged to, I don't know, go outside or read something else. If Marvel sees in their sales that negative engagement drives purchases, what should they do?

1. The Amazing Spider-Man comics were not selling poorly priod to OMD. The JMS era sold very well, including during Civil War and Back In Black.

2. Brevoort is also the guy who compared BND to "giving fans medicine" and who said fans who grew up with a married Spider-Man missed out on something better. He is not just some neutral arbitrator whose only bottom line is profit.

[Kevinroc]

It's okay to discuss stories. It's not okay to insult or be nasty towards the people making those stories. There's no excuse for it. Decent people don't do that.

And if the people making those stories engage in a similar type of toxic behavior as the people they want spending money to read those stories?

The entire situation has seen toxicity come from all corners.

[Airtrap]

And if the people making those stories engage in a similar type of toxic behavior as the people they want spending money to read those stories?

The mature response would be to move on with your life and read another book for example. The childish response is continue with toxicity, it's a choice everybody can make for themselves.

If the media we consume doesn't make us happy anymore, it's time to move on. Some people need to realize that.

[Morgoth]

1. The Amazing Spider-Man comics were not selling poorly priod to OMD. The JMS era sold very well, including during Civil War and Back In Black.

2. Brevoort is also the guy who compared BND to "giving fans medicine" and who said fans who grew up with a married Spider-Man missed out on something better. He is not just some neutral arbitrator whose only bottom line is profit.

It's the same mindset DiDio has. They want comics to be the way they were during their childhood. It has nothing to do with sales, it's just the way they think.

[Lee]

And if the people making those stories engage in a similar type of toxic behavior as the people they want spending money to read those stories?

That's whataboutism.

The entire situation has seen toxicity come from all corners.

And this is bothsidesing.

Nothing Zeb Wells or Nick Lowe have done or said is even close to on par with the nastiness directed to them here, or on Twitter, or other social media. That's true of almost everyone working in comics. Almost every example of "Comic creator is being mean to fans!" that aggrieved fans trot out are situations that were initiated by a fan being a dick and the creator responding with barely a fraction of what they received.

Comic fans shouldn't try to make excuses for their own bad behavior. They should self-reflect and be better.

[Morgoth]

Toxic behaviour can't be excused, but Wells is writing this run with intention to get this kind of reaction, it's absolutely obvious and it's not healthy either. Just saying. So, in this case, I doubt he has any right to complain. He knew what he was doing, when he was writing this.

[bob.schoonover]

1. The Amazing Spider-Man comics were not selling poorly priod to OMD. The JMS era sold very well, including during Civil War and Back In Black.

2. Brevoort is also the guy who compared BND to "giving fans medicine" and who said fans who grew up with a married Spider-Man missed out on something better. He is not just some neutral arbitrator whose only bottom line is profit.

Brevoort didn't make this up. It's a pretty established piece of marketing.

1. Clothing sales

2. News

3. Headlines for clicks

4. Some research on the topic

The problem is people. All of us.

So, again, I'll ask: if it's true that sales are positively affected by controversy, what do you think they should do with their storytelling philosophy?

[Alan2099]

It's the same mindset DiDio has. They want comics to be the way they were during their childhood. It has nothing to do with sales, it's just the way they think.

The marriage has been gone for 15 years now. Anybody complaining about how they want it back is just doing the same thing they accuse the Marvel staff of.

[Lee]

Toxic behaviour can't be excused, but Wells is writing this run with intention to get this kind of reaction, it's absolutely obvious and it's not healthy either. Just saying. So, in this case, I doubt he has any right to complain. He knew what he was doing, when he was writing this.

You started your post saying that toxic behavior can't be excused, then you immediately made an excuse for it.

Zeb Wells knew the story would be controversial. That is fine. Having strong feelings about the story is fine. Saying you dislike the story is fine. Pointing out all the reasons why you dislike the story is fine. Being nasty about Zeb Wells is not fine. It is bad behavior that should not be condoned, encouraged or excused.

[Morgoth]

You started your post saying that toxic behavior can't be excused, then you immediately made an excuse for it.

Zeb Wells knew the story would be controversial. That is fine. Having strong feelings about the story is fine. Saying you dislike the story is fine. Pointing out all the reasons why you dislike the story is fine. Being nasty about Zeb Wells is not fine. It is bad behavior that should not be condoned, encouraged or excused.

I'm not making an excuse. I'm just saying what it is. Spider-Man's fanbase is full of rude, emotionally immature people, who tremendeously easy to make angry, that's why Zdarski doesn't want to do anything with ASM, and I'm sure not just him. Everything Wells is doing at this point is specifically made to make those people angry. What other reaction could be expected if literally his every action, every decision is aimed at creating a controversy?
Yeah, he can say, that fans are assholes and he will be right. But in this specific case, he knew, what he was doing.

[Alan2099]

I'm not making an excuse. I'm just saying what it is. Spider-Man's fanbase is full of rude, emotionally immature people, who tremendeously easy to make angry, that's why Zdarski doesn't want to do anything with ASM, and I'm sure not just him. Everything Wells is doing at this point is specifically made to make those people angry. What other reaction could be expected if literally his every action, every decision is aimed at creating a controversy?
Yeah, he can say, that fans are assholes and he will be right. But in this specific case, he knew, what he was doing.

Now you're saying that everything he does he only does to make people angry.

You can say that fans are assholes and that's why you act like an asshole, but have you ever considered just maybe NOT acting like an asshole?

[Lee]

Brevoort didn't make this up. It's a pretty established piece of marketing.

1. Clothing sales

2. News

3. Headlines for clicks

4. Some research on the topic

The problem is people. All of us.

So, again, I'll ask: if it's true that sales are positively affected by controversy, what do you think they should do with their storytelling philosophy?

To add to this, I think some fans are completely misinterpreting and distorting what Brevoort said.

Marvel publishes dozens of comics each month, many of them safe and pedestrian and uncontroversial. But when they do a story that takes a big swing, that does something big and different, those stories often get the biggest sales. They also get the most negative online feedback.

The strong sales are a result of the bold story. The negative online feedback is a result of the bold story. The strong sales aren't a result of the negative online feedback.

It's correlation, not causation.

[Kaitou D. Kid]

I'm curious what exactly counts as being "nasty" towards Zeb Wells. No one here is leaving threats, making fun of his appearance, or saying anything inappropriate.

The standard for "nasty" seems to be "calling him a bad writer". Which is a very unreasonable standard.

In reality, it's an excuse to try to shield Wells from criticism.

It's the same mindset DiDio has. They want comics to be the way they were during their childhood. It has nothing to do with sales, it's just the way they think.

Bingo. That's all it was ever about.

[Spider-Tiger]

Brevoort didn't make this up. It's a pretty established piece of marketing.

1. Clothing sales

2. News

3. Headlines for clicks

4. Some research on the topic

The problem is people. All of us.

So, again, I'll ask: if it's true that sales are positively affected by controversy, what do you think they should do with their storytelling philosophy?

It's a pretty well established sales strategy across a variety of forms of media, but it's not the only approach that exists. I do think there's an argument to be made about whether or not this is truly an effective long term strategy for the comics industry. Or whether there's diminishing returns at play. The fact they've had this mindset for years and it hasn't positively impacted long term sales trends (at least when sales figures were still available) probably suggests that they may benefit from changing their approach. But lamenting about the behaviors of an amorphous boogeyman mob that is unlikely to ever change seems futile.