PeterDavid.net

Agh. You must've known when I e-mailed you to congratulate you on the book's seeming resurrection, but couldn't say anything. Sorry :(

Of course, I don't think it's news that Diamond is a dead end. The future lies in bookstores. When comics truly take off in that venue, there will be room for an upstart to challenge Diamond in the direct market.

On a related subject, do you own the characters outright, or is there a possibility you could secure the full rights? 'Cause I'd really like to think there's a chance of seeing them in the future.

I really enjoy Soulsearchers. I've also been buying Elvira just to support the company, though I can't say it's in my top 10. I'm really sorry to hear the bad news. Diamond should be ashamed of themselves. When you're the only game in town you should represent everyone, not just your top earners.

Well, it's not BS that Diamond is acting like a monopoly when they are a monopoly (do you really expect them to do differently?), its BS that there is a monopoly this embedded in any market.

I said that if any publisher can do online only, it might just be Claypool. They have a loyal, if too small for Diamond, fanbase. They have years of experience in the industry. I hope that they can make it work, and I hope others follow.

Very bummer news! A customer of mine was a faithful "Elvira" fan, and I showed a number of people "Soulsearchers" and "Dead Beats."

I can't say that it's the first time this has happened, as a lot of small, idependent publishers have felt Diamond's wrath. Some may have had only a few comics, maybe eben only one or two comics, but I still think that qualifies.

It's never good to lose another comic book publisher. Hopefully, things will happen so that Claypool can come back in the future.

On a happier note: PAD, I plan on seeing you in Chicago. I plan, also, to bring the envelope you sent to me with money for a (intentionally) bad picture I did on the computer of Wolverine vs. Storm. (Remember that? ;-))

If I can, I hope to have you autograph that envelope.

Thanks!

Matthew Hawes
COMICS UNLIMITED
www.ComicsUnlimited.biz

Dr. Obvious: "...Well, it's not BS that Diamond is acting like a monopoly when they are a monopoly (do you really expect them to do differently?), its BS that there is a monopoly this embedded in any market..."

What sucks is, tecnically, Diamond Comics is NOT a monopoly! It sucks because nothing can be done to break Diamond's stranglehold until Marvel, DC, and to a lesser extent, Darkhorse and Image STOP signing those damnable exclusive contracts with the distributor!

Other comic distributors are out there, they just don't carry Marvel, DC, Darkhorse and Image because those publishers have exclusive arrangements with Diamond. We, in the comic book industry, know that they have a "virtual" monopoly because of the power they weild with the biggest publishers in their back pocket, but Diamond does not a real monopoly, strictly-speaking.

The Justice Department did investigate this matter years ago. The matter was dropped.

Matthew Hawes
COMICS UNLIMITED
www.ComicsUnlimited.biz

Hmmm. This news ruined my day. It was going so well until I read the posting on NEWSARAMA.

This news suck. I looked forward to reading my issue of SOULSEARCHERS immediately after reading a depressing comic. I hope that you can keep it alive, somehow.

As for Claypool, while I am a comic book buyer, they really should have been pushing out more trade collections. After over 70 issues of SOULSEARCHERS and DEADBEATS, it is a crime to have only collected the first twelve issues.

I assume that when "print" is specified that Claypool has some form of digital presence? Forgive me if this is a seemingly ignorant question, but I'm not up on Claypool Comics current practices.

Diamond has shut down many comics over the years. All they have to do is refuse to distribute. This has been going on for well over a decade. Capital and pre-Marvel Heroes World were much more small press friendly.

To echo what Walker just asked, are there digital distribution options? Your wording seems to be pretty specific, which causes me to hold out some hope that the comic itself may survive in a different form.

Why did the distributor cancel it? What were the reasons given? I'm really sorry to hear about this, Peter.

So... Diamond should be forced to carry a product they no longer want to carry, why? Are we suddenly no longer living in a capitalist society?

I'm not saying they should dump the line, provided the line isn't actively costing Diamond money (if is costing Diamond money, then it'd quite frankly be wrong not to dump the line) just pointing out there's no reason they should have to carry the line.

And don't get all "monopoly" on my ass. Diamond might be the only game in town for selling most comics to most comic stores, but they're hardly the only game in town to get a product into the hands of customers.

Fact is, if enough people wanted to buy Claypool comics from Diamond, people would be able to buy Claypool comics from Diamond. The demand is not there, so why should Diamond have to act the part of the supplier?

On the plus side, they're sending one of the books over to the webcomics format. Wave of the future, here, people. Think digital!

To Luigi, this goes back to Diamond's announcement last year regarding a "profitability" level that publishers need to meet for Diamond to distribute. At that time, Claypool had been warned (for lack of a better word as I'm typing) that the numbers coming in for the entirety of the Claypool line fell well below the threshold--I was never clear on the *exact* levels, because there was a dispute as to whether a publisher had to meet the figure based on a formula of [Orders Received x Cover Price] or if the formula was {Top Retailer Discount x [Orders Received x Cover Price]). Obviously, those numbers would be quite disparate. If the level was $2500 (for example), that meant that Claypool would need to receive monthly orders of just 1,000 copies (at a $2.50 cover price); however, if that $2500 factored in the TRD (let's say just 50%--I'm really not sure what discount Diamond's top retailers get for Claypool's book), then Claypool would need 2,000 copies to meet the threshold. After going back through several months of sales figures, "Elvira" has not been selling even 1000 copies for a long time. The last figure that I checked showed around 850 copies--and that figure was from January 2005. CBG has monthly sales figures available at http://www.cbgxtra.com/Default.aspx?tabid=695 if you want to investigate figures for yourself. I only checked the past 3 months' worth of figures, then went back to January 2005--that depressed me enough to not want to look any further or between the two periods. It bears reminding that both "Soulsearchers" and "Deadbeats" are bi-monthly, so they would both have to have relatively equal sales levels so that Claypool's figures for those when combined with the monthly "Elvira" would have a chance to meet Diamond's threshold every month. (Again, I emphasize I don't know Diamond's exact requirements for a company to meet the "profitability" requirement. If "Elvira" is selling around the 900 level and "Soulsearchers" and "Deadbeats" are each selling any substantial fraction of that amount, then it would seem the exact numbers Diamond expects must be higher than what Claypool is getting.)

To ETM: Are you then suggesting that local comic shop retailers should order product that they can't sell? Diamond should not have a "right" NOT to distribute a line of comics just because they're not making enough money from that line. Why should Diamond get to decide how much profit they get from a publisher? Your local retailer doesn't get that option. The local retailer orders what his customers want, and what he THINKS he will sell above that "want", but he's still taking a chance. If he's got one customer who orders one Claypool title, he's going to order that book for that customer. If he doesn't, the customer will go to another store (if he's got that option which is increasingly less of a certainty). At least, until no one can GET a Claypool title to sell because Diamond has decided it no longer wants to carry the line.
When a company decides to cancel a title (or several titles) for whatever reason, we don't have much option but to accept it. The reader can either replace the title with something new or just go with the books he has left.
See, when Marvel decided to handle their own distribution back in the mid 1990s, they forced every retailer who wanted to survive to open a second account just to get the Marvel line. No retailer could afford to tell Marvel to go to hell because Marvel took at least 1/3 of the total comics market. If a town had more than one comics retailer, at least one of those retailers would break down and get a Marvel account. A retailer which didn't would lose a good chunk of their customer base, plus any other customers who were getting more than just Marvel but didn't want to waste time by dealing with more than one store. What happens the next time Diamond decides to change their "profitability" margin? Believe it or not, that is one reason for the pretty standard $2.99 cover price minimum at the Big 4. Claypool only has 3 ongoing titles--one monthly and two bi-monthly titles. So it's not like the company is pulling a CrossGen and trying to expand far too rapidly. It doesn't lock its creators into exclusive contracts. Its books don't really have so much backstory that a new reader can't get caught up (especially with "Elvira"--that book usually features two stories per issue, and most are done-in-one). The books haven't undergone numerous relaunches nor do they feel the need for cheap stunts (no multiple covers, no gimmick covers, no "events"). Claypool doesn't do any of the things that most "fans" constantly complain about as being so harmful to the continued good health of the business, and yet, Claypool doesn't make enough money for Diamond to want to continue distributing the company's wares.
No, Diamond shouldn't be "forced" to carry product they no longer want to carry, but Diamond needs to tell their customers (retailers AND the buying public) how much money Diamond feels it NEEDS to make. You might feel a bit different, however, if a small publisher that sells a book that you really enjoy becomes the next to succumb to Diamond's "profitability" margin.

Diamond needs a competitor, and both should compete for exclusive distributing rights, just as Marvel and DC compete for exclusive writers and artists.

It's a shame they can't self-distribute online (rather than just publishing online); I think most of their loyal customers wouldn't mind buying directly.

This is sad news.

When Claypool announced they were having trouble, I put all 3 titles on my pull list and found I was the only one in the store who got them out of 250+ subscribers (who all order from Previews so they do have the opportunity to know about the book).

The saddest part about this is there isn't anything we can do about the Diamond monopoly because from a legal point of view they aren't a monopoly. Diamond just distributes "periodicals" and the law doesn't differentiate between comic books, Time, Newsweek, People, TV Guide, etc. They are all just periodicals. Diamond probably has less than half a percent of all periodical sales so in the eyes of the court they wouldn't be considered a monopoly. This means the small publishers get killed off one by one. The only way to stop it is to support the small publishers by buying their books.

Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to have worked for Claypool.

Thanks, Joseph.

It's a shame they can't self-distribute online (rather than just publishing online); I think most of their loyal customers wouldn't mind buying directly.

I'd buy directly.

Soul & Co. is a title that I've been buying since the late 90s. I kept waiting to get the second trade so that I could read the whole shebang; unfortunately, this also means that I've been unable to suggest it to anyone else. For me, the only merit it needs is "Written by Peter David" on the spine and I'm good to go.

In the words of the penquins from "Madagascar"; "Well, this sucks!"
Welcome to our coporate future. Don't think this is isolated to comics. There is currently legislation going through Congress that will allow the Internet Providers to decide what websits and traffic they can prioritizes. In other words, they give bandwith to whoever they choose and take it from those they don't like.
It's the distributor deciding what you see.
There is a movement called Net Neutrality that would treat all web traffic the same. Of course the Republican coporate shills in Congress oppose it.

Paul O'Brien on the fall of Claypool:
http://www.ninthart.com/display.php?article=1130

JosephW: "...See, when Marvel decided to handle their own distribution back in the mid 1990s, they forced every retailer who wanted to survive to open a second account just to get the Marvel line. No retailer could afford to tell Marvel to go to hell because Marvel took at least 1/3 of the total comics market. If a town had more than one comics retailer, at least one of those retailers would break down and get a Marvel account. A retailer which didn't would lose a good chunk of their customer base, plus any other customers who were getting more than just Marvel but didn't want to waste time by dealing with more than one store...."

Yep, that sounds about right. I'm one of those retailers that had to deal with THREE comic distributors back then. Marvel fired the shot heard 'round the industry, and DC, Darkhorse, and other publishers scurried, signing exclusive contracts with other distributors.

DC, Darkhorse, and Image worked out a deal with Diamond Comic Distributors that effectively finished what Marvel had inadvertently started: Diamond's near-total control of the distribution of comic books in the direct market.

Poor Capital Comic Distributors. Caliber and Kitchen Sink signed exclusively with the distributor, but that wasn't enough to save them.

I was dealing with Capital, even though most of my customers bought comics from the bigger publishers, because I wanted a fuller line. But, and this may be speculation, it seemed I was getting charged unreasonably for shipping costs and some other things. Was Capital, in its final days, trying to make up for lost revenue by sticking it to the customer (retailers)? I'm not sure, just speculation, as I said. Regardless, Capital's days were numbered when Marvel purchased Heroes World and the three next-largest publishers became exclusive through Diamond.

I'll never forget the call I placed to Capital in late 1996 (I think it was still 1996, maybe early 1997 -- I remember the call, if not the date). I had an issue with the shipping costs on an invoivce and placed a call to my representative at the distributor. I was greeted with "Thank you for calling Diamond Comics, how may I help you?"

Did I call the wrong distributor??

No, that's exactly how many retailers learned that Capital had been bought up by Diamond Comic Distributors.

And then there were two.

Until Marvel discovered that it couldn't handle being its' own distributor, that is!

And what brilliant move did Marvel do when it closed the doors to Heroes World? The publisher signed EXCLUSIVELY with Diamond! Arghhh!!!

And then there was one.

At least, only one real distributor as far as most shops are cioncerned. We all know that if a shop that deals in new comics doesn't carry DC, Marvel, and/or Darkhorse, and Image, it is sunk.

Again, to break Diamond's hold, Marvel and DC have to stop signing exclusive agreements with Diamond, or any other distributor! These publishers have to realize that this short-term thinking has hurt the industry and will ciontinue to do so.

Matthew Hawes
COMICS UNLIMITED
www.ComicsUnlimited.biz

This development reminds me of a few years ago when Wizard (I think) published a list of the "25 Most Powerful People In the Comics Industry" (or something similar) and listed the usual creators, editors, etc. etc. The Comics Journal responded a couple of months later with their own list of the "25 Most Powerful"... all of them were employees of Diamond, with, I believe, the front desk receptionist at #25.

I thought at the time it was snarky and cynical. Looks like the joke's on me!

Elayne:
"I think most of their loyal customers wouldn't mind buying directly."

I think that if they had enough loyal customers, then they wouldn't have to suspend operations. The cause of the problem is not Diamond, it's simply not having enough readers.

Sorry to hear that, Peter. I've been buying Soulsearchers ever since I found out about it (which equates to about 2 years) and have enjoyed the heck out of it.

Peter, I must admit I haven't read "Soulsearchers," or any other comics in the Claypool line (although I have indeed heard of them). Nevertheless, I'm sorry to hear about the demise of their print line, and with it the cancellation of the "Soulsearchers" series.

I've read articles that refer to the "Soulsearchers" as "Peter David's creator-owned title." Is that correct? If so, is there a chance for the book to find a new home elsewhere?

That may sound odd coming from someone who hasn't read it. But my comic-book budget shrank to almost nil about six years ago due to losing my job. I was just starting to get my financial house in order, but now my current employer's future is uncertain, to put it nicely. When my financial situation is more stable, it's certainly a book I'd like to try -- if it's not too late.

The obvious problem I have with the end of Claypool is that it threatens the other little fish in the pond dominated by DC, Marvel, Image, and Dark Horse.

Some will blame Claypool. I can't do that, because I don't think every comic should have to sell like the big boys to survive.

Some things are niche for a reason, and the independents foster creativity when the big guys don't necessarily need or want to.

Everybody makes it sound nice and easy with the "well, if you want to survive, sell more comics" mantra, but it's never as simple as that. Diamond certainly isn't in the business for the more the merrier.

Hardly the first publisher Diamond has killed off, but probably the biggest and longest-lived. Small publishers get cribkilled by Diamond all the time, and while it may not be final (i.e. Lethargic Comics was killed by Diamond, but came back online and has since put out paper compilations of the webcomic via Diamond), it's certainly not good.

While the knee-jerk reaction is to blame Diamond for their Monopoly and stranglehold on distribution let's not forget to level some blame on the retailors as well.

Yes, I know that the job of a retailor is to sell what his customers want but how many Comic Shops (and I know of at least five) will order ONLY the number of copies of Independent titles that are on their customer pull lists and order none or maybe one (if they're feeling generious) for the new comic rack.

How can ANY new title/concept/idea find it's audience/readers when they can't get more than one copy out on display while the lates Marvel mutant title or DC crisis gets multitudes of copies on the rack.

(and don't say it's demand, most of those main stream titles continue to collect dust months later sitting on the shelves.)

I plan, also, to bring the envelope you sent to me with money for a (intentionally) bad picture I did on the computer of Wolverine vs. Storm. (Remember that? ;-))

Hans Sehaw!

Peter, is there a possibility of doing Soulsearchers as a series of novels? While I enjoy the characters and the premise of the series, I admit to not buying it after Amanda Connor left as series artist. None that followed her seemed to capture the magic of the issues you did with her. Still, if it's just your prose, I would certainly buy their tales once again. Cheers! Jose'

Matt Adler, you remembered!!! :-)

Yeah, it's funny... That piece I put on eBay started out as a joke between me and a friend. The link got posted on PAD's board, he put a bid in and won, and I have a fun story to share with people!

Weird how things can happen like that.

Matthew Hawes
COMICS UNLIMITED
www.ComicsUnlimited.biz

It's too bad, but I said all those years ago when Marvel pulled a stupid and bought Heros World they were killing the golden goose.

Costs increased for the retailers thus driving a lot of at the border retailers out of business. This resulted in a decrease of circulation because junior could no longer jump on his bike and ride down to the local shop for his weekly fix of comics. Suppressed circulation numbers lead to increased cover prices, which in turn made people like me cut their monthly purchase numbers thus killing titles and reducing profits for the retailers and further killing off retailers.

We are at the point that in an area that once supported 15 comic shops at a time there are NONE! And frankly since the big guys really care so little for their customers I'm out of the comic business. It's not worth the coverprice or the hassel of trying to track down the books. Visiting the comic shop for me was like walking into Cheers, everyone knew your name, you caught up with old friends and had some fun.

You'd think some calculator pusher at the big three could crunch the numbers and realize that without wide distribution thru multiple channels in this type of industry is far more profitable. But no... they killed that golden goose.

As has already been pointed out, the future of comics is digital. Although not as webcomics. There is an important distinction that must be made between downloadable content for a fee and content that can be viewed through a browser. Already, almost any comic from the last 60+ years is available illegally for people to read on any one of various portable computing devices. For the industry to survive, it must adopt a reliable, affordable and most importantly, universal, digital distribution system.

But the company that likely unifies the industry in this manner will be Diamond Digital or some such thing.

The cause of the problem is not Diamond, it's simply not having enough readers.

