Image moving to Portland

[JFP]

Nobody reads Image just because they were situated in the bay area.
I highly doubt any of their staff made grand tours of local stores. Some of their creators maybe, but not office staff. And their creators are based all over the world.
And theres no way their HQ is open to the public to just stroll around it.
Everything youve said is hyperbole.
Them moving to portland says nothing about their current financial situation other that the costs of living in the Bay Area were becoming too high, which was probably starting to impact on Images minimum profit model.

Just more baseless doomsaying from you.

I never said people read Image just because they're situation in the Bay Area. Nor did I say their HQ is open to the public to just stroll around. Nor did I say the staff took grand tours of local stores. So I dunno what your problem is regarding your inability to understand my posts.

I did say staff members showed up at local stores occasionally, like on Free Comic Book Day, for instance.

Them moving to the Bay Area does say something about their current financial situation. Did you not read the quote I posted from Erik Larsen about how they were in such dire straits that they'd have to leave the Bay Area or risk losing a large portion of their staff? Are you gonna tell me Larsen's quote doesn't say a lot about their current financial situation?

[Jamal]

I'm born and raised in San Francisco; Image comic is located in Berkeley which is a 20 min drive from me.
First off, the rent for most studio/one bed room (with a kitchen and bathroom) are between $2500-$4000 a month without a roommate.
The lowest I've heard of in SF lately was $1350 for a room in someones house with 4 other roommates (House illegally converted into a rental).
Now the average minimal wage in the Bay Area is $13.00 but let's say that Image's staff makes around $20.00-$25.00 dollars which would be decent in a normal rental priced city.
Do you really think, given the prices I mentioned for rent (Plus food, gas, water, electric, and cable) a Image employee can afford to live in the Bay Area?
I make twice that and if my family didn't have a home that's paid off, I would be hurting every month.
Most Bay Area natives are surviving because of rent control but a lot of owners are using loop holes or shady laws to get around that.
I don't blame Image for moving so they can keep their staff; good help is hard to fine and they might be able to pay them more if the rent is cheaper.

[Joker]

Just more baseless doomsaying from you.

This. And he's not going to listen to anything anyone says, either. It's pointless.

I want to point out the realities of how Image operate, their intentions, what the move actually means, why it's actually happening, so that other people don't think what he's saying is true, but I also just can't expend the energy, nor am I really worried about anyone buying what he's selling.

[Dark-Flux]

I never said people read Image just because they're situation in the Bay Area.

Nor did I say the staff took grand tours of local stores. So I dunno what your problem is regarding your inability to understand my posts.

You gave a bunch of reasons why Image staying in the Bay Area is important, all of which are irrelevant because the location of Images HQ has nothing to do with why people read their books.
"Being considered an important part of the local community" is irrelevant when youre an international business, not a local one. Because the customers they are selling to arnt local.
The Image staff dont visit local stores. Image creators do. And they do that all over the country because they live all over the country (and the world). They dont focus specifically on the Bay Area and Image HQ moving in no way effects the store visits made worldwide.

Nor did I say their HQ is open to the public to just stroll around.

Image readers visit the Bay Area, they wanna visit Image headquarters

I highly doubt a readers ability to visit Image HQ in any way effects their reading habits.
And if it does, they can visit them in Portland.

Them moving to the Bay Area does say something about their current financial situation. Did you not read the quote I posted from Erik Larsen about how they were in such dire straits that they'd have to leave the Bay Area or risk losing a large portion of their staff? Are you gonna tell me Larsen's quote doesn't say a lot about their current financial situation?

Erik said they had to leave or risk losing staff, meaning theyve moved to avoid being in "dire straits".
Financially, Image are where theyve always been - breaking even. Thats where theyre supposed to be. If rent goes up they risk that - so theyve moved to where things can continue as normal. Its a smart move.

[JFP]

Dark-Flux, I've told you several times before I'm not a fan of the copy and paste thing. We live in an age where people want to do things that are simple and quick. Copy and pasting my quote into many separate quote bubbles is the opposite of simple and quick. It's tedious and time-consuming. So I'm not sure why you continue to do something that takes longer than simply responding to the entire quote. Perhaps you feel you can respond to my post better this way. However, discussions are a two-way street. I do not feel this is the best way to conduct a discussion despite the fact that you feel it is. I apologize if you feel I'm being unfair but I find it difficult to do the copy and paste thing. Therefore, I won't respond to posts like that. Sorry.

