Does this mean you’re paying all of your people now?

Why yes, Tom, when we wrote something for the Beat, we got paid.
It’s a bit disingenuous to compare Capcom to The Beat, isn’t it?…

It’s too bad that Capcom is such a struggling company that they need support from artists.

“The Japanese publisher grew its profit by nearly 16 percent for the fiscal year .With the yen’s depreciation and an improving Japanese economy, Capcom today reported net income up almost 16 percent for the fiscal year ended on March 31, 2014. Profit totaled 3.44 billion yen ($33.8 million) for the year (up 15.9 percent) while net sales climbed 8.6 percent to 102.2 billion yen ($1 billion).” http://goo.gl/8KOYBB

Working for ‘exposure’ usually doesn’t work in any industry. Sure, there are the anecdotes we all hear about, but most people get ‘exposed’ and are still able to get paid for their hard work.

See an important clarification to the story above.

The biggest takeaway for me here is that Saturday Night Slam Masters isn’t included as an available property.

“I know that if they actually PAID for all the submissions the book would probably be too expensive to even put out, but…is that really where we are these days? ”
Actually, I don’t think that’s true. Certainly a hardcover book with maybe 300 pages of full color art isn’t going to be cheap to produce, but if the price tag is $80 like their previous tribute books, they should be able to pay their artists a decent rate (at least decent on a comic book artist scale) and make that money back relatively quickly. So it’s not much of a risk for them.

“is this any different than what you see on Tumblr every day?”
The difference is that Tumblr never requires you to surrender the copyright for the work that you post there. That’s actually a pretty big difference.
There has been occasion in the past where I’ve posted an image of a character on social media just as a portfolio piece, and then been contacted by the company who owns that character to tell me that they liked it and offered to pay me to use it in their own publication.
That’s not an option with this.
I suppose if you consider the license to sell your piece as a print as a form of compensation, you should keep in mind that the rules specify a limited number of prints that you can sell, limited ways that you can sell it, and also the fact that you have to front all the costs of the print yourself.
I don’t know, maybe that’s worth it to you, maybe it’s not.
If an artist makes a print of a piece that they owned the copyright to themselves, they’d have to do the same thing anyway, and wouldn’t have as many limitations.
Also keep in mind that none of that has anything to do with the book that you’re actually submitting to, which Udon will be selling for a rather high price point, and presumably how well it will sell will be based on the quality of the donated art inside.

So obviously, every artist runs their own business and their own career however they see fit. Personally I don’t see much benefit to the individual artists who are involved in this project as it’s laid out, and it’s the type of thing that I would stay away from. As much as I’d love to draw some Capcom characters, I still have bills to pay.

“I know that if they actually PAID for all the submissions the book would probably be too expensive to even put out, but…”

Then the book probably isn’t commercially viable and shouldn’t be released, says this retailer.

-B

I wonder if Udon pays a licensing fee to publish these books? That’s how a lot of this stuff happens. and its not cheap…Like tens of thousands. Comics are the outlier in the publishing industry on the business side so you can’t really apply that system to the rest of the publishing world. You give up a lot to work in comics financially as opposed to other commercial illustration fields. Where would comics be if artists started demanding the same rates as commercial/editorial or advertising illustrators?

The lines between fan art and professional art is really thin. Its interesting that we’re seeing more of this kind of thing over hiring dozens of pro commercial artists to do heavily art directed WFH pieces. I don’t know if its good or bad, but i don’t see it changing anytime soon.

Well, why should they be paid less than commercial illustrators if it’s a viable project? Just curious.

I’m sadly disappointed in this awesome project being lumped into the same category as a lot of those scam contests.

Although I in no way speak officially for Udon or Capcom in this matter, I can at least clarify some things from a working professional artist’s perspective. Full disclosure: I am an artist who works with Udon, and I can attest to Udon’s awesome and fair treatment of artists who have worked with Udon in the past.

All of the legalise stating that this isn’t a paid project and the forfeiting of rights to the work is standard corporate legalise to prevent artists from sueing Capcom in the future. Will anyone stop you from using the work on your site? Probably not. Chances are slim that anyone would even know how many actual prints you made and sold.

As far as I can tell, the compensation is as follows:

1) You receive a free copy of the book, an $80 retail value.
2) You are granted a legal license to make prints and sell them. If you manage to sell all 200 prints at $10 a piece, minus printing costs(say $2/print), that’s a $1600 profit. Every fanartist who has ever made a print of one of Capcom’s characters and sold said prints has done so ILLEGALLY. Licenses cost money. You are given this license as compensation.

So, if you break it down, on the low end(you don’t sell any prints), you make $80 bucks in merchandise from a book you would want in your collection as an artist anyways. On the high end, you make $1680 or more(depending on how much you charge for prints). The fact is, you ARE being compensated for you work.

If you don’t get in the book, you still own your work. No harm, no foul.

But in the end, it’s up to each artist to decide whether or not it’s worth your time to participate in something like this. I know a bunch of professional artists who can demand a much higher price than the compensation being offered here, and yet, they would want to submit a piece anyways and wouldn’t even demand pay. Why? Because it’s a celebration of the franchises that helped shaped us as artists. This is why it’s called a Tribute Book.

Yes, there are plenty of shady contests asking for work for no compensation and you lose the rights to said work as soon as you submit it. This is NOT one of those contests.

Respectfully,

-Long Vo

I find no offense in this project. It’s a good way for unknown and unpublished artists to see their work in print. If you are a professional artist that wants compensation for the artwork, then fine, step away from this project and give others a chance to be published.
Besides, no matter how much people try to push the “pay the artist” POV, there will still be a lot of artists who will participate in this for free, even just for the love of it.

Just to clarify: I do not think this project is bad or evil or that people shouldn’t do it, if they want to. But it IS a sign of the times, and how thin margins really are in this business. This kind of thing is going to be discussed a LOT more in the coming year.

They’ve not sold those prints illegally, unless Capcom actually pursues litigation. Plenty of people sell prints of all types of characters; it’s actually only copyright infringement when the holder can prove the idea BEHIND the drawing is being stolen and would constitute infringment of said idea.
===
it’s doubtful people celebrating (as you put it) Capcom characters by selling small prints to willing fans would be deemed guilty by any unbiased judge; rather, it’s the corporate and legal muscle behind these big license holders that would threaten the artist selling $5 prints. The law would be on their side in a perfect world, but we’re not perfect.

Hey, why not try a new way of compensation (like a free license to make art prints) and see if it works? Nothing wrong with the idea conceptually, though I agree it seems really impractical. If I were an artist I would probably opt to skip the art print thing and receive a check instead.

I think the bigger point here is about how difficult it is to make any book viable these days, let alone a niche fan-targeted one like this. As Brian said, in my business, if a book’s projections come out negative, we don’t publish that book, but if you have a passion for a project I can understand bending over backwards trying to make it work somehow.

“They’ve not sold those prints illegally, unless Capcom actually pursues litigation. Plenty of people sell prints of all types of characters; it’s actually only copyright infringement when the holder can prove the idea BEHIND the drawing is being stolen and would constitute infringment of said idea.”

That is so not even close to the copyright and trademark issues that make unlicensed convention prints illegal. Not even.

The copyright and trademark holder doesn’t have to prove any such thing. The trademarks are being violated, and the unlicensed art constitutes derivative work being sold for commercial purposes. Just because they haven’t decided to crack down on this crap doesn’t mean they won’t.

Thanks for making me think about this topic. I sometimes get frustrated with slow artists, but their stuff should come out when it comes out; now, it’s on mainstream publishers to not promise stores/readers that stuff when they know an arist can’t possibly meet said deadline.

As it is, cartooning is a devalued form of artwork. I remember the Noah van Sciver comic about the glorious 19th century (I believe 19th?) cartoonist.

If Nate Simpson were able to deliver in a more timely manner, his talent would make him in high demand, thus eliminating his need for a day job and general money woes. While many people are going broke in comics, transcendent talents like Simpson will always find work and money. Only if he can work in a somewhat fastidious manner. Which he can’t and thus, his woes and ours as readers. This reader thought Nonplayer #1 was one of the most amazing comic books to ever come into being.

I enjoy the range of interconnected matters discussed in this article.

I have one note that piggybacks off of your closing remarks about what Nate Simpson. This isn’t anything that he can possibly fix but more of an open statement or request to any other Nate Simpsons out there:

Why don’t artists do what they *can*?

For instance, an artist who creates elaborate and rich art yet takes a very long time to complete this work…perhaps such an artist should focus on self-contained, non-serialized projects. Similar to a French graphic album, it could just be an impressive hardback, deluxe/prestige project. It isn’t only Nate Simpson, there are other comic artists who are in similar positions: talented, but incompatible with the serialized comic magazine format that the direct market is familiar with.

Anyway, that’s a thought.

As an aspiring comics artist who had a kid last year, I can tell you that having a kid throws MUCH more of a wrench into the works than anyone realizes. It’s not just a pile of laundry with a face that you have to keep the dog from eating. It’s a human person who becomes the center of your life.

I thought I’d be able to work on a couple pages a week and still move along more slowly but I learned quickly (much to my writer/friend’s chagrin) that this plan wasn’t going to work. I still fit in some work and some drawing here and there but to the outside world I’m pretty much at a stand-still. I don’t really care, though, because I’d rather hang out with my boy than be a comics superstar most days.

“If Nate Simpson were able to deliver in a more timely manner, his talent would make him in high demand, thus eliminating his need for a day job and general money woes. While many people are going broke in comics, transcendent talents like Simpson will always find work and money. Only if he can work in a somewhat fastidious manner.”

What a lot of assumptions here. There are many artists who deliver, deliver every month, and produce good work, who can’t make ends meet because the issue is not what people produce, the issue is what people pay for. Have you looked at comic sales? Most titles selling well under 10,000 copies. No money there.

At the end of the day no one will ever care how long it took you to make your art or if you met your deadlines. There are no Eisner awards for delivering a book on schedule. The art speaks for itself and lives on. Some of the greatest artists in the history of the world averaged one painting per year and produced maybe 30 images in their entire life. Comic Fanboys would have called them lazy.

Comic book fans are a little ridiculous. They’d rather have forgettable, mediocre junk on a monthly schedule (that they can complain about on the internet) than something of quality that took longer to make. It seems by Simpson’s own admission he wasted a ton of time, and that’s a large part of it, and maybe Image should have been better about judging the publishing schedule and not released the book until more of the series was complete. Maybe this should have been a graphic novel? But fanboys/retailers are also incredibly entitled with their expectations and armchair quarterbacking of how creators are supposed to work. Our reliance on the direct market, monthly shipping schedule also is to blame. It emphasizes scheduling logistics over quality and doesn’t allow for slower artists like Simpson and others to have a solid place.

