DC Comics Sales Tactics: I should know when to keep my pretty mouth shut...
I know, I know, this doesn't look good for me. I'm turning into some terrible DC apologist.
But okay, let's unpack that statement for a minute, because there's a lot of stuff, in comics in general, and at DC in particular, I feel no need to defend, and quite often an overpowering need to scream about. Or just hide under a rock and ignore because it's too depressing. That said, my perception of a weird media bias against DC and in favour of Marvel bugs me to an increasing degree. Basically because I feel like it doesn't hold people accountable in the way they should be held to account, and I think it ends up ignoring success stories and examples of positive attempts at change. It's just...since I think this narrative is broken, I worry all we're doing is holding a biased conversation that won't get us any actual improvement.
So...I kind of didn't talk a lot about this for a long time because it's not a popular opinion, and because it's hard to defend a thing without it seeming like you're excusing everything it does, which isn't my intention.
But I was reading a recent article from ComicsAlliance on DC comics' New 52 and how many had been cancelled, and comparisons to Marvel's Marvel NOW initiative (which isn't a reboot but is a sort of...relaunch/rebranding initiative) all about how Marvel are doing it so much better. Based on...basically nothing I could understand and it mostly seemed to harp on about how DC can't possibly sustain publishing 52 titles a month and how it needs a new tactic to reach new readers, all the while ignoring the fact that DC no longer publishes 52 titles a month and they're trialing a new tactic of weekly comics. Which may be the world's stupidest idea. Who knows! But it is super weird this article didn't even talk about it!
And it struck me: here is a place where I think I can demonstrate my point and achieve some kind of catharsis. What the fuck is this article:
http://comicsalliance.com/dc-comics-new-52-47-cancelation/
I'm going to break it down point by point and hopefully illustrate why I think it's biased.
My goal is not to point out that therefore DC is all roses and happy shiny editors who never pointlessly intefere in otherwise successful books. My point is not to say that there are no problems with audience outreach. My point is that the underpinning logic of this article is broken. In some really weird ways. That seem predicated on a lot of generous assumptions about Marvel's business tactics based on three months of solicitations and wilfully ignoring everything earlier than December 2013. In ways that seem indicative of fandom and the comics press' general tendency to award Marvel for effort and punish DC for failure.
This is long. This is really fucking long. I tried to cut it down, I did. I couldn't. I was too filled with the need to destroy it.
The short version is: the article's assertion that Marvel is more patient when it comes to allowing its new titles to find a footing and flourish is divorced from any reality involving sales data, and while I'm very pleased they're making an effort to change their behaviour and actually publish titles featuring women and poc in the title roles, these books are younger than some of the food in my cupboards and not a numerical improvement on what DC tried to do with its reboot, so forgive me for wanting to see how many are still standing next year and whether they're replaced by similar titles, before I believe Marvel have cracked the secret code to making the comics industry less shitty. Plus, you know, that whole thing where the dude keeps commenting on DC's current sales tactics while never actually mentioning DC's newest sales tactic.
That really is the meat of it. But if you want to read that in vastly more detail (I don't really recommend it), then follow the cut.
This article. This fucking article.
Okay so it starts out with some preamble about the number 52, how it doesn't really mean much right now with weekly comics, event comics, mini series, etc. (the article's sole mention of weekly comics! There is no context except as part of a list of things that don't "count" as part of the 52!) but that it is as useful a number as any other to gauge DC's publishing strategy. Fine, I can agree with that. Let's move on.
We then get to the main part of the article and I'm going to quote it in its entirety along with my responses, because that's how I roll:
With convention season upon us and a host of announcements doubtlessly coming down the pipeline, it seems certain that DC will hit its 52nd New 52 cancellation sooner rather than later. As it stands, the publisher averages one final issue almost every three weeks.
Generously, such high turnover may indicate a willingness to try new ideas on DC’s part. Less generously, it may indicate a poor understanding of a changing market.