I'm born and raised in San Francisco; Image comic is located in Berkeley which is a 20 min drive from me.
First off, the rent for most studio/one bed room (with a kitchen and bathroom) are between $2500-$4000 a month without a roommate.
The lowest I've heard of in SF lately was $1350 for a room in someones house with 4 other roommates (House illegally converted into a rental).
Now the average minimal wage in the Bay Area is $13.00 but let's say that Image's staff makes around $20.00-$25.00 dollars which would be decent in a normal rental priced city.
Do you really think, given the prices I mentioned for rent (Plus food, gas, water, electric, and cable) a Image employee can afford to live in the Bay Area?
I make twice that and if my family didn't have a home that's paid off, I would be hurting every month.
Most Bay Area natives are surviving because of rent control but a lot of owners are using loop holes or shady laws to get around that.
I don't blame Image for moving so they can keep their staff; good help is hard to fine and they might be able to pay them more if the rent is cheaper.

Earlier this year, I had seen Stephenson's cbr interview about him trying to make Image Comics the #1 comic book publisher in America. At the end of it, he said there might be some changes. So I mistakenly took it to mean he's gonna change Image's business model. Especially after they implemented the deadline policy and started the magazine. However, that's not the case. capuga is right and I was wrong.

Looks like their business model will stay the same with the "break even and intentionally not try to make money" policy they've always had.

I have no problem with their business model. I'm just perplexed as to why they keep making these grand announcements and things never change. How can a company that intentionally doesn't make money and only seeks to break even overtake 2 multi-million dollar corporations that have owned the market for decades?

I see nothing wrong with Image moving to Portland to stay alive. But Marvel and DC are both located in far more expensive cities, have more employees, pay their employees more, and have bigger offices yet you don't hear about them having to move to a cheaper city because they can't afford to pay their staff otherwise. Somehow we're supposed to believe this company that doesn't make money, doesn't own any products, doesn't have recognizable brands, and has a difficult time putting out books that last a full year is somehow gonna defeat the Big 2? How can a company that doesn't make money off their books be #1 in sales or #1 in market share?

It's ridiculous how they keep making these big statements about being wanting to be #1 and Stephenson making announcements about what needs to be done to improve the comic book industry when they aren't even a company that makes money. Even Dark Horse and Fantagraphics most likely make more money and have a bigger market share than Image.

Image is gonna topple the Big 2? Sure, Stephenson, sure. That will happen when Blockbuster Video topples Netflix and Amazon's dominance of the American movie rental market. And for those of you that don't know, Blockbuster Video is still around. According to wikipedia, there are 11 Blockbuster stores left (7 in Alaska, 2 in Texas, and 2 in Oregon).

[Dark-Flux]

Yes, youve mentioned the quote thing several times. But i dont get what youre expecting me to do about it. Im not asking you to reply the same way. But im not gonna taylor how i reply subject to your whim.

And Capunga already addressed youre points. Stephensen saying he wants Image to be No.1 doesnt necessarilly mean making more money - It could mean selling more books. It could mean attracting more and better talent. It could mean being more highly regarded critically etc..
And it is feasible that Image could eventually gain a higher market share than the big 2 (for the record - they are the third biggest currently) because market share data doesnt relay how profits are distributed between publisher and creator. It merely describes market share percentages based on total revenue generated from sales. So in that sense, they appear like any other publisher in market share data reports.
How Image split their profits is irrelevant. Theyd still be "No.1" from a market share or Unit sales perspective.

And Marvel and DC can afford to be situated in locations with a higher cost of living because they currently make and retain higher profits. Id have thought that would be obvious.
And DC moved to Burbank last year.

[Joker]

And it is feasible that Image could eventually gain a higher market share than the big 2 (for the record - they are the third biggest currently) because market share data doesnt relay how profits are distributed between publisher and creator. It merely describes market share percentages based on total revenue generated from sales. So in that sense, they appear like any other publisher in market share data reports.
How Image split their profits is irrelevant. Theyd still be "No.1" from a market share or Unit sales perspective.

Exactly.

DC and Marvel are also owned by giant corporations and reap the profits from their books as a company.

[JFP]

Yes, youve mentioned the quote thing several times. But i dont get what youre expecting me to do about it. Im not asking you to reply the same way. But im not gonna taylor how i reply subject to your whim.

And Capunga already addressed youre points. Stephensen saying he wants Image to be No.1 doesnt necessarilly mean making more money - It could mean selling more books. It could mean attracting more and better talent. It could mean being more highly regarded critically etc..
And it is feasible that Image could eventually gain a higher market share than the big 2 (for the record - they are the third biggest currently) because market share data doesnt relay how profits are distributed between publisher and creator. It merely describes market share percentages based on total revenue generated from sales. So in that sense, they appear like any other publisher in market share data reports.
How Image split their profits is irrelevant. Theyd still be "No.1" from a market share or Unit sales perspective.

And Marvel and DC can afford to be situated in locations with a higher cost of living because they currently make and retain higher profits. Id have thought that would be obvious.
And DC moved to Burbank last year.

