The BID Poll Results, Part 1

Posted By: Peter DavidPosted On:

digresssmlOriginally published December 4, 1992, in Comics Buyer’s Guide #994

Douglas Kass, the author of the notorious Barrons article that set off a firestorm of negative publicity for Marvel—even though it was loaded with misinformation—was one of the earliest respondents to the “Future of Comics” survey. On his poll, he jotted down the question, “Are we having fun yet?”

The answer is, yes, we had a lot of fun.

From the tongue-in-cheek nature of the survey, I wasn’t certain how many people would take it seriously enough to respond. The answer was: 219. For a first-time effort that doesn’t result in plaques, awards, banquets, or anything except a few laughs and some intriguing insights, we here at BID were extremely pleased with the turnout. Heck, I thought if we topped fifty, we’d be lucky.

Apparently there are quite a few folks out there who want to be able to look for the future and say, “Ha! I saw that coming back in 1992.”

Here, then, are the responses, compiled with the use of Survey Tabulator, software from issue #9 of Big Blue Disk. We present, in each case, the total number of responses and the percentage they represent. In several instances, the percentages will add up to more than 100% since multiple responses were available for some questions.

Some of the replies were—curious. There was the fellow whose responses were primarily anti-Japanese and anti-Semitic. And then, of course, there was the respondent who wrote “Who cares?” to every single question. Imagine spending 29¢ to mail that in. It’s rare that you find apathy quite that contentious.

Any entry that got more than one vote is listed, as well as some of the more interesting single-vote getters. My (inevitable) comments follow some entries.

Here we go:

Ten years from now–

1) The No. 1 Comic book company will be:

Marvel 95 (43.38%)

DC 39 (17.81%)

Valiant 23 (10.50%)

Doesn’t Exist Yet 20 (9.13%)

Image 13 (5.94%)

Dark Horse 11 (5.02%)

Malibu 2 (0.91%)

Tundra 2 (0.91%)

Single votes were also recorded for, among others, Fantagraphics, Blue Sky Blue, Archie, and a merger of Marvel and DC.

What was entertaining about this particular entry was the large number of people who have started up their own comic book companies and declare that, 10 years from now, they’ll be on top. This can be attributed either to wishful thinking or just hoping to get a plug for their company. I didn’t list most of these—except for Blue Sky Blue, which is the vision of Jo Duffy. Having read the first issue of Nestrobber, BSB’s first title, I figured—why not?

Marvel’s 43.38% draw is interesting in that I believe that’s right around where their current market share is. Valiant placed a solid third. What’s intriguing is Image’s low posting: Even though it currently hovers between the #2 and #3 slots in ordering, its draw in the poll is significantly lower than DC and Valiant, and only marginally higher than Dark Horse—even if you combine it with Malibu’s numbers.

The reason for this becomes quickly apparent in the second question:

2) The following company (or companies) will no longer exist:

Image 136 (62.10%)

Valiant 74 (33.79%)

Dark Horse 32 (14.61%)

DC 21 (9.59%)

Marvel 12 (5.48%)

Innovation 9 (4.11%)

Now 7 (3.20%)

Comico 6 (2.74%)

Eclipse 6 (2.74%)

Fantagraphics 5 (2.28%)

Malibu 3 (1.37%)

Disney 2 (0.91%)

Archie 2 (0.91%)

Personality 2 (0.91%)

What’s fascinating about the results on this one is how they run so contrary to (a) current ordering practices and (b) attitudes towards Marvel. Whereas many older fans in particular (and we’ll see later that most of the respondents were older) are quick to bash Marvel’s various titles and business practices, there seems to be no question as to the popularity and effectiveness of both.

Image’s long-term health, on the hand, has the dubious honor of being one of the few instances where a majority of respondents agreed on something (as opposed to a plurality).

Now—y’see—if I were really nasty, I’d say that the creators at Image might want to have someone start writing their resumes for them. But—I’m not really nasty.

