Claypool has recently made public the news that they told me in confidence some weeks ago: That the print end of the line would cesae to exist.
Personally, I think this should send a serious chill through the industry. For the first time that I can think of, an entire publishing line has been canceled, not by the publisher, but by the distributor. The distributor should theoretically be the middle man. In this instance, however–again, for the first time that I can think of–the middle man has taken the lead position and shut down the publisher.
And any publisher who thinks he is immune from this monopolistic maneuver is kidding himself.
And the real killer is going to be the chorus of fan voices saying, “Claypool Comics? What’s that? Never heard of it.”
PAD
• 
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 dámņ 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 dámņ 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. http://www.coldcut.com & http://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. http://www.coldcut.com & http://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 ÃSS! 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 ÃSS!”
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 ÃSS!”
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.