I'll be honest here: I don't understand how Image can have market share if they neither own nor make sales off the books. They don't gain any revenue from those books. The revenue goes to the respective creators. Therefore, you can't say they appear like any other publisher in market share data reports because, unlike Image, the other comic publishers own and make profit off the sales.

It's like this:
capuga publishes books that make $100,000 in sales. He owns all those books and retains all the profits from the sales.
Dark-Flux publishes books that make $150,000 in sales. He owns nothing and makes no money since Ihe'sm a self-publisher.

Someone might look and say, "Dark-Flux sells more books and has a bigger market share." Reality: Dark-Flux doesn't make any money from the sales nor owns the books. So how can Dark-Flux own a bigger market share and have bigger sales when the books are not his to own or receive revenue from? Isn't capuga the one who makes more sales and has a bigger market share?

Image can't sell more books because they don't own any books to sell. Attracting more and better talent? The Big 2 do a much better job of that as well as retaining talent. Being critically acclaimed and winning awards? Critical acclaim and awards don't pay the bills. If that stuff was important, the Big 2 wouldn't be as unoriginal and repetitive as they are.

And my mistake regarding DC not moving.

[Dark-Flux]

I'll be honest here: I don't understand how Image can have market share if they neither own nor make sales off the books. They don't gain any revenue from those books. The revenue goes to the respective creators. Therefore, you can't say they appear like any other publisher in market share data reports because, unlike Image, the other comic publishers own and make profit off the sales.

It's like this:
capuga publishes books that make $100,000 in sales. He owns all those books and retains all the profits from the sales.
Dark-Flux publishes books that make $150,000 in sales. He owns nothing and makes no money since Ihe'sm a self-publisher.

Someone might look and say, "Dark-Flux sells more books and has a bigger market share." Reality: Dark-Flux doesn't make any money from the sales nor owns the books. So how can Dark-Flux own a bigger market share and have bigger sales when the books are not his to own or receive revenue from? Isn't capuga the one who makes more sales and has a bigger market share?

Image can't sell more books because they don't own any books to sell. Attracting more and better talent? The Big 2 do a much better job of that as well as retaining talent. Being critically acclaimed and winning awards? Critical acclaim and awards don't pay the bills. If that stuff was important, the Big 2 wouldn't be as unoriginal and repetitive as they are.

And my mistake regarding DC not moving.

Market share doesnt show and isnt concerned with how profits are distributed. It simply shows the percentages of the market owned based on total revenue generated. Thats before Image give excess profits to creators (its not that they make no money. Its that they ensure they keep only just enough). Its before Marvel pay their creators royalties. Its before production costs. Its before rent. Etc
It doesnt matter whats done with the money afterwards. It doesnt matter if DCs Dan Didio decides to take all of the revenue generated in Jan 2017 and buy himself a rocketship instead of distributing it as normal. The market share will still only show the same data. And from that perspective, Image could hold a higher share than the competition and be no. 1.

As for talent; are we looking at the same companies?

Remember the once flaunted "Marvel Arcitects"?

Bendis? Still at Marvel. Company man, i guess.
Brubaker? Now exclusive at Image.
Remender? Now exclusive at Image.
Fraction? Now exclusive at Image.
Hickman? Now exclusive at Image.

The industries biggest writers currently?
Lemire? Has books at Image
Snyder? At Image
Ellis? At Image
Kirkman? Image.
Soule? Image
Aaron? Image.
Vaughn? Image
Busiek? Image
Rucka? Image
Deconnick? Image
Spencer? Image.

I could go on...

Creators might temporarily do stints at the big 2 to gain exposure, but once enough time has passed they quickly abandon work for hire gigs for theyre own work. And right now nobody offers a better deal for creator owned work in terms of ownership than Image.

[JFP]

You can't have market share if you neither own nor make revenue off the product.

Let's say Image only published books by Dark-Flux. No one else. They currently published 20 of your books. As with other books, they neither owned your books nor took money off the sales. They merely took publishing costs. Then it's found out that combined those 20 books sell more and have a bigger market share. Then comic news sites announce, "Image is #1 in sales and #1 in market share." Is that correct? Is Image the number #1 in sales or is Dark-Flux? Is Image #1 in market share or is Dark-Flux?

Secondly, your part about the creators disproves the whole "attracting more and better talent" argument you and capuga have made. You yourself said, "Creators might temporarily do stints at the big 2 to gain exposure". If they're going to the Big 2 to gain exposure, then Image is not the one attracting the talent. The Big 2 are the ones. You listed a whole bunch of guys who went to the Big 2 at some point in their career because the Big 2 are capable of giving their talent exposure, not Image. You also said, "I could go on..." Yes. Please do. Tell us about the Image founders who quickly abandoned Image for the Big 2. Tell us about the ones who stayed, like Erik Larsen, who has stated on the Image boards that he could make more money working for the Big 2 than he could on his own comic.

