Image Comics Community

I don't think that's true. When a proposal crosses Eric Stephenson's desk, he considers (a) whether it's any good and (b) whether he thinks it'll sell. How it compares to super-hero stuff isn't a factor. Again, Image's most successful books in recent years are NOT super-hero books. What they've sold historically really isn't relevant.

I think you're overthinking / overanalyzing this whole thing a bit.

-- Jay

My assertion is based on longevity more than quantity. I'm not interested solely in the types of concepts that Image will greenlight, but which ones have managed to build a long term audience and have become consistent sales leaders over time. Of the books you listed here, most of them have been launched quite recently. In order to evaluate a concepts viability, we have to look at it over a defined period.

The standard I'm using to define success is subjective but I think it's fair:
Books that have lasted 12 issues or more
Books that have lasted 24 issues or more
Books that have lasted 36 issues or more

The more issues of a book that are published, the more successful it has been. The higher you go in terms of consecutive issues published the more superhero comics dominate the offerings.

Books like Spawn, Chew, Savage Dragon, Invincible, Walking Dead, Darkness, Witchblade anchor Images market share. Of these, I would classify them all as superhero comics aside from the Walking Dead and Chew, although some use horror motifs, they still operate within the spectrum of the traditional superhero conceit... superhuman abilities, recurring antagonists, moral and ethical code, a predictable pattern of social behavior, etc.

Of that list of books that were characterized as praiseworthy for there diversity, how many will be around in a year? In six months? Well, obviously I can't say precisely, all the metrics I've looked at would indicate the following factors are most prevalent in a successful Image book.

1. A visually distinct character(s) with unique abilities (all successful Image books have a main character or characters that you cheer for, they also have superpowers or effect some permutation of that quality).

2. Maintaining the publishing schedule (All of the most successful Image books get the work done in a timely manner with consistent quality. I think that's this Kirkman's greatest strength; his books come out regularly).

3. Conceptual viability (making the initial draw of "Prankenstein" develop beyond Punk'd for monsters).

When compared head to head, superheroes seem to recover better from failures in these areas than other books.

If my professional objective is to create a book that has sustained market value then I have to look at the books that have achieved that state over the last twenty years; past is prologue, after all. In twenty years from now, things may be different but not as yet.

I intentionally listed comics that came out recently since that's what you would be competing against to get your project greenlit. So why insist that pitching a superhero story is the way to go when that's not what is mostly being produced these days? And it's not fair to say that all Image's long lasting books are superhero books. Of course they are. The ones that launched a long time ago were superhero books. That doesn't mean that a non-superhero book won't last today (and for the record there have been a crap ton of Image superhero books that didn't last long either). Just look how much Image has changed in the past 20 years. Why believe it wouldn't continue to change and hold on to an idea from 20 years ago that current evidence suggests is not the direction things are going? Non-Big 2 superhero books are hard to launch. Just ask Jay Faerber who's been responding to you. He's had several really good series with great art that didn't make it long term. So even with quality products it's hard to do. I think you're better off just to tell a story that you're passionate about telling rather than trying to gauge and write what you think the market wants.

_________________
My comicartfans.com collection. Lots of Ryan Ottley:
http://www.comicartfans.com/GalleryDetail.asp?GCat=49719

EXACTLY.

All this talk of "metrics" and analyzing sales data ... yeesh. There's no "formula" for coming up with a successful comic book. Look at THE WALKING DEAD. There were NO zombie comics when Robert launched that book. Sure, there had been zombie comics in the distant past, but Robert created a book he was passionate about -- the kind of book he wanted to read -- and basically kickstarted an entire sub-genre. Look at how many zombie comics are around today because of that one series. If Robert had only looked at the kind of books Image had been doing, and why they were successful, he never wouldn't launched TWD.

So like capuga says -- tell a story you want to tell, something you're passionate about, rather than try to analyze what book has the statistical best chance of being a success.

