How Image can break up the Big 2

[cc008]

without a shared universe, Image will have to stay at number 3. There just isnt a pull for fans like me to get their comics monthly.

without a huge narrative "trunk" to tempt me, i can choose which series to get in trade. (Where image does great)

They should absolutely launch a shared superhero universe with 9-10 titles to start.

Image may not be a shared universe as a whole.. but I've always had this idea that the creators' stories are all in the same universe. Take Remender for example... Deadly Class, Tokyo Ghost, and LOW are all the same universe, just taking place thousands of years apart from each other. And Black Science is the link to those 3 timelines. Just a fun way for me to look at it. I know it won't sell more comics.

[JFP]

Current Image Comics Publisher Eric Stephenson said in the interview I linked to in my piece that he doesn't want there to be a Big 2, where there's always the same 1 or 2 companies at the top. And that's kind of my point here if Image can chip away enough at DC and Marvel, it could at least be a race between the three of them.

Also, for what it's worth, Larsen talks up the virtues of Image quite often on Twitter.

The link you posted took too long for my slow-ass computer to load it so I clicked out of it after losing patience. So I just responded to your thread title. I didn't read the article and when I just tried again just now it was still too slow for my patience.

Any case, it's good to know the direction Image is taking is to topple the Big 2. Letting the Big 2 stay on top has done nothing for Image. I still know many people who remember the Image comics from the 90s. They were the people who talked about how Image were just a rip-off of the Big 2 and said Image didn't have any creativity of their own. Guess what? Those people still believe that. Some read comics. Some have long since stopped. But whenever they see me reading Image they are quick with the whole slagging Image for being unoriginal thing as if this is still the 90s. If Image can topple the Big 2, then they can finally shed that image.

[Ishmael]

Image will never break up the Big 2 specifically BECAUSE it's creator owned.

DC and Marvel command the market share the way they do because they have franchises that transcend creators and will always have an audience. Image has nothing like that, and never will unless creators are willing to cede their personal creations to others. Creator owned projects can be a joy to read - I enjoy them as much as anyone else and am happy to see writers and artists succeed independently -- but their very nature as creator own projects undercuts their long term pull. Image, relying primarily upon this sort of thing, simply won't be able to break up the Big 2 in any meaningful way (it can increase it's own market share, but supplant DC or Marvel? Not gonna ever happen).

[Javasaurus]

Image will never break up the Big 2 specifically BECAUSE it's creator owned.

DC and Marvel command the market share the way they do because they have franchises that transcend creators and will always have an audience. Image has nothing like that, and never will unless creators are willing to cede their personal creations to others. Creator owned projects can be a joy to read - I enjoy them as much as anyone else and am happy to see writers and artists succeed independently -- but their very nature as creator own projects undercuts their long term pull. Image, relying primarily upon this sort of thing, simply won't be able to break up the Big 2 in any meaningful way (it can increase it's own market share, but supplant DC or Marvel? Not gonna ever happen).

Personally, I also find it hard to imagine Image single-handedly supplanting DC and Marvel. It seems to me that the most likely thing to supplant the Big 2 will be the collective success of the smaller publishers to each grow their own market share. This could be done by appealing to new readers who would not be attracted to the traditional fare published by DC and Marvel; and possibly by attracting current readers who are no longer happy with what the Big 2 are doing.

There may always be an audience for what Marvel and DC are doing. But I have a feeling that attracting a new, untapped reading audience will be something that the smaller publishers are better-suited to do.

[Some Guy]

I think it will eventually be a "Big 3." I cringe reading some of these responses. Image's entire mission statement at this point is to NOT be Marvel and DC. They don't want a massive cape multiverse. They don't want to be making comics based off of corporate franchises. They're trying to transform the market from OCD collectors who exclusively read about super heroes to a market geared towards actually readers. They want to publish the best talent so that they always have something new to offer and regardless of whether super heroes are "in" or not, they'll have books readers will love. I fully believe in what Image is doing and I fully believe that they will eventually get 20+% market share.

[JFP]

Image will never break up the Big 2 specifically BECAUSE it's creator owned.

