What is up with Marvel's obsession with selfie covers and phones?

[Tiamatty]

Marvel just fired the executives responsible for the digital market, shattering the myth that Marvel's decline in sales has in anyway been mitigated outside the direct market. It's time to have an honest conversation about the problems at Marvel, when digital comics have likely seen the same rapid decline in readership. Right now Squirrel Girl is operating at well below cancellation levels, a few tone deaf selfie covers and bizzare recsp pages aren't going to bring in the younger audience that Marvel desires.

You wanna complain about selfie covers? Then let's get some numbers. Find 10 instances of selfie covers from Marvel. I don't think you'd even be able to find 5. If you think they're a problem, then prove that they are a problem. Prove that they're something that actually happens! Otherwise, what is your actual complaint?

[Raye]

Recap pages are a thing. You know that, right? You get that every comic Marvel publishes has a recap page, right? Squirrel Girl's recap page takes the form of her Twitter feed. That's how the team on that book decided to do the recap page. The page that recaps stuff. The page that isn't actually part of the story, but is, instead, intended to catch readers up on anything they've missed. A lot of books just go with a straight recap page. A paragraph or two explaining what readers need to know for that issue. The team who puts together Unbeatable Squirrel Girl decided that, instead of a normal recap page, they would do something fun and clever, and make it resemble a Twitter feed.

So. Why is that a problem? Why is it a problem that the recap page - the page that is not intended as part of the story, the page that is there solely to convey information about previous issues, the page that is always static because it is just words and is always just words and in every single title Marvel publishes is just words because the words are what's needed to provide the recap - take the form of a Twitter feed?

Holy hell. You're just bitching for the sake of bitching. It's like you think Marvel should pretend that anything related to young people doesn't exist. You don't want selfies to be acknowledged, you don't want Twitter to be acknowledged. You get that a lot of the comics that do these things are actually created by Millennials, right? Squirrel Girl is created by Millennials, including ones who are active on social media, including - horror of horrors! - Twitter. They even take selfies, too! Shocking, I know. A comic, created by Millennials, using aspects of Millennial culture in order to appeal to Millennial readers? Who the hell would possibly expect something like that to exist?

Here, let me save you some time: Everything Young People Do Is Awful And Comics Should Pretend Young People Don't Do Them. There, I've summed up your complaints in one simple sentence.

Exactly, it's a freaking RECAP PAGE. What on earth is the harm in making it fun by structuring it like a twitter feed rather than the few lines of plain text that nearly every other book has? Why should we be so worried about how dynamic or whatever it is, when the alternative is just plain text?

Marvel just fired the executives responsible for the digital market, shattering the myth that Marvel's decline in sales has in anyway been mitigated outside the direct market. It's time to have an honest conversation about the problems at Marvel, when digital comics have likely seen the same rapid decline in readership. Right now Squirrel Girl is operating at well below cancellation levels, a few tone deaf selfie covers and bizzare recsp pages aren't going to bring in the younger audience that Marvel desires.

You know, that, or it was a redundancy removal thing, which was kind of implied with the 'restructuring' wording. They decided to just roll it all together because there is no real point in separating digital and print. The content is largely the same, after all. Just because you want Marvel to be axing people for what you perceive to be wrong doesn't make it true.

There is no evidence whatsoever that digital sales are cratering. Plateauing, maybe, but not falling to a significant degree. And if you look at Comixology's weekly charts, though it doesn't provide sales numbers, it is pretty clear that some books do a lot better there (relative to other books) than they do in the direct market, some books that lurk near the bottom of Diamond's charts float to the top of the Comixology charts.

But anyway, Squirrel Girl saw most of it's success in trades within the bookstore market, Amazon and such, so, while I do suspect it does decent on digital, that's kind of a moot point. It was a New York Times Bestseller. Twice. And even if it was cancelled tomorrow, it's still had over 30 issues plus an original graphic novel, that's hardly a failure.

Like it or not, the 'cancellation line' on the Diamond charts became a thing of the past a few years ago, as other markets such as digital, trades and book fairs like Scholastic gained more traction and are able to provide some books that don't do well in the direct market with other avenues to make their money. The market is changing... no, HAS changed. And you don't have to like all the books, but stamping your feet and raging about books you don't read and clearly aren't even directed at you isn't going to make it go back to the way it was.