As I asked before, "How can a company that purposely makes no money and only seeks to break even topple two multi-million dollar corporations?"

[Dark-Flux]

Image would still be number 1 in market share. Hence why the market share shows Image comics on it. Image publish the books. And market share reports show publishers market shares.
Market share isnt the same thing as profits made. It baffles me that you can confuse the two.

And Image is the one attracting the talent because theyre the publisher creators are leaving the big 2 to go to. The big 2 attract talent initially but dont retain it. Theyre just a stepping stone for most.

As for the Image founders? 4 of them are still at Image. 1 still publishes books through them, 1 is not currently publishing work anywhere and 1 is now at DC. Hardly a mass migration.

And the pros and cons of work for hire vs creator owned has nothing to do with anything so i dont get why you even bring it up. Creators can potentially earn much more on creator owned books but its also a higher risk. But its a risk many are apparantly willing to take for the sake of profit and ownership.

Stephensen didnt say he plans for Image to topple the big 2. He said he wants them to be the number 1 publisher. Which is a vague statement.
Again, publisher profits made has nothing to do with what he said. It doesnt effect market share, it doesnt effect unit share, it doesnt effect critical acclaim, etc...
You think that the profits represented by Marvel and DC on the the market share reports all go directly in the publishers pockets? They have to pay for creators, staff, admin, rent, production just like any other publisher. We're not privy to how they distribute their income but its irrelevent anyway because market share isnt concerned with that.
Image will always be making the same profits. They could be selling twice the numbers of the big 2, and have twice the readership. Theyd be number 1 in market share and number 1 in unit sales. In that sense they be the number 1 publisher but still wouldnt be making any more money and thats the point.

[Bor]

Image would still be number 1 in market share. Hence why the market share shows Image comics on it. Image publish the books. And market share reports show publishers market shares.
Market share isnt the same thing as profits made. It baffles me that you can confuse the two 1.

This. I mean I will be the first to admit that I have had issues with the poster and his views on comics, but this isnt really something that can be debated, this is pretty basic buissnes procedure. Debating whether Image is actually ever going to accomplish the goal of toppeling the big two is up for debate, personally I dont think its likely to happen, but the rest here is something most should be able to understand. Image as a company is just not structered the same way the big two are and do not operate the same way they do, thats the way its always been.

[JFP]

Image would still be number 1 in market share. Hence why the market share shows Image comics on it. Image publish the books. And market share reports show publishers market shares.
Market share isnt the same thing as profits made. It baffles me that you can confuse the two.

And Image is the one attracting the talent because theyre the publisher creators are leaving the big 2 to go to. The big 2 attract talent initially but dont retain it. Theyre just a stepping stone for most.

As for the Image founders? 4 of them are still at Image. 1 still publishes books through them, 1 is not currently publishing work anywhere and 1 is now at DC. Hardly a mass migration.

And the pros and cons of work for hire vs creator owned has nothing to do with anything so i dont get why you even bring it up. Creators can potentially earn much more on creator owned books but its also a higher risk. But its a risk many are apparantly willing to take for the sake of profit and ownership.

Stephensen didnt say he plans for Image to topple the big 2. He said he wants them to be the number 1 publisher. Which is a vague statement.
Again, publisher profits made has nothing to do with what he said. It doesnt effect market share, it doesnt effect unit share, it doesnt effect critical acclaim, etc...
You think that the profits represented by Marvel and DC on the the market share reports all go directly in the publishers pockets? They have to pay for creators, staff, admin, rent, production just like any other publisher. We're not privy to how they distribute their income but its irrelevent anyway because market share isnt concerned with that.
Image will always be making the same profits. They could be selling twice the numbers of the big 2, and have twice the readership. Theyd be number 1 in market share and number 1 in unit sales. In that sense they be the number 1 publisher but still wouldnt be making any more money and thats the point.

In order to have market share, you must own the properties. Image does not own the books they publish anymore than you and I do. So how can they claim market share of products they do not own?

[Dark-Flux]

You dont need to own the properties to have market share. You need to publish the properties.

[Bor]

You dont need to own the properties to have market share. You need to publish the properties.

This.
Unless some here actually think that Image have zero percent of the market share? Thats just not how this works.

Have we really reached the point with these threads were we are debating the definition of well etablished words and terms? I mean the other threads that got closed atleast had SOME opinions that were debateble but this is pretty cut and dry.
I dont really see the problem with the move here. DC moved recently and they are on a huge upwards spiral right now. Not that I am suggesting these two things are connected, I am just saying that a move does not have to be an indication that a company is doing poorly.