DC and Marvel command the market share the way they do because they have franchises that transcend creators and will always have an audience. Image has nothing like that, and never will unless creators are willing to cede their personal creations to others. Creator owned projects can be a joy to read - I enjoy them as much as anyone else and am happy to see writers and artists succeed independently -- but their very nature as creator own projects undercuts their long term pull. Image, relying primarily upon this sort of thing, simply won't be able to break up the Big 2 in any meaningful way (it can increase it's own market share, but supplant DC or Marvel? Not gonna ever happen).

I think it will eventually be a "Big 3." I cringe reading some of these responses. Image's entire mission statement at this point is to NOT be Marvel and DC. They don't want a massive cape multiverse. They don't want to be making comics based off of corporate franchises. They're trying to transform the market from OCD collectors who exclusively read about super heroes to a market geared towards actually readers. They want to publish the best talent so that they always have something new to offer and regardless of whether super heroes are "in" or not, they'll have books readers will love. I fully believe in what Image is doing and I fully believe that they will eventually get 20+% market share.

While I want to believe you, Some Guy, I realize Ishmael has a good point when he talks about how it's difficult for creator owned work to topple corporate owned work. In my last reply, I'd completely forgotten about how much work the average creator at Image has to go to. He has to be his own editor and his own motivator. He has to set up the art himself and all that other stuff. He has to promote his work himself, get it in stores himself, and so much more. He has to do a lot without pay. In fact, in most cases, he's losing money over a long period of time, rather than gaining profit. Image merely publishes the book. The entire work of producing it, selling it, promoting it, getting it into stores, and marketing it to readers is burdened on the back of creators. Individuals doing all that by themselves are unable to topple a huge corporation with vast resources to get their products to the public.

Many people look at Kirkman's Walking Dead as a source of hope for creator-owned comics getting recognition. But they overlook two things: 1) The show the WD is doing well. The book hasn't seen a substantial increase in sales due to the show. A huge number of fans of the show have no interest in reading the comic. Some don't even know it exists. 2) Zombies are an insanely popular type of genre to sell. Did the producers pick it up because the book was good? Or did they pick it up because they knew they could sell zombies to the public? Why hasn't there been much effort to produce Kirkman's other books?

All in all, I have to agree with Ishmael. He's being realistic when he says individual creators producing their own works can't fight a massive corporation with vast resources to promote their product. Image would need to start owning their own property that sells a lot in addition to creator owned work in order to be able to topple the Big 2.

[Dark-Flux]

Walking Dead did see a sales increase back when the show first debuted. Its since come down but it still a much biggerseller than it was before the show if im not mistaken. Plus its trade sales are insane, and thats the major point of contact for most traditionaly non-comic readers.

Also Outcast is now a show and Thief of Thieves is in the works. I imagine the likes of Invincible arnt cos of the already saturated superhero market and id guess itd need a larger budget.

[Joker]

Walking Dead's numbers have continually gone up over the course of the series, and well before the show. It's been a huge seller in Trade/HC in bookstores, well before the show, and it's still one of the best selling comics being released today.

Kirkman's very lucky. Zombies or not, a black and white horror book is the last thing anyone would suggest you make if you're looking for a success.

[JFP]

Kirkman's very lucky.

Dark-Flux, Joker, this quote right here sums up my opinion of Kirkman's success. I've had many conversations with people who think Image can break up the Big 2. I always choose the negative and the guys who think the positive, that Image can topple them, always use Kirkman's model as a source of success. I don't want to come off as being cynical. I want to be realistic when I say Kirkman's model was luck, not proven formula. If Kirkman had chosen a less popular theme than zombie apocalypse like a vampire apocalypse, would it have worked? Outcast and Thief of Thieves are being picked up only after his zombie apocalypse story is successful. Would they be interested in it before the success? Maybe he created those comics with the belief that they'd be made into movies. Who knows?

I do know a company owning their own property has a far more successful model than a company tha sells creator owned property.

[wwise03]

I have a number of thoughts, none of which are fully developed:

1. My most fundamental thought in response to the article is...who cares? Who really cares if there is a big 2, 3, or 4? Read the books you like and ignore those you don't. Would it make you enjoy Image books more if Marvel and DC were broken up or if Image had 20% market share instead of 10%?