Lets give the guy a break. There’s like maybe 20 people in the world making a “quit your day job” living solely from creator owned comics. Unless you’re on an A-list, big two book or enjoy living in poverty, comics is a professional side hobby for a lot of talented creators. As a parent I also remember that its something you can never fully prepare for. Dominates all your time and energy in a good way. Can’t wait to see issue #2!

” were able to deliver in a more timely manner”

LOL
Even if Nate delivered faster he’ll still have to wait for months til the Image royalty check arrives. What’s he gonna do while waiting? Feed his baby ramen?

His talent is acknowledged, he’s the lead artist of game studio that pays his monthly bills. And… Warners optioned his IP. If they greenlight production, depending on his deal with them, he’ll get potentially over $100K just for one comic issue.

Hi guys! Nate here.

The internet’s weird, isn’t it?

I thought this was a really well-reasoned piece. I’d like to add a little to what’s already been said.

A lot of times, I hear people referring to me as a “slow” creator for whom there is no sustainable business model in comics. Crazy as it may seem, I am actually capable of working quickly. In games, we have to turn around artwork at a breakneck pace. What limits Nonplayer’s release schedule are the ground rules for the book, itself. This is a zero-compromise project. I work on every panel until I can manage no further improvements. That’s what the book is, for better or for worse. Which means it’s also slow.

Would I like to try drawing a fast comic? Absolutely. Had I debuted as a monthly artist, would I have achieved any success in comics? I’m not so sure about that. The way things went, I got noticed due to the polish of this particular project. So that’s the project that’s moving forward.

To those who say that Image erred by not holding the first few issues until several were complete. I would just say that I never would have gotten through the second issue without already having the first one out in the wild. There’s only so long you can toil in a vacuum without input from the public. I am naturally self-critical, and I assume by default that everything I make is terrible. The positive feedback I received after the release of issue 1 was extremely helpful during the long years it took to draw #2.

The problem here is this: how do I make enough money to work on Nonplayer full-time? That’s the big unanswered question, the dimensions of which are well-described in this article. I’ve kicked around ideas ranging from Kickstarter to old-style patronage to illustrating comic covers. And of course, there’s always been the potential deus ex machina of something getting greenlit in Hollywood. There’s also the Brandon Graham method, where you write and art-direct a book like Prophet, and use your take from the monthly book to fund your other project. I am working on a similar project right now, in the hope that diversification will make it easier to move into comics full-time.

I have another idea that MAY work, but that announcement is still a little way off. I hope that it adds a new dimension to this conversation, and if it does succeed, I hope it offers a new avenue for other practitioners of slow-cooked art. This medium could use a few more Kubricks and George R.R. Martins, I think. Fast comics are awesome, but slow ones are too. We should have a big tent.

Thanks for the interesting discussion, guys!

-Nate

Looking up Nonplayer on the sales charts, I found that #1 had first month sales of 8,869. A second printing brought that number up to 14,825, so that Image royalty check was certainly not in the “quit your day job” realm.

Maybe part of the answer is that the labor side of the comics industry needs to organize itself.

On the flip side Nate Simpson’s recent day job seemed like a really cool gig. I want some of that! https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/659943965/human-resources-an-apocalyptic-rts-game

I could understand the complaints if Simpson promised any sort of schedule, or solicited issues that didn’t come out. But he didn’t. The text page in #1 says that the first issue took a year to do, and the second will be out when it’s done. And he’s even being overly cautious not even getting the solicitations engine moving on #2 until it was done (this week we’re getting a new SANDMAN OVERTURE, two months late even from the revised schedule after earlier issues shipped late).

Would anyone’s life be better now if Simpson hadn’t released #1 three years ago? You’d have an extra $3 in your pocket.

Nate Simpson: Thanks for coming here and expanding on your comments and taking it all in stride. I met you after Nonplayer #1 came out at…ECCC maybe? Anyway, you struck me as a nice guy, and the book was and is beautiful.

Just to throw in something I was thinking about, there are “slow” artists who work at a normal rate but just wait until five seconds until the doomsday clock strikes to finish their work. And then are there actually SLOW artists such as Nate Simpson, Travis Charest, Jaime Hernandez and David Mazzucchelli who are slow in the sense that they really do take a long time to get things to their satisfaction and tear up lots of pages and constantly rework things. Given the results, there is nothing “wrong” with this except that you leave a very slim shelf of comics behind. And as Nate pointed out…you have to figure out how to make a living with this pace, which isn’t easy.

I’ll say 2 things that are maybe going to shock some people:

If any artist spend a year (or more) on 24 pages of comic he/she’ll have something that looks amazing. But most pro artists produce one finished page EACH day, 20 or 24 a MONTH. Comics are about telling stories and that requires a lot of pages so you need to produce those pages FAST.

And that leads us to the obvious answer about making a living out of comics: produce more pages and you can make more money. It’s not about the page rate it’s about how long it takes you to draw that page. You can make a living out of low page rates if you are smart/tricky/professional/organized and manage to produce faster AND better than the next guy. One idea: go digital. I do everything digitally and I improved my speed by at least 50%. There are a lot of other tricks and methods too.

Be creative and BE FAST.

Heh, “be good, cheap and fast.” That’s certainly the golden trifecta, isn’t it, JM?
Your comment obviously just goes back to what Joey said above. “Comic book fans are a little ridiculous. They’d rather have forgettable, mediocre junk on a monthly schedule (that they can complain about on the internet) than something of quality that took longer to make.”
Honestly, with guys like Nate Simpson, although his art takes a long time to produce, I wouldn’t necessarily call it slow. It’s just super detailed, and super clean. Both those things take MUCH longer to produce than something simple and sketchy. If he drew it faster, you just wouldn’t be getting the same thing.
I’d echo the sentiment that a comic that takes the form of a monthly pamphlet might not be the best publishing format for this type of approach to a story, but be that as it may, as think the art form is better off for having more work of this quality.

I’m afraid that for new cartoonists, the alternative to “free” isn’t “paid,” it’s “invisibility.”

The internet is the worst possible way for a serious artist to make a living–except for all the other ways.. Deciding to make art is an act of faith in your own talent. It’s not a guarantee of anything except lots of hard work.

Cartoonists should be on the web AND looking for off the web opportunities to get paid. Online life is the flip side of real world life, the two work together. Making this into an either or proposition misses the reality of contemporary life.

The comments about libraries are spot on because the internet is a library: Lots of stuff easily available for you to access as well as a great place to connect with like-minded library browsers.

Being online and using online as a platform is not simply a way to hustle a product–although that seems to be what the internet has been reduced too in the minds of some. The web is a place to connect more easily with anyone who is interested either in what you do or the stuff you believe in. After that, like everything else in life, it’s all about how creative you are.

I liked the Thurber piece a lot better when Molly Crabapple originally wrote it three days earlier: http://boingboing.net/2014/11/04/molly-crabapples-rules-for-c.html

There’s a lot of successful webcomic artists and youtubers who make money off ads and selling stuff like T-shirts. Additionally (once you begin to build a fanbase) you can leverage services like Patreon and Kickstarter as well as hustle goods at conventions, more of which are popping into existence by the year.

Not everyone is making quit-your-day-job money, but it’s disingenuous to say putting your art online only benefits the ISPs. At some point one must shed the childish view of capitalism and learn how to get out there and monetize their work beyond a low traffic blog and a Facebook page.

Just as relevant to today’s young artists:

http://www.improvisedlife.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Thurbers-seal-cartoon.jpg

http://www.patreon.com/dumbingofage–currently $2.5k/month
http://www.patreon.com/erikamoen–Currently just under $1k a comic, which publishes every week.
http://www.patreon.com/jephjacques–currently $9.7k/month

I mean, I’m happy for him and all, but it’s hardly groundbreaking.

And of course I managed to break all those links.
http://www.patreon.com/dumbingofage
http://www.patreon.com/erikamoen
http://www.patreon.com/jephjacques

Tom Siddell makes $5k a month
http://www.patreon.com/gunnerkrigg
Aaron Diaz is making $3.6K
http://www.patreon.com/dresdencodak
And Michelle Czajkowski is about to make about $2k a month if a few more people sign up.
http://www.patreon.com/avasdemon

Still congrats to Jason Shiga!

Found a typo: “The lifestyle that $100 a month affords you…”

Interesting stuff.

“Given that there are NO MIDDLE men for The Private Eye, that’s six figures of pure profit for well deserving creators.”

For tax reasons I hope not ;-)

More seriously – this is great news.

Six figures for the latest issue or all issues?

Not a big fan of the headline. Marcos Martin “owns” the book as well.

What Peter said. It’s bad enough when mainstream media outlets trumpet “Stan Lee’s Spider-Man” or “Robert Kirkman’s Walking Dead,” but this a COMICS site and we can’t be cavalier about this kind of language in a headline. Not with the craven history of an industry built on the backs of artists in particular being royally screwed over when it comes to ownership while the non-drawing business-minded writers (Stan Lee, Bob Kane, Robert Kirkman) profit to a FAR higher degree than their CO-CREATORS. And no, I don’t think Bob Kane counts as an “artist” primarily, as his concern was clearly business, first and foremost, and he stopped drawing as soon as he could. Anyway, watch those headlines, Beat! You are framing the way everone thinks about creators’ ownership and this is THE issue in comic-books, now as always.

100% correct but there is no solution…consumers won’t pay $50 for a graphic novel they can read in ten minutes…I mean I liked Shaun Tan’s “The Arrival” and I’m sure it took him awhile to draw…but it was certainly a poor value purchase if I was looking at dollars per hour of entertainment…so, yah, cartooning is never going to be big business for the cartoonist…they take too long to produce, are too quick to read and the market isn’t huge…that’s life…

You have to love doing work in the arts, whether you are an actor, singer, dancer or cartoonist. There are always people who will do that work for free, so you need to be exceptional to make any money at it. Supply and demand.

Man, so glad I have a day job. I feel so bad for cartoonists who are working hard and putting out material they love that just doesn’t hit an audience.

I’m eager to read it all.

Here’s another great resource about using comics to communicate ideas:

https://rosenfeldmedia.com/books/see-what-i-mean/
See What I Mean: How to Use Comics to Communicate Ideas

A $50 graphic novel you can read in ten minutes? Unless it’s a limited edition or a thick omnibus, you’re paying too much. IF it is an omnibus, you’re getting a big chunk of story, a satisfying read.

The Arrival costs $20 for 128 pages. It can be a quick read, or it can be engaging and immersive.

Live, love, work my day job, read, write, and draw.

It’s a cycle that works for me.