[Materiel]

You wanna complain about selfie covers? Then let's get some numbers. Find 10 instances of selfie covers from Marvel. I don't think you'd even be able to find 5. If you think they're a problem, then prove that they are a problem. Prove that they're something that actually happens! Otherwise, what is your actual complaint?

Merely because I was curious myself:

Ms. Marvel vol. 3 #7
Invincible Iron Man vol 2. #10
Invincible Iron Man vol 3. #8
Invincible Iron Man vol 3. #5
Mighty Captain Marvel #2
Hulk vol. 4 #8
Iceman #6 (Unreleased)
All-New Guardians of the Galaxy #9 (Unreleased)
Howard the Duck vol 5. #2 (Hilarious)

I only managed nine before my head started to hurt. Two aren't out yet, so seven. Carol's isn't really technically a selfie, so maybe six. Iceman may not count depending upon someone's definition, so five. By that same argument you may not include Hulk. It's not that many. Completely unrelated, I did see the upcoming All-New Wolverine #24 cover and that looks fantastic.

[Kintor]

There is no evidence whatsoever that digital sales are cratering. Plateauing, maybe, but not falling to a significant degree. And if you look at Comixology's weekly charts, though it doesn't provide sales numbers, it is pretty clear that some books do a lot better there (relative to other books) than they do in the direct market, some books that lurk near the bottom of Diamond's charts float to the top of the Comixology charts.

But anyway, Squirrel Girl saw most of it's success in trades within the bookstore market, Amazon and such, so, while I do suspect it does decent on digital, that's kind of a moot point. It was a New York Times Bestseller. Twice. And even if it was cancelled tomorrow, it's still had over 30 issues plus an original graphic novel, that's hardly a failure.

It's no longer plausible to use the digital market as a Hail Mary against Marvel's poor business decisions. The Marvel fan base is a single community, regardless of whether the individual purchase their comics digitally or physically. Naturally, this means that the disinterest and criticisms mentioned in places like this forum are reflected across the ways that Marvel tries to sell comics. You can see this in the way that the sales on digital services like ComiXology roughly follows that of the Diamond charts; meaning that while digital comics do contribute to the whole they still decline along with the physical issues once a particular book starts to falter.

Squirrel Girl is no exception to this trend, the books inexplicable longevity has more to do with Marvel's editorial mandate then any kind of merit amongst the consumes who actually choose which comics are worth buying. If anything Squirrel Girl is just one of the many books that Marvel is pushing at the moment which are only significant for their noticeable lack of popularity in the sales charts. I mean, it makes sense that Captain Marvel would keep getting pushed, despite numerous failures, with that movie looming the near future. Yet Squirrel Girl on the other hand just seems more like sheer bloody-mindless then anything else, a book that is in affect subsided by Marvel's other more successful comics.

In turn this is why the appearance of selfie covers and other heavy-handed references to social media are just so unwelcome within the pages of Marvel comics. People, especially young readers, already have an innate grasp of how social media works and it relates to their lives - if at all. As such, things like Selfie covers just come as across as Marvel's lame attempts to get attention but pandering to a youth demographic that they don't actually understand. The last thing that young people want to see on a comic cover is an embarrassing representation of what Marvel perceives as youth culture, it's a visceral negative reaction that only continues to push young readers away from Marvel each and every time a selfie cover is used.

[Raye]

It's no longer plausible to use the digital market as a Hail Mary against Marvel's poor business decisions. The Marvel fan base is a single community, regardless of whether the individual purchase their comics digitally or physically. Naturally, this means that the disinterest and criticisms mentioned in places like this forum are reflected across the ways that Marvel tries to sell comics. You can see this in the way that the sales on digital services like ComiXology roughly follows that of the Diamond charts; meaning that while digital comics do contribute to the whole they still decline along with the physical issues once a particular book starts to falter.

Squirrel Girl is no exception to this trend, the books inexplicable longevity has more to do with Marvel's editorial mandate then any kind of merit amongst the consumes who actually choose which comics are worth buying. If anything Squirrel Girl is just one of the many books that Marvel is pushing at the moment which are only significant for their noticeable lack of popularity in the sales charts. I mean, it makes sense that Captain Marvel would keep getting pushed, despite numerous failures, with that movie looming the near future. Yet Squirrel Girl on the other hand just seems more like sheer bloody-mindless then anything else, a book that is in affect subsided by Marvel's other more successful comics.