3) The top selling comic book will be:

Doesn’t Exist Yet 94 (42.92%)

X-Men 26 (11.87%)

Spider-Man 19 (8.68%)

Superman 11 (5.02%)

Batman 11 (5.02%)

Next Men 7 (3.20%)

Spawn 4 (1.38%)

Harbinger 2 (0.91%)

Legion of Super-Heroes 2 (0.91%)

Cerebus 2 (0.91%)

Hulk 2 (0.91%)

Single votes were also recorded for, among others, Lobo, New Warriors, Nestrobber (gee, I wonder who voted for that one?), Jughead, Sandman, Doom Patrol, and Captain America.

Apparently this question was answered with an eye towards the transitory state of the market. Although X-Men and its various spin-offs has been a (if not the) top selling comic for the past decade or so, that does not seem to be a guarantee for its future. Just over 12% foresee X-Men maintaining its rarified status. Instead, it would appear that the readership is eagerly awaiting the coming of a title that will claim leadership in the marketplace. Had I known that “Does Not Exist” would score so well, I would have placed a back-up question for everyone who answered that way, asking, “Who do you think will be publishing it?”

Unfortunately the survey program is not sophisticated enough to be able to ask it for cross-correlation. But if we look at the closeness in percentages of the #1 responses for both questions (1) and (3), we can surmise that respondents probably figure that Marvel will be publishing it—whatever the heck it turns out to be.

Gentlemen and ladies: Start your creative juices flowing. The readership is awaiting your efforts.

4) The following character(s) will have died and been replaced by someone else bearing the same name:

Iron Man 126 (57.53%)

Robin 113 (51.60%)

Punisher 97 (44.29%)

Captain America 89 (40.64%)

Superman 67 (30.59%)

Spawn 65 (29.68%)

Wonder Woman 54 (24.66%)

Spider-Man 44 (20.09%)

Batman 33 (15.07%)

Wolverine 23 (10.50%)

Hulk 7 (3.20%)

Flash 6 (2.74%)

Green Lantern 5 (2.28%)

Lobo 3 (1.37%)

Thor 2 (0.91%)

Archie 2 (0.91%)

Daredevil 2 (0.91%)

Aquaman 2 (0.91%)

Single votes were also received for, among others, Clark Kent, Swamp Thing, Dr. Strange, Warlock, Grimjack, Quicksilver, Jean Grey, Aunt May, and Barbie.

Barbie?

The clear message from the foregoing is that Jim Rhodes, who currently sports the armor of Iron Man, would be well-advised not to start reading any continued stories.

What is unsurprising is that the top respondents have already done the replacement shtick before. Apparently respondents are of the opinion that, if a gimmick is done once, the odds are that it’s going to happen again. (Hëll, in Iron Man it’s already happened three times, pingponging back and forth between Tony Stark and Rhodey). Considering the track record of the comic book companies, I’d be hard-pressed to disagree.

But—Barbie?

At any rate, since DC and Image are going to do crossovers, and since Superman is dead and since Spawn has been dead since the beginning and since they’re only separated by one percentage point in the poll—

Perhaps DC and Image might want to consider swapping the characters. Have Superman be reincarnated as Spawn, and have Spawn start wearing the Superman outfit. You have to admit, it certainly has the merit of being unexpected.

Barbie? Geez—

5) The following person will be the editor-in-chief of Marvel Comics (should there be a Marvel Comics):

Mark Gruenwald 49 (22.37%)

Fabian Nicieza 28 (12.79%)

Peter David 28 (12.79%)

Tom DeFalco 19 (8.68%)

Jim Shooter 12 (5.48%)

John Byrne 12 (5.48%)

Chris Claremont 10 (4.57%)

Rob Liefeld 8 (3.65%)

Bob Harras 8 (3.65%)

Mike Carlin 6 (2.74%)

Who Cares? 6 (2.74%)

Todd McFarlane 3 (1.37%)

Paul Levitz 2 (0.91%)

Name Withheld 2 (0.91%)

Single votes were also noted for, among others, Joey Cavalieri, Al Milgrom, Roy Thomas, Scott Lobdell, Jim Starlin, Stan Lee, Alan Moore, and Renee Witterstaetter.