Being willing to work for free, in the abstract – because you love it so much? That’s fine.

Those who actually work in the creative arts for free, for all the reasons that lure in the naive? Find those people, break their fingers, and their arms, and their legs and their jaws.

The go back into the world – a world where you’re not competing with free – and you’ll have a much better ability to live off your creative skills.

“The World Is Made Of Cheese: The Applied Cartooning Manifesto” has been made available online here:

http://issuu.com/cartoonstudies/docs/appliedcartooningmanifesto?e=2572355

Wow, this strikes right through the heart, yet I am a loss for words to make a commentary.

I give up

“We’re on a road to Berlin…”

“Maybe you wonder where you are, I don’t care!
Here is where time is on our side! Take you there … take you there!”

I’ll definitely check out his work.

Abhay Khosla is a douche. $20 is a reasonable price for a graphic novel and the problem I think with consumers in general is that internet and digital transactions have got people used to buying comics for a couple dollars or even free. I also think webcomics sometimes have unintentionally made it harder for people to want to by comics when there is so much free material to indulge in.

In general, people’s priorities are totally insane these days. They will spend $4 to $5 bucks on coffee, $15 bucks on lunch and way to much at bars. For instance it is like required now to tip bartenders a buck for just pouring a beer on tap, and the beer can already cost $5 to $7. $20 for a graphic novel that probably took years to make, plus the fact that you can keep and read it over and over again to me has a lot more value.

I’m a Mike Dawson fan. Since I got a Gabbagool mini comic at the first MoCCA. I’ve read all of his GNs up to the new one,. Why haven’t I read the new one?

Because I didn’t know it existed.

So, even when your audience doesn’t know you have new work, you have to step back and rethink your whole business model.

I think the issue with selling OGNs is why many have gone to seqeuntializing their work first, THEN compiling it into what they originally intended as the true representation of their art. Brian Hibbs had a much nicer way of putting the difficulty of selling OGNs to a public not exactly willing to pick them up en masse: http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=49141

I wish the book was called “Pre-Occupied.”

It is so hard core for Mike Dawson to put all this info up. I have a lot of respect for him as an artist and a person. It’s so easy to criticize someone at their most vulnerable. Although that Abhay Khosla piece feels like tough love rather than a take down. If you are really just trying to sell books, you need to focus on all the stuff that’s not art. Pricing, representation, marketing, etc.

Hopefully he gets some sales from this.

@nicoh – I tend to agree with your comment, but many people find the amazing art being done by all the artists we read about on sites like these as basically disposable, or worthy of a tumblr reblog or a retweet, but not much more than that. It’s sad how devalued cartooning is in our society, but it is what it is. Noah van Sciver had a funny cartoon about a 19th century cartoonist who is living the life and can’t wait to see how valued the career is by 2014.

Hey, trust me on this, starting as a webcomic doesn’t automatically make people care about your book. Shit, it can have the opposite effect. You try selling your collected edition to someone who then just asks, “is this free on the internet?” and you are like, “yeah, you know to build an audience.” and the customer is then like, “So, why would I buy this book?” and you are all like, “cause I worked hard on it.. and.. uh, you like books.” Then you shed a sad lonely tear as that customer walks away… and probably never even bothers to find your webcomic.

You can buy a digital version of Mike Dawson’s Troop 142 on SEQUENTIAL (for iPad only at the moment):
http://store.sequential.cc/catalogue/book/troop_142_by_mike_dawson/522

My quick/knee-jerk/emotional reaction (not scientific, folks): Even though I’ve had a certain success rate with it, there is a “stink” that comes from putting your original work online for free. Somehow, it devalues the work. Makes it harder to put a price tag on it. I went from blogging my free comix to self-publishing it on websites and, slowly but surely, consumption (readership) leveled off. Does that mean I only have a certain amount of fans/loyal readers? Not really. You’re only as successful as your reach and The Free Factor is a curious one.

Sure, new eyes stumble upon my work from time-to-time and having your action online is cool and helps generate new (paying) work like a 24/7/365 resume but it doesn’t necessarily translate to sales. Social Networking has become a large part of the way we consume and the more we post teasers and links (GUILTY as charged), the more we question the asking price for said work.

I intend to eventually rock a Kickstarter but that format has also changed the understanding of a proposed price tag. I believe talent should be able to ask for an advance (living wages) to produce the proposed work and not only just charge for printing & shipping. “Rewards” have become vast & varied, bordering on absurd. I think it’s okay to JUST ask for what you need in order to produce a comic book series/OGN and not have to generate ancillary product (buttons, t-shirts, posters, dinners, private massages ~ ad nauseum). Then again, I haven’t sparked a Kickstarter (yet) and I don’t know what it takes (stretch goals, et al). So, I’m reacting emotionally to a funding system that I think works well but the success rate is wholly unique per individual.

Bottom line: I think it’s 100% fair for a publisher to charge $20 for an OGN* by an unknown artist and/or subject you’ve never heard of. That’s why we have previews and teasers. That’s why we browse. But, if nobody knows about the existence of said OGN, that’s a huge problem.

*as someone on this thread pointed out: people will pay $5 for a cup of coffee. How is $20 for an OGN insulting?

Right out the gate, Mike Dawson has been a great comix talent and whose work I admire and should always be considered for purchase.

Abhay may be inelegant, but he’s essentially correct: it is very very very very difficult to get a consumer to drop $20 on an unknown or untested work.

OGNs from extremely established creators often sell slower than serialized work by same (my go to example continues to be SANDMAN vs SANDMAN ENDLESS NIGHTS), and the problem gets exacerbated when you are published by smaller publishers — TROOP 142 wasn’t available from Diamond for months before I gave up and reordered directly from Secret Acres. How practical is that for the average comic shop? It’s hardly practical for me, and I’m an “indy focused” “book store”.

One other note is that “copies sold” may or may not mean “copies sold ultimately to consumers” — for example, we ultimately clearance-saled the copies of TROOP that we bought directly from Secret Acres. We also never sold the copies of FREDDIE that we ordered.

-B

To everyone saying online serialization doesn’t work, the book that was serialized sold 10x what Angie B. sold. Granted there are many other factors at play — the secret lives of boy scouts is a much easier sell than “office workers struggle with sex and politics after 9/11″, even though the latter fuels 2/3rds of all sitcoms.

Oh and with great respect to Brian, I think his experiences with OGNs is not the only model in comics retailing.

The idea of spending money on an unknown quantity (and calling someone as talented as Mike Dawson unknown is insane) is really just subtext for a larger issue, which is spending money on art itself. Due to streaming, bootlegging, and yes even webcomics there is an expectation that art work should be free. I am not above this (thanks spotify), but I think the reality is that because art, “free art”, is so ubiquitous we have lost an appreciation for it as having value…monetary value. We have become entitled consumers who no longer understand that work takes time, and while collecting may be a hobby for us, this is someone else’s livelihood: as valid as a doctor’s or a lawyer’s. As a creator, I am lucky enough and perhaps not brave enough to make art full-time job because I know the entitlement of consumers has become normative. The bottom line, if one doesn’t spend the money there will be less paid creators and great work. You can dismiss this as a thinning of the heard, but it really is us as consumers of work who are going to be feeling the loss. The only people who will be telling stories are people who financial stability isn’t a concern for. While it’s always been difficult to support oneself as an artist, I don’t think it’s ever been more challenging.

“thinning of the herd” oops :)

for me it’s about value, I would have no problem paying $20 for a book if I felt like it was comparable in value to something else. For example if the book was 300 pages $20 sounds like a good price, if it was a hard cover, full color, or something like that, then $20 is fine. I personally feel like indie books cost more than mainstream books and that this should be reversed. I buy primarily online and I usually buy in bulk, 10 or 15 books at a time, so I usually buy 1 item that is a ‘risk’. This allows me to keep discovering new authors/works without really feeling like I got ripped off. End of the day, you need to promote yourself, I’ve never heard of this guy so I’m going to go to amazon now and see if his stuff is there.

@Chris, something to consider. The reason why indie books are so…expensive, I guess is your argument, is because the bigger companies have a better discount through Diamond, there are no discounts on printing in bulk (so we have to do smaller print runs of 200-500, while they are up in the thousands), they have paid advertisements, and they are paying an advance (page rate or so) and then giving a small royalty to the creators, but mostly keeping and recouping costs and making the “real” money. When we charge $5 for a book that Marvel would charge $3 for, it’s because we have to make up the difference in the competition for shelf space. Look, I would love to just give my stuff away, but that leads people to think that it’s worth nothing. If I charge something that is equally priced, then the consumer has to choose between Superman and Blooperman and no matter how great the quality is in Blooperman, no one is going to crack open the book to see if it’s better; they go with the proven track record. If I charge more, sometimes the perception is, “Oh, it must be good! It costs more!” but nine times out of ten, it’s, “Who does this asshole think he is?” Self publishing comics is a field of no easy answers and compromises just to make a dent. Asking us to compete with Marvel/DC/Dark Horse/whoever is asking the NYU film student to compete with Warner Bros and Disney…that’s just not a fair fight. Sure there are exceptions and there are indie darlings that break through that ceiling, but I’m going on 11 years in this fight with precious little to show for it. I’m tired, I’m beaten and bruised, and I keep doing this because, like Rocky Balboa, I’m too stupid to do anything else. I’m punch drunk at this point, staggering to my corner, unsure that the bell has rung so I keep coming out swinging. I guarantee you there’s not many at DC or Marvel that feels the way I do when I wake up in the morning. So, I’m sorry, but if I need to sell a book for $20 because it took $10 dollars to make, that’s just the sad state of affairs, my friend. I want to compete, but I have to have a way to ensure that I have a home to come home to.

Don’t worry, it’s DC so she’ll still die horribly in front of him and stuff.

So does this mean that Jack Kirby gets “equity participation” if WB uses Darkseid in their upcoming films?

They’re already unpacking the refrigerator…

Brennert’s Facebook post addressed this argument, He points out that Mark Waid apparently got royalties when they used Bart Allen on Smallville, and it’s really hard to argue that Bart is not derivative. Also doesn’t Marv Wolfman get royalties for Nightwing, a character he didn’t create, just put in a new costume with a name that had been previously used. My point is the rules seem very inconsistent.

