Thread Drift: The Fan Response to Spider-Verse

[boots]

Marketing experts aren't marketing experts. They still cling to "sex sells" regardless of how many times the data fails to back up the presumption.

And we're back to my original point, that they did hype everything back in the 60s.

And even if they can't go overboard with the advertising all the time, they don't have to set up events. People don't come in for the events. They come in because they're told there's a special reason to come in. You convince people to buy and read a strong story, they'll stick around for the story, event or no.

And the more events they do, the more long-term customers they risk. Maybe you can't take a disgruntled fan at face value, but being sick of events is a pretty common reason people give up reading month-too-month. (Although cost is probably the biggest these days.)

ok, we're not even going to touch on the gross misrepresentation of an entire profession and the oversimplification of marketing and industry realities here (or that the 60s was entirely different market and industry), let's look at it another way:

do you believe you are the only one to to have stumbled upon the 'just hype more" solution to the comic industry woes? if not, do you believe that at least one man or woman at marvel might have had the same idea? do you think there might be some reason beyond yours or my expertise for why they aren't performing this life-saving operation on their sales?

[boots]

Soooo...in-house advertisement.

well, that clears that up. disregard everything i've written.

you want someone to write some copy. cool.

sex doesn't sell but hyperbole does?

[Tuck]

Soooo...in-house advertisement.

It's just the general sense that every issue was the greatest thing ever printed.

Covers today often make no sense, and themselves rarely cause someone to take a look at a book on their own.

Generation X is a friggin' downer. That's the real problem

[Tuck]

sex doesn't sell but hyperbole does?

Pretty much.

[boots]

Pretty much.

unfortunately audiences are far more sophisticated and media savvy these days. hyperbole is short term grabber that potentially breeds distrust ( see the backlash against clickbait headlines), it certainly makes an impression but does not deliver results these days. "brand x delivers wonder results!" from the 60s will be met with distrust and cynicism by generations x, y and z (yes, even z).

[Tuck]

Media savvy, yes. Sophisticated, no.

But I don't see how media savvy makes a difference. Do you believe that people in the 60s were more naive? That they didn't understand that advertising was a song and dance?

[Scott Taylor]

Comics were a special thing in the 1960s. One comic per character, and that was only the main characters. They didn't need advertising because they were available on newstands and attracted every kid for miles. Today the scene is much different and thousands of options vie for the attention of potential comic readers.

[R.K.Z]

This epilogue of "Spider-Verse" seems to cement what the franchise stands for right now. For the moment, Spider-Man is all about diminishing the individuality of both its' star as well as many key connected characters in service to selling the next line of action figures, comics, video games and animated series. It is no longer about power and responsibility but is instead about convenient writing, unearned emotional beats and sloppy, uneven narratives. It is no longer about a hero not so far removed from the audience taking the good and bad with his amazing life (and the amazing people around him) and is instead about repeating the same cycles of stories from the Silver Age with a few modern details thrown in - apparently that seeing the one millionth story of Peter missing a date with a different lady of the year because of being a superhero is suddenly more innovative if an iPad is shown within. Even as the plot to a video game, this would have been a mindless button masher. However, as a statement as to what Marvel's top selling comic boom franchise stands for right now, "Spider-Verse" couldn't be any clearer.

http://www.examiner.com/review/the-b...-spider-man-15

[Tuck]

Comics were a special thing in the 1960s. One comic per character, and that was only the main characters. They didn't need advertising because they were available on newstands and attracted every kid for miles. Today the scene is much different and thousands of options vie for the attention of potential comic readers.

That's one of the reasons why comics don't sell as well as they used to. (Periodicals in general are dying.) But that actually makes my point more salient, not less. Events are being advertised to those who already read comics. We're already looking through Previews and checking sites like this one. Spider-Verse is especially aimed at existing readers. The story would be absolutely confounding to a new reader.

I don't see why Spider-Verse necessarily benefits more from hype than any strong story arc that could be succinctly encapsulated.

[boots]

Media savvy, yes. Sophisticated, no.

you might be using "sophisticated" to mean ‘cultured’, i'm using its definition as ‘complexity’ and that’s undeniable. time shifting through technology, proliferation of media and bad experiences/proven deception of companies have created the modern audience and advertising landscape. it’s become integrated.