So it would seem that Marvel’s current second-in-command is being given the nod for the big chair in the 21st Century. Fabian put in an impressive showing, and as for all those who voted for me—gee, thanks, but I think not. That’s one headache I definitely don’t need.

6) The following person will be the editor in chief of DC Comics, (should there still be a DC Comics):

Mike Carlin 37 (16.89%)

Paul Levitz 36 (16.44%)

Jim Shooter 30 (13.70%)

Peter David 17 (7.76%)

John Byrne 10 (4.57%)

Tom DeFalco 9 (4.11%)

Who Cares? 7 (3.20%)

Rob Liefeld 6 (2.74%)

Joey Cavalieri 6 (2.74%)

Chris Claremont 5 (2.28%)

Mark Gruenwald 5 (2.28%)

Bob Harras 5 (2.28%)

Todd McFarlane 3 (1.37%)

Frank Miller 2 (0.91%)

Denny O’Neil 2 (0.91%)

Single votes were also recorded for, among others, Fabian Nicieza, Marv Wolfman, Ross Perot, Archie Goodwin, Neal Pozner, Mike Eury, Karen Berger, Howard Stern (!), Len Wein, and Katie Main.

Whereas Gruenwald has a clear lead in the field at Marvel, it seems Carlin and Levitz will be slugging it out. Certainly Carlin’s overseeing the successful Superman renaissance has to weigh well in his favor; then again, Levitz has the seniority and the business savvy, enabling him to see editorial concerns from variety of angles. It’ll be interesting to see how this plays out. Not to mention the strong interest respondents seem to have in seeing Shooter running the place.

What I found curious was Joey Cavalieri’s performance. Joey was barely mentioned on the Marvel side, but garnered six votes here. It makes you wonder whether people think he’s going to jump back to DC, or are simply unaware that he’s presently with Marvel.

7) The following person will be revealed to be the Anti-Christ:

Rob Liefeld 78 (35.62%)

Todd McFarlane 20 (9.13%)

Tom DeFalco 14 (6.39%)

Peter David 12 (5.48%)

Jim Shooter 11 (5.02%)

John Byrne 10 (4.57%)

Bill Clinton 6 (2.74%)

Respondent 3 (1.37%)

Fabian Nicieza 2 (0.91%)

Gary Groth 2 (0.91%)

Tony Isabella 2 (0.91%)

Ross Perot 2 (0.91%)

Single votes went to, among others, Mike Carlin, Mark Gruenwald, Paul Levitz, Erik Larsen, Superman, Lobo, Damian, Rich Buckler, Dave Sim, Sam Donaldson, Pat Buchanan, Sinead O’Connor, George Bush, Macaulay Culkin and Cat Yronwode.

I must admit, I was amazed by the results on this one. I mean, let’s face it: considering that I’ve seen Tom DeFalco blamed for everything short of JFK’s assassination, I thought he had a lock on this one. But he drew less than 7%. Considering the acrimonious departure from the mutant titles by such worthies as Claremont and Byrne, I thought Bob Harras would draw his share. But he got no votes at all. Hëll, Bill Clinton got six votes, and he wasn’t even on the ballot. Three people tagged themselves as the anti-Christ. But the winner—

Rob Liefeld? Of all people, Liefeld? I never expected that. Apparently readers are of the impression that Youngblood surpasses bad and is, in fact, one of the seven signs of the apocalypse. Either that or someone spotted a “666” on Rob’s forehead and word has spread.

The suggestion is that, to 35% of the respondents, Rob represents something that they really don’t like. What that might be, I leave to you to figure out. Certainly if one clear-cut conclusion can be drawn from this, it’s that Rob is desperately in need of better public relations.

(Peter David, writer of stuff, will present the rest of the survey next week—including some interesting speculations as to long-term comic values. Be there or risk the wrath of Liefeld.)