DC’s argument is that I “reverse-engineered” Barbara Kean our of Barbara (Batgirl) Gordon—because I liked the notion that Babs Jr. got some of her beauty, brains, and even name from her mother–and that therefore she is derivative of her daughter. I have a different opinion, obviously. In the 30 years since a “Mrs. James Gordon” last appeared in a DC comic, in 1951, no one had ever thought of introducing a wife, even in flashback. I introduced Barbara Kean in 1981, and within six months DC had retroactively renamed the Golden Age Mrs. Gordon “Barbara”—so somebody at DC liked the same notion I did. Frank Miller revived the character in BATMAN: YEAR ONE, and found a dramatic use for her. That first unnamed “Mrs. Gordon” appeared twice in 1951, then vanished. After my story, Barbara Kean Gordon has appeared 52 times since in comics, and in two movies. So obviously DC has found the character to have a dramatic value. Who was the guy who first thought that might be so? Me. And no matter what any corporate flacks might say about her not being “original” enough, she was original enough that DC kept on using her, and is using her now in GOTHAM. She has value to them, and if she has value, the estate of Dick Giordano and I should be compensated.

pay the man. you know it’s the right thing to do. ll this gymnastic twisting to try to prove he and Mr. Giordano didn’t create the character just make you look like assholes. maybe you don’t care about that but the people watching this do.

pay the man. do right. it’s not even hard.

@Steve Sherman: “So does this mean that Jack Kirby gets “equity participation” if WB uses Darkseid in their upcoming films?”

Yes. Kirby had an equity deal with DC, and his heirs get paid when Darkseid, the New Gods, the Demon, etc. show up in other media (TV, movies, etc.).

Any person creating enterainment that has this much value should be compensated,Or,,,Is this like the money batman made?,,(or did not make),

Thad–While Kirby’s heirs may have a specific deal with DC where they get money for a Darkseid appearance or toy or movie, that isn’t necessarily an equity deal. The equity program was something started in 80s I believe to grant creators a piece of the action. It had pretty specific criteria and numbers. But I don’t recall it being retroactive to the 70s. Then again I worked at DC nearly 20 years ago, so I could be wrong.

Well, it’s probably less then $45 per episode, since Barbara Kean is arguably a derivative character, but Mr. Brennert certainly seems to be owed some money. All I can add is, Mr. Brennert, meet Tony Isabella. Ask him about his problems with DC and his character Black Lightning.

Wonder if the contract draws the distinction between “original” and derivative characters. There’s plenty of legal precedent defining derivative characters as legally distinct from the original (Superboy, Medieval Spawn); if the contract explicitly states that derivative characters won’t be considered in equity deals, then the law’s on DC’s side, but if it doesn’t, it’s probably on Brennert’s.

But even if the law IS on his side, he’s right that it’s not worth the money to take it to court. It would take somebody like Gaiman, who didn’t need the money but was bent on setting a legal precedent on behalf of other creators, to do that.

Alan is one of the best Batman writers ever. However, one wonders where he was when DC fired Mike W. Barr, another of the best Batman writers ever, from his editor’s position because Barr called for Bill Finger to receive Finger’s rightful credit on Batman.

I find it sadly ironic that, as freelancer after freelancer complains about DC policies and treatment, you can’t find evidence of them ever speaking out when it happened to others. I don’t exclude myself from that group, but I’ve tried to at least weigh in on these things for a couple decades now.

The height of such irony for me was when Greg Rucka complained about DC. I think he knows the writer who ate my lunch when it came to Black Lightning: Year One.

Historically, Major Malcolm Wheeler-Nicholson, the founder of the company that became DC, was the first creator shafted by DC. He was forced out of DC by his sleazy partners, Harry Donenfeld and Jack S. Liebowitz. DC has been giving the shaft to creators since it was founded. It’s not likely to change now that the company is run by Hollywood clowns and wannabes.

DC has proven it will go to any lengths to win in court. You need look no further than its hounding of the late Joanne Siegel with bogus deposition after deposition…in the full knowledge of her uncertain health.

DC is what it is. What it has always been despite the occasional creator who has been treated well. It’s a scorpion that acts according to its scorpion nature and never to be trusted.

In short…

Forget it, Jake. It’s Chinatown.

Sadly, this is the type of stuff that Paul Levitz excelled at in making sure all the creators got their monetary due whenever anything was used and is no doubt one of the major reasons WB didn’t want him around after Miss Nelson came into position.

I believe that anyone thinking of working for DC might want to give Tony a call before signing anything. Obviously, Warner/DC feels no obligation to pay anyone other than corporate execs who have created nothing. The DC universe was built on the screwing of the creators of their best known character, so nothing the current Powers That Be do should come as a surprise to anyone that knows some industry history.

Between this and the no ‘big red S’ for a statue commemorizing a child abuse victim, I feel even better that I am no longer supporting the company after a forty yr stretch. The lack of enjoyment led me to dropping the line, their lack of character makes me disgusted. Glad I can go back and enjoy the efforts of Brennert, Levitz, Isabella et al.

Evan…my troubles with DC started before Paul Levitz was in charge and continued while he was in charge and continue to this day.

Interesting that fans constantly speak out against Marvel’s policies but remain largely silent on DC. Maybe they’ve bought the DC P.R. that disagreements with creators were settled when Siegel and Shuster got a pension and credit as Superman’s creators.

Glad to see Brennert is still around, even if his former employer is shafting him. He wrote the best Ben Urich story ever, and still one of my favorite standalone comic-book stories, in Daredevil No. 192 (March 1983). Worth seeking out.

http://www.comics.org/issue/37218/

>> Glad to see Brennert is still around, even if his former employer is shafting him.>>

If you like Alan Brennert’s comics, you should read his novels.

His latest, PALISADES PARK, is a real winner, and his earlier novel MOLOKA’I is a masterpiece.

TIME AND CHANCE is pretty excellent, too.

kdb

So, as things stand, DC is shafting past creators who aren’t currently working for them, and with their newly revised (in name only) royalty plan, they’re also sticking it to their current crop of writers and artists. And just why, pray tell, will the next generation of star talent ever want to work for DC?

Because like Marvel, DC knows there will always be somebody to pick the cotton.

Fanboys love the characters and will – at first – happily do & put up with whatever in order to work on those characters and get paid for it.

“Because like Marvel, DC knows there will always be somebody to pick the cotton.”

Comparing a comic book writer to slavery is not only hyperbolic but offensive.

Tony, I know of your problems with DC and the long history. I look at them separate from this issue. Your story is a whole other book.

Time Warner/DC stiffing people over a pittance!!? Nothing like this has EVER happened before!! I am SHOCKED, I tell you… just SHOCKED!!

Erik Scott: Even though slavery ended about 150 years ago, cotton is still being picked.

Most of this really should be considered common sense and overdue. Colorists today are as important to the look of the finished art – and the success of the book as a product – as inkers are (and in some cases probably moreso). And the rest of the changes simply reflect the way the market is becoming structured: digitally-distributed comics are just as “real” as paper ones. But it’s always easier (for a while) to stick with what you’ve been doing, so give DC credit for making the changes.

We’ll see.
The colorist and digital things are good, in least in principle. The rest of it could go either way, but I can see the potential to give us less in it, and I don’t remotely trust any business to not screw anyone it feels like it can get away with.
So we’ll see.

Interesting news certainly, and great for colorists. Lots to unpack obviously. The move to a net accounting strategy (similar to the move made by book publishers a few years back), but does it change the rate of the payment? Wasn’t the reason Sandman Overture didn’t happen until recently is for years DC wouldn’t move up from the 4% (I recall) royalty they’d paid Gaiman for the original series.

what about letterers?
bad lettering will ruin a book faster for me than bad coloring, and comics dont need color.

Do not underestimate the power of direct deposit.

I never understand why it has to be “versus”. Isn’t comics big enough for both?

@ Michael – you’d think so. But to hear these brain donors talk, it has to be one or the other.

I think it is interesting that- on a number of books that Kirkman has “created” and owns but does not script himself (e.g. Thief of Thieves), as well as, I believe, some other Skybound books that he does not write, but owns (by the look of the indicia), it would seem that Kirkman now provides the kind of work-for-hire work to writers and artists that he himself advised them not to take back in 2008.

(Unless I am misunderstanding how a book like Thief of Thieves works, which is entirely possible.)

But it seems like, from the very first issue, he was hiring other people to write and draw a book he gets to own, and potentially sell to other media. Which doesn’t seem much different from what Marvel and DC editors do. It is just that a much smaller corporation is providing the work for hire work.

David- you misunderstand what kirkman is saying. Big name talent should move over and do creator owned. Lesser known talent moves into the big2. What big name talent is working on his skybound stuff?
———
Michael- other then the reason kirkman gives (readers will choose spider-man), the “verus” comes from the real world. “Gotta pay the bills” or “only so much hours in the day.” For most people to do quality work they have to put in alot of time. Quality work gets you a job at the big2 for a livable wage as well as selling enough copies to live off of a creator owned book (once you have the recognition).

Mac- I would say that Andy Diggle, and even a 2012 Nick Spencer, are the sorts of creators that a 2008 Kirkman seemed to be advising should spend their time on their own work rather than working for others.

And more troubling is the indicia of Skybound books like Manifest Destiny. In that case, to judge by the letter in the back of the first issue, is a passion project idea of an up and coming creator. His big new idea. And all the ownership of the book and characters are attributed to Skybound Entertainment. Now, I could be wrong, and would glad to be corrected if I am, but this *looks* like Skybound as an imprint fronting the capital to bring a new book into the world that *it* then owns instead of the credited creators.

If that is true, that is not an up and coming creator cutting their teeth and finding an audience on Spider-Man. Rather, it looks like someone selling their original idea rather than owning it.

@ David – I like Diggle, but I don’t think he’s the sort of creator that Kirkman was talking about. I think he meant the kind of creators who can sell stuff on their name. The Bendi and Morrisons of the world.

Extraneous to the “debate”, I still wish Bendis would go back and do more creator-owned work. I think most people agree none of his current Marvel stuff outside of hopefully Miles Morales is gonna stand the test of time. And his creator-owned work was great.

Stupid argument. If creator owned is what Kirkman wants to do, then by all means go ahead. But don’t tell other writers what YOU think they should do with their careers. If Bendis wants to do mainstream work, that’s his choice. He’s under no obligation to step aside for an up &comer, just b/c he’s made a name for himself. His only obligation is to his own career.

I think it’s a good argument, not stupid; and worth revisiting every so often… in fact, as often as companies (big or small) continue to make money from artists. Because as long as THAT happens, most companies will try to take advantage of their artists, particularly in terms of ownership, residuals, benefits. It’s the never-ending struggle for truth and justice, if not the American way.

[…] Tweet […]

Starlin basically gave Thanos to Marvel. He provided for them their go-to big cosmic threat that’s served the comics for decades and is set to be the heavy in (likely) Avengers 3 which will rake in billions.

And the character premiered in the early 70s so I doubt Starlin gets much if any royalties. You’d think the least Marvel could do after all that was let the man use Adam Warlock in a comic book story.