Okay, we have a useful statistic - a cancellation every three weeks. We also have two possible reasons. Both may well be true. However, I think it's important to note, since the article doesn't, that a large number of the books that were cancelled early have been books that strayed from the usual genres you'd find in a comic book. War stories, westerns, fantasy, actual space-adventure scifi, horror, surrealism, spies, anthologies and comics with actual rotating backup stories, as well as a lot with female and/or poc leads or majority female and/or poc teams. We'll come back to this a little later.
Marvel has averaged about one final issue a month since its Marvel NOW relaunch began in October 2012. DC, of course, has had more time to see its books fail, but most of its discontinued books have been real cancellations - as opposed to strategic conclusions. Justice League of America, Nightwing, and Teen Titans were among the only books discontinued specifically so they could be relaunched. (It remains to be seen if any of the six latest discontinuations will also lead to relaunches.) Batman Incorporated is one of the only titles ended at an author’s insistence. Animal Man is one of the only titles afforded extra time to tell a real ending. Most of DC’s cancelled titles ended swiftly and unceremoniously, and in some cases acrimoniously.
Marvel’s discontinuations have had a different flavor. Books like Young Avengers and Superior Spider-Man ended because the authors were finished telling those stories, and cancellations that pave the way for relaunches are much more common at Marvel; see Captain Marvel, Daredevil (both pre-NOW titles), Indestructible Hulk, Wolverine & The X-Men, Secret Avengers, the two X-Force books (recently replaced by one), the two Fantastic Four books (also replaced by one) and Avengers Arena, which told a complete story but led in to a new book, Avengers Undercover. Even titles like X-Men: Legacy, Avengers A.I., and Fearless Defenders, all of which felt like true cancellations, were allowed time to resolve their stories.
Let's break this down to three points. 1) Comparing data. 2) Characterisation of DC's cancellations. 3) "Strategic conclusions."
1) Comparing data.
So yes, numerically, Marvel are cancelling less, at least since Marvel NOW, which means we're comparing a two-year period for Marvel with a three-year period for DC. That might actually make a difference because the first year of the reboot for DC saw an eight month period with no cancellations. But even if it does, I'm not going to contend that right now DC are cancelling at a higher rate than Marvel. Partly because - as noted - they've had longer to see their books fail, and partly because they've been cancelling down so they have space to launch the weeklies. (Look, there's that glaring omission again).
The point is, I basically agree with the article here. Marvel is cancelling slightly slower, but at a close enough rate and with enough circumstantial reasons for that discrepancy that they're basically comparable. The real story is in the whys and the hows. (Which begs the question of the article's DC CANCELS HUGE NUMBERS OF COMICS! title, but there you go.)
2) Characterisation of DC's cancellations
We need to start with correcting something: Animal Man actually ended because the writer was done telling his story also, so does that make it a "legitmate" cancellation like Batman: Incorporated? Superman Unchained was retroactively declared a limited series (which will be ending soon) because the creative team were done with it, even though it was originally announced as an ongoing. DC elected to end it on creative terms rather than get a new team to continue it even though it was wildly commercially successful.
Meanwhile The Movement actually was afforded extra time to finish its story despite horrible sales. It's hard to know how many others are in this position because a lot of writers don't talk about it publicly or if they do, may be attempting to maintain professionalism. Certainly Static Shock stands as an example where the original writer left in very acrimonious circumstances and the new one didn't know it was about to be cancelled. On the other hand they kept Dial H around far longer than its numbers indicated, presumably to allow China Mieville a chance to wrap up his story since its final arc didn't seem rushed.
But broadly, I do wonder what the author's metric is for "swiftly and unceremoniously"? Talking about other series that have ended recently, Talon allowed Tynion IV to finish his story and then wound down the run with a few one-shots from guest writers. Katana's series basically played out like an 11 issue maxi-series and absolutely had narrative closure. The Dark Knight was cancelled because, thank the fucking lord, DC seemed to realise that Batman didn't need three solo ongoing series, and so is, I guess, gone for creative reasons, I guess - it certainly wasn't due to sales. There was nothing swift or unceremonious about the cancellation of Batwing or All-Star Western, both of which have lasted 34 issues with sales that "should" have seen them cancelled before they hit 20. There's no explanation for their longevity other than DC's commitment to them as part of their publication line. Superboy underwent a weird, awkward event crossover with the other Superbooks that ended up changing its main character about half a dozen issues ago and honestly I don't think that boosted sales like they were hoping, so now it's gone, but that indicates to me that the first thing they did was try to find a way to stabilise the sales, which doesn't sound like a swift, or unceremonious cancellation, even if it's not one that has a satisfying narrative resolution; the final writer was well-aware he was only hired for a single arc. Vibe feels a little like the writer was left to cobble together an ending in two dozen pages, for sure, so maybe we can point to his title? Stormwatch is another one where an "internal reboot" and cast shift didn't boost sales, but again it lounged at well below cancellation figures for a really long time before DC actually pulled the plug, and again, it wrapped up its storyline.