34 comments on “The BID Poll Results, Part 1”

  1. Interesting to look back at this now that we know what actually happened. For the curious, the top books by month in 2002 were:
    .
    January: Batman: The Ten Cent Adventure
    February: Dark Knight Strikes Again #3
    March: New X-Men #124
    April: Transformers Generation One #1
    May: Transformers Generation One #2
    June: Transformers Generation One #3
    July: Transformers Armada #1
    August: Fantastic Four #60
    September: Transformers Generation One #6
    October: Batman #608
    November: Masters of the Universe #1
    December: Ultimate War #1
    .
    In one sense, then, the top book of 2002 didn’t exist in 1992; on the other hand, it’s one that would be instantly recognizable to someone from that year, albeit as a property that was in decline. (I remember that when Transformers G1 came out, some people were saying that Dreamwave ought to be enshrined as one of the Big Publishers; history has shown that to be premature.)
    .
    Overall the sales trends for 2002 show the benefits of popular licenses and marketing (FF #60 was the 9-cent issue) as well as popular creators (Batman #608 was the first issue of “Hush”). The field is more writer-driven than it was in 1992, but the 1992 reader would instantly understand why Jim Lee drawing Batman would be a #1 title.

    1. Actually Marvel published a Transformers series called “Transformers: Generation 2” that from what I read started in 1993 and lasted for 12 issues.

  2. “Image’s long-term health, on the hand, has the dubious honor of being one of the few instances where a majority of respondents agreed on something (as opposed to a plurality).

    Now–y’see–if I were really nasty, I’d say that the creators at Image might want to have someone start writing their resumes for them. But–I’m not really nasty.”

    Frighteningly prophetic, maybe, but not nasty.;)

  3. I’ve been waiting for this one to turn up.

    It’s in stuff like this I wish PAD did some looking bad commentary like he did the BID book.

      1. I would have said “A little of both with YOU looking back and Image…” Oh, you know the rest.

  4. 7) The following person will be revealed to be the Anti-Christ:
    .
    Rob Liefeld 78 (35.62%)
    .
    Wow. Fans in 1992 were smarter than I give them credit for.

  5. I was wondering if someone might have written in Joe Quesada as Marvel’s future EIC, just as a goof.

    It just goes to show you, the future is often even stranger than we can imagine.

    Of course, one wonders if, had he lived that long, Mark Gruenwald wouldn’t have been first pick for the job when Harras stepped down…

  6. The “died and replaced” list was extremely interesting. Especially since so many on the list did one or the other, but not both. I think the Punisher is the only one to die and not be replaced, but several were replaced without dying.
    .
    It’s also interesting that Aquaman was so low on the list, but he was replaced. The two guys who voted that must feel pretty good right now. If they even remember this poll.
    .
    I noticed Aunt May got one vote. She came close to dieing, but not quite. Too bad nobody put “Uncle Ben.” PAD personally created some Uncle Bens, killed one and replaced him.

      1. Since 1992? I know she’s died two or three times, but I forgot when the last one was.

      2. She died in Amazing #400. I’m not certain what year it was, but it was near the beginning of that whole clone mess. It had to be at least 1994.

    2. “I think the Punisher is the only one to die and not be replaced, but several were replaced without dying.”

      They had that “Death of the Punisher” storyline where the Frank blew himself up and they had several different would-be Punishers come out of the woodwork to try to take his place only to have it revealed Castle somehow survived the explosion. In the era right after Superman’s death, I don’t think I’ve ever seen so much creative effort poured into being uncreative.

  7. Transformers may not have had a comic in 1992, Doug, but it certainly was around in 1991 and again in 1993. I’m pretty sure it wouldn’t qualify as ‘does not exist yet.’

    1. True; I mostly meant that the specific title didn’t exist at the time (as opposed to, say, Batman or X-Men) but the property certainly did. (The specific form of ’80s nostalgia that the G1 comic sold on didn’t exist in 1992, either, but that’s to be expected.)

  8. “Image’s long-term health, on the hand, has the dubious honor of being one of the few instances where a majority of respondents agreed on something (as opposed to a plurality).

    Now–y’see–if I were really nasty, I’d say that the creators at Image might want to have someone start writing their resumes for them. But–I’m not really nasty.”