In turn this is why the appearance of selfie covers and other heavy-handed references to social media are just so unwelcome within the pages of Marvel comics. People, especially young readers, already have an innate grasp of how social media works and it relates to their lives - if at all. As such, things like Selfie covers just come as across as Marvel's lame attempts to get attention but pandering to a youth demographic that they don't actually understand. The last thing that young people want to see on a comic cover is an embarrassing representation of what Marvel perceives as youth culture, it's a visceral negative reaction that only continues to push young readers away from Marvel each and every time a selfie cover is used.

Again, you are applying a motive to Marvel, with the insistence of an 'editorial mandate' to fit your desired narrative... based on what, exactly? That it continues to exist? Even though Marvel has axed books of a similar tone once they were presumably no longer profitable? If it was all about Marvel trying to force some kind of an editorial mandate, keeping it to fill a quota or whatever, then why is Hellcat and other books like that not still around? Because it makes no sense to keep a book that's not selling around, rather than trying again with something else. Like, zero sense. If a book has failed to find an audience, like you seem to think is the case with Squirrel Girl, it is a much better move to try again with something else if it is just about trying to tap a market. I mean, if it's NOT selling, the market remains untapped, right? So there is no point in keeping it around. It's not like Marvel has run out of characters that could fit that, so they're just stuck with Squirrel Girl or something.

I mean, sure, they are probably trying to reach a broader audience. I just don't think that it means there is some kind of conspiracy, or that it's as widely disliked as you seem to believe, or that they are going to publish books at a loss, or that they are turning their back on the older fans entirely. Also, I just don't think it is a bad thing to try and reach out to new audiences, so see no problem there.

I get it, you don't like a lot of what Marvel is putting out, you want it to be how you like it, whatever that is. But wanting something to be true (that everyone hates what Marvel is doing) doesn't mean it is.

This forum? This is not representative of the entire fandom. The vast majority of readers will never come here, let alone post. And people upset with things are much more likely to be the loudest among the audience, which skews perception. Just because you can see people here who agree with you (but also many, like me, who disagree) doesn't mean the fandom as a whole does.

And has been pointed out to you, many of the editors and creators are OF the generation they are trying to appeal to, or close enough to it they may as well be. It's you who is out of touch, not them.

[Username taken]

Honestly, I don't even get the reasoning behind the thread.

These covers are so few and far between that they hardly constitute an "obsession".

I can understand having a problem with Marvel at the moment (they are doing a lot of things wrong) but selfie covers and cell phones and obsession with stuff like this isn't one of them. There's no need to make up a criticism of Marvel (or anyone for that matter) and start to run with it like it's the truth.

Even if Marvel did have selfie covers and all that, I don't have any problem with superhero creators who are already working in "youth culture" (unless people want to somehow suggest that comic books aren't directed at young people and young adults) reflecting other aspects of the popular culture in comics. It's inherently absurd to suggest that superhero comics which are directed at young people should ignore the extremely pervasive influence of technology in everyday life.

[Kintor]

I mean, sure, they are probably trying to reach a broader audience. I just don't think that it means there is some kind of conspiracy, or that it's as widely disliked as you seem to believe, or that they are going to publish books at a loss, or that they are turning their back on the older fans entirely. Also, I just don't think it is a bad thing to try and reach out to new audiences, so see no problem there.

I get it, you don't like a lot of what Marvel is putting out, you want it to be how you like it, whatever that is. But wanting something to be true (that everyone hates what Marvel is doing) doesn't mean it is.

This forum? This is not representative of the entire fandom. The vast majority of readers will never come here, let alone post. And people upset with things are much more likely to be the loudest among the audience, which skews perception. Just because you can see people here who agree with you (but also many, like me, who disagree) doesn't mean the fandom as a whole does.

The point is that there isn't any divide between those who buy digital comics and those who buy physical comics, it's all part of the Marvel fanbase. This means the common excuse of downplaying Marvel's poor sales by hoping that the digital sales are doing better has always been a flawed argument. That in reality, Squirrel Girl is just as unpopular amongst digital readers as those who buy digital comics, the highs and lows of comic popularity is largely the same between Diamond and ComiXology and Marvel has done much lately to sink towards their lowest point in decades. Squirrel Girl should be cancelled, the sales are appalling low and digital isn't any better, only Marvel's loss-making business model keeps unpopular books like Squirrel Girl in publication.