So like...I'm genuinely not sure what he actually means by this. No examples are given as to which titles he thinks were thrown to the wolves. And while it's skewed towards sales, the actual circumstances seem somewhat mixed and basically in keeping with the Marvel examples. To suggest Marvel never finishes stuff after a random story arc has ended is absurd, and Journey Into Mystery would like to say hello.
On the other hand, if you want to talk about unceremonious cancellations, Marvel have a habit of stealth cancelling titles by simply not telling you in the solicits that it's the final issue and leaving you to wonder where they are when next month's come out. They did it to Fearless Defenders and to Venom (and technically to Captain Marvel, though that book was at least scheduled for a relaunch a few months later) just recently, and probably a bunch of others. They do it fairly regularly. Iron Patriot was recently stealth-downgraded to a mini series from an ongoing.
Also because I'm not sure where else I'd file this, the two Fantastic Four and two X-Force books that were recently relaunched into one? In both cases, the majority female team was the one that got axed.
3) "Strategic conclusions."
I believe the author means cancelling just to relaunch when using this phrase. As in, this book's not really cancelled because in a month or three it will be coming back like it was before, just with a new #1 issue.
I actually don't have a problem with doing this in certain circumstances. When there's a legitimate change to the status quo, and when you don't abuse it, a new #1 can provide a more appealing jumping on point for new reader than simply a new story arc or creative team. Nightwing ending and getting relaunched as a spy thriller called Grayson is a good example. Like, regardless of what the quality ends up being, there's a legitimate change in the style and tone and purpose of the book. Cancelling Teen Titans and launching it again two months later as New Teen Titans with essentially the same core cast, is not. I wasn't pleased when I read about it because my first thought was that it was a tactic taken straight out of Marvel's playbook because they do this all the damn time. A flaship title like Fantastic Four recently made it a whopping 16 issues before getting sent out for, well, its second reboot in 18 months.
I guess we could make some sort of argument about whether we could treat comic runs like seasons of television with brief hiatuses in between, but the problem is it doesn't work. Wolverine is the other comic that got caught in both a Marvel Now and an All-New Marvel Now relaunch and both show a very clear pattern.
The relaunch provides a temporary boost to sales before quickly slipping, usually down to lower than pre-relaunch numbers. The effect is heightened the second time its relaunched.
Of course, this isn't always the case - as the linked article notes - it did seem to benefit Spider-man. We don't have much sales data on the Captain Marvel relaunch yet, but based on the first two issues, the 2014 #1 sold about 2,500 more copies than the 2012 #1, but the 2014 #2 sold about 500 less than the 2012 #2.
There's a real question about how it helps the industry to boost sales with short-term fixes like repeated #1s, increased shipping, lower page counts for higher prices - all practices which Marvel engage in with higher frequency than DC. It's not sustainable and it doesn't bring in new readers. It's certainly not evidence of knowing how to reach out to a wider audience (which seems to be this article's implication?) I mean you are literally repeatedly relaunching things in an attempt to sell the same stuff over and over again. It's the definition of not trying anything new.
Marvel has proved an indulgent caretaker of its books since its major line-wide makeover, and benefited from taking a different approach to DC. Marvel didn’t flood the market with a whole new line of books in a single month; it released them slowly to give smaller titles more of a chance. The publisher never bound itself to the idea that every cancellation had to be matched with a launch. It pitched books to different audiences, relied on creators to make the titles distinctive, and gave creators room to tell whole stories - and, at least in some cases, end them if they so chose.
