Kirkman's Call Out Fallout and (my attempt at) the State of the Industry

Two weeks ago, Robert Kirkman (Walking Dead, Invincible, newly made Image partner) released a video statement encouraging the stars of the industry to focus more on creator-owned work. Very specifically it suggests if you've made a name for yourself in DC and Marvel and you want to work on your own projects, you should go ahead.

This struck me as odd because it seemed so obvious that it didn't need to be said. Of course DC and Marvel pay better and they have fun toy boxes of characters, but what artist would only aspire to work on others' creations? That's like being a captain who doesn't want to explore uncharted waters. And I don't know what successful work-for-hire creator (excepting perhaps Johns) hasn't also done a hefty share of creator owned works. It seemed to me like Kirkman was pussy-footing around a rather benign (and obvious) call out, both in his video and in his followup interview with Word Balloon.

Apparently though, anything that resembles an attack on the mainstream ruffles feathers. Robert Scott responds as a retailer with some interesting and valid comments on problems of small press, but misses the point.

Firstly, Kirkman's advocating to creators, not retailers. He suggests writers and artists who can sell books based on their reputations should cash in on their own names, rather than let companies do it. Financially, owning your IP means an investment in yourself. WFH pays bills, but, as Millar tells, it doesn't work as a long term strategy. And creatively, freedom is worth a lot. Restrictions have their place and everyone has a Batman story they want to tell, but I've never known a writer who's isn't brimming over with their own ideas.

But secondly and more broadly, the industry needs very desperately to focus more attention on strong material that will attract new readers. From the Word Balloon interview: "I see problems and everyone else sees problems. And everyone seems to be waiting for someone else to fix them... we should be talking about it." The industry is teetering. It's heading into a transitional stage and people should think very hard about what comics will look like in the next few years.

Here's where we stand right now (in my estimation):
-DC character breaks virtually all movie records, DC comics fail to capitalize
-Marvel's movie studio has huge successes
-Marvel events continue to dominate sales, but fail to capture Civil War numbers
-Tokyopop takes big losses, Virgin closes up shop, Platinum may be in trouble
-"Independent comics" score a number of a huge successes, including Walking Dead, Y the Last Man, Fun Home, Fables
-The graphic novels are big business, often bypassing the direct market entirely
-Popular webcomics attract hundreds of thousands of readers, many launch succesfully print books off of web success
-Watchmen print run of 900,000 copies after a 2 min trailer, currently in legal battle to exist
-Big companies joining the digital game, Zuda attracts (mixed) attention

I guarantee I'm being short sighted here and missing some large factors, but the question is: what's bringing new people into comics? Movies, the web, and a handful of (usually more literary) independent series. What's not? DC and Marvel whose business strategies seem be based primarily around cannibalizing their existing customers by tying together as many of their books as possible.

If we care about the future there's a lot that needs to be done:
-Companies need to figure out a suitable strategy for online distribution. I don't know what it'll look like, but it won't resemble their paper distribution (and probably will be distinct from current web models for long form comics like act-i-vate).
-The entire direct market (but I'd place the onus on Marvel, DC, and retailers) needs to court new readers and present them with easy entry points. The focus should be on turning public attention (such as movies bring) into book sales as well as better marketing at children.
-Creator owned comics, including webcomics, need to hoist themselves to professional standards. As Scott points out, this means better marketing, realistic distribution schedules, and strong editorial backing.

And I'll tell you what we don't need:
-Incentive covers. Seriously, did we learn nothing from the 90s?