    Frighteningly prophetic, maybe, but not nasty.;)”
    .
    You know, I’m of two thoughts on this. On the one hand, the one thing I feel doomed the momentum that early Image had was not the speculation and foil covers and the other things that usually have fans in a tizzy, but the fact that so many books that they waited with anticipation for, that they thought were cool, threat they had their comic shop order for them were almost all dreadfully late or never showed up at all.
    .
    Seriously. This was a big problem, more than when the speculators realized they weren’t going to make a quick fortune by buying 100 copies of “Spawn” #5. because when a LCS owner invested, say, $2,000 in “Darker Image” #2 and it never came out, not only did that lead to disappointed fans who were less excited about the next Image project, but they also had to refund the money if it was pre-ordered. In the short-term, that money that the LCS invested in “darker Image” #2 and other books like it was money the LCS owner had in limbo, so to speak, and money he could have used to get larger quantities of books that actually came out.
    .
    These guys had the industry by the balls and let it all slip away. well, most of it and any momentum that could have made them a legitimate #2 or even 31 publisher that brought in boatloads of new fans, anyway.

    1. .
      As much as I slagged on Image back then (and years later) because of how frustrated I got with Image not shipping titles, shipping titles that weren’t what they advertised and playing games with the numbering of their titles and was then disappointed with as many of the titles that did ship… I’m actually really glad that they did all of that stupid crap now.
      .
      One of the few books I still read these days with any regularity is The Walking Dead. Had Image not imploded and then come back as, to a large degree, an extremely different publisher when it came to the content and style of their books, that title might not be out there right now. A lot of their current stuff, although not on my regular reading slate, is a lot better than pretty much all of the cash-in clones of the hot Marvel properties of the day and the books where they just seemed randomly write a story with no idea of where they were going from one issue to the next.
      .
      Still loved The Maxx and Astro City though.

  9. I was wondering how many of these came proved accurate. I wasn’t paying attention to comic-books at all at the beginning of the century, so I don’t know the correct answers to most of these, although I do know the antichrist turned out to be my Spencer, who didn’t even receive a single vote.
    .
    I do wish Gruenwald could’ve been Editor-in-Chief. I can’t help thinking that he would’ve stopped a lot of Marvel’s mistakes from ever happening.

  10. What was the Barron’s article that set of a firestorm of negative publicity? I don’t remember ever hearing of any negative publicity around that time. (I had no knowledge of the fan press or anything, though. Unless it made the regular news, I never heard of anything

    1. I can’t seem to post links in the comments right now, but if you search for “Barron’s Fruit” in the search box on the top of the sidebar on this site, you’ll find a previous BID column on the Barron’s article.

    2. Oh, it was an article that suggested that Marvel was in a lot of trouble, financially speaking, and that they were headed for a very rocky period. I remember PAD wrote a column slamming it as a hatchet job with no basis in fact.
      .
      Three years later, Marvel was in bankruptcy and the bottom had fallen out of the comics market. Just sayin’. 🙂

      1. I don’t remember it as a slam job stating that the article had no basis in fact! I saw Peter’s response as an informed critique of how the guy at Barron’s wrote an article that only told half the story at best and gave a slanted view that proved to be a self-fulfilling prophecy for Marvel at worst. As was stated in Peter’s response “Even the slaughtered cow has a point-of-view!” Mr. Clueless at Barron’s was too busy attacking the comic book market for not being “inflation-proof” nor “fiscally sound” to notice it! Sportscasters and science editors usually do their homework before they attack a subject. I wish most pundits outside of the comic book industry did the same with our favorite hobby!

      2. But he was fundamentally right, is the point I’m trying to make here. 🙂 The comic book market was in the middle of a huge bubble based on irrational speculation in the secondary markets, one encouraged by publications like WIZARD that hyped “collector’s items” that were actually tremendously overprinted (and that they were, themselves, selling on the secondary market.)
        .
        The comics bubble was bound to burst, and the Barron’s article did nothing more than point that out. PAD said that he didn’t do his homework and that his article was an irresponsible hatchet-job. Three years later, he was proven right. I don’t think it was a “self-fulfilling prophecy”; the Barron’s article didn’t cause the collapse, any more than irresponsible weather forecasters caused Hurricane Katrina. 🙂