Freelancers that publicly complain about a client stand a chance of losing that client.

Thankfully, there are more options to get your work in front of readers than ever if you’re a creator.

“which was nice since Brubaker created the whole Winter Soldier character”

Bucky Barnes? No, I’m pretty sure that was Jack Kirby and Joe Simon. Brubaker at most created his arm, not the whole character.

Also, “Dreadstar”, not “Deathstar”.

Brubaker did not create Bucky Barnes. You are correct. Brubaker did create the Winter Soldier.

Am I confused, isn’t Bucky Barnes the Winter Soldier? I stopped reading the Brubaker comics early on, and haven’t seen the movie, so maybe I missed something.

DREADstar!!!

Jeepers creepers…

Bucky Barnes is the Winter Soldier. Jack Kirby and Joe Simon did not create the Winter Soldier however. Ed Brubaker did.

Just like while Marv Wolfman did not create the character of Dick Grayson, he and George Perez are solely credited with creating Nightwing.

“…[Starlin’s] frustrated because there’s something he wants to do that he can’t do at the moment, ON A SERIES THAT WAS NEVER APPROVED…”

If this is accurate then… wow.

Yeah, I always thought that Nightwing credit was a little ridiculous. I was actually wondering the other day if, when the title is relaunched as GRAYSON, if Wolfman and Perez will keep the creator credit. They created the “Nightwing” name (actually borrowed from an old Superman identity), and the original Nightwing costume (which is pretty much completely different now), but if there was any creator participation and credit to Bill Finger and Jerry Robinson in the Dick Grayson character, they’d deserve it as much whether the character is called Robin or Grayson or Nightwing or whatever. This is a side issue to the bigger injustice that there’s no creator participation and credit to Bill Finger and Jerry Robinson.

I still think saying Brubaker created the “whole Winter Soldier character” is weird. He created the name, I guess. Presumably someone else (Epting?) created the costume. But the “whole character” surely includes Bucky Barnes.

If there’s a story where Bucky shows up at SHIELD HQ in civilian clothing to pick up his robot arm which is being repaired, is addressed only as Bucky by Dum Dum Dugan, and then foils a Hydra invasion without changing into costume and using only his Kirby&Simon created arm and legs, is there anything in the story created by Brubaker?

It’s worth noting that Brevoort wasn’t responding to what Starlin said, but to a fan’s telephone-style misconception of what Starlin said. The fan thought NOBODY was allowed to use Thanos, instead of some sort of freeze on Warlock (possibly because there are plans in the offing) making Starlin’s Warlock/Thanos story unworkable.. (This misconception was largely due to another site on the Internet deliberately misconstruing what Starlin said so they could run an inflammatory headline.)

I wish cartoonists flipped out every time someone else made more money off of their creations than they did.

It’s amazing how quickly these types of situations turn into Jr. High grade sniping instead of professional conversation. These people aren’t pretty enough to be on TMZ so I don’t know what they hope to accomplish behaving like this.

I’m speaking of both the creators and the editors here. Keatinge’s is a little more justified in my opinion because he only wants to be credited for work he actually does and DC appeared to have altered their agreement. However, the key to that situation is to address it directly with the company and if they are unresponsive then don’t work with that company anymore…or if you have to work with that company then lower your expectations of their professionalism.

If you’re an editor who is working with an unreasonable artist as the editors’ responses imply, then you ask the person to meet directly to clear up the situation and if they aren’t responsive then you don’t work with them anymore. The solution is not to go on the internet and say “oh, didn’t know you were a jerk, bro.”

Regardless of what’s actually happening behind the scenes, the mature response for all involved isn’t to jump on the internet with a tell-all tweet.

This is why we can’t have nice corporate comics!

Starlin basically gave Thanos to… .. ..Brubaker at most created … ..They created the “Nightwing” name .. . ..they’d deserve it as much whether the character is called Robin or Grayson or… .. created the name, I guess. Presumably someone else (Epting?) created the… … .. .. .

>>
I jus’ hope none of you bastards forgot who created LIBBY IN THE LOST WORLD !

To me its far more telling where the fan asked about Thanos and Adam Warlock, and Breevort only mentioned “Oh no Thanos isn’t going anywhere” completely sidestepping Adam Warlock at all.

That to me says there is more truth going on then he’d like to admit. Because Breevort knows by now its really about Adam Warlock, not Thanos and has made it seem like Starlin is being ridiculous by only talking about Thanos. And then go “I’m only answering what the question was?” He’s well aware of what Starlin is saying, because I’m sure he checked to see what Starlin’s actual statements were.

More reason to support Medium!

LOVE THIS POST! Thank you.

Fantastic news. Bors and Rugg are both huge talents.

“While we’d feel Bors’ overall talent and cultural clarity helped him land the gig …”

Cultural clarity?

Well he sure does seem to have a lot of talent. It’s good there should be more opportunities to develop artistic talent and expression. I hope it turns into more than a livable wage.

I’m totally sharing this. You can apply this to any aspect of your life.

lol april fools

This is worth sharing. This advice can be applied to any aspect of life, right now.

Hmmm, thought the first one didn’t post. Sorry about that.

I’m all for people doing their own thing, but Kirkman speaks like a guy who’s oblivious to the reality that a bunch of people are trying to do exactly what he’s talking about and can’t pay their rent doing so.

Mike

With no big comics companies except one, which is very strict on hiring new authors, in Italy we’ve been living the scene depicted by Kirkman for the last 30 years. The result is that the comics medium, as a whole, is dead in my country. That’s a very peculiar kind of stability, but stability nonetheless.

If this isn’t an April Fools bit, that man is in more of a bubble than I thought.

He’s not saying everyone can make a living without Marvel and DC, just that more people are able to compared with previous years. Jesus, the guy makes a statement inspiring creators to not just consider the Big Two as the endgame and everyone gets defensive. Let’s just settle, eh? That’s how things move forward from a pathetic business model.

Kirkman:

The real stability is controlling your own career and being in a position to hire yourself, generating ideas that are enough to make you a sustainable income, and also controlling those ideas and your own destiny.

At what point can a cartoonist justifiably call creating comics a career? When it provides the majority of his yearly income, or a certain percentage of it? Or when he’s certain he’s on track to making cartooning his primary source of income? People who can refuse assignments or choose between offers are in enviable positions.

SRS

I don’t really understand why people are calling bull on this. You don’t think that Kirkman ever struggled in his life, to be where he is today? He’s the living example of what he’s talking about. Just because not everyone makes it, it doesn’t mean that it can’t be real. Do you not believe it can be real, because there are those of us who haven’t “made it” yet? Really? Maybe your IP isn’t good enough yet and needs more work. I’m sure RK has been there. Maybe, there’s not enough of it, or not enough people have heard of it yet. Maybe, it’s not the right time for it, but it will be in a few years. Maybe, it just plain sucks and you should reexamine why you thought anyone would every want to buy it. I’m sure RK has been through all of these things. If you can’t face these realities then your just making excuses. However, if you can and you’re willing to do your trials by fire, and you have faith and you don’t give up, then maybe, just maybe, you have what it takes to make it. But please, don’t sneer at the advice of those who have done what you haven’t, yet. It’s rude, disrespectful, and it’s wrong. You will only end up being the nameless naysayer that successful people talk about, once they have made it. Look outside the box of negativity and be free. My friendly (if not stern) advice.

What Kirkman is saying about Marvel and DC has always been correct as a whole lot of freelancers have found out the hard way. Herb Trimpe in 1996 and Jerry Ordway being public examples. What is different from previous years is the internet opening up more revenue streams. But truth be told a monthly comic book as a revenue stream is no longer viable though, except for hopefully pays for itself advertising for the trade.

Still, I suspect a whole lot of freelancers (particularly those approaching 50) wish for the stability of Stan Sakai, Jeff Smith, Terry Moore, Phil Foglio, Sergio Aragonés among others.

For every single comic book professional, regardless of exact trade or dilection, that is under any sort of regular or semi-regular contract there are easily a thousand who are hungry and desperate.

The number of comic book professionals even employed by Marvel and DC, I’d bet the farm more than half of them still have to seek out side work of an entirely non-creative variety.

The writers and artists who earn a living entirely from their comics work is microscopic compared to all of the writers and artists who want in to the business. Even the popular “wave of the future” kickstarter admits that less than 40% of their comic book-based campaigns meet their goals, and I absolutely believe that even those numbers are trumped up.

Kirkman is dead wrong- no creator is making the rules, they all flock from new idea to new idea, from the old Zuda competitions to crowd-funding to whatever the next pipedream might be. Make a webcomic, build an audience and sell the trade, works out dandy for less than 1% of all the webcomics out there.

Making comics is a HOBBY. For supposed professionals like Kirkman to give any indication otherwise is irresponsible. Image alone turns down far far far more comickers than they publish.

*Making comics is a HOBBY. For supposed professionals like Kirkman to give any indication otherwise is irresponsible. Image alone turns down far far far more comickers than they publish.*
Making comics have been my primary source of income for 23 years. Richard. Making comics is only a hobby if you allow it to be. This from a guy who was told by people, who thought like you do, that it can’t be done and i wasn’t going to be able to do it.
Comics are just like any other creative medium, it requires sacrifices early on and dedication to your craft to be successful. Kirkman isn’t wrong is his over all opinion, evenif you dislike the person saying it.

@Jamal I love you and your work (Audio Molly F-Yea!), but you yourself just said comics were your PRIMARY source of income, not the only.

Real success stories in comics are the minority. I sincerely believe genuine passion is the driving force for all great things in this world, but just as easily genuine passion has doomed more ships before they ever set sail. I co-edited a comic that surpassed its kickstarter goal, but I know my case was among the minority. You and I both know a guy who has plenty of Marvel and DC credits who still had to work at McDonalds for awhile to fight off homelessness.

I’m not saying creative thinkers should not try, but they need to have a more realistic look at their chances if they can know to be ready for the worst that sacrifice demands. If what Kirkman said is so truthful, then why isn’t every single comic creator doing it?

Cool discussion… I wish this kind of thing appeared more in the main articles besides “How about that Walking Dead, killing it again” or the latest kernel of wisdom from someone up high… Work hard and you’ll be like me kids… The schitck the Image gang puts out to the gullible really deflects the kind of conversations people should be having about the comics business. They suck as much as any other publisher. They just put an ad out that the creator pays for and maybe the first print run is on the creator too as I understand it so Image can get things started. Thats not really going to bat or taking much of a risk to find talent. Which is why they seem to prefer established creators in the Marvel/DC ranks, not the aspiring joes the zombie guy cheers on.