Not entirely true. I have been ordering Soulsearchers from a subscription service (Best Comics in New Hyde Park) for about 10 years (and buying it off the rack since #1). Soulsearchers is about the only book where I miss about an issue a year, and I know the problem isn't with the comic book store.

If it was the store, more books would be missing. Therefore, the problem must lie with Diamond.

If the book were self-published, or sold through a subscription, I would buy it.

I'm really going to miss Elivra Mistress of the Dark and Soulsearchers & Co.

Considering that Diamond was the one that shut the company down ought to give everyone pause.

Hurricane Heeran

I have a question for Matthew or anybody else who wants to answer it. Disclaimer: I'm not familiar at all with the business side of comic distribution/retail. Why do stores only carry books from one distributor (Diamond)? This seems to be the main problem to me, cause else Claypool could've simply switched to another distributor. I can see why every store owner wants to work with Diamond to get the Marvel/DC/Image/DH comics but why not work with other distributors too? Is it simply too much of a hassle for them to deal with small distributors or does Diamond discourage it somehow?

Most retailers do not even see the point in bothering past Marvel or DC. Complicate their system by using multiple distributors? Not a popular approach. The difficulty in finding a distributor who works with the same discounts, volume, shipping range and reliability, along with accounting, is enough of a deterrent for retailers who already have a hard time understanding why they should order titles from smaller publishers to begin with. Hence, Diamond denying to distribute books with smaller print runs (something they swore they would not do when they first acquired Capital) is a death sentence. This instance with Claypool is not the new. This has been going on for a decade or more.

What a shame. I just discovered Soulsearchers last year at San Diego, and I enjoyed the book.

Mark Gerrits: "...I have a question for Matthew or anybody else who wants to answer it. Disclaimer: I'm not familiar at all with the business side of comic distribution/retail. Why do stores only carry books from one distributor (Diamond)? ..."

For some retailers, it's a matter of budget. Most distributors require that a retailer order a minimum amount of product in order to have an account with them. Also, there would be more shipping involved, so there's more shipping costs to consider. Also, many retailers carry games and action figures that come from toy and game distributors, so that should be considered when realizing why retailers must be budget concious.

The best for everyone involved (fans, retailers, publishers, the over-all market), except Diamond itself, natch, is for the publishers to stop signing exclusive agreements with distributors. The major publishers, if they worked together, could make a notable and positive change for the industry.

If more distributors could carry the top publishers, retailers could pick and choose which distributor to carry and smaller and larger publishers would have more distribution and control.

Matthew Hawes
COMICS UNLIMITED
www.ComicsUnlimited.biz

Just to clarify on the matter of where Diamond's threshold is for ceasing to take solicitation: it is not on a line-wide basis. Rather, it's on a per item basis. Also, it's not based on cover price, but on the amount that Diamond is paying the publisher per issue - which is something that is easy for Diamond and the publisher to track, but not as easy for the outside observer.

Basically, Diamond wants to be purchasing $1500 worth (at the wholesale rate they're paying) per issue. They do definitely feel flexibility in this regard; if something is lower but showing a likelihood of growing into range, for example, they're not likely to invoke the threshold.

While I don't know Claypool's exact terms with Diamond, this $1500 would translate to about 1500 copies per issue.

"What happens the next time Diamond decides to change their "profitability" margin? Believe it or not, that is one reason for the pretty standard $2.99 cover price minimum at the Big 4."

Don't believe it. The brokered publishers are not subject to this policy; they have a very different deal (actually, likely individual different deals) with Diamond.

--Nat, publisher, About Comics

A damn shame. I agree with all the frustration, both at Diamond and at the inability of anyone to really do anything about it.

I'm concerned, though, about PAD's final line:

And the real killer is going to be the chorus of fan voices saying, "Claypool Comics? What's that? Never heard of it."

I initially read this as saying that the above chorus is what "really" killed the line, and was about to take some mild umbrage. On a second read, I think that this "real killer" means that last little item to make everything even more frustrating, which is much more understandable.

Even so, I'm worried that this is painting with slightly too broad a brush. I agree that a LOT of comics fandom has probably never heard of Claypool -- but consider that you just managed to bring an awful lot of people over to IDW, most of whom had probably never bought from that publisher before.

Frustration is understandable -- I just would rather not see the people 'round here who *are* familiar with Claypool painted with the same brush as the people who'd never think of going outside the Big Few.

[Full disclosure: Soulsearchers and I parted ways after a few years. No obvious reason ... it just stopped grabbing me as much as it had.]

In any event, I'm very sorry to hear of Claypool's demise. They were and are made up of Good Folks.

TWL

Claypool Comics? What's that? Never heard of it.

This is just horrible news. I can't say that I've read either Elvira or Deadbeats, but I thoroughly love and enjoy Soulsearchers and Company.

Damn Diamond! Damn them to Dante's last circle of hell!

It's too bad Claypool didn't take retailers suggestions seriously, especially about publishing collections of work done by big name creators.

The issue that Diamond or any other distributor should not have this much power over a publisher aside, how come only Deadbeats gets to continue on the web?
I can understand not continuing Elvira probably because of the licensing issue(s), but Soul Searchers could continue on the web too.
The only reason I can see is that Richard Howell is the main person behind Deadbeats. This way, his overhead is greatly reduced. I can't say I blame him if that is the reason.
But in any event, I do wish him well and hope to see him on other projects as soon as humanly possible.

I don't think Claypool just ignored suggestions to put out compilations. It may have been simple economics: that is, they couldn't afford to based on their certain expenses versus the antcipated rewards. Their publishing always seemed limited by what they could afford to do, not what they wanted to do.

It's a question only someone inside could answer.

I will miss Claypool.

Fan of Claypool's peeps. Peter and David Seidman. Became a fan and a con friend of Amanda Connor because of Soulsearchers. I am sorry to see it go. As much as I would love to say "Too bad you couldn't say check out Soulsearchers in every one of your DC and Marvel books" Thats not DC and Marvel's job. That's not Diamond's job. That's Claypool's job. Having only 2 trades in stock? Having an old school trade dress that doesn't even look as good as Dork Storm Press or Oni? I truly believe Peter did all he could. I truly believe David did all he could. Do I think Diamond's policy sucks... yes. But Claypool the company killed Claypool. Through the same legitimate reason Peter put up: Claypool? Never heard of it. Changing with the times? Being proactive years ago to survive and thrive with the times? Claypool: Never heard of it.

Until later
John

This is nothing new in comics or anything else. Right now 4 local non-cable stations out of 7 are owned by 2 companies here in Houston. Think about that for a second. If those 2 companies decide not to cover a issue, it only has 2 outlets as the PBS station does very limited local news coverage.

Now look at Claypool and Diamond and the complaint to Marvel,DC,Image and Dark Horse. Notice anything in PREVIEWS all four have in common? Let me keep your head from exploiding (heehee, it's a joke), all four have major sections in the PREVIEWS catalog. Why have most not heard of Claypool? Because it's back among the myriad of comics in the regular section. Know how hard it is to go thru page after page of the same print style and stuff? I mean, it takes me 3 days now to get thru it.

That being said, since the Big 4 have these dedicated special sections in the book, where is the incentive to not sign the exclusive contract? It certainly can't hurt any of them to have these huge sections in the catalog. Advertising counts in a big way.

Best thing that could happen is for someone like the guy who created Crossgen (not him specifically but you get the point) to, instead of creating another comics line, start up a good distributer for lower selling books. The idea is that yes, profitiability is good but you have to define how much profit you have to have. In most cases nowadays it's not good enough for a company to make 10 million dollars in profit but they have to make 10 Billion.

The other option is for someone to approach another periodical distributer and get on board in book stores exclusively. You get a Peter David or Neil Gaiman on the book and put it in the magazine rack or by the graphic novel section and it'll sell. Start small and build. If you can get the creators to not take top dollar, as a way of creating something alternative, your profit threshold becomes a lot smaller.

Finally, as much as I love small press stuff, Mouse Guard is a good example of what I like, I find that too many small publishers tend to publish the same thing as the next small publisher. It's either manga, personalized stories (like Blankets for example, even though I'm not sure thats a small publisher), or sex-fetishist stuff. Very few do something exciting on a month to month basis.

Oh and a question: What's Archie Comics deal with Diamond? They are in book stores as well as comic places and seem to do well.

Michael

"Finally, as much as I love small press stuff, Mouse Guard is a good example of what I like, I find that too many small publishers tend to publish the same thing as the next small publisher."

Unlike Marvel and DC which publish an incredible wide variety of books.

1Does anyone have a mailing address for Claypool? Thanks!

In the brouhaha of distributor grumblings, Peter, I just wanted to know if you got enough advance warning to be able to tie up the remaining plot points and offer up a conclusion to the series?

Well, that sucks. Can't say I didn't see it coming back when Diamond said that they were dropping the line. Still sucks though.

What will the number of the final issue of Soulsearchers be?

Will you still be writing the online comic?

Seems to me that with your fan base, you'd be the proof in the pudding that people would still read digital comics.

There isn't going to be an online version of Soulsearchers.

I wrote a letter asking them to reprint the series online. I just need an address to send it to.

What I would really like to know is the rough sales figures for Soulsearchers.

What will the number of the final issue of Soulsearchers be?

#82, according to the article at http://www.icv2.com/articles/home/9077.html

I will be sorry to see SOULSEARCHERS go. I've been supporting it since the first issue, and have always gotten a chuckle out of it. I'm going to miss this series.

I will miss Claypool - I've bought every book they've published, and am a big fan of Richard Howell and his approach to comics. Claypool comics were books that rewarded the reader -- continuing plot threads, puns, great art, and fun. Heck, they published Paul Dini's first comics story. They survived the disintegration of Eclipse, the distributor shake-ups, and the comics crash. They brought me much enjoyment, and I'll miss them.

But I'm happy that Deadbeats will live on!

Thanks to Peter and Richard and everyone at Claypool for some wonderful times.

Claypool Comics line wasn't cancelled by Diamond. Claypool Comics line was cancelled by Claypool.

Diamond chose not to carry the line any longer because they weren't making enough money from it.

When I had a brick-and-mortar shop, I made decisions every month as to which titles were worth my time to carry. There were some that I put on my shelves to broaden the selection, but if they didn't sell enough, I stopped carrying them.
As a matter of fact, one of those titles was Soulsearchers and Company. I brought in six consecutive issues, and all six ended up in my quarter box.

It happens all the time; recording artists, television shows, movie franchises...they drop below a threshold level, and they lose their access to a wide audience.

All my favorite shows have been cancelled. Many of my favorite recording artists have had to go to smaller indie labels.

Diamond has done nothing to prevent Claypool from publishing their comics. Claypool will simply have to find another distributor or means of distribution.

The nice thing about the Internet is that there is now a place for every creator, regardless of sales level or expertise, to find that audience.

Claypool's next logical move is digital. If they're smart, they'll cobble up a database of comics shops and send out flyers for the shops to distribute to their Claypool customers, letting them know which site to find their favorite comics.

Holding Diamond responsible for a normal marketplace adjustment is just silly. According to the article in Newsarama, Diamond is actually giving Claypool a grace period before they stop carrying the books, in order to give the creators a chance to finish their storylines.

They also co-sponsored a promotion where dealers got free Claypool comics to try to bump up the sales. It didn't work. These are not the actions of a heartless monolith. Diamond is not the bad guy here.

I'm sorry that Claypool losing Diamond's customer base bothers people, but I can't see castigating Diamond for deciding not to carry a product that wasn't generating enough money for them.

Holding Diamond responsible for a normal marketplace adjustment is just silly.

A normal marketplace would afford publishers more options than Diamond's monopoly.

#82, according to the article

Thanks.

====================
Holding Diamond responsible for a normal marketplace adjustment is just silly.

If this were a normal market place, Diamond wouldn't have the power to kill a book by deciding not to carry it.

>>>A normal marketplace would afford publishers more options than Diamond's monopoly.

There are -- most notably Cold Cut and Last Gasp. Claypool didn't avail themselves of them, or THOSE distributor's didn't want them either.

-B

What I would really like to know is the rough sales figures for Soulsearchers.

Draw your own conclusions, but I couldn't find it listed in any of the Top 300 lists at www.icv2.com (which go back to 2001). Sales figures on the lowest titles on the list range from ~2000 to less than a thousand, depending on the month.

For comparison, "Elvira" is listed several times with sales averaging around 1000 (the most recent listing being January 2005, when issue #141 sold 780 copies at #287--the #300 title sold 680 copies).

@Doug Atkinson

Thanks. That helps give a good idea. I'm surprised though. I would have assumed Soulsearchers sold higher.

@Brian Hibbs

It's true, a variety of other distributors exist. But obviously none of them are playing at Diamonds level. Unless more retailers are willing to get on board and utilize these existing resources, Diamond will continue to hold a monopoly in spirit, even if not as a legal fact. Could distribution through Cold Cut and Last Gasp have saved Claypool? It certainly would have been a smart move to use these, but I do not see it likely that there would have been a different end result.

Michael Brunner writes:

"If this were a normal market place, Diamond wouldn't have the power to kill a book by deciding not to carry it."

Diamond didn't kill any of Claypool's books. They declined to carry them. Claypool itself made the decision not to continue publishing.

If you want to blame anyone, blame Marvel for precipitating this state of affairs with the Heroes' World debacle. If they hadn't decided to distribute their own books--badly, I might add-- there'd be more than one major distributor on the landscape.

Mark Patterson writes:

"Diamond didn't kill any of Claypool's books. They declined to carry them. Claypool itself made the decision not to continue publishing."

Technically true. But you are making an argument based on semantics. The cause and effect is clear. Without Diamonds participation, Claypool comics sales have no hopes of justifying the cost involved in publishing.

It's worth noting that when Diamond acquired Capital, they made a promise to small press publishers not shut out books due to low sales, as Capital had a comparatively open arms policy. At least initially, Diamond honored this. Unfortunately within a few years they returned to their earlier business model and began denying lower selling titles. As time has passed, this practice seems to have increased.

Well, I dont know what PAD did to piss em off, but I now get the black screen of death at work when I try to come to this site.

So why not continue the series as prose books? Or self publish?

JC

L. Walker writes:

"Technically true. But you are making an argument based on semantics. The cause and effect is clear. Without Diamonds participation, Claypool comics sales have no hopes of justifying the cost involved in publishing."

Well, then, I hate to say it, but if they're that close to the edge that Diamond is their only hope, then they weren't long for this world anyway.

Given that there are at least two other distributors out there, plus online solutions that Claypool may or may not use for their other books, it was still Claypool's decision to shut the books down. Diamond did nothing to stop them from going elsewhere, and did actively try to save the line.

Diamond's still not the bad guy here.

Mark Patterson writes: "Well, then, I hate to say it, but if they're that close to the edge that Diamond is their only hope, then they weren't long for this world anyway."

You're missing the point. Diamond is the only hope regardless of how close to the edge they are. Diamond is the edge. If the book was selling ten times what it had been, Diamond would still be the only hope. Because Diamond is, at the end of the day, the only real game in town.

Mark Patterson writes: "Diamond's still not the bad guy here."

As I said: "It's worth noting that when Diamond acquired Capital, they made a promise to small press publishers not shut out books due to low sales, as Capital had a comparatively open arms policy. At least initially, Diamond honored this. Unfortunately within a few years they returned to their earlier business model and began denying lower selling titles. As time has passed, this practice seems to have increased."

L. Walker, no offense, but I think you're missing the point. Unless you're privy to information I haven't seen, you don't know that Claypool couldn't have survived by going to the other distributors. You're assuming that wouldn't work without really know for sure if that's the case. Chances are it's only larger shops that can afford to carry Claypool's books to begin with given their sales, and larger shops are more likely to go through more than one distributor because they can afford the wider selection, so it would stand to reason that those shops would be willing to continue ordering Claypool books through the other distributors.

What we'd really need to know is how many shops order Claypool books and of those how many go through other distributors and if it's enough to support the line. I don't have that kind of information or any indication that Claypool considered that alternative. It would stand to reason, however, that some books can survive being distributed other than by Diamond, otherwise, there wouldn't be much reason for shops to go through more than one distributor. If every book had to go through Diamond to survive then retailers would just order through Diamond.

Brian Thomer writes: "It would stand to reason, however, that some books can survive being distributed other than by Diamond, otherwise, there wouldn't be much reason for shops to go through more than one distributor. If every book had to go through Diamond to survive then retailers would just order through Diamond."

A book that can survive without being distributed through Diamond? Show me a comic book that caters primarily to the direct market without support from Diamond and does not lose money. And yeah, there are plenty of reasons for a retailer to utilize smaller distributors. Availability, priority shipping and increased discounts being the foremost, though many retailers will ignore these advantages. Regardless, what is being ignored in this equation is that both ColdCut and Last Gasp do a large amount of their distribution as a resupply point. These companies are not comparable to Diamond in either volume or product focus. Furthermore, you simply cannot dismiss the advertisement value that a presence in the Diamond catalog affords. Again, every book in the direct market must go through Diamond to survive.

Brian Thomer writes: "L. Walker, no offense, but I think you're missing the point. Unless you're privy to information I haven't seen, you don't know that Claypool couldn't have survived by going to the other distributors. You're assuming that wouldn't work without really know for sure if that's the case."

I'm privy to fifteen cumulative years of experience working in every aspect of the industry. Retail, distribution (both direct market and other), publishing and creative. I'm not making any outrageous assumptions here. You take a book that sells an initial run of 10,000 copies through the three named distributors and remove Diamond, then you have a book that sells well under a thousand. A book with high sales might be able to survive this. Might. Take a book that sells a thousand and remove Diamond... you have a book that will lose too much money to survive.

Did Claypool Comics avail itself to all resources offered? My understanding is that they did not. Would it have made a difference in the long run? Not likely.

I must admit I am one of those who did not know much about Claypool Comics until I read the announcement at Newsarama.