Naturally, Marvel is also trying to entire younger readers into buying comics books. However, the very same gimmicks like selfie covers are actually directly responsible for driving young people away from comics. Marvel's selfie covers are the equivalent of being contacted by an elderly grandparent on Facebook; it's uncool and diminishes the previous appeal of the service as a whole. These Marvel selfie covers don’t relate to young readers, they are an obvious sign that Marvel is out of touch and at a complete loss with how to relate to young readers. In the end, Marvel just scares away any new audience that it sort and only further alienates the Marvel fanbase at the same time.

[Raye]

The point is that there isn't any divide between those who buy digital comics and those who buy physical comics, it's all part of the Marvel fanbase. This means the common excuse of downplaying Marvel's poor sales by hoping that the digital sales are doing better has always been a flawed argument. That in reality, Squirrel Girl is just as unpopular amongst digital readers as those who buy digital comics, the highs and lows of comic popularity is largely the same between Diamond and ComiXology and Marvel has done much lately to sink towards their lowest point in decades. Squirrel Girl should be cancelled, the sales are appalling low and digital isn't any better, only Marvel's loss-making business model keeps unpopular books like Squirrel Girl in publication.

Naturally, Marvel is also trying to entire younger readers into buying comics books. However, the very same gimmicks like selfie covers are actually directly responsible for driving young people away from comics. Marvel's selfie covers are the equivalent of being contacted by an elderly grandparent on Facebook; it's uncool and diminishes the previous appeal of the service as a whole. These Marvel selfie covers don’t relate to young readers, they are an obvious sign that Marvel is out of touch and at a complete loss with how to relate to young readers. In the end, Marvel just scares away any new audience that it sort and only further alienates the Marvel fanbase at the same time.

No it's not. Yeah, obviously, the fanbase includes both physical and digital. I mean, duh. But that doesn't mean the Diamond charts represent that fanbase, that's just stupid. Those charts only represent the fans buying comics in the direct market within North America. We can't know exactly what the rest of the market looks like, but it is safe to assume that if a book is kept around, then it is profitable in some fashion, it makes absolutely no sense to keep it around otherwise.

And no, the highs and lows are not the same, you can see this plainly by looking at the weekly charts. SOMETIMES they are, but there are exceptions where low selling books on Diamond's charts sell well on Comixology. Though it's not Marvel, the most striking example of this is Invincible from Image. It sells around 10-11 thousand in the Direct market, according to the sales estimates. But whenever a new issue hits, it's right there on the front page of Comixology's best sellers, every time, shoulder to shoulder with books that are selling 40k or more on Diamond's charts. Right this instant, Sex Criminals, which on the last chart it appeared on was selling 11k, is selling above Nightwing, which sells somewhere around 37k. Ms Marvel and a few of Marvel's other books also do this, though the jump isn't quite as extreme. Right now, Jessica Jones (23k) is outselling Green Arrow (28k) and Avengers (30k).

But Comixology isn't the only option, there's also trades, international, subscription etc. There is plenty of ways for a book that is not placing high on Diamond's charts to remain profitable.

[ian0delond]

Diamond charts doesn't even represent what the fans are buying, just what the stores are ordering three to one month in advance.

[Kintor]

And no, the highs and lows are not the same, you can see this plainly by looking at the weekly charts. SOMETIMES they are, but there are exceptions where low selling books on Diamond's charts sell well on Comixology. Though it's not Marvel, the most striking example of this is Invincible from Image. It sells around 10-11 thousand in the Direct market, according to the sales estimates. But whenever a new issue hits, it's right there on the front page of Comixology's best sellers, every time, shoulder to shoulder with books that are selling 40k or more on Diamond's charts. Ms Marvel and a few of Marvel's other books also do this, though the jump isn't quite as extreme.

The tastes of the digital market aren't different to the retail market, it's all part of the same Marvel fanbase, so when a retail book is in decline the same is always true of the digital version. Services like ComiXology have helped to soften the blow of Marvel's shrinking market share but even this environment can't save unpopular books like Squirrel Girl. Let's not forget that Marvel couldn't even give away copies of American Chavez through ComiXology when they started offering that book for free starting with the second issue. In a fair company both Squirrel Girl and American Chavez would have been cancelled long ago, because nobody digital or otherwise is buying on those books. Yet rather than admit they've made a mistake Marvel continues to let these unpopular books linger in publication, burning money all the while.