-- Jay

[quote="Jay Faerber"
I don't think that's true. When a proposal crosses Eric Stephenson's desk, he considers (a) whether it's any good and (b) whether he thinks it'll sell. How it compares to super-hero stuff isn't a factor. Again, Image's most successful books in recent years are NOT super-hero books. What they've sold historically really isn't relevant.

I think you're overthinking / overanalyzing this whole thing a bit.

-- Jay[/quote]

You guys are making some great points. There is no formula for success in comics and extensive market analysis guarantees nothing. But I don't think it's all just gut instinct, either. My objective is not to merely do a book that I like-- I've done that and I'm sitting on 5,000 unwanted issues of Prankenstein. *lol*

So in my case, creating a book based on purely personal taste didn't work. Okay, so back to the drawing board, but rather than just doing more of the same, why not use the resources at hand to inform my choices? Just like the movie Moneyball...

Guys, the markets is slapping me in the face with what sells; rather than ignore those numbers, why not use them to create a frame work upon which I may eventually offer something more personal? Besides, I've always been one to believe that success loves preparation.

Understanding the market is the reason Marvel and DC have their chronic event books, they've recognized that they keep getting these predictable sales boosts from them. It's a matter of consumer psychology, purchasing patterns determine how many Batman books the market can sustain, etc. I also believe that TWD capitalized on the zombie trend reintroduced by films like 28 Days Later and 30 Days of Night, so it wasn't all a product of pure creative instinct and gut feeling...

Anyway, you guys are right in regards to recent market trends and the crop of books that have been on the upsurge in recent years from Image. It'll take a few more months before I'm able to identify any conceptual or sales trends there, but as soon as I do I'll probably co-opt that as well

If you really try to crunch numbers to get a formula for a successful book, you should take into consideration that some of those long running books, that lead you to believe that superheroes have a better chance of survival at Image, have been launched in the crazy days of the 90ies. Spawn and Savage Dragon still being around is more due to the fact those have been launched in the 90ies, are founder books, and are being published by determined and driven creators, than to the circumstance that those are superhero book.

_________________

We're getting into art vs. commerce territory here, and yes, comics involve both. It's an art form AND a business. Do all the research and analysis you want, but I really urge you to put a lot more weight on what you're passionate about vs. what your research tells you.


30 DAYS OF NIGHT was a comic book before it was a movie, and the comic came out a year before THE WALKING DEAD debuted. The film came out years after TWD was on the stands. It's also about vampires, not zombies.

And I'm pretty sure TWD was pitched and written before 28 DAYS LATER had been released. It really was Robert doing a zombie comic because he loved zombies and was passionate about the subject. There wasn't really any other comic book sales evidence to indicate that the book would be successful.

-- Jay

So we can expect a book about a team of zombie superheroes, each with different powers??
Playing to the crowd should equal success!!!

GO BUY DYNAMO 5!

_________________

Arrow Comics' THE DEAD (v. 2.0), written by Randy Zimmerman and Ralph Griffith and drawn by Matt Mason, was out shortly before TWD. And IIRC, the original stuff that Alan Grant and Simon Bisley did as THE DEAD was also out before TWD, but I could be mistaken on that one. I am uncertain because Alan lists it as later on his website, but I'm not sure if that's not because they relaunched it as a web and print comic both in 2008.

And while DEADWORLD was on print hiatus temporarily, Jay, it was still available as a CD-ROM comic omnibus edition through Gary Reed's Tranzfusion Publishing.

So sorry, there WERE zombie comics around.



Again, there was *some* sales evidence to suggest the prospects, if you knew anything about Arrow Comics (V. 1.0) and Caliber Press' history with DEADWORLD. The book ran 60+ issues before going on publishing hiatus in 1998, 1999 when the market imploded and Caliber went into bankruptcy due to non-payment from distributors. Why do you think Arrow relaunched THE DEAD when they reformed after Caliber's demise?

_________________
Coming soon: A new Louis Bright-Raven site, featuring new art, fiction, comics journalism, and original comics.