But it is always a sad thing to see. And the way that the market seems to be shrinking, it is difficult not to think that it will only get worse.

L. Walker writes: "You're missing the point. Diamond is the only hope regardless of how close to the edge they are. Diamond is the edge. If the book was selling ten times what it had been, Diamond would still be the only hope. Because Diamond is, at the end of the day, the only real game in town."

Due respect, L. Walker, but if the book had been selling ten times what it was, we wouldn't be having this conversation right now, because the question wouldn't have risen.

If you're dismayed that Diamond is the only game in town, I again suggest that you blame Marvel for that.

L. Walker writes, "As I said: "It's worth noting that when Diamond acquired Capital, they made a promise to small press publishers not shut out books due to low sales, as Capital had a comparatively open arms policy. At least initially, Diamond honored this. Unfortunately within a few years they returned to their earlier business model and began denying lower selling titles. As time has passed, this practice seems to have increased."

I don't see that Diamond should be held in perpetuity to an agreement made in different circumstances. If they stuck with it for a few years, then that's reasonably all anyone can expect. Was there a clause in any agreement specifying how long Diamond was expected to carry low-selling books?

Diamond's in business to make money. If they're not making enough on a given publisher, especially one they went out of their way to help, I can't work up any angst against them if they decide that they've had enough.

If Claypool books sold their identical Diamond numbers with Cold Cut and Last Gasp, would they still get cancelled?

I don't mean to be cruel, but indie books have to work harder to survive. Not all the turtles make it to the sea.

If I want Diamond to do business with me, I have to order a minimum amount ($450.00 a month, I believe). If I can't make that nut, then Diamond won't sell to me. It's the same with publishers. There has to be a minimum number that a line or title generates to make it worth a distributor's time to carry.

Diamond didn't just dump Claypool. They let the publisher know that there was a problem, and tried to work with them to fix it. When that didn't happen and Claypool decided to cease publication, Diamond gave Claypool time enough to finish longstanding storylines.

Seventy-plus issues of a title is not a small thing. If their sales have diminished, and I believe that's the case, then, well...sometimes it's for the best.

Note that I'm not particularly blaming Diamond for canceling a line of books. I'm simply pointing to the fact that Diamond does hold a monopoly on the industry, even if not in the eyes of the law. They shut down a book, that book dies. I'm quite certain they are aware of this as well. From my perspective, that gives them an amount of responsibility to uphold promises made when they initiated the exclusive distribution system that drove the competition into the ground. Blame Marvel? Yes, actions of Marvel comics helped facilitate Diamonds takeover of the distribution end of the industry. But so to did many other events. The business that holds the power now is Diamond.

L. Walker writes: "Note that I'm not particularly blaming Diamond for canceling a line of books. I'm simply pointing to the fact that Diamond does hold a monopoly on the industry, even if not in the eyes of the law. They shut down a book, that book dies. I'm quite certain they are aware of this as well. From my perspective, that gives them an amount of responsibility to uphold promises made when they initiated the exclusive distribution system that drove the competition into the ground. Blame Marvel? Yes, actions of Marvel comics helped facilitate Diamonds takeover of the distribution end of the industry. But so to did many other events. The business that holds the power now is Diamond."

Absolutely Diamond holds the power in the industry. They're the biggest player with the most companies. They are not, however, a monopoly. Cold Cut and Last Gasp are still around and doing business.

If a publisher can't make it in the majors (Diamond), then they go to the minors (Last Gasp and Cold Cut).

Business is like politics...everything's fluid. Your perspective may be that Diamond should be obligated to stand by policies made a decade ago, but that doesn't seem to have much to do with the way the world works.

Diamond did not shut down anything. They gave Claypool a chance to improve their sales, and when that didn't happen, they decided not to continue carrying Claypool product. Diamond went further than most businesses would when dealing with a lower-tier client.

Claypool itself made the decision to stop publishing paper versions of their comics. We'll never know (unless someone feels like telling us) whether or not they considered going with other distributors. We don't know whether or not the creators will bring them back in a new format.

If Claypool comics sold better, they'd still be viable commercially. If it wasn't Diamond that swung the axe, it would have been something else.

The Diamond catalogue is stuffed with indie comics. Is it a complete selection of everything that's out there? No. But it's pretty vast.

My perspective was the same as yours...up until December of this year, I ran a brick-and-mortar shop, and did that for twenty-one years. Now I do strictly online sales. Things change. As it goes with retail shops, so it goes with direct-sales publishing.

Not all the wonderful, individual indie ideas are going to reach their audience. It's too bad, but it's a fact of life.

Mark Patterson said: "Absolutely Diamond holds the power in the industry. They're the biggest player with the most companies. They are not, however, a monopoly. Cold Cut and Last Gasp are still around and doing business."

This is becoming circular. Again, Cold Cut and Last Gasp are not comparable to Diamond. Did you do business with them when you were a retailer? How many distributers did you work with? How many times do I have to say that Diamond does not hold a monopoly in the LEGAL sense? They do however hold one in the practical sense. If Diamond cancels a book, the book is dead. It cannot reach enough comic book stores to survive.

Mark Patterson said: "If a publisher can't make it in the majors (Diamond), then they go to the minors (Last Gasp and Cold Cut)."

No. They go out of business. We already covered this. And something you seem to be missing is that Diamond is raising the bar on what it takes ot qualify in the majors.

Mark Patterson said: "Business is like politics...everything's fluid. Your perspective may be that Diamond should be obligated to stand by policies made a decade ago, but that doesn't seem to have much to do with the way the world works."

I simply do not agree with your world view that a corporation has no responsibility or accountability for the industry it dominates. If next year Diamond raises that bar a little higher, and ten percent more books have no viable outlet? Is that simply more turtles not making it to the sea? And the year after that, they raise it a bit more and another ten percent of indie books die on the beach, do you shake your head and simply say it's business? Then ten years down the line when we have no indie books? Even Diamond recognizes it has a responsibility to the industry. If it did not, it would never have made the broken promise in the first place. If it did not, they would not practice many of the policies that they do. I argue that they do not do enough. Not that they do nothing. They recognize their responsibility. Why don't you?

Mark Patterson said: "Diamond did not shut down anything. They gave Claypool a chance to improve their sales, and when that didn't happen, they decided not to continue carrying Claypool product. Diamond went further than most businesses would when dealing with a lower-tier client."

Yes. And then they shut them down. This aspect simply is not debatable. They ceased to carry Claypools books, then Claypool went out of business. I have never claimed that Diamond was an evil entity here, and you are arguing with me as if I had. Yes, Diamond goes out of it's way dealing with lower tier clients. Sometimes. That is their job. That is the responsibility they assumed when they initiated multiple exclusive distribution deals. Unfortunately, they are not living up to this to the degree they promised.

Mark Patterson said: "Claypool itself made the decision to stop publishing paper versions of their comics."

What's the point is printing them if they cannot get them into stores. We've gone over this already.

Mark Patterson said: "We'll never know (unless someone feels like telling us) whether or not they considered going with other distributors."

Really? See, there's this thing we have called the internet. ColdCut carries Claypool comics. Last Gasp does not. I suspect they would not, as it is not their style of material that they typically handle. They're not the same kind of distributor as Diamond and I really do not see why people have been holding them up as a viable alternative.

Mark Patterson said: "If Claypool comics sold better, they'd still be viable commercially. If it wasn't Diamond that swung the axe, it would have been something else."

With Diamond, they were viable. Without they are not. Many other publishers are in identical situations. If Diamond decided to stop carrying any book that sold under 10,000 copies, how many companies would go out of business?

Mark Patterson said: "The Diamond catalogue is stuffed with indie comics. Is it a complete selection of everything that's out there? No. But it's pretty vast."

And?

Mark Patterson said: "My perspective was the same as yours...up until December of this year, I ran a brick-and-mortar shop, and did that for twenty-one years. Now I do strictly online sales. Things change. As it goes with retail shops, so it goes with direct-sales publishing."

I think I've made it quite clear that I am an advocate of change. I have already stated my favor for digital distribution.

Mark Patterson said: "Not all the wonderful, individual indie ideas are going to reach their audience. It's too bad, but it's a fact of life."

A fact of life determined by Diamond.

Is Cold Cuts Distributing still out there? (Asks the guy who still remembers Friendly Frank's.)

I'm going to get into the distribution wars debate, as I was just getting into comics at the time and don't have a full understanding of the details.

I will say that I'm disappointed by Claypool's farewell to print publishing. However, I've also got to admit that I haven't actually bought one of Claypool's books (meaning Soulsearchers, which was the only one that I really consistently enjoyed) in ... well, a while now. Probably since the early #50s.

My biggest disappointment isn't Diamond's role in this (though I recognize the concern); rather, I am disappointed that Claypool did not seek out other publishing options/strategies while there was some time.

For myself, for various reasons, I switched over to exclusively buying collected editions. People may complain about the practice, but it's increasingly common and most publishers are recognizing this and taking the appropriate steps. It's the publisher's job to put out material AND format that the audience wants. Claypool hasn't put out a new trade in years now.

That said, I understand the economic costs involved, and perhaps the initial collections simply weren't selling enough to justify more books. However, there are still other options - online publication was an option long before now.

I feel for Claypool and their staff, but I also wish that there had been some effort to find alternative forms and distribution (though I have no idea what went on behind Claypool's door; so I may be speaking completely out of turn, and if so, I apologize completely).

Also, regarding Elayne's suggestion of buying directly from Claypool --
I'd definitely do so (if they had trades, that is). I've done if for Carla Speed McNeil's superb Finder on a few occasions when I couldn't find the newest volume through another outlet and never had any trouble. And I even got a terrific sketch out of it!!

If a lot of retailers are upset over this and/or Diamond's share of the distribution market, perhaps they could start a petition saying they'd be willing to order Claypool comics through ColdCut. Once enough names are added to the petition it can be sent off to Claypool. Maybe if they had some show of commitment from the retailers they'd be more willing to try print comics again.

Just a thought in trying to effect some change.

"How many distributers did you work with?"

Three or four, over the years. When another distributor would send me a catalogue, I'd look through it.

"How many times do I have to say that Diamond does not hold a monopoly in the LEGAL sense? They do however hold one in the practical sense. If Diamond cancels a book, the book is dead. It cannot reach enough comic book stores to survive."

Well, since we're talking about business entities here, I assumed that the legal definition would be the default one. Your mileage obviously varies.

"No. They go out of business. We already covered this. And something you seem to be missing is that Diamond is raising the bar on what it takes ot qualify in the majors."

I'm not missing that point at all. I'm saying that Diamond gets to decide who they will and won't do business with, and at what level it no longer becomes worth their time.

"I simply do not agree with your world view that a corporation has no responsibility or accountability for the industry it dominates."

Feel free to disagree. That's not, by the way, what I said. If Diamond were irresponsible, they wouldn't have given Claypool notice and assistance. They would simply have dropped them.

"If next year Diamond raises that bar a little higher, and ten percent more books have no viable outlet? Is that simply more turtles not making it to the sea?"

As a matter of fact, that's exactly what it is.

"And the year after that, they raise it a bit more and another ten percent of indie books die on the beach, do you shake your head and simply say it's business?"

Yes, I do.

"Then ten years down the line when we have no indie books?"

If they don't make enough money for the distributor, publisher, or retailer, that's exactly what will happen. Except that it won't. When the current direct sales distribution system collapses (as they all do eventually), something else will have taken its place.

"Even Diamond recognizes it has a responsibility to the industry. If it did not, it would never have made the broken promise in the first place. If it did not, they would not practice many of the policies that they do. I argue that they do not do enough. Not that they do nothing."

In your opinion. Which I absolutely recongnize and bow to your right to hold. I simply don't share it, is all.

"They recognize their responsibility. Why don't you?"

Because they are motivated chiefly by self-interest, and they're a commerical company, not a public trust. It's wonderful that they do all that they do. They're simply not obligated to, is all.

I recognize that it's in Diamond's self-interest that a vibrant, creative wide tent exist, and so do they. What you and I seem to be arguing about is whether or not it's a choice or an obligation. I feel that it's the former, to be exercised at their discretion. You seem to feel otherwise.

"Yes. And then they shut them down. This aspect simply is not debatable."

Absolutely I can and do debate exactly that point.
Diamond, after doing way more than its legal obligation to help Claypool, made the choice not to carry it more than a few months more. Claypool, not Diamond, made the choice to shut down print operations after that.

"They ceased to carry Claypools books, then Claypool went out of business. I have never claimed that Diamond was an evil entity here, and you are arguing with me as if I had."

No, I am not. I am arguing that you're assigning blame to the wrong place. I'll admit that my choice of the words 'bad guy' may not have been as well-chosen as it could have been, but it was in response to Diamond being called to task for ducking their responsibilities to the medium, a charge which I believe is unfounded.

"Yes, Diamond goes out of it's way dealing with lower tier clients. Sometimes. That is their job. That is the responsibility they assumed when they initiated multiple exclusive distribution deals. Unfortunately, they are not living up to this to the degree they promised."

Things change. The cost of doing business goes up every day. Should Diamond be shackled to policies made when shipping, insurance and personnel costs were less?

"What's the point is printing them if they cannot get them into stores. We've gone over this already."

And we'll go over it again and again and again until one of us gets sick of it. You're about to point out that Cold Cut carries them, so SOME shops will get them.

"Mark Patterson said: "We'll never know (unless someone feels like telling us) whether or not they considered going with other distributors." "

"Really? See, there's this thing we have called the internet. ColdCut carries Claypool comics. Last Gasp does not. I suspect they would not, as it is not their style of material that they typically handle. They're not the same kind of distributor as Diamond and I really do not see why people have been holding them up as a viable alternative."

I haven't once condescended to you, L. Feel free to knock that off any time ('see, there's this thing we have called the internet'?? Come ON.). Soulsearchers and Company and Elvira could be marketed as a Last Gasp book, if LG wanted to expand into family-friendly stuff.

"With Diamond, they were viable. Without they are not. Many other publishers are in identical situations. If Diamond decided to stop carrying any book that sold under 10,000 copies, how many companies would go out of business?"

We'll find out if and when that happens. If Claypool actually was viable, then Diamond would still be carrying it.

"Mark Patterson said: "The Diamond catalogue is stuffed with indie comics. Is it a complete selection of everything that's out there? No. But it's pretty vast." "

"And?"

Sorry, shoulda finished the thought there. Given that there are indie comics that do make Diamond's sales grade, I don't think that it's fair to hammer them for not supporting every single book that comes out, regardless of its sales figures.

L. Walker writes, "I think I've made it quite clear that I am an advocate of change. I have already stated my favor for digital distribution."

Then we're on the same page. If Claypool could swing it, graphic novel reprints of more of their line in depth might be the way to go, to finance a few all-new GNs. That's paper. Digital access to old and new strips is also a way to go.

L. Walker writes, "Mark Patterson said: "Not all the wonderful, individual indie ideas are going to reach their audience. It's too bad, but it's a fact of life." "

"A fact of life determined by Diamond."

A fact of life determined by economics. For as long as I can remember, Claypool has been grimly hanging on by its fingernails. If it hadn't been Diamond, it would have been somebody else.

Pardon me, I realized after I posted it that I made an error in something that I wrote in the last post:

"And we'll go over it again and again and again until one of us gets sick of it. You're about to point out that Cold Cut carries them, so SOME shops will get them."

That last sentence should read, "...Cold Cut carried them, so some shops OTHER THAN DIAMOND ACCOUNTS DID get them."

As Claypool made the decision to cease publication, nobody will be getting them past the final issue.

Thanks.

Mark Patterson said: "Well, since we're talking about business entities here, I assumed that the legal definition would be the default one. Your mileage obviously varies."

Unfortunately, the legal definition is only so relevant.

Mark Patterson said: "Feel free to disagree. That's not, by the way, what I said. If Diamond were irresponsible, they wouldn't have given Claypool notice and assistance. They would simply have dropped them."

Again, I stated that Diamond does participate. I am arguing that what they do is not enough.

Mark Patterson said: "As a matter of fact, that's exactly what it is."

As a matter of fact, no. Because Diamond has no real competition, they are in a position to artificially manipulate the marketplace.

Mark Patterson said: "If they don't make enough money for the distributor, publisher, or retailer, that's exactly what will happen."

And here is the continued flaw with your logic. If the distributor carries the book, it may very well make enough money for the publisher and the retailer. But if the distributor denies the book, then the publisher and the retailer do not stand a chance. We are in a position where Diamond sets the bar of what is acceptable and what is not. They do so alone. There is no viable alternative, something Diamond made certain of when it strangled Capital out of business. hence the term being used "monopoly".

Mark Patterson said: "Except that it won't. When the current direct sales distribution system collapses (as they all do eventually), something else will have taken its place."

Of course something would replace it. I am painting an exaggerated picture of the current system to underscore the inherent problem.

Mark Patterson said: "Because they are motivated chiefly by self-interest, and they're a commerical company, not a public trust. It's wonderful that they do all that they do. They're simply not obligated to, is all."

In the eyes of the law, of course not. In regards to self interest, they should be doing much more. they are in an obvious position to help nurture the industry back on it's feet. Instead of doing so, they recant promises made to the industry and raise the bar so that more and more books fail. They do not do this blindly. I am well aware that they also do some things to try to help smaller titles sell. But these are minor in comparison to some of the things they have done that have hamstrung the growth of the industry. They do particpate, yes. They simply do not do enough.

Mark Patterson said: "I recognize that it's in Diamond's self-interest that a vibrant, creative wide tent exist, and so do they. What you and I seem to be arguing about is whether or not it's a choice or an obligation. I feel that it's the former, to be exercised at their discretion. You seem to feel otherwise."

To me, it's a given that a corporation has a responsibility to protect the industry it dominates. It is in their best interest that the industry thrives, isn't it?