[Raye]

The tastes of the digital market aren't different to the retail market, it's all part of the same Marvel fanbase, so when a retail book is in decline the same is always true of the digital version. Services like ComiXology have helped to soften the blow of Marvel's shrinking market share but even this environment can't save unpopular books like Squirrel Girl. Let's not forget that Marvel couldn't even give away copies of American Chavez through ComiXology when they started offering that book for free starting with the second issue. In a fair company both Squirrel Girl and American Chavez would have been cancelled long ago, because nobody digital or otherwise is buying on those books. Yet rather than admit they've made a mistake Marvel continues to let these unpopular books linger in publication, burning money all the while.

You insisting the tastes across the different markets are the same doesn't make it so. I was apparently editing when you replied, but I gave more examples that show this simply isn't true. If i had more than a week to work with, i am sure i could find some stronger examples. And that's just on comixology, who knows what's going on with trades and so on.

Wait - i did find a stronger example, though it is an example of a book selling worse on Comixology than in print. Spider-Man/Deadpool, which sells around 35k, is on the second page of the bestseller list, right below Iron Fist, which sells 22k.

[Username taken]

The tastes of the digital market aren't different to the retail market, it's all part of the same Marvel fanbase, so when a retail book is in decline the same is always true of the digital version. Services like ComiXology have helped to soften the blow of Marvel's shrinking market share but even this environment can't save unpopular books like Squirrel Girl. Let's not forget that Marvel couldn't even give away copies of American Chavez through ComiXology when they started offering that book for free starting with the second issue. In a fair company both Squirrel Girl and American Chavez would have been cancelled long ago, because nobody digital or otherwise is buying on those books. Yet rather than admit they've made a mistake Marvel continues to let these unpopular books linger in publication, burning money all the while.

No, this isn't true. At all.

You just need to look at the charts yourself.

https://www.comixology.com/comics-best-sellers

Comics like Miles Morales that some people falsely try to act like are selling poorly is still in the top 10 digital titles. This despite not even being in Diamond's top 50 anymore. Even titles like Jessica Jones are in the top 20.

Yes, there is some correlation between the direct market and digital however female led and POC titles do A LOT better digitally and in other forms of distribution than through Diamond. That's probably why Squirrel Girl and Moon Girl are still in print and Miles Morales is getting a novel and a movie.

[Kintor]

You insisting the tastes across the different markets are the same doesn't make it so. I was apparently editing when you replied, but I gave more examples that show this simply isn't true. If i had more than a week to work with, i am sure i could find some stronger examples. And that's just on comixology, who knows what's going on with trades and so on.

You can't keep trying to arbitrarily divide the Marvel fanbase like this, it's still the same people within a single community irrespective of how they choose to buy comics. To that end, increasingly the Marvel fanbase is choosing not to buy any comics at all. These past 18 months in particular are littered with failed Marvel books, some of them quite recent like Mosaic and the latest version of the Wasp. Now it's simply a question of how long it will be until Squirrel Girl and America Chavez join these failed books in the cancelled pile. Regardless of whether you look at the digital or physical sales there simply isn't enough interested to maintain either book, even giving away free copies on ComiXology didn't matters one bit. Like the perfunctory selfie covers which started this conversation, such books are out of touch and unrelatable to young readers.

[Carabas]

No it's not. Yeah, obviously, the fanbase includes both physical and digital. I mean, duh. But that doesn't mean the Diamond charts represent that fanbase, that's just stupid. Those charts only represent the fans buying comics in the direct market within North America. We can't know exactly what the rest of the market looks like, but it is safe to assume that if a book is kept around, then it is profitable in some fashion, it makes absolutely no sense to keep it around otherwise.

Nitpick: it represents retailers buying comics from Diamond in that market. What fans actually buy we have no numbers for, but we do know that retailers will buy books they know they won't be able to sell if it means getting a ultra-rare incentive cover that will more than make up for that.

[Ravin' Ray]

What I'd like to see are:

1. How many selife covers has Marvel actually created? A search reveals Squirrel Girl and Guardians of the Galaxy, any others?
2. Are there articles out there that document the reactions of young readers to these covers so that we can have an idea of how they actually feel about this?