2. If Image were to implement some of the ideas in the article (pimping out Walking Dead, Savage Dragon, and Invincible spin-offs to try to generate a few more sales), how would Image be any different than Marvel and DC pimping out Iron Man and Batman to 4 books? Doing that would hurt an advantage that Image has.

3. Image has silently been pushing the prices of their books up to $3.99. That may help their dollar share growth, but it will kill their market share growth, especially now that DC is moving their books down to $2.99. Casual (and even hardcore fans) are far more likely to buy a Tom King written Batman or Nightwing for $3 than a $4 Cry Havoc, Fix, Savage Dragon, or Spawn.

4. Speaking of Savage Dragon and Spawn, the market really just does not care much about those properties. I am on these boards everyday checking out comic news and tweaking my pull list and I barely knew Savage Dragon and Spawn were still being released. As someone who spends entirely too much time and money on comic books and comic book message boards, for me to not even know they were still being released may say something about the viability of those properties. Simply put, they stand very little chance of ever outselling even B-list Marvel and DC characters (Ant-Man, Doctor Strange, Moon Knight, Black Widow, Aquaman, etc), especially now that Marvel and DC B- and C-list characters are getting movies.

5. As for The Walking Dead, Image can not rely on that book forever. When the show ends, it is likely we will see sales numbers on the books start to leak lower. In the long run, I just don't think it will have the staying power of your Batmans, Supermans, and Spider-Mans (which have been around since before most of our parents were born, have seen the rise and fall of Hitler, were around when Babe Ruth hit 60 home runs, etc). These properties are timeless. Walking Dead is much closer to a flavor of the month/decade kind of property than a last for multiple generations kind of property.

6. I've got other thoughts, but frankly have grown bored with this topic, as I'm sure you have grown bored reading my post if you made it this far (I don't blame you).

[JFP]

I have a number of thoughts, none of which are fully developed:

1. My most fundamental thought in response to the article is...who cares? Who really cares if there is a big 2, 3, or 4? Read the books you like and ignore those you don't. Would it make you enjoy Image books more if Marvel and DC were broken up or if Image had 20% market share instead of 10%?

2. If Image were to implement some of the ideas in the article (pimping out Walking Dead, Savage Dragon, and Invincible spin-offs to try to generate a few more sales), how would Image be any different than Marvel and DC pimping out Iron Man and Batman to 4 books? Doing that would hurt an advantage that Image has.

3. Image has silently been pushing the prices of their books up to $3.99. That may help their dollar share growth, but it will kill their market share growth, especially now that DC is moving their books down to $2.99. Casual (and even hardcore fans) are far more likely to buy a Tom King written Batman or Nightwing for $3 than a $4 Cry Havoc, Fix, Savage Dragon, or Spawn.

4. Speaking of Savage Dragon and Spawn, the market really just does not care much about those properties. I am on these boards everyday checking out comic news and tweaking my pull list and I barely knew Savage Dragon and Spawn were still being released. As someone who spends entirely too much time and money on comic books and comic book message boards, for me to not even know they were still being released may say something about the viability of those properties. Simply put, they stand very little chance of ever outselling even B-list Marvel and DC characters (Ant-Man, Doctor Strange, Moon Knight, Black Widow, Aquaman, etc), especially now that Marvel and DC B- and C-list characters are getting movies.

5. As for The Walking Dead, Image can not rely on that book forever. When the show ends, it is likely we will see sales numbers on the books start to leak lower. In the long run, I just don't think it will have the staying power of your Batmans, Supermans, and Spider-Mans (which have been around since before most of our parents were born, have seen the rise and fall of Hitler, were around when Babe Ruth hit 60 home runs, etc). These properties are timeless. Walking Dead is much closer to a flavor of the month/decade kind of property than a last for multiple generations kind of property.

6. I've got other thoughts, but frankly have grown bored with this topic, as I'm sure you have grown bored reading my post if you made it this far (I don't blame you).