Mark Patterson said: "Absolutely I can and do debate exactly that point. Diamond, after doing way more than its legal obligation to help Claypool, made the choice not to carry it more than a few months more. Claypool, not Diamond, made the choice to shut down print operations after that."

It's not a real choice. Not a practical choice. If there is no distribution outlet and the books are not viable without Diamond, then Diamond is the one making the decision. You can debate it, but there is no foundation for your argument. This is basic cause and effect. You seem to be arguing the most literal interpretation. Did Diamond literally shut Claypool down? No, of course not. It is implicit from the onset of this discussion that this is not the case. Technically it was a choice made by Claypool. Claypool is free to publish whatever they want without the support of Diamond. They're free to print their comics on bars of solid gold too. But just because they are free to make this decision does not mean the decision is practical.

Mark Patterson said: "Things change. The cost of doing business goes up every day. Should Diamond be shackled to policies made when shipping, insurance and personnel costs were less?"

They still reap the rewards from exclusive contracts, do they not? Have they relinquished all the benefits from said time? No distributor can compete at the level of Diamond because Diamond holds the major publishers in contract. Obviously this responsibility is not exclusive to Diamond, the publishers bear a share of the burden as well. But Diamond initiated a system that guaranteed them as the dominant force. They continue to hold that position. Absolutely they should still be bound by the price of aquiring that position.

Mark Patterson said: "And we'll go over it again and again and again until one of us gets sick of it. You're about to point out that Cold Cut carries them, so SOME shops will get them."

No, SOME will not. Because without the infrastructure of Diamond, the book will not continue to exist in it's current form to the direct market. I've said it already. ColdCut is not simply a smaller version of Diamond.

Mark Patterson said: "I haven't once condescended to you, L. Feel free to knock that off any time ('see, there's this thing we have called the internet'?? Come ON.)."

I am genuinely sorry if you feel slighted. But I should NOT have to point out the obvious. You work in retail. You've worked with distributors. You are spending your time online discussing this. It's not outrageous for me to be irritated that you would make such a ridiculous assumption. The world of information is at your fingertips. Look it up first. If you, as a retailer, as currently an ONLINE retailer, have not actually spent a portion of your time investigating what distribution systems are available ONLINE, then what ARE you doing? Your assumption that we could never be privy to the dark secrets of ColdCut or Last Gasp amazes me.

Mark Patterson said : "Soulsearchers and Company and Elvira could be marketed as a Last Gasp book, if LG wanted to expand into family-friendly stuff."

If they wanted to, sure. If they don't then they are not really a viable alternative to Diamond in this instance.

Mark Patterson said: "We'll find out if and when that happens. If Claypool actually was viable, then Diamond would still be carrying it."

Your logic here is flawed. Obviously Claypool was viable for Claypool WITH Diamond supporting it, which is the point of the discussion. Diamond has made the decision that Claypool was not viable for Diamond. And by doing so, they have made the decision for Claypool as well. Why? Because the industry holds no reasonable alternative. Hence the allegation that Diamond holds a monopoly in spirit, even if not in the legal sense of the term.

Mark Patterson said: "Then we're on the same page. If Claypool could swing it, graphic novel reprints of more of their line in depth might be the way to go, to finance a few all-new GNs. That's paper. Digital access to old and new strips is also a way to go."

Agreed.

Mark Patterson said: "...Cold Cut carried them, so some shops OTHER THAN DIAMOND ACCOUNTS DID get them."

Again, ColdCut does not operate like a miniature Diamond. Also, I have yet to encounter a store that used ColdCut without Diamond. Diamond IS the direct market. Again, did you ever do business with Cold Cut?

And regardless, the main point is certainly the fact that you use the word "DID". Without Diamond, the books will not sell enough copies to keep the company in operation. ColdCut does not operate at anywhere near sufficient volume to sustain a title. It's not that type of distributor.

Explain it for us not in the retail business why ColdCut is not the type of distributor that can sustain a line? If you have a ColdCut account will they not fill your order if you begin placing your Claypool orders through them? You already said that they carry Claypool titles. They already distribute some of the books, what's keeping them from being able to distribute more?

Brian Thomer wrote: "They already distribute some of the books, what's keeping them from being able to distribute more?"

The fact that too small of a percentage of retailers order through them. They do not operate at anywhere near sufficient volume.

If they got more orders, they could fill them though, right? So, theorectically, if enough orders were placed with ColdCut to support Claypool's line, ColdCut would be able and willing to do it?

In theory it could happen. But it's akin to suggesting that the local burger joint could take over for McDonalds. Possible, yes. But even if the infrastructure could support the increase in business, you need a willing customer base to make the transition feasible. It's not like distribution outside of Diamond has not been tried. Personally, I've seen several titles die without Diamond, despite many alternate forms of distribution being utilized. The problem is, in the case of comics, the customer base has two levels. The retailers and the consumers. Personally, I do not believe that a majority of retailers are willing to step outside of the convenience of Diamond. If they were, one of the many attempts at competition over the years would have encountered a larger measure of success. This is why I have been careful to state that Diamond does not technically hold a monopoly. Not in the legal sense. However, Diamond secured exclusive contracts with the major publishers, which keeps any alternate distributor from competing at their level in regards within the direct market. This is why I state that they hold a monopoly in the practical sense.

Could Claypool survive within the direct market without Diamond? Technically yes. Realistically, the answer is no.

>>>Without Diamond, the books will not sell enough copies to keep the company in operation.

Y'know, there was almost a decade there where Diamond didn't sell ASTERIX or TINTIN.

Cold Cut's website has like 10 pages of "Not carried by Diamond" comics.

Not being carried by Diamond is death for one specific model of comics: publishing ongoing monthly titles where that's your sole source of revenue. There are, however, other possible models.

Claypool was a doomed company just from economic darwinism -- thier books were ugly (I mean the trade dress, and package), they did effectively no promotion or advertising, they never made any serious attempt to exploit thier backlist, and so on.

We stopped carrying Claypool comics many many years ago, because they simply didn't sell. And every year or two, I'd give them another chance and bring a few copies in... and they never sold. C'est la guerre.

-B

Brian Hibbs writes: "Y'know, there was almost a decade there where Diamond didn't sell ASTERIX or TINTIN."

Sure. There are many books that Diamond does not, or did not always, carry. But please take my statement in context. I have been specifying quite heavily that I am referring to the direct market with my statements, and I think it is implicit within the topic that we are discussing the publishing of ongoing mainstream monthly titles, the U.S. industry standard. I've also been quite clear on my opinion that Claypool Comics did not (by my understanding) avail themselves to every possible resource before shutting down operations. Not support from Diamond and as of yet, perhaps not alternate forms of publishing/distribution.

Brian Hibbs writes: "Not being carried by Diamond is death for one specific model of comics: publishing ongoing monthly titles where that's your sole source of revenue. There are, however, other possible models."

Agreed. And despite our arguing other aspects, that is one topic that Mark Patterson and I have agreed on as well.

Brian,
Thank you for expressing the bottom line that so many fail to grasp: If comics don't sell, they will eventually be cancelled. And if you can barely sell 700 copies of any book, let alone one like Elvira, which is a household name, you are obviously not trying very hard.
I am not trying to be callous. It is simply true. I believe you wrote a column recently about how so many blame the Big Two when the indies don't sell (yet another instance of "victimization" by corporations in many comic fans' minds. But I remember seeing the "Elvira team at a con this year, and they were sitting at their table, waiting for people to come up to them, rather than saying, "Hey, have you tried "Elvira". if you are Jim Lee and Geoff Johns, you can sit back and relax. If you are selling about 700 copies an issue - and someone expresses to you that they are a fan of women's comics AND writes about comics for a newspaper, you think you would REALLY try to get the word out. Yet so many creators I haverun into feel all they have to do is write the story and that marketing a book is "someone else's problem". Except when sales fall, it quickly becomes THEIR problem.
I don't think it's any coincidence that writers/artists of books like "Jonah Hex" such as Jimmy Palmiotti go to a ton of conventions and actually talk up and promote their books.

Jerome Maida: "Thank you for expressing the bottom line that so many fail to grasp: If comics don't sell, they will eventually be cancelled."

I may have missed it but, where has that "bottom line" been debated here? The topic on cancellation has been in regards to WHO makes the decision to cancel. The distributor or the publisher? If sales through Diamond equals a viable product for the publisher, but not the distributor, and no viable method of distribution exists, then it is the distributor making the decision to cancel. This was the point PAD was making, as I read it.

Jerome Maida: "And if you can barely sell 700 copies of any book, let alone one like Elvira, which is a household name, you are obviously not trying very hard."

Way to undercut the efforts of the dozens of creators who DO work very hard to sell 700 copies. It's a brutal industry and sales can be quite hard to come by. Many creators simply sit at their tables. It's a terrible way to do business, I concede. However, I know just as many creators who do all but have circus acts to try to attract attention and still sell under 500 copies.

And Claypool is a company that does virtually nothing to promote its line. Is this the type of company that Diamond should bend over backwards for? They haven't updated their previews on their website in a year and a half. This announcement isn't even up on their site yet and it's been over a week. There's no mailing address on there either. So why should Diamond be responsible for doing more than they are even willing to do for themselves?

I was gonna make the comment that retailers could show their power by organizing and supporting Claypool through ColdCut to show that it could be done, but I'm not sure Claypool is the right company for that kind of effort.

Brian Thomer wrote: "And Claypool is a company that does virtually nothing to promote its line."

Yup. As I stated earlier: "Did Claypool Comics avail itself to all resources offered? My understanding is that they did not."

Brian Thomer wrote: "Is this the type of company that Diamond should bend over backwards for?"

Also as stated: "Diamond has shut down many comics over the years." Not all of these comics/companies are going to have been as irresponsible as Claypool. Diamonds decisions are not based on the efforts (or lack thereof) of the company in question.

So then we're all in agreement that Diamond did nothing wrong in this specific instance?

Honestly, I would need to see specific sales figures before I was willing to make that judgment. My main point has never been that Diamond is right or wrong, simply that they do hold what is, for all intents and purposes, a monopoly. As I said: "Note that I'm not particularly blaming Diamond for canceling a line of books. I'm simply pointing to the fact that Diamond does hold a monopoly on the industry, even if not in the eyes of the law."

Sorry that I haven't been here for a day or two. Real life intruding and all that.

So. Where was I?

L. Walker writes, "And here is the continued flaw with your logic. If the distributor carries the book, it may very well make enough money for the publisher and the retailer. But if the distributor denies the book, then the publisher and the retailer do not stand a chance. We are in a position where Diamond sets the bar of what is acceptable and what is not. They do so alone. There is no viable alternative, something Diamond made certain of when it strangled Capital out of business. hence the term being used "monopoly"."

On the other hand, if the distributor doesn't get paid what they need to, why should they bother to handle the book? They set the bar as to what is acceptable to them, just as the publisher does (by deciding what the cover price will be, the publisher decides what percentage of retail they're going to make on the book). Speaking as a retailer, none of the Claypool books made jack for me when Diamond did carry it, and from some of the other comments I see here, I'm not the only one.

The problem isn't that Diamond is arbitrarily changing the rules about independant sales levels...it's that Claypool has steadily failed to increase their sales numbers, and Diamond is no longer making a special exception for them.

L. Walker writes:

"Mark Patterson said: "Because they are motivated chiefly by self-interest, and they're a commerical company, not a public trust. It's wonderful that they do all that they do. They're simply not obligated to, is all."

In the eyes of the law, of course not. In regards to self interest, they should be doing much more. they are in an obvious position to help nurture the industry back on it's feet. Instead of doing so, they recant promises made to the industry and raise the bar so that more and more books fail. They do not do this blindly. I am well aware that they also do some things to try to help smaller titles sell. But these are minor in comparison to some of the things they have done that have hamstrung the growth of the industry. They do particpate, yes. They simply do not do enough."

In your opinion. Which you are entitled to hold. And I am free to disagree. I have been a satisfied Diamond customer for over fifteen years. I've seen them do lots more good than harm. The books arrive on time, mistakes are fixed, and credits issued in a timely fashion. This was not true with other vendors I've dealt with.

L. Walker writes: "They still reap the rewards from exclusive contracts, do they not? Have they relinquished all the benefits from said time? No distributor can compete at the level of Diamond because Diamond holds the major publishers in contract. Obviously this responsibility is not exclusive to Diamond, the publishers bear a share of the burden as well. But Diamond initiated a system that guaranteed them as the dominant force. They continue to hold that position. Absolutely they should still be bound by the price of aquiring that position."

The price of acquiring that position was getting DC, Marvel, Dark Horse, and Image to sign the exculsive contracts. Everything else was window dressing. As those contracts need to be renewed (every five years, I believe), we can assume that the signees are reasonably satisfied with the way the terms of the contract have been executed. The price has been paid, and continues to be.

L. Walker writes, "I am genuinely sorry if you feel slighted. But I should NOT have to point out the obvious. You work in retail. You've worked with distributors. You are spending your time online discussing this. It's not outrageous for me to be irritated that you would make such a ridiculous assumption. The world of information is at your fingertips. Look it up first. If you, as a retailer, as currently an ONLINE retailer, have not actually spent a portion of your time investigating what distribution systems are available ONLINE, then what ARE you doing? Your assumption that we could never be privy to the dark secrets of ColdCut or Last Gasp amazes me."

Actually, since nobody before you pointed out that Cold Cut was carrying Claypool, I assumed that they weren't. And since companies don't generally release details of negotiations unless they're successful, I didn't guess we'd ever hear about them. For instance, I don't know whether or not Claypool actually went to Last Gasp and was turned down, or if they looked at the sort of stuff that Last Gasp carried and said 'no, this isn't for us.' I did a Google search for "Claypool Comics and Last Gasp Distribution", but I couldn't find anything. If you have information about this, I'd be very interested to read it (and to find out how you got it).

What do I, as a retailer, do online? I dunno. Service my customers. Devil's Panties over at Keenspot is currently sending people my way because I'm one of the few stores that will carry the book (through Diamond)and ship it out. I email my customers (and they me), submit my orders and reorders to Diamond. When one of my customers wants a comic that isn't in the Diamond catalogue, I check the company website to see if they'll give me a break on the retail price so that I can start carrying it for those who want it. Failing that, I make sure that my customers have the information they need so that they can get the comics they want, even if they don't do it through me.

I'm not generally scouting around for new distributors only because Diamond has treated me very well, and continues to take care of business for me.

I no longer do retailing full-time, but it remains a rewarding and steady income stream for me.

L. Walker writes:"Mark Patterson said: "...Cold Cut carried them, so some shops OTHER THAN DIAMOND ACCOUNTS DID get them."

Again, ColdCut does not operate like a miniature Diamond. Also, I have yet to encounter a store that used ColdCut without Diamond. Diamond IS the direct market. Again, did you ever do business with Cold Cut?

And regardless, the main point is certainly the fact that you use the word "DID". Without Diamond, the books will not sell enough copies to keep the company in operation. ColdCut does not operate at anywhere near sufficient volume to sustain a title. It's not that type of distributor."

Nope. Never did business with Cold Cut. They didn't offer anything that my customers wanted.

And without Diamond, Claypool made its own free-will decision to not explore other publishing options, electing to cease publication instead.

I'd like to also throw something out here: Soulsearchers ran over 75 issues. Elvira did over 150. They both had good, long runs, even if they never did make the crossover into the big time.

Long thread, but there were a few statements I wanted to comment on.

Karen,
"I've also been buying "Elvira" just to support the company, though I can't say it's in my Top 10."

So you bought a book to support a company, not because you really enjoyed it. While that is commendable on a certain level, you should realize that not everyone will do the same. Nor should they be expected to. Supporting the "little guy" is not virtuous in and of itself.

"Diamond should be ashamed of themselves."
Poppycock. As it is, their monthly PREVIEWS is bigger than a phone book. They are supporting many "little guys". But they are not obligated to support anyone who publishes a book, especially if they are not willing to change or promote THEMSELVES.

"When you're the only game in town, you should represent everyone"
Diamond is not a politician running for office. They are a business and made a business decision. If Claypool were as concerned with "representing everyone", or at least their fans, they would have at least attempted other avenues before ceasing publication. They did not do so. That is THEIR decision, not Diamond's.

"The obvious problem I have with the end of Claypool is that it threatens the little fish in the pond dominated by DC, Marvel, Image and Dark Horse."
One does not lead to the other in this case. It is worth noting that Dark Horse has slowly steadily built a name for itself for 20 years. Top Cow was struggling for a bit but took advantage of relationships built over time and improved its product, attracted talent and marketed the damn things and they are currently in very good shape.

"Some will blame Claypool. I can't do that, because I don't think every comic should have to sell like the big boys to survive."

There are numerous companies whose books don't sell like the "Big Boys" - Avatar, Devil's Due, IDW, Archie - and they still survive because they make the most of what they have and work hard to reach an audience.
Less than 700? Nationwide? One store in Philly sold 850 copies of "The Truth" #1 a few years back, even though many stores now have it in quarter bins. Why? Because both marvel and the store worked together to promote the damn thing, especially in urban areas.
Less than 700? Nationwide? That's less than 14 issues per state! I mean, that's low.

"Some things are niche for a reason."
Yeah, because they weren't marketed properly. There is a REAL small comjpany I saw at a few cons this year. It's called Shadow's Path Press. They have exactly one book with one issue. I saw them pushing it - "The Collectors #1" - at more than one con. they even gave me a copy. hey have been doing this for months and even gave me a free autographed copy. I read it and liked it. I was wondering when it was coming out. Then I saw the cover in PREVIEWS. I might not have noticed it in PREVIEWS if I was not used to seeing it at cons. I'm sure there ae other conventioneers and retailers who will recognize the cover and order it for this reason. Since I like the story and always try to support lesser-known books, I will mention it in my column.
When you do stuff like that, you don't have to worry about Diamond.