      3. PAD said that he didn’t do his homework and that his article was an irresponsible hatchet-job.

        Which was ALSO correct! Mr. Clueless didn’t know the difference between the SHAZAM Captain Marvel and the Captain Marvel that Peter wrote for AND he contacted comic book STORE MANAGERS regarding the future of Marvel instead of THE DISTRIBUTORS who determine what’s available from the publishers and SELL TO THE STORE MANAGERS! The idiot even criticized the direct market as though it were worse than the newstand market while Peter emphasized that the direct market was better from a publishing perspective in that there are much fewer books returned than from the newsstands!

        And while Barrons’ didn’t directly cause the collapse, it could be debated ad nauseum whether it didn’t “feed the flames” like FEMA did very little to avert future hurricane disasters and virtually ignored the victims of Hurricane Rita while they gave minimal aid to Katrina victims! If you’re going to attack an industry for not being “recession proof” (name one corporation on this planet that is!!!) you have no business writing for a BUSINESS publication of any sort IMHO!

  11. Mary,
    Actually, Aunt May’s powerful death penned by J.M. DeMatteis (she should have STAYED dead) occurred only six months after the Clone Saga began in “Amazing” #394. This followed on the heels of the whole “Peter Parker’s Parents Are Bach From The Dead Saga” which ended in “Amazing” #388. Anyway, may’s death only happened half-a-year into the Clone saga, which lasted two years. Since THAT ended in “Peter Parker (Vol. 2) #75, which revealed that Norman Osborn was still alive (gag) and came out in 1994. I remember that distinctly because it was 20 years exactly from the date he dies in 1974. So May’s death had to have occurred in late 1992 or early 1993.

    1. I have Amazing #388, which ended the embarassing ‘Return Of The Parents’ story. It is dated April 1994, so May’s death had to come later (exactly one year later, now that I think about it, unless the regularly monthly schedule changed for some reason). I think you must be confused about when Norman returned. It had to be later, so it couldn’t have been on the anniversary.
      .
      (I stopped buying comic books around 1995, and didn’t start again until 2006, so for some time I was confused as to why May was alive [I now have the issue in which she returned, though]. I also had no idea Osborn had been brought back until just before I started buying again. I was sickened to learn they had done that, and I still don’t like having him around. Unfortunately, I’ve had to spend the past year or so dealing with Osborn appearing in nearly every single issue Marvel publishes. I hope he either dies again when this Siege thing ends, or at least disappears for a long time.)

      1. May’s Death was cover-dated April 1995, Peter Parker (a title Marvel should have used for about 6-12 months, then gone back to “Spider-Man” only) #75 cover-dated Dec. 1996 was when Norman revealed himself to Peter and the Clone Saga ended. Though looking back, what came afterward, the Clone Saga was the Great American (Graphic) Novel compared to afterwards. Bob Harras STILLhas so much to answer for

  12. On an unrelated comic book note:

    The wrap-up of the latest X-Force issue heavily suggests that Wolfsbane will no longer be part of that comic.

    PAD, Is there any hope that you will soon be writing Rahne Sinclair again?

    1. I would love to see Rahne in a book that I could stomach reading. Either X-Factor or New Mutants would seem the best place for her. (I’d prefer X-Factor, because the current New Mutants hasn’t been that good.)

  13. Aunt May had a stroke in “Amazing Spider-Man” #391 (July 1994), which put her into a coma for a while. She recovered but then died in “Amazing Spider-Man” #400 (April 1995). Years later, after Norman Osborn was revealed to be behind the whole clone thing, it was also revealed that the “Aunt May” who died was, in fact, an actress with modified DNA, or some such storywriting rot, and the real May was still alive (this happened in “Amazing” #441, November 1998).

    1. I fondly remember the old Marvel Age magazine. Along with upcomming attractions, interviews and profiles, they had humorous little bits here and there. To help promote the then-new 2099 line, they “hyped” the upcomming 2099 titles, including “Aunt May, 2099” with the explanation “What, you thought we’d kill her?”

Comments are closed.