But I don't see how media savvy makes a difference. Do you believe that people in the 60s were more naive? That they didn't understand that advertising was a song and dance?

nope but reactions and tolerance for it have changed forever. puffery and deception and hyperbole have been a big part of advertising since the industrial revolution (with all the medical wonder cures and so on) and even after regulations were brought in, tobacco was still lying well into the 50s. copy writers had it sweet in the 50s because that was their golden age- copy writing raked it in and was the ****. the 60s is when audience cynicism started to kick in and by the 90s it didn’t work anymore (which is why it was abandoned. not because carnival barking was just uncool, it stopped being effective).

everything became integrated to appeal to the new internet age (complex campaigns involving sales, pr, customer service, advertising, promotions etc) which lead to today's permission marketing which is the exact opposite of the old style. instead of interrupting or trying to grab the audience’s attention now you ask for their permission. you want to be found rather than find the audience. “marketing as a magnet not a sledgehammer”.

attention spans and lifestyles are so demanding now, that copy is not effective anymore, images are. images have to convey what copy once did, and they need to do it at a glance.

a 60s approach won’t work for the same reason an 80s one or even 00s one won’t- the market and people have permanently transformed. those approaches have no power over consumers anymore. in fact, the consumer is more in control than ever.

ps. the super hero comic market probably contains less kids now than it did in the 60s.

[Tuck]

you might be using "sophisticated" to mean ‘cultured’, i'm using its definition as ‘complexity’ and that’s undeniable. time shifting through technology, proliferation of media and bad experiences/proven deception of companies have created the modern audience and advertising landscape. it’s become integrated.

The world may be more complex. People are the same. Evolution didn't take a jump when no one was looking. People are acclimated to their times, sure. But that's all that's really about.

attention spans and lifestyles are so demanding now, that copy is not effective anymore, images are. images have to convey what copy once did, and they need to do it at a glance.

This, I'll concede. But it's a matter of conditioning, not some new reality . . . other than it's one we may have created for now.

a 60s approach won’t work for the same reason an 80s one or even 00s one won’t- the market and people have permanently transformed. those approaches have no power over consumers anymore. in fact, the consumer is more in control than ever.

To a certain extent, yes the consumer is in more control. On the other hand, there's stuff like this.

[Songbird/Diamondback]

Just read an interview with Nick Lowe, and he said this:
"Spider-Verse" went even better than I could have imagined. I couldn’t be happier with the story (other than a few editorial doofs on my side) and fan response has been overwhelmingly positive."

I wouldn't say "overwhelmingly positive"

No, it was pretty positive among every single person off comic message boards.

I mean, I went to a panel at a convention called "Breaking up with comics: Knowing when to quit", and the people up there LOVED Dan Slott's run because "He remembered how to make Spider-Man funny again"

[boots]

The world may be more complex. People are the same. Evolution didn't take a jump when no one was looking. People are acclimated to their times, sure. But that's all that's really about.

semantics. did you honestly believe that when i wrote "audiences are more sophisticated and media savvy" that i was talking about biological evolution rather than interaction with media?

This, I'll concede. But it's a matter of conditioning, not some new reality . . . other than it's one we may have created for now.

no doubt. technology alters the way we perceive time and space, but it exists outside of that perception.

To a certain extent, yes the consumer is in more control. On the other hand, there's stuff like this.

which has been somewhat disputed here. but you're right, "more in control" is not total control.

[Tuck]

which has been somewhat disputed here. but you're right, "more in control" is not total control.

I used to have access to the consumer data that's used for these marketing techniques. The information is that scary in-depth.

People think they're not influenced by things, which makes it easier to influence them.

[SickAlice]

Have to disagree about sales equaling quality. Oh maybe the quality of someones bank roll though. Otherwise Micheal Bays Transformers are as well done as The Shawshank Redemption. Also it's what was available. That means the normal buyers of ASM auto purchased the event, but not necessarily for the event. Like myself I've stated I really don't care for Black Vortex. I think it's been pretty weak four chapters in now and wouldn't vouch for the quality nor sell it to anyone as essential reading. But I'm contributing to the sales of the event because I already subscribe to several of the titles included in it. Just saying the only thing sales equal is dollars, not cordon bleu.