"The independents foster creativity when the big guys don't necessarily need or want to."
Not necessarily true. Many independents are simply superhero books with creator control or Verigo-esque stuff ot Harvey Pekar-type stuff.
Conversely, simply because a book is from one of the Big Guys doesn't necessarily mean it's not creative.

"Everybody makes it sound nice and easy with the 'well, if you want to survive, sell more comics' mantra, but it's never as simple as that."

Yes. It is. It really is.

"Diamond certainly isn't in the business for the more the merrier."

Are you serious? I'm betting Diamond would love 100 health companies that each sold books that sold over 100,000 copies. You don't think they would WANT the extra business/pages in Previews? That they would rather "screw the Little Guy". Please. More healthy companies help everyone in the industry, including Diamond.

Mark Patterson wrote: "If you have information about this, I'd be very interested to read it (and to find out how you got it)."

I don't really have time to address much at the moment. As you say, real life. But I wanted to point you in the direction. Both compaines have websites with search features. www.coldcut.com & www.lastgasp.com

Mark Patterson wrote: "On the other hand, if the distributor doesn't get paid what they need to, why should they bother to handle the book?"

I think I've answered this particular question about three different ways now. See my previous posts for response.

Mark Patterson wrote: "The problem isn't that Diamond is arbitrarily changing the rules about independent sales levels..."

Well, without knowing their specific criteria I cannot argue whether it is or is not arbitrary. However, they most certainly have been changing the rules. This is a point I have made multiple times now.

Mark Patterson wrote: "In your opinion. Which you are entitled to hold. And I am free to disagree. I have been a satisfied Diamond customer for over fifteen years. I've seen them do lots more good than harm. The books arrive on time, mistakes are fixed, and credits issued in a timely fashion. This was not true with other vendors I've dealt with."

If that's the foundation for your opinion, I can see why we disagree. We're not talking about retailer-distributor relations. We're talking about publisher-distributor relations.

Mark Patterson wrote: "The price of acquiring that position was getting DC, Marvel, Dark Horse, and Image to sign the exculsive contracts."

Nope. That's the reward. Not the price.

Mark Patterson wrote: "I'm not generally scouting around for new distributors only because Diamond has treated me very well, and continues to take care of business for me."

So if a book is not solicited through Diamond, you will likely have not heard about it. So you won't carry it. And your customers have a much smaller chance of being exposed to it. Which basically proves the point I have been arguing all along.

Mark Patterson wrote: "Nope. Never did business with Cold Cut. They didn't offer anything that my customers wanted."

How do you know? Diamond turns away books without ever soliciting them, based on projected sales. Based on your earlier comments, I find it unlikely that you have investigated ColdCut to any deep degree. How do you know what your customers might like if you never know it exists yourself? How will your customers know it exists if they do not find it in your store?

Hibbs sites that their are ten pages of books listed in ColdCuts catalog that are not carried by Diamond. None of your customers would have been interested in a single one of them?

Mark Patterson wrote: "And without Diamond, Claypool made its own free-will decision to not explore other publishing options, electing to cease publication instead."

Being cut out off the only major distributor left them little choice. See previous comments for details.

Mark Patterson wrote: "I'd like to also throw something out here: Soulsearchers ran over 75 issues. Elvira did over 150. They both had good, long runs, even if they never did make the crossover into the big time."

Which underscores my point quite well. With Diamond distributing them, Claypool comics obviously were self sustaining for Claypool. Without Diamond, they are not. You can write it off as opinion if you like, but the math still works out the same way.

Jerome Maida wrote: "If Claypool were as concerned with "representing everyone", or at least their fans, they would have at least attempted other avenues before ceasing publication. They did not do so. That is THEIR decision, not Diamond's."

If you actually read the thread, you will see that it has been pointed out already that Claypool DID avail themselves to more than one distributor.

Jerome Maida wrote: "Yeah, because they weren't marketed properly. There is a REAL small comjpany I saw at a few cons this year. It's called Shadow's Path Press. They have exactly one book with one issue. I saw them pushing it - "The Collectors #1" - at more than one con. they even gave me a copy. hey have been doing this for months and even gave me a free autographed copy. I read it and liked it. I was wondering when it was coming out. Then I saw the cover in PREVIEWS. I might not have noticed it in PREVIEWS if I was not used to seeing it at cons. I'm sure there ae other conventioneers and retailers who will recognize the cover and order it for this reason. Since I like the story and always try to support lesser-known books, I will mention it in my column.
When you do stuff like that, you don't have to worry about Diamond."

Really? That's kind of a funny thing to say, as Previews is quite obviously the catalog for Diamond, where you happened to catch the solicitation. All the conventions in the world will not help you if you cannot get your book into distribution.

Jerome Maida wrote: "Yes. It is. It really is."

How many comics have you sold?

L. Walker writes "I don't really have time to address much at the moment. As you say, real life. But I wanted to point you in the direction. Both compaines have websites with search features. www.coldcut.com & www.lastgasp.com"

Well, I checked out both sites. At the Last Gasp one, I didn't find anything that would tell me whether or not Claypool had approached them (or been approached by them). I DID find, however, that they had a section of kids'and teenager stuff, which would belie the assumption that someone made here, that LG had no interest in more family-friendly fare. Given some of the titles they carry, it doesn't seem impossible that Claypool could have found a home there.

L. Walker writes "So if a book is not solicited through Diamond, you will likely have not heard about it. So you won't carry it. And your customers have a much smaller chance of being exposed to it. Which basically proves the point I have been arguing all along."

Actually, no. I read reviews of comics from various websites and industry publications, not to mention the solicitations from individual publishers that I received in the mail, online, and over the phone. Some of these are carried by Diamond, many are not. Is there a limit to what I can research? Sure. If a book isn't carried by Diamond, does it have to work harder to find its way into my store? Sure. But that's the job of the indie publisher, and it's not impossible.

L. Walker writes "Mark Patterson wrote: "On the other hand, if the distributor doesn't get paid what they need to, why should they bother to handle the book?"

I think I've answered this particular question about three different ways now. See my previous posts for response."

I think I've expressed my disagreement with your particular answer as many times. See my previous posts for response.

L. Walker writes "Well, without knowing their specific criteria I cannot argue whether it is or is not arbitrary. However, they most certainly have been changing the rules. This is a point I have made multiple times now."

The rules are changing because the times are changing. I believe that I've made that point multiple times.

L. Walker writes,"Mark Patterson wrote: "The price of acquiring that position was getting DC, Marvel, Dark Horse, and Image to sign the exculsive contracts."

Nope. That's the reward. Not the price."

Nope. The price of a thing is what is necessary to make it happen. What took getting to the position of being Last Man Standing in direct-sales distribution for Diamond was tying up the major four publishers to only sell their wares through Diamond. That's what it took to make them the only place retailers could go for their bread and butter sellers.

Once those agreements were signed, Capital was on life-support. If Diamond had done nothing, Capital would still have been gone in six months to a year.

If Diamond had ignored the independents completely but gotten the Big Four exclusive contracts, and left Eclipse, Archie, Aardvark-Vanaheim, etc. to Capital, it would have made absolutely no difference. Their market share would not have been enough to keep it going, and Capital would have shut down. The indies would have then gone to Diamond by default.

The independent comics, the smaller-press stuff, was absolutely irrelevent to Diamond becoming the remaining direct-sales distributor. Where they fit in, distribution-wise, is icing on the cake. It's not nice, it's not pleasant, but it's true.

L. Walker writes,"How do you know? Diamond turns away books without ever soliciting them, based on projected sales. Based on your earlier comments, I find it unlikely that you have investigated ColdCut to any deep degree. How do you know what your customers might like if you never know it exists yourself? How will your customers know it exists if they do not find it in your store?

Hibbs sites that their are ten pages of books listed in ColdCuts catalog that are not carried by Diamond. None of your customers would have been interested in a single one of them?"

Well, thing is, I DID investigate Cold Cut deeply on two occasions. Based on my experience with my customer base (white, blue-collar males), the books they offered would not have appealed to them.

My shop, by the bye, was considered indie-friendly. I did my best to make sure that I had a wide variety of titles and genres represented, and I hammered home the message that I was willing to bring in anything that anyone wanted. I spent as much of my budget as I could spare on small-press stuff, even going so far as to order French-Canadian self-published comics (my shop is located two hours from Canada) that likely have been seen in few other shops in the U.S. It wasn't just DC, Marvel, Image and Dark Horse.

Unfortunately, there was a limit to how much non-mainstream stuff I could bring in on a given month, and Cold Cut's offerings weren't what my customers wanted.

Two chances? Yes, that's what I gave Cold Cut. If they don't have what I'm looking for, I won't be back. They didn't.

Nothing against Claypool (they published the work of one of my favorite writers, after all), but the sad fact is, they didn't expand their market share, didn't aggressively promote trade paperback reprints of their books, didn't push their web presence, didn't do a lot of direct mail to comics shops (that I saw...your mileage may vary).

An independent comic-book company has to work harder to succeed, and as far as I can tell, Claypool's efforts just weren't enough.

Diamond should work harder to promote smaller companies? They work plenty hard...their non Big Four section is huge.

L. Walker writes "With Diamond distributing them, Claypool comics obviously were self sustaining for Claypool. Without Diamond, they are not."

They may have been self-sustaining for Claypool, but they weren't self-sustaining for Diamond. Times change, costs go up, and like it or not, Diamond is a for-profit company. If they're not making enough on a given book or books, they're not required, either contractually or ethically, to support them.

Claypool is free to seek its fortunes elsewhere. Diamond has not interfered with that one bit. Diamond put effort into helping them try to generate sufficient sales, and they weren't able to. It's unfortunate for the people who liked those books, but it's a fact of life that most comics, for whatever reason, cease publication.

Brian Hibbs wrote:
"Claypool was a doomed company just from economic darwinism -- their books were ugly (I mean the trade dress, and package), they did effectively no promotion or advertising, they never made any serious attempt to exploit thier backlist, and so on."

Just wanted to try to frame the discussion. We aren't really talking about Claypool and Diamond. Claypool has been a vanity press that happened to have a fun book written by Peter David, Soulsearchers and licensed property, Elvira.

We are talking about a small print run publisher and Diamond.

Marvel purchased Heroes World in I believe 1994. So that's over a decade of the playing field being what it is. Avatar, Oni, the Zoom Suit guys, Devils Due, and a great company that we all now love, IDW, have all either continued to exist or came into existence with the current model. Yes, we would all love to have more than 1 big viable distributor in comics. But for now, we have 1 KFC and some other stores that sell drive through fried chicken.

Until later
John

Mark Patterson wrote: "Well, I checked out both sites. At the Last Gasp one, I didn't find anything that would tell me whether or not Claypool had approached them (or been approached by them)."

I never said you would. I pointed to the fact that we have a clear answer with ColdCut and continued with my OPINION that Last Gasp would likely not carry the titles.

Mark Patterson wrote: "Actually, no. I read reviews of comics from various websites and industry publications,"

Many of which are equally unlikely to have heard of a non-Diamond book.

Mark Patterson wrote: "The rules are changing because the times are changing. I believe that I've made that point multiple times."

How do you KNOW that decreased sales and increases in business costs are the reason that the "rules are changing"? Diamonds business model when sales were exceptional and costs were less was no different. Furthermore, you hold that Diamond should not be held to promises made when times were better? I should not need to point this out but... What use is a promise if it is abandoned when it is no longer convenient? And what does it say about the business that abandoned it's promise?

Mark Patterson wrote: "Nope. The price of a thing is what is necessary to make it happen. What took getting to the position of being Last Man Standing in direct-sales distribution for Diamond was tying up the major four publishers to only sell their wares through Diamond. That's what it took to make them the only place retailers could go for their bread and butter sellers."

Yes, the literal price of a thing is what is necessary to make it happen. However, you're pointing to the goal as if it were the price. The goal was to "tie up the four major publishers" in exclusive contracts. Your assessment of cost is circular to the extreme as it is wholly synonymous with the goal of "being Last Man Standing in direct-sales distribution". If we want to take your angle on this, the literal price would be whatever financial arrangements and business concessions that it took to "tie up the four major publishers" in the first place. However, we obviously were NOT discussing the literal price. You seem to be having a difficult time staying within context, as it seems rather clear that what we were discussing was the price due to the INDUSTRY. To summarize: Diamond initiated a system that allowed them to dominate the industry. They made assurances to the industry that they would adopt the practices of the competition they had driven out of business. You argue that they should not be bound by these promises, yet they continue to reap the benefits of the exclusive contracts that put them in their current position. Therefore I hold that they should honor their promises, or relinquish the benefits. In other words, pay the promised price to THE INDUSTRY or allow other distributors to compete at their level.

Mark Patterson wrote: "Once those agreements were signed, Capital was on life-support. If Diamond had done nothing, Capital would still have been gone in six months to a year."

That supports my position that Diamond has a monopoly quite well.

Mark Patterson wrote: "If Diamond had ignored the independents completely but gotten the Big Four exclusive contracts, and left Eclipse, Archie, Aardvark-Vanaheim, etc. to Capital, it would have made absolutely no difference. Their market share would not have been enough to keep it going, and Capital would have shut down. The indies would have then gone to Diamond by default."

Yup. That's right in line with my initial argument that Diamond is the only real game in town. You agree the indies would go to Diamond by default. Do you know why? Because most of them need to in order to survive.

Mark Patterson wrote: "The independent comics, the smaller-press stuff, was absolutely irrelevent to Diamond becoming the remaining direct-sales distributor. Where they fit in, distribution-wise, is icing on the cake. It's not nice, it's not pleasant, but it's true."

Again, you're supporting my position quite well.

Mark Patterson wrote: "Two chances? Yes, that's what I gave Cold Cut. If they don't have what I'm looking for, I won't be back. They didn't."
And when the next wave of books are rejected by Diamond you stand a good chance of missing them in ColdCuts catalog. As you say, you won't be back. Again, you're making my argument for me. I'm beginning to wonder why we are debating this. Without presence in a Diamond catalog, it is far to easy for a book to slip by unnoticed.

Mark Patterson wrote: "Nothing against Claypool (they published the work of one of my favorite writers, after all), but the sad fact is, they didn't expand their market share, didn't aggressively promote trade paperback reprints of their books, didn't push their web presence, didn't do a lot of direct mail to comics shops (that I saw...your mileage may vary)."

I've agreed with this assessment form the onset.

Mark Patterson wrote: "An independent comic-book company has to work harder to succeed, and as far as I can tell, Claypool's efforts just weren't enough."

Yup.

Mark Patterson wrote: "Diamond should work harder to promote smaller companies? They work plenty hard...their non Big Four section is huge."

The "non Big Four section" is filled with the books that Diamond makes money on. They cut the books that do not make them money. If this was not the case, it seems clear that we would not be having this debate.

Mark Patterson wrote: "They may have been self-sustaining for Claypool, but they weren't self-sustaining for Diamond."

Yup. That's what I've been saying this whole time. Now, if a business REQUIRES another business to stay viable, and the latter removes itself from the equation, what is the end result?

Mark Patterson wrote: "Claypool is free to seek its fortunes elsewhere. Diamond has not interfered with that one bit."

If there were viable "elsewheres', this debate would not exist.

L. Walker,

"If you actually read the thread, you will see that it has been pointed out already that Claypool DID avail themselves to more than one distributor"

I did read the thread. My point is there is still the internet and - gasp! - selling directly at cons, doing signings, etc.

"Really? That's kind of a funny thing to say, as Previews is quite obviously the catalog for Diamond, where you happened to catch the solicitations."

No, it's not funny at all. My POINT was that I had already purchased and been made aware of the book at a con. Whether it was in Diamond or not, I would have read it and liked it and called, e-maled and snail-mailed the company for info, art and interviews to promote it. The creators were also very enthusiastic.
That carries a lot more weight than if I had simply been browsing through Diamond itself and saw the cover. It is cool but hardly out-of-this-world eye-catching, and I would have probably not even remembered seeing it.
There's something to be said for effort,energy, enthusiasm and the human touch.

"How many comics have you sold?"

Ah, I love this argument. Yes, only peoiple who make movies should offer their opinions on movies and so forth. Poppycock. I have read comics for over 3 decades, collected for 25 years, written about them professionally for 14 years, written about them consistently for a major newspaper for 6 years and have had a weekly column for a while now. In that time, I have gotten a pretty good idea of what works and what doesn't. And the simple fact is someone like Dave Sim was able to tell 300 stories of "Cerebus" because he BUSTED HIS ASS! Drive and a personal touch help a great deal. And the simple fact TRULY IS a quality book that has low sales may have a chance if the publisher/editor likes it enough, but a "crappy" book with high sales will almost never be in danger of cancellation (unless part of some publisher's Grand Plan)

"All the connections in the world will not help you if you cannot get your books into distribution."

"How many comics have you sold?"

Jerome Maida wrote: "I did read the thread. My point is there is still the internet and - gasp! - selling directly at cons, doing signings, etc."

Really? Because you didn't actually say anything of the sort. You said, "If Claypool were as concerned with "representing everyone", or at least their fans, they would have at least attempted other avenues before ceasing publication. They did not do so. That is THEIR decision, not Diamond's."

ColdCut is another avenue. So obviously your statement was incorrect, which you SHOULD have known if you had read the thread. As for conventions, I've seen them at conventions. As for the internet, they may not have used it to it's best ability, but that is not synonymous with "not attempting". So there we go. Your statement is false on just about every level.

Jerome Maida wrote: "No, it's not funny at all. My POINT was that I had already purchased and been made aware of the book at a con. Whether it was in Diamond or not, I would have read it and liked it and called, e-maled and snail-mailed the company for info, art and interviews to promote it. The creators were also very enthusiastic.
That carries a lot more weight than if I had simply been browsing through Diamond itself and saw the cover. It is cool but hardly out-of-this-world eye-catching, and I would have probably not even remembered seeing it.
There's something to be said for effort,energy, enthusiasm and the human touch."