1. My main thing with the Big 2 is retailers put forward their products first and put out the indies far behind. I still go to comic bookstores. Whenever I go, Big 2 products are displayed prominently while everything else is thrown in another place. The popular comic shop near my place has floppies by title. But their trades and hardcovers are separated by publisher. Marvel has bookcases for their titles, DC has bookcases for their titles only too, but the indies (both foreign and domestic) are scrunched together in bookcases. Product display is important. By having the indies all scrunched together like that, it makes it difficult to appeal to potential buyers.

However, even online you can see how the Big 2 grab a huge slice of product placement. Go to comixology or amazon.com and you'll see the Big 2 are the most prominent comics while the other indies all have to grapple for their own display.

So my thing is that whether in real life or cyber space, the Big 2 grab most of the attention while indies all have to fight among themselves for space.

2. Agreed.

3. Agreed.

4. This goes back to what I was saying for number 1. The Big 2 can hog a huge chunk of the most prominent parts of a store, whether online or in real life. Like you, for a while I didn't know Savage Dragon or Spawn were still around. One old comic store I frequented had a 50 foot long wall. Marvel had their floppies, trades, hardcovers, etc. by itself and the same with DC. I believe the Big 2 took up at least 50% of that wall. The dozens of other publishers took up the rest of the space. The indie space was labeled by title, not publisher. I'd been going to that shop for more than a year before I discovered those titles. That kind of display makes it difficult for people to notice them.

My problem with the Big 2 is how they're given their own space each while the rest of the publishers are scrunched together in a much smaller space. You don't see people separating movies, music, books, magazines, etc. by company. It's only with comic books. Why is this?

5. Agreed.

6. Didn't grow bored at all. You made many great points.

By the way, here is a link to my current comic store, Hot Comics in New Hope, MN:
https://www.google.com/maps/uv?hl=en...SbAP8QoioIZzAK
Looking through the pictures, you can clearly see that the Big 2 products are so prominently displayed and promoted to the point where you can call it a "Comic bookstore for the Big 2 (and a few others)". I'd say you can say the same thing about most comic bookstores in America.

[wwise03]

6. Didn't grow bored at all. You made many great points.

I appreciate the responses and agree with you with regard to how much space independent books receive in comic stores.

I worry that my post came across as a bit too negative with regard to Image. Image is a fantastic publisher, and for my money, the best in the comic book industry right now. I just disagree with both the importance of Image breaking up Marvel and DC (I like several books that both publishers put out) and the method in which the author of the post would do it (Spawn, Savage Dragon, and a Walking Dead spinoff aren't going to get it done). Only quality books from quality creators that bring in new readers can get it done.

[Mia]

The way DC is behaving towards their readers these days, Image may yet be one of the big 2. Not because they suddenly gain a big market share, but because DC keeps loosing readers.

Agreed. Given some of the poor writing and forced retcons at the big 2, long time fans like myself who love comics as a story telling medium start to look elsewhere to get our fix. I think that what Image needs to do is to focus on putting out quality books and maybe start to spin off those books into other mediums such as tv and films.

[JFP]

I appreciate the responses and agree with you with regard to how much space independent books receive in comic stores.

I worry that my post came across as a bit too negative with regard to Image. Image is a fantastic publisher, and for my money, the best in the comic book industry right now. I just disagree with both the importance of Image breaking up Marvel and DC (I like several books that both publishers put out) and the method in which the author of the post would do it (Spawn, Savage Dragon, and a Walking Dead spinoff aren't going to get it done). Only quality books from quality creators that bring in new readers can get it done.

You didn't come across as negative. You made great points. As you said, a spinoff of two not well known titles like Spawn and Savage Dragon wouldn't work when the main titles themselves are struggling to keep fans. Plus, you're right that quality books are the key, not gimmicks.

[dogwelder]

Image has been around 25 years and currently have 11% of the market. They have two big hits....Walking Dead and Saga....that are usually in the top 40 comic sales each month. After that they have 4 or 5 more comics that break the top 100. Unless they acquire the rights to Superman, Batman family comics, JLA, Green Lantern, Flash, Spidey, Avenger family and X-Men family books, they will remain at 11%.