Oh wait, just reread…the Zombie guy is not even talking to aspiring joes, no mention of that ilk. It’s directly to DC & Marvel’s top talent. Go Image!!!

The key phrase here is, ” generating ideas that are enough to make you a sustainable income”. The people who are complaining that they aren’t making money haven’t come up with ideas that people want to buy! I was discussing this morning with my girlfriend what subject I’ll choose for my next project. Should I do something that will sell, or should I do something that gets good reviews and awards but no sales? If you want to make money, write about the kinds of things people want, like zombies and superheroes. Write a story which is properly constructed, entertaining, and character-driven. Use artists who draw in a style currently popular. There is nothing wrong with artistic self-expression, but don’t expect to get rich. You ant to get rich, give the fans what they want the way they want it.

Man, it’s been a weak and I’m already sick of people whining about the Veronica Mars movie. If you don’t like it, that’s fine, but to claim it is somehow wrong for a corporation to let an untested property receive a Kickstarter is moronic.

It’s part and parcel to the game of crowdfunding. Why should corporations have any special limitation on their ability to do so than any other enterprise? And were Dara and all the others whining like this when Top Cow did their Cyber Force “for free” Kickstarter?

To be clear, since comments on my original blog post also show that most fans are coming to this discussion with their own preconceived notions, and obviously didn’t read my post before criticizing me: I never said there should be a limitation placed on movie studios/publishers/corporations. Even in the piece quoted above, I acknowledge that it’s free enterprising working as it should.

I was simply sharing my personal reasons why I think this trend is problematic. I was pointing out some of the very obvious risks and legal murkiness that most fans were gladly ignoring in their rush to fork over their money. And I was trying to articulate why this isn’t a good trend.

” unctuous” is my new word for the day.

I miss Austen’s comic writing and felt sick at the hate he received. His stories were always solid, with strong, multifaceted characters. He remained interesting by never holding back when it came to breaking with redundant conventions, showing “heroes” acting like real people, who more often than not, making the wrong life choices, arguing, questioning their roll in things, sleping with people they shouldn’t, and from time to time mading a fart joke, but that didn’t sit well with a lot of fanboys. I remember people posting about burning his books in his front yard. Really grown up, that was. His ousting (in my opinion) was a clear example of why comics haven’t been allowed to “grow up” in the eyes of the outside media. Austen IS a grown up, and a damn smart one, too. I personally would hire him to write for any project I have, if the opportunity ever arises.

c’mon Chuck, you can come up with a better alias then ‘Christopher Moonlight’…

Snikt Snakt: That’s a joke, right? I mean, Christopher Moonlight has been posting here even longer than I have, which is well over 5 years at this point. If he’s been cultivating that username for all this time just so he could stick up for himself anonymously today, that’d be one helluva long term plan.

I really enjoyed that Austen essay. I’ve never really understood the Austen hate either, but that’s as somebody with pretty limited experience with his stuff…a very brief JLA run that was decent but not anything to write home about, and Boys of Summer, which I actually really enjoyed, and was really bummed I never got to read more of. Glad he’s found a way to keep his career going.

It must be a joke, because anyone who has read the Draco knows that Chuck Austen could never come up with such a brilliant plot…

I’ve read the whole article and it’s very good.

Kudos for Austen for finding something to do that is more constructive than the crap he wrote in comics all those years, after all the downs in his life.
He may not be the Antichrist some are describing him as such, but his writing on the superhero genre was atrocious.

Of course, the situation in the big 2 hasn’t improved after he left the field, so it wasn’t just him.

Again, very nice and inspiring article from an otherwise very poor writer.

I’ve read the whole article and it’s very good.

Kudos for Austen for finding something to do that is more constructive than the crap he wrote in comics all those years, after all the downs in his life.
He may not be the Antichrist some are describing him as such, but his writing on the superhero genre was atrocious.

Of course, the situation in the big 2 hasn’t improved after he left the field, so it wasn’t just him.

Again, very nice and inspiring article from an otherwise very poor writer.

Austen wrote some of the worst books I’ve ever read at Marvel. That being said..I’m glad he is successful..away from comics.

Austen wrote some of the worst books I’ve ever read at Marvel. That being said..I’m glad he is successful..away from comics.

Good piece by Austen. ‘Suck it up and walk away’ is never bad advice, if you can’t change something.

‘Now, Chuck Austen has been many thing in comics, from his early days drawing Miracleman (our own Padraig will certainly mention him anon) …

Yes, I certainly shall! As an artist, certainly on MM, I think the kindest think I could say is that he wasn’t a great fit, and was a bit jarring following Alan Davis’s work. I think I may have a quote from Dez Skinn about him, too. All shall be revealed, eventually…

Also – and call me picky, if you will – why are you illustrating an article about Chuck Austen with a MM cover by Timothy Truman?

Can’t help but wonder if ‘Truman Sterling’ is Stuart Immonen…

It seems that Jerry Ordway is a good example of what can happen when you sign a long-term exclusive contract that doesn’t guarantee that you’ll actually be given good assignments to work on. It might give you a kind of security for the term of the contract, but it also denies you opportunities to keep moving and growing … and stay in circulation. Kind of like being stuck for years in a marriage that really isn’t working for you, then getting out at 50 and finding that dating again is way harder than it used to be.

Evanier’s analogy of working on Superman being like winning the lottery is unfortunate in so many ways. It seems asking, “Why does that guy get to work on Superman when I don’t?” is like asking, “Why are you screwing over that guy and not me?” The business of superhero comics is just depressing and awful. And water’s wet…I know, I know.

Did Ordway displace any silver age cartoonists when he was young and drew closer the DC’s house style at the time?

The old get replaced by the young. It sucks, but it will happen to all of us sooner or later.

How much of an editorial office’s preference for newer, younger, but not necessarily better, talents is based on differences in page rates? If a veteran artist was accustomed to being paid n dollars per page, an editor might assume he’d object to being asked to take less. Or is setting the page rate at the time a job is assigned fairly routine?

SRS

I think many are missing the point behind Ordway’s comments. I don’t believe it’s just the simple practice of replacing older talent with younger, like many are saying. I think it’s the practice of hiring someone simply BECAUSE they’re young (and most likely cheaper).

I’m aware of a recent decision on a DC book where an older artist (in his 50′s) was hired to lay down tight breakdowns so their younger artist, who doesn’t have the ability to tell a story, visually, could draw overtop the elder artists’ work. (the elder artist’s name was not credited with breakdowns so as not to publicly hurt the young hotshot artist’s feelings.)

Yes, we’re all aware that in every job, career, station in life, the young will eventually replace the old.
But with many of the current work being churned out by Marvel & DC, books being illustrated by artists that can’t tell a story in comic book form, who are being hired despite many older talents that can’t get work, not because of lack of talent, but because of age, that’s the real problem.

No question Morrison’s Action would have benn far better with Ordway than Morales.

I think those who intend to work for Marvel and DC, not as a short stint on a title, but for the life-long career haul, have to be able to adapt and reinvent themselves, again and again. Right now, editors seem pretty fickle, for a number reasons, some of which are valid considering the desperate state of the comics industry. They have short attention spans, which in turn provokes the same attitude from readers, demanding NEW NEW NEW above any other considerations. That attitude doesn’t bode well for any seasoned comic vet, who has already become well established, with a widely recognizable style. I hate that it’s come to this.

I had the pleasure of working at DC when Jerry Ordway was launching The Power of Shazam for DC (this was after the Death and Rebirth of Superman business), and like everyone else, found him to have all of the wonderful qualities that have recently been espoused. Beyond his talent, he was funny, charming and generous.

But as has been pointed out, time marches on. So I wasn’t completely surprised when I read this recent bit of news.

Yet I still think talent and craft can find a way to win-out – though it’s never quite straight-forward for someone who might appear past-their-prime.

Some years after I left DC, I was an editor at Marvel Comics and when Mark Bagley was chosen to launch “Ultimate Spider-Man”, I thought it was the wrong decision. My editorial response was that he wasn’t slick enough or exciting enough to launch a book like that and the book would suffer for it. It would turn out that I was quite wrong, of course, and the book went on to quite a lot of success, setting creative team records in the process. So I’m quite happy to have guessed wrong, so long ago. Yet I can see the same reasons I was wrong back then, in the obstacles Jerry Ordway now faces.

I do think I was right in at least one way; that perhaps it was going to take a special kind of project to make it work with Mark Bagley back then, a guy who wasn’t the “hot new artist”. We couldn’t have put him on Uncanny X-Men and expected it to work. It took that special formula that was Mark, along with Bendis, and the movement that The Ultimates became.

So Ordway should not be put out to pasture, by any means.

Careers can be renewed, but when you’re “of a certain age” the approach and the project has to be more than good — it has to be the right kind of good. Off the cuff, I think of Carlos Santana as an another consistently-talented artist (a musician, in this case) who found a way to gain new commercial success and re-invigoration. Because he found the magical mix. (Sure, it’s easier said than done.)

I don’t think it’s time for Ordway to simply be teaching though, and I look forward to him finding or creating the “right kind” of project. Or it finding him. I’ve no doubt it’s out there.

It’s just going to take an editor with more insight than I had, when I poo poo’d Mark Bagley on Ultimate Spider-Man, a lifetime ago.

What Scott Reed said above is how I feel about the situation. Why hasnt Ordway branched out? Where are his multiple creator owned projects that could be bringing him in money? Why is he not taking chances on projects for Image, Dark Horse, IDW, etc? Why chain yourself to one company and one genre of material?

Some years after I left DC, I was an editor at Marvel Comics and when Mark Bagley was chosen to launch “Ultimate Spider-Man”, I thought it was the wrong decision. My editorial response was that he wasn’t slick enough or exciting enough to launch a book like that and the book would suffer for it.

No offense, but I don’t understand how you could have had this opinion about Mark Bagley unless you’d literally seen none of his 90s Amazing Spider-man run.

This whole situation tickss me off because it is so unnecessary and a terrible waste of talent.

Last time I looked, DC was a business, and the only reason most businesses exist is to make money.

If no one at DC can figure out how to make money with Ordway’s talents each and every month, then no one at DC is doing their f**king job.

It’s that plain and simple.

“No offense, but I don’t understand how you could have had this opinion about Mark Bagley unless you’d literally seen none of his 90s Amazing Spider-man run.”

Johnny,

I’m glad you see what I was missing then. I WAS missing something, though I don’t think I was the only one. And I think that’s kind of the point I was trying to make. I think there are people like you, NOW posting similar questions about this seeming lack-of-demand for Jerry Ordway’s talents. In the same way you don’t understand how I could be such a schmuck to think what I did of Bagley’s value back then, they find Ordway’s current position rather hard-to-believe.