Then you are in the minority. I would never argue that conventions will make or break a title. It CAN help, but it will never replace Diamond for visibility. It will only supplement.

Jerome Maida wrote: "Ah, I love this argument. Yes, only peoiple who make movies should offer their opinions on movies and so forth. Poppycock. I have read comics for over 3 decades, collected for 25 years, written about them professionally for 14 years, written about them consistently for a major newspaper for 6 years and have had a weekly column for a while now."

It's very easy for you, the critic and the fan, to play armchair publisher. Your supposed experience is simply not equal to practical experience. Go ahead and put your money where your mouth is. Create and publish multiple titles that all sell consistently over your projected sales figures for years. If you know so much, it should be easy for you.

Frankly, your word is only as valid as your deed. You want to sit there and speak in definitive terms about something you have never done. Go ahead. But you offer up nothing of substance to prove you can do it. As for your equation that what I am saying equals "only peoiple who make movies should offer their opinions on movies and so forth", nope. And I think it's telling that you should draw such an erroneous analogy. OPINIONS are always welcome. However, you are speaking in absolutes. There is an obvious difference and I'm sorry I should have to explain it to you. No matter what experience you can claim, you've not experienced the reality of publishing. You're welcome to your opinions, sure. But you cannot speak in absolutes.

Jerome Maida wrote: "In that time, I have gotten a pretty good idea of what works and what doesn't. And the simple fact is someone like Dave Sim was able to tell 300 stories of "Cerebus" because he BUSTED HIS ASS!"

And what happened to his sales over that period of time?

Jerome Maida wrote: "Drive and a personal touch help a great deal."

No one said they didn't. But they do not guarantee you sales consistently over 700 copies.

L. Walker wrote: "ColdCut is another avenue. So obviously your statement was incorrect, which you SHOULD have known if you had read the thread. As for conventions, I've seen them at conventions. As for the internet, they may not have used it to it's best ability, but that is not synonymous with "not attempting". So there we go. Your statement is false on just about every level."

Claypool currently being available through ColdCut is not an example of them attempting another avenue, since it's during the time that Diamond still carried them. The question is whether Claypool attempted to find another avenue of distribution AFTER Diamond would no longer be carrying them. The current status is not indicative of whether going only through ColdCut would be successful or not because as has been pointed out previously, if a book is available through Diamond, then the majority of retailers will default to ordering the book through them. It is unknown whether Claypool investigated the plausibility of distributing only through ColdCut.

On a separate note, another indication of the lack of promotion for Claypool books is there's no discussion thread for the current issue of Soulsearchers and Company on this site. Didn't an issue come out this week?

Brian Thomer: "Claypool currently being available through ColdCut is not an example of them attempting another avenue, since it's during the time that Diamond still carried them. The question is whether Claypool attempted to find another avenue of distribution AFTER Diamond would no longer be carrying them."

WHEN Claypool sought out non-Diamond avenues of distribution or promotion is wholly irrelevant to the statement I was answering. Obviously, alternate forms of distribution were tried before ceasing publication. Furthermore, a simple Google search revealed that Claypool has plans for digital publishing, something hinted at by PAD's initial post. So again, the hysterical allegations that Claypool has not "attempted other avenues before ceasing publication" is incorrect. The saddest part is this charge was leveled by a comics journalist, someone who should no the value of researching your topic before making a definitive statement.

http://www.staticmultimedia.com/content/printed/news/news_1154470071?info=printed

Brian Thomer: "The current status is not indicative of whether going only through ColdCut would be successful or not because as has been pointed out previously, if a book is available through Diamond, then the majority of retailers will default to ordering the book through them."

I don't know how many time I need to explain this. It's not like solicitation exclusively through minor distributor outlets hasn't been attempted many, many times. If you work in publishing it does not take long to form a realistic estimate of how much that form of distribution will bear. After 15 years in business, do you think Claypool has no concept of what their financial needs are? Do you think they have no concept of how well alternate forms of distribution may meet those needs?

(My response seems to have been filtered away as if I was posting for the first time. Perhaps this one will go through. Perhaps all of these comments will show up later. If so, my apologies for multiple posts.)

Brian Thomer: "Claypool currently being available through ColdCut is not an example of them attempting another avenue, since it's during the time that Diamond still carried them."

WHEN Claypool started exploring alternate forms of distribution is irrelevant to the statement I was responding to. Obviously, they explored this before the line was canceled, and it stands to reason that they know whether or not these outlets are economically viable for them. As for Jerome Maida's insistence that Claypool did not explore alternate forms of distribution AT ALL... the simple fact that searching the phrase "Claypool Comics" on Google comes up with clear evidence that Claypool intends to continue publishing digitally shows exactly what his opinions are worth. That's the danger of expressing your beliefs as definitive fact. I would expect a self styled comic journalist to know better, or at least stay appraised of comic book news before making such outrageous assumptions.

Brian Thomer: "The question is whether Claypool attempted to find another avenue of distribution AFTER Diamond would no longer be carrying them. The current status is not indicative of whether going only through ColdCut would be successful or not because as has been pointed out previously, if a book is available through Diamond, then the majority of retailers will default to ordering the book through them. It is unknown whether Claypool investigated the plausibility of distributing only through ColdCut."

Again, it's not like you're suggesting something that hasn't been tried before.

L. Walker wrote: "WHEN Claypool started exploring alternate forms of distribution is irrelevant to the statement I was responding to. Obviously, they explored this before the line was canceled, and it stands to reason that they know whether or not these outlets are economically viable for them. As for Jerome Maida's insistence that Claypool did not explore alternate forms of distribution AT ALL... the simple fact that searching the phrase "Claypool Comics" on Google comes up with clear evidence that Claypool intends to continue publishing digitally shows exactly what his opinions are worth. That's the danger of expressing your beliefs as definitive fact. I would expect a self styled comic journalist to know better, or at least stay appraised of comic book news before making such outrageous assumptions."

If you think when is irrelevant, then you do not understand the question being put forth and I don't know how many ways we can rephrase it to get you to comprehend it, so I'm no longer going to try. I also understood Jerome to mean "cease print publication" when he said "cease publication". And two of their three books won't be moving online, so for them it is ceasing all forms of publication.

L. Walker wrote: "Again, it's not like you're suggesting something that hasn't been tried before."

Every situation is different. A company with a 14 year history, an established fanbase, an A-list writer on one book, a licensed pop culture icon in another and a low bottom line may have been able to make a go of it.

Brian Thomer: "If you think when is irrelevant, then you do not understand the question being put forth and I don't know how many ways we can rephrase it to get you to comprehend it, so I'm no longer going to try."

I understand the question put forth quite well, but I'm beginning to suspect that you do not properly understand the answers. As I said, If you work in publishing it does not take long to form a realistic estimate of how much that form of distribution will bear. After 15 years in business, do you think Claypool has no concept of what their financial needs are? Do you think they have no concept of how well alternate forms of distribution may meet those needs? To further that thought, they USED multiple forms of distribution. The amount of theoretical sales that can be achieved wholly outside Diamond is NOT an unknown quantity to them or to the industry in general.

Brian Thomer: "I also understood Jerome to mean "cease print publication" when he said "cease publication". And two of their three books won't be moving online, so for them it is ceasing all forms of publication."

So despite the fact that Jerome himself specified: "there is still the internet and - gasp! - selling directly at cons, doing signings, etc." You decide to interpret his statements as referring to print distribution only. Whether he means the internet as a tool to distribute printed material or digital material is wholly irrelevant. It's still the distribution of NEW comics material. It is undeniably NOT the publisher giving up on the fan base, which if you read the statement in context was clearly what Jerome was alleging. See below:

Jerome Maida wrote: "If Claypool were as concerned with "representing everyone", or at least their fans, they would have at least attempted other avenues before ceasing publication. They did not do so. That is THEIR decision, not Diamond's."

Frankly, he did not infer print, nor is it implicit contextually. In fact, within context of his statement, ANY form of distribution outside of Diamond would qualify as an attempt to "represent fans". At best, you seem to be willfully ignoring any interpretation that does not match the view you WANT to hold. So, if we read Jerome's statement the way you are CLAIMING it was intended, the company can be shown not to be concerned with representing it's fans because it did not adopt an incredibly risky business plan that has been proven not to work on multiple occasions. To make your narrow interpretation work, we have to omit ANY attempts to serve an audience that does not include print. How exactly does that work with Jerome's allegation that Claypool is failing to represent it's fans? It doesn't. The fans are served REGARDLESS of whether the end product is print or digital. Which means that the way you are CHOOSING to read it is incorrect, or Jerome himself is guilty of assuming that digital publication does not "represent" the fans. Which frankly would be ridiculous.

Brian Thomer: "Every situation is different. A company with a 14 year history, an established fanbase, an A-list writer on one book, a licensed pop culture icon in another and a low bottom line may have been able to make a go of it."

It was only just keeping them afloat WITH Diamond and the A-list writer on one book, a licensed pop culture icon in another and a low bottom line. But sure, why wouldn't it work without them? Why shouldn't they ignore all evidence that distribution sans-Diamond will lose them money. LOTS of money. I mean hey, if you want to stare at the sun every day, all day, it might not make you blind. If you drive off a cliff at 80mph, you might survive. Every situation is different, after all. So why not ignore the percentage of risk, ignore the other viable options that might achieve your goals more safely, and try it. To not do so, is a failure to represent ones fans, apparently.

L. Walker wrote: "I understand the question put forth quite well, but I'm beginning to suspect that you do not properly understand the answers. As I said, If you work in publishing it does not take long to form a realistic estimate of how much that form of distribution will bear. After 15 years in business, do you think Claypool has no concept of what their financial needs are? Do you think they have no concept of how well alternate forms of distribution may meet those needs? To further that thought, they USED multiple forms of distribution. The amount of theoretical sales that can be achieved wholly outside Diamond is NOT an unknown quantity to them or to the industry in general."

Given the publisher's complete lack of any marketing sense or any other attempt to grow their market, no , I would not assume that they would know those things. And there's no way for them to know how plausible distribution solely through ColdCut would be without actually consulting ColdCut about it. they don't know what kind of incentives or other benefits ColdCut would have offered to be able to distribute their entire line.

L. Walker wrote: "So despite the fact that Jerome himself specified: "there is still the internet and - gasp! - selling directly at cons, doing signings, etc." You decide to interpret his statements as referring to print distribution only. Whether he means the internet as a tool to distribute printed material or digital material is wholly irrelevant. It's still the distribution of NEW comics material. It is undeniably NOT the publisher giving up on the fan base, which if you read the statement in context was clearly what Jerome was alleging."

Yes, I interpreted that to mean print distribution because all of his other examples pointed to print publication, so by context I inferred Internet print distribution and not digital. And again, two titles will not be seeing digital publication. The fans are being denied any access to those titles. Deadbeats is the only one going digital. The fans of Soulsearchers and Elvira are not being represetned. Through your interpretation or mine, that is still true.

L. Walker wrote: "It was only just keeping them afloat WITH Diamond and the A-list writer on one book, a licensed pop culture icon in another and a low bottom line."

Exactly, that is what was keeping them barely afloat. Had Claypool put some effort into their own company in the past 14 years they may have been doing better. If they had put any thought or effort into developing a plan to distribute through ColdCut, they may have made it work.

Try this:

Claypool approaches ColdCut to form an "exclusive" distribution agreement (sure it's exclusive through default, since Diamond dropped them, but that's irrelevant in a marketing sense). ColdCut agrees to move their new exclusive client to the front of their catalog a la the Big Four in Diamond. Perhaps they even offer an incentive for the promise not to go to Last Gasp or just to keep them afloat in order for ColdCut to keep the 2000 new copies a month to distribute (I don't know what ColdCut's monthly distribution is, but I'm sure that would be a nice addition).

Then, working together, Claypool and ColdCut send out a press release announcing the new distribution deal to every comic news magazine and website. ColdCut even sends it along with all their orders to current customers. They send it to retailer organizations (I believe Brian Hibbs is the founder of one) and any other etailer they have the contact info to. Claypool send it out to their email list as well. ColdCut puts it in their catalogue and, Diamond willing, they put it in Claypool's remaining comics to be published prior to the new deal kicking in (aka when Diamond stops carrying them).

Additionally, Claypool gives their website a much needed overhaul.

And in celebration of the new agreement, Claypool is offering a one time exclusive variant cover to Elvira, Mistress of the Dark by Frank Cho for the first issue of that series distributed solely by ColdCut. I'm sure you see the correlation here. One of the most famous cleavages in history being drawn by the artist known for his rendition of this particular part of anatomy. For every 3 or 5 (or whatever number) copies of this issue of Elvira ordered, retailers get one copy of the variant. And of course this is announced in the press release.

I think that would get retailers aware of the change in distribution and would likely get at least Claypool's former clients to continue ordering them.

I'm not saying it's guaranteed to work, but it just points out that there is cause for investigation.

L. Walker writes "You seem to be having a difficult time staying within context, as it seems rather clear that what we were discussing was the price due to the INDUSTRY...To summarize: Diamond initiated a system that allowed them to dominate the industry. They made assurances to the industry that they would adopt the practices of the competition they had driven out of business. You argue that they should not be bound by these promises, yet they continue to reap the benefits of the exclusive contracts that put them in their current position. Therefore I hold that they should honor their promises, or relinquish the benefits. In other words, pay the promised price to THE INDUSTRY or allow other distributors to compete at their level."

Actually, Diamond signed exclusivity contracts with the companies involved, not with the industry at large. The promises you refer to (I believe) were made to Capital Distribution, when Diamond took over their accounts. Maybe Geppi or Diamond made the promises you keep referring to, but I doubt that it is in any way connected to the exclusivity contracts signed with Image, Dark Horse, Marvel, or DC.

You keep saying that Diamond should keep its promise to the industry, or give up its exclusive contracts, but those contracts with the Big Four were in full force before the promises in question were made. Industry promises were not the basis of the acquisition of the contracts, and are therefore not in question. I am dead-on in terms of context of what we're discussing: what Diamond owes the industry. The exclusive contracts are concrete, real objects, legal agreements recorded on pieces of paper, signed, witnessed, and notarized, applying to the parties who entered into them. 'The Industry' is more nebulous. Does Diamond owe each retailer a personal apology because they discontinued their support of Claypool? Do they owe each consumer who can't get Claypool titles an apology? Do they owe you an apology?

I hold that if a given title or group of titles can't garner sufficient sales to make a profit for all concerned (creators, publishers, distributors, and retailers), then keeping it alive artificially does nobody any good, and in fact hurts the Industry as a whole. Of course, I'm only one retailer. My opinion doesn't really mean jack in the great vast scheme of things. It's just one person's opinion...like yours.

At the end of the day, a commerical comic-book creator's job is to put out a comic that a sufficient number of people will buy to pay everyone involved, and that includes the distributor. Anything less becomes a vanity exercise.

It's not Diamond's job to take less than its bottom-line amount to keep a marginal title alive.

Promises made are based on the circumstances under which they were made.

Do me a favor, if you could, please. Could you quote Steve Geppi's actual press releases when Capital was purchased? I tried for about an hour, and I couldn't find it. The reason I'd like to see them is to see whether the words 'forever', 'in perpetuity', or 'permanently' appeared in that context.

L. Walker writes "Now, if a business REQUIRES another business to stay viable, and the latter removes itself from the equation, what is the end result?"

You KNOW my answer. The end result is that the first business isn't making enough money to keep going, so they cease operations under the old model. If they can't make enough to pay all their bills, they go away, or find another way to bring their products to their customers. That's their choice to make.

When I ran the brick and mortar shop, I had to pay my landlord, my distributors, the phone company, and the power company. There were others, but those were the basics. Those were the ones that could shut me down if they weren't paid.

Interesting thing about the power company. It said in numerous public pronouncements that it promised to keep rates low. Circumstances changed, though, and the rates went up, and even though they were higher than what I'd originally signed on with, I had to live with it because that's the nature of business...you grow and change, or you die. I can't shut down the power company, and I don't have the capital to start generating my own electricity. But if I'd gone under because I couldn't pay my power bill, I certainly wouldn't say that the power company killed my store...I'd say that I hadn't gotten enough people through the door to pay my power bill.

L. Walker writes "Mark Patterson wrote: "Claypool is free to seek its fortunes elsewhere. Diamond has not interfered with that one bit."

If there were viable "elsewheres', this debate would not exist."

But there are viable elsewheres...there are book publishers out there who could be approached to do trade collections of the existing material, for which all the production has been done (and if those take off, original stories). There's the whole digital thing that everyone's been talking about. I'm sure that someone whose trade it is could find other alternatives.

It'll take some work, and, of course, whoever they get to bring the product to market will have to decide that the stories have a chance to make money for everyone involved, but if the rights are up for grabs or are negotiable, I don't see why whoever owns the stuff couldn't do it.

Unless, of course, they choose not to.

Brian Thomer: "Given the publisher's complete lack of any marketing sense or any other attempt to grow their market, no , I would not assume that they would know those things."

Personally, I would call opening themselves up to digital distribution to be a smart marketing move.

Brian Thomer: "And there's no way for them to know how plausible distribution solely through ColdCut would be without actually consulting ColdCut about it."

They've worked in an industry for a decade and a half, it seem to me they might be able to gauge how viable an outlet might be.

Brian Thomer: "they don't know what kind of incentives or other benefits ColdCut would have offered to be able to distribute their entire line."

You're assuming that they did not investigate. You're assuming they have no communication with ColdCut. Obviously, they have a relationship with the distributor. Why would you assume they are not aware of the opportunities said distributor could offer? There is simply no foundation for that assumption.

Brian Thomer: "Yes, I interpreted that to mean print distribution because all of his other examples pointed to print publication, so by context I inferred Internet print distribution and not digital."

Again, ANY form of distribution outside of Diamond would qualify as an attempt to "represent fans". In context, his statement is not limited to print.

