Image Comics Community

OK, I didn't know about those -- but I highly doubt their existence contributed to Robert's decision to launch TWD. My larger point stands: Kirkman launched TWD because it was a book he was passionate about, not because any sort of sales analysis indicated it would be successful.

-- Jay

In any case, the general perception I get from reading the responses here is that using using market analysis to construct a concept is bad and that a comic book pitch should be something that is personal and heartfelt; something that I would personally like to see in the market.

This thread began with doctorfunk (Jimmy V.) talking about Bone, which is a great book that was a success both creatively and commercial, I believe it's Scholastic print run has even dwarfed its earlier incarnations. So why don't we see more work of that nature in the market? I think that it's in large part because material of that nature won't get the support from publishers, that the market can't sustain a book of that nature in today's market.

One of the rejections I received from my last project pitch was, "We like your work, it's clear you can draw. It's just that we don't feel that this is the type of material that's going to put you on the map in this market." I'm determined to succeed, whatever it takes. So it behooves me to pitch a project that will better reflect what's moving in this market, right? I don't think studying markets is over-thinking or over-analyzing, especially when I've failed to resolve the problem...

Jay, I would characterize your work as the prototype of the types of comics concepts I should be pitching. The success you've had with Noble Causes is exactly what I'm after, yet you're clearly don't support my development model. Why is that? Maybe you didn't need to do any market research before hand, you've got better instincts for this business than I do; but if the ultimate end is the same how can you object so fiercely to the path I'm taking to get there?

I believe R. Kirkman did Battle Pope before TWD or Invincible. I've never read the book, but I believe it was a fun spoof, playing on a couple of popular themes. Within the framework of a book called Battle Pope (or even Super Dinosaur) there can still be well crafted and well-executed stories. (imo) So if I pitch a booked called "Super-Battle Zombies" and it gets a greenlight; I believe I can still do a solid, entertaining story.

Finally, there are two components to a successful venture, the creative end and the business end. I don't think it's an either/or proposition-- but if the two aspects of development come into conflict I think it's better to err on the side of what the data suggests the market is most receptive to, I'll let market data trump creative instincts.

Besides, even if you produce a book that's contrary to everything that's selling in the market; you're still gaming the market just by the process of choosing to contradict it.

In many circles, conforming to an already successful formula used would be known as "selling out".

Jay is trying to get you to be patient and keep going with what you are passionate about and believe in.

A small point, but doctorfunk isn't Jimmy V (unless I missed something somewhere!). Doctorfunk was reposting a blog post from Eric Stephenson, publisher of Image. The thoughts on Bone, etc., were Eric's.

As for why we don't see more books like Bone, I don't know -- it could be that people aren't pitching books like that. I'm not familiar with Bone (I know of it, but I've never read it) so I'm not knowledgeable enough to point out which books out there are similar enough to it to counter your statement. There may very well be books out there that ARE similar to it that I haven't heard of. Image doesn't really publish any, but that doesn't mean other companies don't.


I guess I just think creative enthusiasm will trump market research every time. I think there's a difference between ensuring a book is commercial and carefully analyzing how books sell over a set period of time, etc. NOBLE CAUSES was my first creator-owned project, and I didn't do any market research whatsoever. I just combined two genres I was passionate about -- super-heroes and soap operas -- and put together the kind of book I wanted to read.


I'm not sure what the point of bringing up BATTLE POPE is. You're right, that was Robert's first book and he published it himself. It didn't sell anywhere near what TWD or INVINCIBLE sells. It sold a tiny fraction of what his other books sell.


And I guess I feel the exact opposite. I feel like I can smell a book that has been "market researched" to death because it's going to feel too cold and stale and calculating. It's going to smack of a book designed to cash in on whatever's selling at the moment, rather than a book with a story a creator was dying to tell.

I mean, look at SAGA. It's a HUGE success for Image so far. Does its success suggest there should be more sci-fi/fantasy mash-ups featuring star-crossed lovers? No -- I think its success suggests creators should follow their hearts and create something they're passionate about ... which is exactly what Brian Vaughan and Fiona Staples did.

-- Jay

I just want to thank Jay for giving out for free some information that is so remarkably valuable to any aspiring (or established) comic creator.

_________________
Promotions/Communications at Shadowline Comics
Writer/Editor/Talent Acquisitions at GrayHaven Comics
Follow me on Twitter: @marclombardi

Healthy discussions, love it!

From my experience, I would characterize "selling out" as not staying true to your convictions. It seems to me that this is usually defined as: creative people who are compromising the integrity of their art for the sake of expediency or commercial interests.

For my part, I don't see things in such a puritanical manner. This is publishing and I have professional objectives that I'm trying to achieve in the market. With this in mind, I'll equip myself in any way I need to in order to realize those objectives; if I did anything less-- that would be selling out.

Jay has made some compelling points, as many others have as well, I've enjoyed the dialogue quite a bit. However, as it relates to the idea of patience or going with what you are passionate about I think there is a threshold at which one must look at the situation and modify the approach in order to move forward.

So rather than be patient and spend another 20 years submitting things that I am passionate about and get the same lukewarm response I've been getting. I'd rather modify my approach, mirror the activities of people who've achieved the success I aspire to and finally get a foot in the door.

I'll come back to my precious creative vision if I find that it's something that I just can't let go of.

Good Luck to you.

Jay:

I agree with you that creators should be doing something they are passionate about. Not so much for the financial gains (which is always a crap shoot in this business), but because if you're passionate about something, there's a sense of happiness and contentment for having completed the work that extends beyond the sales success - and in fact, having that happiness & contentment in the creation thereof is prone to allow you to do better work in the end scheme of things, and theoreteiclaly / hopefully will lead to better sales. Which I believe is what you were driving at but never really came out and said.

I just don't agree with you that TWD is a good example of that, and let's just leave it at that.

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

My two cents:

1) Far be it from me to tell folks how to go about making pitches. If it works for you, do it. That said, I tend to come down on Jay's side of the aisle-- and I suspect if there were a market research-based formula for success, we'd be seeing it in action from publishers across the board. I mean, of course they employ certain formulas like relaunching titles with new #1s or whatever, but such moves are mostly short-term gimmicks, and it seems that the recipe for guaranteed longer-term success (that is, a recipe beyond the baseline "recycle iconic hero, rinse, repeat") is that mysterious thing that creators and publishers are always searching for but has nevertheless remained largely illusory.


2) Here is a list of comics that Image has published. Take from this what you will.

The list is probably flawed and incomplete in spots--but it's fairly extensive. One of the interesting things to notice is just how wide a range of books Image has published in its 20 years, from straight superhero fare to slice-of-life autobio material to weird experimental alt-comix to art books and everything in between. And an important thing to keep in mind is that many Image titles ended because they were meant to end. Some comics get canceled, too, of course-- but one of the things that separates creator-owned comics from most Big Two fare is that independent stories are often intended to have endings; they're not always supposed to become new franchises lasting for all eternity. This might sound like I'm stating the obvious, but it goes to the heart of the question "Why aren't there more long-lived Image titles?"