In the creative business, it’s not always easy to see the talent that is oftentimes right in front of you, or it’s not easy to sell it. Happens in film and television, and music, too. How many stories have we heard of a great script or artist getting turned away by everyone, only to become in-demand. An artist can be consistent and producing, but sometimes it takes the right collaboration to change perceptions. Sometimes what’s right there just isn’t enough.

Maybe it would have been just as clear to you in 2000 why Bagley would be a great choice for said assignment, but I just couldn’t see it.

It’s clear that some people are publicly scratching their heads about how Jerry Ordway could possibly want for work, pointing to his great body of work in the past. But there are also a number of people who just can’t see that right now – so my point is that “I get it.” Because I was one of those people.

At Papercutz we don’t discriminate on age. We actually lean more towards older, more established artists simply because they tend to be better and require less coaching. (That’s not bias against younger artists, either — we work with them, too.) It’s also easier for us because we let each book develop its own feel rather than having a house style like you need to have in a shared universe environment.

But I can say to all the younger folks working on the publishing side of the business, you would do well to work with someone of the stature and caliber as Stan Goldberg on a regular book. You learn more from scanning in one of his pages than you would from editing a dozen books by an inexperienced artist.

Web registration doesn’t shed any light…

Tell Jerry Ordway about this!

Apparently they plan on running the site as a subscription based thing:
http://www.ucreatecomicsevents.com/tickets/

Who the heck is going to play $179 for a chance to pitch something once a month? Sounds like a scam.

File under “mounting evidence of a crowdsourcing bubble.” Things are going to get very ugly in this space sooner or later.

James Frey’s Full Fathom Five did something similair but with young adult novels and much more scammy due to the aforementioned Frey(a possible connection to Walder Frey?). They produced Lorien Legacies(I am number four) but this seems more like the Pepsi Refresh Project and American Idol for comics. i gotta see what they drum up before i can say anymore.

You might want to break into a bank first:
http://www.ucreatecomicsevents.com/tickets/

Standard Ticket Balcony Level – $179
Standard Ticket Mezzanine Level – $199
Standard Ticket Orchestra Level – $219
VIP Ticket – $259 (Only 40 VIP Packages Available)

All tickets include “a FREE 12 month membership to ucreatecomics.com as a UcreateComics Freelancer Member ($120 value)” Pay to play?

Hmmm… the New York City event? It’s on Free Comic Book Day.

God help you if you’re the next Kevin Smith.

The key question is, who owns the copyright? The creators? These guys? And how much of a cut does each get?

You gotta ask yourself, any time big money comes to comics they’re looking for something. And it’s not comic books.

I’d bet a shiny penny that Ucreate would have a stake if not 100% ownership of any accepted pitches – then those comic pitches can get turned into movie or tv or online content pitches were the real money is…

I’d bet a shiny penny that Ucreate would have a stake if not 100% ownership of any accepted pitches – then those comic pitches can get turned into movie or tv or online content pitches were the real money is…..I mean…really…why else would anyone put big money behind unknown comics…to find the next Walking Dead because we all know that even with a ressurgence in the popularity of actual hand held paper comics there is very little money in in continual large scale publication.

Wow…thats weird…it printed it twice but only part of it….lol

Get it in writing and don’t give away your work.

I would feel if they truly wanted to help and inspire this would be offered free.

One could send out a lot of pitch packages for $179 bucks, and if one is any good, I think one might even have better odds at being “discovered” doing it the old-fashioned way.

But I’m old school, so what do I know?

I’m going to make sure that all my pitches to Neal Adams include references to the crystals inside the earth that are making our planet expand. This will win him over and guarantee me great success.

While the analogy isn’t very accurate, this reminds me a bit of professional athletes. Every year there is a new crop of young fresh talent, and every year, able bodied veterans get released to make way for the rookies.

I might be wrong about this, but shouldn’t Jerry Ordway be fairly well off financially thanks to the large royalties/incentives that Big Two creators on top books got back in the 80s and 90s up until the speculator bubble burst?

i agree that it seems like a pro athlete career. Most don’t make it past their rookie contracts, (2-3 yrs) the decent every day players can fetch 6-10 years. The stars can push it to 12-15 and the Legends will get ya 15-20. Not too dissimilar from what i see in the comics biz. (except for the money and the uniforms)

Jerry’s original post on this yesterday made it sound like the royalties were not as much as one would assume, unfortunately.

Isn’t Jerry’s story a microcosm of the economy in general? It isn’t enough to be the most talented anymore. Service and experience isn’t as valued as companies rather go on the cheap and young. Workers left out in the cold during an economical downturn are left retraining their skill set while the 40-70 year olds are wondering how they will find work?

And while this isn’t a tech-based industry as such, I would hope the ability to draw well, tell a story well, and be quick and hit those deadlines is something people would still value.

By my estimations (just going off what I know) there are about 50 artists and writers making pretty good money in comics, another 100 making just enough, but about 15,000 trying really hard to make anything. Comic books are an extremely competitive field, but so is the entire art, music and entertainment industry. You’ve either got to be super good, or re-invent your self or style every so often to keep making a living. It’s a hard fact of this kind of life.

I dunno
I feel bad for the guy but he’s the right age to have seen the golden age guys die poor while the bosses got rich. I’m sure following his dream gave him rose tinted glasses, but this couldn’t have come as a surprise.
Especially when so many of his peers jumped ship to companies like Dark House to foster their fanbases.

What makes me sadder is that there are countless kids who are ignoring this cautionary tale and still dream of a life of drawing Batman or Wolverine.

“What makes me sadder is that there are countless kids who are ignoring this cautionary tale and still dream of a life of drawing Batman or Wolverine.”

—that’s the most hilarious sentence i’ve read all week.

it’s the KIDS, dammit, THE KIDS!! WE have to SAVE them!!

get over yourself, savior….

I think my first stab at this was eaten by a spam filter, so here goes:

I’m really glad that the Beat is contributing to a broader conversation about diminishing opportunities faced by comics veterans (especially those who primarily work in superhero comics). Its a debate that we should be having more frequently.

That said, I think it’s a mistake to describe comics as meritocracy. I understand why one would be tempted to describe the industry in those terms, as independent publishers grow in strength and opportunities for self-publishing proliferate, but I don’t think the industry’s completely escaped its troubled past. The comics marketplace is still distorted by the outsize influence of Marvel and DC Comics, the problems in the ‘direct market’, Diamond’s near monopoly in distribution to that market and the legacy (and continued reality) of racial, ethnic, religious and gender based discrimination. Creators succeed because of their talent, hard work and entrepreneurial spirit, but there are many who have those qualities and are less successful because of market distortions.

I also think that it’s important to recognize that the fans aren’t being given the opportunity to make a decision re: Ordway, the choice is being made for us by the editors and other decision makers at Marvel and DC (who may be lovely people but seem to have very firm ideas about the shelf lives of their artists).

We should have a broader conversation about what a meritocracy in this industry would look like and how we can get there, but it’s premature to say that we’ve already achieved that goal.

—that’s the most hilarious sentence i’ve read all week.
it’s the KIDS, dammit, THE KIDS!! WE have to SAVE them!!
get over yourself, savior….

I think you may have responded to the wrong post because what you wrote doesn’t make any sense.

“we pay an extra tax known as the self employment tax”

This is a huge part of the problem right here. I constantly feel like I’m being punished by our government for wanting to work for myself. It’s killing the little guys. We keep having to work longer and crazier hours, just so we can make less, and get taxed more. It’s just crazy. It was up to around 50% in LA county before I moved to Texas. Running a business isn’t any easier, so there are major problems on both sides of the fence.

Just wait until the higher ups at Marvel and DC figure out they can outsource the entire comic to a country where $9000/year is a huge salary. I know in engineering and law, it’s almost impossible to find a job because everyone’s outsourcing.

I’m starting to think comics aren’t really an industry in the sense someone can enter it looking for lifelong employment. On the other hand, I don’t know why anyone would want to draw superheroes. Nothing against the people who enjoy reading those type of books, but if you’re a talented artist, why waste it drawing stuff that’s been drawn a million times before?

I don’t think the sports analogy is a good one — professional athletes at least have union and talent representation to protect them and their rights, as well as pension and other benefits. I’m sure this was partly created because the shelf life of athletes is relatively short.

My question is whether it is a decision by the publisher’s based on Ordway’s recent sales history or whether it is something else. What are the sales numbers on his recent books?

What usually happens is the older creator tends to get put on lower profile books. If the creators don’t catch (sales) fire on the lower profile book, a downward cycle starts and you start getting worse and worse assignments that are harder to turn around. Nobody did themselves any sales history favors by working on DCU Presents, y’know? You put Ordway back on Superman, he probably sells just fine. You put Ordway back on Superman with a hot writer like Synder and you’ll see strong numbers (just not Jim Lee numbers). You put Ordway on Challengers of the Unknown with Dan DiDio in DCU Presents… the cards are stacked against it. The problem with exclusives is that you can get iced out, not just of better assignments, but of any assignments. It doesn’t happen to everyone, but it’s an old story. It tends to happen over a period of years, too.

Please, stop the victim mentality, Jerry Ordway, the “DC chose 52 artists over poor me” whining pap. Instead, diversify yourself as an artist, reach out to other (non-comic) arenas, use your contacts; surely you have those. Make sure of social media to reach out to other artistic avenues.

Sadly, in the world of (any) freelancing, no company will ever be loyal to you. That’s how it is.

You obviously still love what you do, so why not go somewhere where your artwork is appreciated, instead of bitching about where it is not. Times have changed. DC has just moved on as a company, so stop take it personally.

There is the perception that people are raking it in on Kickstarter because a small percentage of people are. Every artist I know who did a Kickstarter ended up barely breaking even or losing money because the Kickstarter costs were so high and the price of the packaging and shipping ate up profits, not to mention the time and energy to run the Kickstarter. Kickstarter is definitely not the only solution. I think most peopole who used it and found themselves in the red are too embarrased to admit it.

Making a living in comics is hard.

Period.

It doesn’t matter if those comics are published on paper or on a computer screen.

i often wonder about these ‘older’ creators who’s names are on the legendary runs and all my old comics but aren’t really getting published anymore. Seems like he has a relevancy problem more than anything else. Which frankly is a problem that everyone in this age range has in every creative industry from fine arts to advertising to movies.

If you want to reinvent your career now as an “old schooler” Team up with a hot, younger writer and pitch a book to Image or someone like that. I think that would put him back in the conversation.

In just about every creative industry, If you refuse to change with the world, you’ll be left behind and forgotten.

I’m a fan of Ordway’s work and I’ve been enjoying his current work (Human Bomb). I want him to get more work as well as more money. The money moreso than the work.