Brian Thomer: "And again, two titles will not be seeing digital publication. The fans are being denied any access to those titles. Deadbeats is the only one going digital. The fans of Soulsearchers and Elvira are not being represetned. Through your interpretation or mine, that is still true."

I did not say that Claypool had succeded 100%. You were challenging a response to Jerome, who had alleged that they did not even ATTEMPT other avenues before ceasing publication. Obviously, his statement was incorrect, and the example that you provided hardly reverses that error.

Brian Thomer: "Claypool approaches ColdCut to form an "exclusive" distribution agreement (sure it's exclusive through default, since Diamond dropped them, but that's irrelevant in a marketing sense). ColdCut agrees to move their new exclusive client to the front of their catalog a la the Big Four in Diamond. Perhaps they even offer an incentive for the promise not to go to Last Gasp or just to keep them afloat in order for ColdCut to keep the 2000 new copies a month to distribute (I don't know what ColdCut's monthly distribution is, but I'm sure that would be a nice addition)."

Assuming that ColdCut would even be willing to operate in the manner you suggest (and I have never seen any indication that the would enter into that type of arrangement), special promotion did not work in conjunction with Diamond. Why would you (or more importantly, the actual people who would be putting their money on the line) assume that it would be successful with a comparatively minor operator.

From Claypools press release: "In November, 2005, Diamond Comics Distributors — the major distributor of comic books in the United States — gave Claypool some alarming news: Claypool wasn’t selling enough comics to meet Diamond’s guidelines for profitable distribution. Diamond and Claypool teamed up for a string of promotional efforts, including free comics for retailers, plus various flyers and posters. Claypool’s sales rose, but not far or fast enough."

And by the way, all the allegations that Claypool never attempted to increase their market presence or that they have failed to advertise in any way shape or form continues to seem hysterically overblown. I'm quoting a press release. The press release states quite clearly that the company did make efforts to increase their market presence.

I think you have very positive notions. I simply do not think that your approach would bear fruit. And apparently, neither did Claypool Comics. And as they are obviously not just throwing their hands in the air and calling it quits, it stands to reason that they might have thought about what they could do to save their company.

L. Walker writes, "Jerome Maida wrote: "In that time, I have gotten a pretty good idea of what works and what doesn't. And the simple fact is someone like Dave Sim was able to tell 300 stories of "Cerebus" because he BUSTED HIS ASS!"

And what happened to his sales over that period of time?"

Well, Sim is a special case. He lost a LOT of his readers with his infamous issue #186 and the "Tangents" essay. The Cerebus sales in my store hit the dumper within two months of it circulating online. Up until then, it had been a strong, steady seller, the very model of the self-published comic. Once he published Tangents, I went from buying five copies for the shelf down to one copy. It was even money each month whether or not that one would sell.

I'll also say that he was always a pleasure to deal with personally. When Diamond pooched an order, he sold me copies of the issue in question that were personally autographed to each subscriber, at cost. I heard a lot of 'wow...he doesn't SEEM like a maniac.." comments from people who dealt with him for the first time personally.

And I got a very nice note from him when my shop closed its brick and mortar location (I know that it doesn't have any bearing on his numbers, I was just impressed by it).

The declining numbers on Cerebus were Sim shooting himself in the foot. If he hadn't done that, I have no doubt that he'd have made a stronger finish than he did.

Mark Patterson: "Well, Sim is a special case."

Consider your point very well made.

Mark Patterson: "Actually, Diamond signed exclusivity contracts with the companies involved, not with the industry at large."

Of course. And this affected the industry.

Mark Patterson: "The promises you refer to (I believe) were made to Capital Distribution, when Diamond took over their accounts."

No. I'm referring to an open statement they made to the industry. Otherwise it would have no bearing on this discussion and I would not have brought it up.

Mark Patterson: "Maybe Geppi or Diamond made the promises you keep referring to, but I doubt that it is in any way connected to the exclusivity contracts signed with Image, Dark Horse, Marvel, or DC."

Incorrect.

Mark Patterson: "You keep saying that Diamond should keep its promise to the industry, or give up its exclusive contracts, but those contracts with the Big Four were in full force before the promises in question were made."

Cause and affect.

Mark Patterson: "Industry promises were not the basis of the acquisition of the contracts, and are therefore not in question."

Legally, no. And I think I've made that quite clear on many occasions. This is just more of your bizarre need to discuss everything form a legal perspective. A discussion from a moral/ethical perspective is just as relevant.

Mark Patterson: "I am dead-on in terms of context of what we're discussing: what Diamond owes the industry. The exclusive contracts are concrete, real objects, legal agreements recorded on pieces of paper, signed, witnessed, and notarized, applying to the parties who entered into them. 'The Industry' is more nebulous. Does Diamond owe each retailer a personal apology because they discontinued their support of Claypool? Do they owe each consumer who can't get Claypool titles an apology?"

There you go again.

Mark Patterson: "Do they owe you an apology?"

By all means, please clarify that statement.

Mark Patterson: "I hold that if a given title or group of titles can't garner sufficient sales to make a profit for all concerned (creators, publishers, distributors, and retailers), then keeping it alive artificially does nobody any good, and in fact hurts the Industry as a whole. Of course, I'm only one retailer. My opinion doesn't really mean jack in the great vast scheme of things. It's just one person's opinion...like yours."

Funny. I've said repeatedly that I do not blame Diamond for canceling the line. Unlike you though, I am calling it what it is. Diamond holding enough influence over the direct market to make or break a title.

Mark Patterson: "Promises made are based on the circumstances under which they were made."

You actually hold that a promise should only be kept when convenient?

Mark Patterson: "Do me a favor, if you could, please. Could you quote Steve Geppi's actual press releases when Capital was purchased? I tried for about an hour, and I couldn't find it."

Unfortunately, we're talking about something from well over a decade ago and not particularly well documented online.

Mark Patterson: "The reason I'd like to see them is to see whether the words 'forever', 'in perpetuity', or 'permanently' appeared in that context."

Then spend more hours looking. I'm repeating what I recall, from personal experience (and I could not claim the presence or lack therof of those terms). I'm not holding it up as fact in a court of law and I don't feel the need to provide you with compelling legal documents. Particularly as you have already made it clear that any such promise would only be dependent on shifting circumstance. So spending hours upon hours searching for and subsequently providing the document for you would be pointless. You've shown yourself to be willing to dismiss it out of hand regardless of terminology. A promise is not something you consider relevant or binding. I am discussing what I recall. Take it as you will.

Mark Patterson: "You KNOW my answer. The end result is that the first business isn't making enough money to keep going, so they cease operations under the old model. If they can't make enough to pay all their bills, they go away, or find another way to bring their products to their customers. That's their choice to make."

Your dodging the actual question. If a company "A" needs company "B" to survive, and company "B" decides to cease supporting company "A", who has made the decision to shut down company "A"?

Mark Patterson: "Interesting thing about the power company..."

Interesting thing about your example, many utility companies have been faced with charges of monopolistic business practices. Go figure.

Mark Patterson: "But there are viable elsewheres...there are book publishers out there who could be approached to do trade collections of the existing material, for which all the production has been done (and if those take off, original stories). There's the whole digital thing that everyone's been talking about. I'm sure that someone whose trade it is could find other alternatives."

How many times must I reiterate that I am speaking of the direct market and the periodical form of publishing?

I wrote: "Show me a comic book that caters primarily to the direct market without support from Diamond and does not lose money."

I wrote: "Again, every book in the direct market must go through Diamond to survive."

I wrote: "Because without the infrastructure of Diamond, the book will not continue to exist in it's current form to the direct market."

I wrote: "Diamond secured exclusive contracts with the major publishers, which keeps any alternate distributor from competing at their level in regards within the direct market."

I wrote: "Could Claypool survive within the direct market without Diamond?"

I wrote: "I have been specifying quite heavily that I am referring to the direct market with my statements, and I think it is implicit within the topic that we are discussing the publishing of ongoing mainstream monthly titles, the U.S. industry standard."

And you wonder why I accuse you of being unable to follow the context of the conversation? If you're not going to bother paying attention to what I'm ACTUALLY saying, then don't bother responding to me.

L. Walker wrote: "You're assuming that they did not investigate. You're assuming they have no communication with ColdCut. Obviously, they have a relationship with the distributor. Why would you assume they are not aware of the opportunities said distributor could offer? There is simply no foundation for that assumption."

I'm not assuming they did not investigate, as I said earlier we do not know if they did any kind of investigation, your response to that was that they were already distributed through ColdCut, my point is that they could not know what kind of incentives or other benefits they could have received from ColdCut by just being a current client, they'd need to probe further. If they did and it did not seem feasible to them, then I commend them on their decision. If they did not, however, I believe that to have been a mistake. Your mileage may vary.

L. Walker wrote: "Assuming that ColdCut would even be willing to operate in the manner you suggest (and I have never seen any indication that the would enter into that type of arrangement), special promotion did not work in conjunction with Diamond. Why would you (or more importantly, the actual people who would be putting their money on the line) assume that it would be successful with a comparatively minor operator."

Have you seen any indication that they would not be willing to enter into that type of agreement? Have they ever had the opportunity to? Also, there's a difference between the marketing campaign with Diamond and that which it would be through ColdCut. The Diamond promotion was trying to increase readership, whereas the ColdCut one is simply to notify the current readership how to get their books and provide an incentive to do so. And, besides, I think history will show that a variant cover is better at attracting additional orders than flyers and posters. ;)

L. Walker wrote: "And by the way, all the allegations that Claypool never attempted to increase their market presence or that they have failed to advertise in any way shape or form continues to seem hysterically overblown. I'm quoting a press release. The press release states quite clearly that the company did make efforts to increase their market presence."

Pointing to one instance in 14 years, which was made after the company was already in trouble, is not enough to overcome the statement that Claypool did not do nearly enough self promotion.

Brian Thomer wrote: "I'm not assuming they did not investigate, as I said earlier we do not know if they did any kind of investigation, your response to that was that they were already distributed through ColdCut, my point is that they could not know what kind of incentives or other benefits they could have received from ColdCut by just being a current client, they'd need to probe further."

The obvious point is, why in the world would you assume that they did not investigate? Why would you assume that they would have no concept of what that direction could produce? There is no basis for this assumption.

Brian Thomer wrote: "Have you seen any indication that they would not be willing to enter into that type of agreement?"

Yes. The lack of any similar arrangement. If one exists, I am not aware of it.

Brian Thomer wrote: "Have they ever had the opportunity to?"

Given that Diamond has set a precedent, I'm sure they aware that the business model exists. I'm sure that if ColdCut found the concept appealing, they would find a means to suggest it to someone. Both Claypool and ColdCut are tiny companies with only a handful of people working for them. They do business with each other. At this level, business is rarely impersonal. We're talking about industry peers with an existing working relationship. There is every reason to assume that an active dialog exists, and that if either company was interested in pursuing this type of arrangement, it would be discussed. No offense, but it's not like alternate forms of exclusive distribution have not been in the center of inter-industry discussion ever since Diamonds triumph in this regard. It's not a new concept, and as of yet no one has found a way to make it viable, to my knowledge.

Brian Thomer wrote: "Also, there's a difference between the marketing campaign with Diamond and that which it would be through ColdCut. The Diamond promotion was trying to increase readership, whereas the ColdCut one is simply to notify the current readership how to get their books and provide an incentive to do so. And, besides, I think history will show that a variant cover is better at attracting additional orders than flyers and posters. ;)"

Personally, I think variant covers are a terrible gimmick. I'm just not a fan of them. Whether or not they are beneficial, it really depends from retailer to retailer, I guess.

Brian Thomer wrote: "Pointing to one instance in 14 years, which was made after the company was already in trouble, is not enough to overcome the statement that Claypool did not do nearly enough self promotion."

You didn't say "nearly enough" did you? You said: "Given the publisher's complete lack of any marketing sense or any other attempt to grow their market".

To dispel your statement, I hardly need to point to any more than ONE instance.

Regardless, how many instances would you like? How many conventions do you think the publisher attended? How often have they advertised their material? How many press releases have they issued? How many interviews have they given? Do I actually need to point these things out? Each and every one of them? The many ads Claypool has run in CBG? The recent ComicCon focus on the publisher? the panels at conventions where fans can come and hear the creators speak about the titles? With a cursory search, I found three recent Claypool press releases. Special releases? They've done those as well. I've been seeing them at conventions for a decade and a half. So...?

...How many examples are required to dispel the statement of: "Given the publisher's complete lack of any marketing sense or any other attempt to grow their market"? Just one. Now you can pick from several.

Brian Thomer:

Ignore the part where I say: "why in the world would you assume that they did not investigate?" I see you clarified this. My mistake. However, without an assumption in this regard, I fail to see how questioning the "What if?" aspect of the scenario is relevant. Either we assume nothing on either side, or we weigh our conclusion based on available evidence. Available evidence all seems to indicate that the company would either investigate this matter or have enough knowledge of the industry to make a decision without investigation.

It seems to me that the end result of any and all of this sort of reasonable analysis of Claypool's situation boils down to two equally valid truths:

(1) It is in many ways unfortunate that Diamond wields so much influence over the distribution of comic books.

(2) Despite this, some comics publishers have managed to employ marketing techniques, both working within the Diamond/direct comics market system (Diamond ads; FCBD participation; active publicity to comics press/website/bloggers/podcasts; relying on Cold Cut etc.) and outside it (publishing in book-formats for exposure to book/library markets; driving direct-to-consumer sales at conventions, through mail order, or through the internet; etc.)

That Claypool seems to be largely ineffective to factor 2 doesn't make 1 any less true. (And proclaiming why their marketing efforts have been ineffective, while a useful exercise, would require, in order to be definitive, more inside knowledge of the company's desires and capabilities than, I suspect, any of us have out here in Internet-land.)

And the fact that 1 is true, doesn't mean Claypool ought bear some responsibility for its fate either.

You can quibble all night and all day about whether or not Claypool or Diamond is more responsible for Claypool's situation, but ultimately I don't suspect there's any real answer. The important part, I suppose, is to take all this as a case study for the future.

Tommy Raiko:

That seems quite in line with the point I have been trying to express, but in a far more succinct manner.

L. Walker writes: "Mark Patterson: "Actually, Diamond signed exclusivity contracts with the companies involved, not with the industry at large."

Of course. And this affected the industry.

Mark Patterson: "The promises you refer to (I believe) were made to Capital Distribution, when Diamond took over their accounts."

No. I'm referring to an open statement they made to the industry. Otherwise it would have no bearing on this discussion and I would not have brought it up."

Well, that's interesting, because having read your posts a few times, this is the first time I've heard you speak about which specific statement you're talking about.

L. Walker writes "Mark Patterson: "Maybe Geppi or Diamond made the promises you keep referring to, but I doubt that it is in any way connected to the exclusivity contracts signed with Image, Dark Horse, Marvel, or DC."

Incorrect."

Really? So there is a statement by Geppi that addresses the fact that Diamond has exclusive contracts with the big four, and further speaks about its commitment to independent comics? I'd very much like to see it.

L. Walker writes "Mark Patterson: "You keep saying that Diamond should keep its promise to the industry, or give up its exclusive contracts, but those contracts with the Big Four were in full force before the promises in question were made."

Cause and affect."

"Cause and Effect", actually. I am not going to make the error of pretending that pointing out what was probably a keystroke error is a sign that you don't know what you're talking about, because you obviously do. We simply differ as to what it means.

"Mark Patterson: "Industry promises were not the basis of the acquisition of the contracts, and are therefore not in question."

Legally, no. And I think I've made that quite clear on many occasions. This is just more of your bizarre need to discuss everything form a legal perspective. A discussion from a moral/ethical perspective is just as relevant."

I see nothing bizarre about pointing out that you've got the cart before the horse, logically speaking.

L. Walker writes "Mark Patterson: "I am dead-on in terms of context of what we're discussing: what Diamond owes the industry. The exclusive contracts are concrete, real objects, legal agreements recorded on pieces of paper, signed, witnessed, and notarized, applying to the parties who entered into them. 'The Industry' is more nebulous. Does Diamond owe each retailer a personal apology because they discontinued their support of Claypool? Do they owe each consumer who can't get Claypool titles an apology?"

There you go again."

Mark Patterson: "Do they owe you an apology?"

By all means, please clarify that statement."

Sure. To what degree is Diamond required morally to toe the line you seem to be arbitrarily setting up? Do they owe each shop an apology? Each indie company? Each consumer?

L. Walker writes "Mark Patterson: "I hold that if a given title or group of titles can't garner sufficient sales to make a profit for all concerned (creators, publishers, distributors, and retailers), then keeping it alive artificially does nobody any good, and in fact hurts the Industry as a whole. Of course, I'm only one retailer. My opinion doesn't really mean jack in the great vast scheme of things. It's just one person's opinion...like yours."

Funny. I've said repeatedly that I do not blame Diamond for canceling the line. Unlike you though, I am calling it what it is. Diamond holding enough influence over the direct market to make or break a title."

Only if the publisher decides not to pursue other venues. Putting together a mailing list of shops and selling the title directly to them at less than Diamond was charging them (after all, when a publisher sells, say, a three-dollar retail book to Diamond, many retail accounts get it for fifty percent off, which means that Diamond had to buy it from the publisher for significantly less than that. If Diamond doesn't want it, why not sell it to retailers for what Diamond was paying for it in the first place?) is a possibility. A fair amount of work to set up, but once it's in place, it would be money coming in, and not impossible if the publisher is serious about getting the books into the hands of the public.

"L. Walker writes: Mark Patterson: "Promises made are based on the circumstances under which they were made."

You actually hold that a promise should only be kept when convenient?"

Not in the slightest. But when circumstances change to the point that it's obvious that things aren't going to improve, it's time to re-examine the promise. There is a difference in degree between Diamond dumping Claypool the day after they acquired Capital City's accounts, and giving Claypool ten years to bring up their market share, letting them know that a change was coming, working with them to promote the book, and when sales still didn't go up, giving them time to finish their storylines before ceasing distribution of their books. If Diamond were being completely arbitrary and faithless, it would have ceased distributing Claypool's line years ago.

Assuming, of course, that Diamond's promise was made the way you say it was in the first place. Which brings us to...

L. Walker writes "Mark Patterson: "Do me a favor, if you could, please. Could you quote Steve Geppi's actual press releases when Capital was purchased? I tried for about an hour, and I couldn't find it."

Unfortunately, we're talking about something from well over a decade ago and not particularly well documented online.

Mark Patterson: "The reason I'd like to see them is to see whether the words 'forever', 'in perpetuity', or 'permanently' appeared in that context."

Then spend more hours looking. I'm repeating what I recall, from personal experience (and I could not claim the presence or lack therof of those terms). I'm not holding it up as fact in a court of law and I don't feel the need to provide you with compelling legal documents. Particularly as you have already made it clear that any such promise would only be dependent on shifting circumstance. So spending hours upon hours searching for and subsequently providing the document for you would be pointless. You've shown yourself to be willing to dismiss it out of hand regardless of terminology. A promise is not something you consider relevant or binding. I am discussing what I recall. Take it as you will."

Sure thing. I was a retailer during that time too, and I recall no such promise being made. I am willing to allow that it was, but without hearing the language involved, it is impossible to tell exactly what was promised, for how long, and whether or not Mr. Geppi left himself or Diamond any wiggle room. I find it odd that someone who deals in the world of legal contracts would make a sweeping statement such as the one you characterize him making. If he said something like, "Diamond is committed to preserving the independent marketplace and the small press", then I'd question whether or not he'd broken a promise, since no timeline is mentioned, as a statement such as that one is semantically null. On the other hand, if he'd said something like "All independent comics will find a permanent home at Diamond, for as long as they care to publish them", then you might have grounds for making the statements that you have. Context and language are everything. You can't hold someone to a promise that they never made, and without a transcript of his statement, we are relying on your memory of something that happened over a decade ago. So I think that I'll take it that you are making assertions without proof, and relying on your fallible human memory concerning a fairly critical point.

L. Walker writes "Mark Patterson: "You KNOW my answer. The end result is that the first business isn't making enough money to keep going, so they cease operations under the old model. If they can't make enough to pay all their bills, they go away, or find another way to bring their products to their customers. That's their choice to make."

Your dodging the actual question. If a company "A" needs company "B" to survive, and company "B" decides to cease supporting company "A", who has made the decision to shut down company "A"?

Mark Patterson: "Interesting thing about the power company..."

Interesting thing about your example, many utility companies have been faced with charges of monopolistic business practices. Go figure."

'Many', but not nearly 'all'. My power company, for example, has not been accused of those sorts of practices. Every time they have to increase their rates, they put out all sorts of press releases and warnings about what's going to happen and why.

L. Walker writes,"Mark Patterson: "But there are viable elsewheres...there are book publishers out there who could be approached to do trade collections of the existing material, for which all the production has been done (and if those take off, original stories). There's the whole digital thing that everyone's been talking about. I'm sure that someone whose trade it is could find other alternatives."

How many times must I reiterate that I am speaking of the direct market and the periodical form of publishing?"

That's funny...I thought we were talking about a publishing company ceasing publication. Many ways have been postulated that would allow Claypool to keep going publishing comic-book stories, even if they weren't in the monthly pamphlet form. This would allow all the creators to still get paid, and the readers to be able to read the creators' efforts. Is the format REALLY that important?

L. Walker writes,"And you wonder why I accuse you of being unable to follow the context of the conversation? If you're not going to bother paying attention to what I'm ACTUALLY saying, then don't bother responding to me."

But L. Walker, you continue to write stuff that I find impossible NOT to respond to. Also, despite any illusions you may have that you occupy some sort of moral high ground in being able to say that Diamond needs to either continue to publish comics that aren't paying them enough or dump their exclusivity clauses with the Big Four, you don't dictate what I do or don't do.

No, I think that I'll keep the discussion going and add my contribution until you either get sick of responding to ME, until I have nothing to add (that would be in MY opinion, not yours), or until PAD or someone else in charge of the blog tells me that I can't any longer.

Your turn.

Mark Patterson wrote: "The promises you refer to (I believe) were made to Capital Distribution, when Diamond took over their accounts."

I responded: "No. I'm referring to an open statement they made to the industry. Otherwise it would have no bearing on this discussion and I would not have brought it up."

Mark Patterson wrote: "Well, that's interesting, because having read your posts a few times, this is the first time I've heard you speak about which specific statement you're talking about."

That's even more interesting. The very first time I introduced this aspect of the topic, I clarified the details of the promise. I made it quite clear that the promise was not "to Capital", but instead to small press publishers in general. I explained (to the best of my ability) the details of the promise, and the rationale (as I understood it) behind the promise. And then I repeated it for you verbatim. As I have said (multiple times): "It's worth noting that when Diamond acquired Capital, they made a promise to small press publishers not shut out books due to low sales, as Capital had a comparatively open arms policy. At least initially, Diamond honored this. Unfortunately within a few years they returned to their earlier business model and began denying lower selling titles. As time has passed, this practice seems to have increased."

You say you've read my posts a few times? It sure doesn't look that way. You claim that I never spoke about the specific statement? Wrong. At this point, I can only assume you are NOT reading what I say or you are purposefully engaging in dishonest debate tactics. It's an overly verbose thread and easy for any of us to trip up over it. I prefer to give you the benefit of the doubt that you are making these errors honestly. But I confess, it is difficult to remain patient when you claim to have read my responses repeatedly, and then make claims about my argument that do not reflect those same responses.

Mark Patterson wrote: "Really? So there is a statement by Geppi that addresses the fact that Diamond has exclusive contracts with the big four, and further speaks about its commitment to independent comics? I'd very much like to see it."

And if I am able to track it down, I will certainly show it to you.

Mark Patterson wrote: ""Cause and Effect", actually. I am not going to make the error of pretending that pointing out what was probably a keystroke error is a sign that you don't know what you're talking about, because you obviously do. We simply differ as to what it means."

Appreciated, as I am in fact, a terrible speller. My grammar is equally bad. Subsequently I rely overly on spell check and the like. Which does not properly catch the type of error you point to.

Mark Patterson wrote: "Sure. To what degree is Diamond required morally to toe the line you seem to be arbitrarily setting up? Do they owe each shop an apology? Each indie company? Each consumer?"

No. Apologies are irrelevant anyway. I have made it quite clear that I do not fault Diamond for the decision to cease distribution of Claypool Comics. What I have presented to you is my belief that Diamond should either keep an open door policy to all titles regardless of sales, OR relinquish their contracts that prohibit other distributors from competing at their level. Taking my position in context, I think it is quite clear that I champion the second of the two scenarios. I believe this competition would only benefit the industry as a whole, and in this instance would give smaller publishers access to distribution outlets currently unavailable. I hold the broken promise up as an example of Diamonds acknowledgment that they adopted the power to kill the distribution of a given title. Frankly, I do not disagree that it was an unrealistic promise. Should they be held to it? No. What they should do is allow the distribution of mainstream direct market comicbooks to grow beyond them. In the long term I believe a competitive market is a stronger market.

Mark Patterson wrote: "many retail accounts get it for fifty percent off, which means that Diamond had to buy it from the publisher for significantly less than that."

About ten percent, if I recall correctly. About 40% returns to the publisher.

Mark Patterson wrote: "If Diamond doesn't want it, why not sell it to retailers for what Diamond was paying for it in the first place?"

Some retailers do this with some publishers. However, most retailers I have dealt with want a higher discount than the terms they hold with Diamond, and the arrangement often leads to a smaller profit for the publisher.

Mark Patterson wrote: "Not in the slightest. But when circumstances change to the point that it's obvious that things aren't going to improve, it's time to re-examine the promise. There is a difference in degree between Diamond dumping Claypool the day after they acquired Capital City's accounts, and giving Claypool ten years to bring up their market share, letting them know that a change was coming, working with them to promote the book, and when sales still didn't go up, giving them time to finish their storylines before ceasing distribution of their books. If Diamond were being completely arbitrary and faithless, it would have ceased distributing Claypool's line years ago."

Which I have agreed with repeatedly.

Mark Patterson wrote: "Sure thing. I was a retailer during that time too, and I recall no such promise being made."

I was not a retailer at the time. I was a small press publisher, and I handled all distribution myself. I worked directly with Diamond, Capital, Heroes World, Last Gasp and others. As I stated previously: "We're not talking about retailer-distributor relations. We're talking about publisher-distributor relations". Please consider that the nature of this statement had far more bearing on me than on you. I do appreciate you giving me the benefit of the doubt in this instance. And I do not expect my memory of this event to be universally accepted (as I said, I would not produce this argument in a courtroom). I simply hold it up as an example, and frankly, it is not at the heart of our debate.

Mark Patterson wrote: "'Many', but not nearly 'all'. My power company, for example, has not been accused of those sorts of practices. Every time they have to increase their rates, they put out all sorts of press releases and warnings about what's going to happen and why."

Then I envy you.

Mark Patterson wrote: "That's funny...I thought we were talking about a publishing company ceasing publication"

No. What we've been debating, you and I, is whether Diamond holds anything akin to a monopoly over the direct market distribution of periodicals. That should be clear from the many quotes I provided you. I have agreed on numerous occasions that other forms of publishing and distribution. I have agreed that any charge of monopolistic business practices leveled at Diamond outside of the direct market is false. You and I do not disagree on that aspect of the topic and I have made that quite clear. So why you think that our discussion would continue to circulate anything other than the aspects we DO disagree over is beyond me.

Mark Patterson wrote: "But L. Walker, you continue to write stuff that I find impossible NOT to respond to. Also, despite any illusions you may have that you occupy some sort of moral high ground in being able to say that Diamond needs to either continue to publish comics that aren't paying them enough or dump their exclusivity clauses with the Big Four, you don't dictate what I do or don't do."

Of course I don't. If you want to waste your time attacking positions I do not hold, if you want to ignore the context of my arguments, if you want to ignore the clarifications I provide, then that is obviously your choice. I would assume that this is a given. But you are wasting your time and mine. You seem like a nice enough guy, and in areas we hold similar viewpoints, but you're bogging down this discussion with your own failure to take my statements into consideration contextually. You took offense when I responded to you in a sarcastic manner and told me not to do so again. I respected that and apologized. If you feel I have continued in that vein you have made no point of it. Now I'm telling you to stop ignoring the body of my argument. It would be nice if you would show similar respect. After all, I'm not asking you to not respond to me (and you seem to be acting as if I am). I'm asking you to either pay attention OR not respond. Obviously, you paying attention would be preferable to me, as if I didn't want to discuss this with you I WOULD stop responding to YOU. Now, is asking you to pay attention truly so offensive to you that you must react so defensively?

I should clarify a particular error in my posts. "It's worth noting that when Diamond acquired Capital..." is obviously incorrectly phrased. It is a reference to when Diamond acquired exclusive distribution arrangements, subsequently driving Capital out of business. Apologies.

I have no idea whether or not you'll read this at this late date. My apologies for being away from the board and not replying. That Real Life thing again.

However...

Something I'd like to clear up at the beginning. You don't get to tell me to do anything, and have it stick. You have no authority over what I do. If coming back here and proving that point strikes you as 'defensive', well, I suppose that can't be helped.

You tried to do it twice...in your post of August 13 where you wrote " If you're not going to bother paying attention to what I'm ACTUALLY saying, then don't bother responding to me.", and again in your post of August 14 where you wrote "Now I'm telling you to stop ignoring the body of my argument."

You don't run this board, so your power over other peoples' actions is what they grant you. I don't grant you that ability.

If you don't want me to respond to you as though you're ordering me around, don't phrase things as imperatives.

I just wanted to get that out of my system up front.

Now, as to the REST of your post...

I apologize for misunderstanding which public statements of Geppi/Diamond you were referring to. I was under the impression that you were speaking of a public statement that was made when Diamond acquired Capital's assets (which did happen. There was a point when Capital customers called Capital's number, and got a sales rep saying 'Thank you for calling Diamond. How can I help you?'), not a generalized statement made to the Industry at large. Again, I am aware of no such industry statement, and would love to read it.

As this will be my last post on the matter, both of us having flogged this dead horse down to the bone, I'll just say that you're right about one thing: we actually do agree on more than we disagree on.

We differ on where the responsibility for the demise of Claypool's print line lies, but only on the razor's edge. Did Diamond's decision not to carry Claypool any longer lead to Claypool's decision not to publish in that arena? Absolutely. Did Claypool ultimately decide for itself (after years of marginal sales) not to assume a huge debt load in order to try to break into the direct sales market in another fashion? Absolutely. Were either Diamond or Claypool in the wrong? Absolutely not.

Your use of the word 'monopoly' bothered me, despite the number of qualifiers you added. That's why I kept dragging it back to the definition used for businesses, the legal one.

The number of comics readers overall have shrunk from the old speculation days. It's a smaller market. When "Lois and Clark: The New Adventures of Superman" was in trouble ratings-wise, a letter writer to the Comics Buyers' Guide suggested that every comic-book fan tune in to watch it, to give the ratings a boost. Don Thompson (I believe... coulda been Maggie) explained that if every single person who frequented a comic-book specialty shop or subscription service sat down on Sunday night to watch the latest episode, it would not affect the ratings a single bit. The reason? There were (at the time) perhaps one million readers, tops. That would have been being generous. The Nielsen numbers were tracked by the tens of millions of viewers. The comics-buying audience isn't even a blip on their radar.

It may be that the total number of comic-book buyers is too small to support multiple distributors. The whole reason that Marvel did the Heroes' World debacle was that they weren't making enough money on their direct sales comics. Sales on everything were dropping like a rock.

I am happy, at this point, to grant you that, in a perfect world, the comics industry would be well-served by multiple distributors. I just think that a) it's too small a pie for more than one major, and b)the exclusivity contracts for each publisher expire at different dates, making it unlikely that any one company will be the first to bolt. DC's contract was a 16-year one. One internet source that I found said that Dark Horse's contract was for five years, but that was a guess on their part.

Which company will voluntarily decide to go to the back of the Diamond catalogue?

One last thing: you wrote "You seem like a nice enough guy, and in areas we hold similar viewpoints, but you're bogging down this discussion with your own failure to take my statements into consideration contextually."

But you kept responding to me. If you'd ignored me and only responded to people you considered arguing on-point, I probably would have given up long before.

And as far as my bogging the discussion down goes, well, people were free to ignore our exchanges, and your response to me was the last thing posted until now. I think the discussion pretty much petered out on its own.

I will now step back and leave the last word (in discussions between us) the final word. Should you reply, I will not. But I'll read it.

I figured this was somewhat relevant to the discussion at hand: Cold Cut gives flat rate discount on all orders: http://forum.newsarama.com/showthread.php?t=81315

Mark Patterson writes: "Something I'd like to clear up at the beginning. You don't get to tell me to do anything, and have it stick. You have no authority over what I do. If coming back here and proving that point strikes you as 'defensive', well, I suppose that can't be helped."

It's to bad that you feel that this cannot "be helped" because frankly, this IS you being overly defensive. I did nothing to you that you did not do to me. I don't "get" to tell you to do anything? Really? No kidding. Is there any chance of me MAKING you do anything? Of course not. Why I have to point this out to you is beyond me. But in truth, your stubborn persistence to misunderstand whenever possible no longer surprises me. As I cannot enforce any rule upon you it is IMPLICIT that I have no authority over you. Stop imagining slight where none exists. I certainly can give you A CHOICE as to stop responding OR take my posts in context. You are FREE to ignore the choice, but in doing so, you make your worth in debate quite clear.

Mark Patterson writes: "You don't run this board, so your power over other peoples' actions is what they grant you. I don't grant you that ability."

No kidding. Didn't I say that in my last post to you? Let's see: "Of course I don't. If you want to waste your time attacking positions I do not hold, if you want to ignore the context of my arguments, if you want to ignore the clarifications I provide, then that is obviously your choice. I would assume that this is a given. But you are wasting your time and mine. You seem like a nice enough guy, and in areas we hold similar viewpoints, but you're bogging down this discussion with your own failure to take my statements into consideration contextually."

Yup. I already made that clear. Again... CONTEXT.

Mark Patterson writes: "If you don't want me to respond to you as though you're ordering me around, don't phrase things as imperatives."

I'm sorry... is that you delivering an ultimatum? Or are you doing what I did? Offering a CHOICE? Do you now pretend to have authority over ME? or would you say that I have a CHOICE? Personally, I see nothing wrong with offering a choice as we BOTH did. The only insult you have been delivered here is one created by your own imagination.

If you're going to ignore my requests to you, why should I honor your requests to me? Shall I respond with condescension and sarcasm? If I do, don't bother telling me to "knock it off" again. I'm free to do as I will. I respected your position in this matter once, but then you cry foul when I return your logic to you. That is nothing more than blatant hypocrisy.

Mark Patterson writes: "One last thing: you wrote "You seem like a nice enough guy, and in areas we hold similar viewpoints, but you're bogging down this discussion with your own failure to take my statements into consideration contextually."

But you kept responding to me. If you'd ignored me and only responded to people you considered arguing on-point, I probably would have given up long before."

Frankly, if I had any idea that it would be so difficult clarifying the topic for you, I would not have bothered. But once in...

I grant anyone I enter debate with the comprehension to take words for their meaning. It baffles me that when I make a clear and easily understood statement and then see it butchered to the point of incomprehensible in a counter argument.

Mark Patterson writes: "And as far as my bogging the discussion down goes, well, people were free to ignore our exchanges, and your response to me was the last thing posted until now. I think the discussion pretty much petered out on its own."

CONTEXTUALLY, I would assume it is implicit that I was referring to OUR discussion.