Jerry has been doing some of the best work ever on our HUMAN BOMB limitedseries. Everyone take note…

Doing your own thing is a crapshoot, and not always possible for a working artist with a family to care for. It is disgraceful and beyond absurd that Jerry Ordway can’t get regular well-paying comics work… but this is the same industry that has Norm Breyfogle drawing Archie, of all things, so I can’t say that it surprises me.

This is a tough thing, because (and I know this as a freelance artist) nobody owes you anything beyond paying you for the work you’ve done. If you have a lifestyle (like a family or a house or whatever) that demands a certain income to maintain, that’s your responsibility – not the people hiring you. And if all the older pros keep working into their 60s and 70s, the younger guys won’t get a chance.

Still – it’s friggin’ Jerry Ordway. The guy should not have to worry about finding work.

everything is a crap shoot especially in creative industries. You’re only as good as your last hit. There is always someone younger and hungrier looking to take your gig.

I dont’ see why the same message current pros give to up and comers doesn’t apply to the old guys trying to stay relevant…”make your own opportunities.”

everything is a crap shoot especially in creative industries. You’re only as good as your last hit. There is always someone younger and hungrier looking to take your gig.

I dont’ see why the same message current pros give to up and comers doesn’t apply to the old guys trying to stay relevant…”make your own opportunities.”

This is a damned shame! Jerry is not only insanely talented, but he’s a master draughtsman. You can’t buy that skill, you gotta earn it after years and years of practice and work!

I’ve known him personally for years, and even worked for him a few times. He’s easily the most professional person I’ve ever worked with. I’ve learned more from him than I deserve!

He’s also just a person and friend.

More importantly he’s still got the moves! I can’t believe he’s out of work!

I actually feel guilt at having work when he doesn’t. The universe is out of order!

This a really tricky thing. I’d like to say that DC is being a bunch of cockgobblers, but Ordway’s work, while technically proficient, does look really dated. I can understand why they wouldn’t want to put him on something they hope to sell in big numbers. However, they are at fault for continuously putting him on projects that are under the radar/have bad writers.

“With total respect to Ordway…he, like many others, has based his career thus far on the Corporate Comics model…it’s easier than ever to do your own thing.” But not necessarily profitable. Love or hate the corporate model, Heidi, it’s still the only way for the vast majority of comic book creators to make a living.

Ordway’s essay moved me as well, as my husband is of course finding himself in the same underemployed position after a quarter century in the comics business.

Great art never looks dated Zach.

… this is the same industry that has Norm Breyfogle drawing Archie, of all things, so I can’t say that it surprises me.

Breyfogle also draws DC’s digital-first Batman Beyond series, and at least to my eyes, he hasn’t lost a step. Of course, I feel the same way about Ordway’s work. Doesn’t look dated at all to me.

Here’s hoping he gets more of whatever kind of work he’s looking for soon.

I agree with what Chris said,although I don’t think Ordway looks particularly dated..But this does seem to be the main problem with anything in the arts,what was great 20years ago may not be considered so now.In fact we have a habit of looking at the macho posturing of comics from 20years ago and laugh,especially if they contain awful Liefield esque art.Were we so disparaging back then?No.
However really great work doesn’t age and some people,like the Bill Sienkiewicz’s of this world are going to look awesome whatever era they are in.They are the lucky ones.If you can’t grow,change and turn yourself into a marketable product then unfortunately you are gong to get forgotten about.Be the product,make opportunities for yourself and stay one step ahead of the pack.
I am surprised,however,that Jerry Ordway feels this way,I would have thought his work was timeless.Maybe he has problems keeping deadlines?So many artists these days get picked because they are quick.Often I think I’d rather wait and see great work than have my comic arrive on time and see meh work.For instance,imagine if you had an artist such as Yuko Shimizu draw all of the Unwritten instead of just the covers?Just…you know,timeless and classic maybe isn’t always profitable.

Jerry is a special guest at this summer’s San Diego Comic-Con: http://www.comic-con.org/cci/2013/special-guests/jerry-ordway

Probably one of the best thing for any veteran to do is develop and pitch ideas to editors from the traditional book publishing houses like Abrams, Scholastic, Andrews McMeel, Capstone, Lerner…places where comics are seeing solid growth. Case in point: Sid Jacobsen and Ernie Colon. They pitched the graphic novel adaptation of the 9/11 Commission Report to the comics shops and got no response at all. Hill & Wang got a hold of the project and now the guys are doing all kinds of great books.
Think outside the box folks and make your own success.

[...] posts on how to make a living at this here thing are coming out today. We’ve already seen Jerry Ordway plead to be taken seriously as a creator. But it’s not just the old paper and ink crowd that’s fretting this day. The [...]

It must be pointed out that when the New 52 launched DC was criticized for using creators from an older generation: Scott Lobdell, Brett Booth, even Jim Lee’s designs were criticized as “too 90s.” Now in light of Ordway’s blog post, they are being criticized (perhaps not by the same people) for not using creators, or at least this creator, with an older approach to material. Is DC is a no-win situation here?

Well, I submitted a comment, but it got eaten, apparently. If anyone on the site can find it, it would be appreciated, as it was rather a good comment, I felt. :)

It seems to me that Ordway didn’t fall out of fashion with the fans — he fell out of fashion with the editors. And DC’s editors have categorically, with few exceptions (mostly at Vertigo), been illiterate morons who wouldn’t know talent if it ran over them with a Mack truck, over the past five years or so.

“has based his career thus far on the Corporate Comics model. And in that model when you fall out of fashion with the fans, for whatever reason, you don’t get hired any more.”

Really? Steve Ditko was still getting work at Marvel well into the 1980s because the fans demanded it? Roy Thomas got hired by Marvel in the 2000s to do adaptations of classic books like Moby Dick because the fans demanded it? Really?

Mike

Most comics cultures have had some form of serialization as the initial taste for new readers. Webcomics just happens to be one another one of those serialization options. It’s probably best suited for comics that are aimed at the demographics that wouldn’t be caught dead in a comic book store – midwestern housewives that enjoy gay porn, to pick a random example.

The money, however, is usually in the collection of those serialized pages into something that can be sold at a show. If you’re going to make the transition from web to print, it’s probably a good idea to give the reader an incentive to buy the book in print – a value add of some kind. A really good option is presenting the work in black and white on the web and color in print. It’s simple and obvious and almost nobody does it.

_Today_ you could do B&W online and color in print, but that wasn’t viable until the Print On Demand situation switched this fall. Color strips online get you much higher readership and to get decent pricing a color book, you were looking at 750+ copies for the initial order. 1000+ being MUCH better for pricing. That’s a lot of money to throw down and you need a big existing audience for it. But… the pricing has changed and it’s conceivable now.

I’m just not sure that you get the audience with the web version in B&W.

I _would_ say that aiming for the book on what appears to be a gag-a-day-ish strip is very odd. I could see that for a story strip, but we’re getting into another conversation there.

So if I’m reading this right, Apple takes 30% of the sale price, Comixology takes 50% of what’s left, and then the rest goes to the publisher.

So that means that if a publisher chose to sell their comic for $.99, Apple would be perfectly happy with only getting $.30 of that, Comixology would be perfectly happy with only getting $.35 of that, and the publisher would take the remaining $.34. So really, what’s driving the price is the publisher, who is the only person in the process who seems to be depending on a minimum price point to meet expenses.

This is as opposed to some situation where Apple and/or Comixology had a set minimum $ rather than % they were looking for.

I’m not sure what changed about print on demand this year – I’ve been using print on demand to make short run graphic novels for five years. The prices haven’t really changed all that much, just the customer service.

I agree that color strips drive larger readership, but what is the point of the webcomic – online readership or successful print turnover?

One of the weird things about print on demand is that as the page count goes up, so does the potential profit margin. It is possible to print 500 copies of a 48 page perfect bound glossy book at magazine size for $3 a book that sell for $12 at a convention. There’s even room for a retail discount. I just don’t see that kind of earning power in the periodical market.

The webcomic business model works, just not for traditional non-offensive comic strips of the like you used to find in the newspaper. The most financially successful ones as far as I know are for gaming (tabletop and video) and tech nerds. See Penny Arcade. It also doesn’t hurt to go crazy detail oriented to suck in the kind of OCD internet dwellers that added their life story to TV Tropes somewhere. See Homestuck.

That said, I’m wondering why independent creators would even bother to go through a publisher for digital. It’s not like you need them to do printing for you. Wouldn’t it just be easier to go directly to Comixology or Amazon and collect all of that remaining 30% yourself?

hello, Dawn of the Webcomic Alliance here. Just wanted to say thanks for sharing my article. It’s in no way a new idea, nor something that’ll work for everyone. It’s simply the new route I’m going to try, to find more of the audience I already have… most of which tends to NOT be the webcomic reader demographic. I have considered ending my comic and starting a new one that’d edgy, PG-13+, and more aimed at that demographic, but I have realized that I simply do not write that way… it would seem forced and pandering.
At some point, I may just have to accept that the problem isn’t the model or not working hard enough, but a lack of talent… but I still enjoy what I do, and maybe I’ll continue to improve.. and who knows what I’ll stumble on. If it’s not “all about the ride”, what’s the point? ;0)
(not that selling really well at cons or getting good reviews doesn’t help the “ride” feel justified, heh)

Dawn, thanks for sharing your thoughts, and in true comics community fashion I’ll say, as long as you are enjoying what you are doing, you should keep doing it.

Some really great ideas here. We’ve been considering whether or not it makes sense to start offering our longform story-driven comic in ebook issues, and I’m starting to think we should do that sooner rather than later. Two ways of selling that I’ve wanted to try are selling the whole issue before it updates online and releasing only the first 1/3 of the issue online and offering an ebook for anybody who wants to read the rest of the issue. I do wonder how much of an audience you need before attempting this, or if being on comixology will bring in its own while new set of readers.

The key point in the entire article and the real reason digital prices should be much lower:
”
They’re not blockbuster sales numbers but at least I know that as our exposure increases back issues will keep selling without any fear of ever being out of stock.”

There is a very real potential here for a never ending stream of revenue from every single issue.

The figures contained in the pie chart were surprising. I struggle(d) to understand how a business model like that can succeed. 65% of the retail price for a comic sold on a mobile device go to the distributors? Wow.
There must be a cheaper method for indie creators, to get their work to readers via digital means. The ‘store’ is charging $1.95 out of every $3 to rent out a comic file to the reader?

Well AI, thats how Apple operates, they are greedy and because they own the platforms, basically dictate the fee to the market. Just look at iTunes and the whole iCloud they commercialize. Want to deal with us, sell us your soul!