I don't feel I'm in a position to judge whether the Marvel method or the DC method of rebooting a few per month rather than all at once is better.
I will say that the DC reboot boosted the entire comics industry for several years at a time when it was in crisis. Which of course doesn't necessarily mean it was positive if your goal was getting attention for lesser known titles or specific characters. It almost certainly led to an unacceptable level of editorial micromanagement responsible for several professional fuckups, and on a broad level I think it's fair to criticise DC for not giving their writers the latitude Marvel often extends.
I think the main issue with a slower release cycle in the context of this article, though, is simply that this process is both newer than DC's relaunch and ongoing. The author is comparing something that happened almost three years ago to something that in some cases happened a month ago or has yet to happen.
The article's statement that Marvel is an "indulgent caretaker" is never really explained. The assertion is there, but I have no idea how it fits with the facts. The one example he gives of a book allowed time to finish its storylines despite low sales - Fearless Defenders - had a final issue that sold higher than nearly every cancelled DC book and sold nearly twice what Katana's last issue sold (a DC solo starring a woman of colour cancelled around the same time).
Allowing a low-selling title to continue so that the story can resolve may seem like an unsound business decision, but the good faith it establishes with audiences and creators may benefit the publisher’s relationship with both, encouraging writers to commit to a publisher they know will give them room to reach, and encouraging readers to try new titles that they would otherwise expect to fail. Allowing for an ending may also net rewards in sales of book collections - the comics equivalent of a TV show reaching enough episodes to be sold into syndication. Completed stories are a more appealing book sales prospect than stories with no ending.
Yes I agree, and I would point out that DC will reliably allow a book to fall further in the sales charts before cancelling it than Marvel does. I'd also point out that DC seems to care much more about its trades than Marvel. It outperforms them in the bookstore market, keeps then in print longer, and regularly publishes original graphic novels specifically for that market.
I also agree that this sort of behaviour establishes trust in the readership, and that's exactly why I do not trust Marvel at all.
Call me when they've published a Western for 34 issues, a historical fanstasy adventure with a trans character for 23, a gothic horror about vampires for 20, when it can't just launch five books about women, but can provide me with the reasonable expectation that in a few years they'll still be there. Call me then.
Or like...show me ANY Marvel book that this description apparently applies to, because I'll be honest, giving Fearless Defenders 12 issues instead of 8 doesn't feel like a magical balm for my soul, because, whoop-de-doo, they didn't actively cancel it in the middle of a story arc.
DC quietly dropped its strict commitment to a 52-title line and freed itself from that churn, but the publisher still seems more committed to volume and turnover than to soliciting the affection of readers or creators. There is potentially some virtue to a high turnover approach; it allows a publisher to be radical in its exploration of concepts.
But “radical” is not a word many would use to describe DC’s current output. Indeed, the New 52 line has been marked across its three years by such stark homogeneity that even writers and artists known for bringing personality to their work have been largely subsumed into a house style that renders them flavorless. The creators who still stand out are either those with the most power and/or acclaim, like Geoff Johns, Greg Capullo, Scott Snyder, Francis Manapul and Cliff Chiang, or those who don’t seem to last long at the company.
Wait, I thought a minute ago we were talking about how DC were fucking themselves over because they DID have a slavish devotion to a 52-title line...
But okay, snark aside, I really think it's worth exploring that comment about volume and turnover. It seems slightly spurious when DC have been cancelling far more than they've been launching for the last year. As of August they'll be down to (I think) 34 of their regular 52 titles because they're making space for the weekly comics. These add to the volume, sure, but not to the turnover; if anything they're the sort of commitment to a narrative conclusion that you'd think the author would approve of, given DC's guaranteeing a series comprising a many comics as you'd normally get in several years.
The more immediately pressing point, though, is that since this article is only talking DC's monthly titles, it's talking about a far, far smaller number of titles than DC usually has to offer in comprison to Marvel's full stable.
I do agree that DC would benefit from allowing its creators more freedom. But while I think that they could stand to loosen their vicelike editorial grip, I also think that Marvel could stand to deliberately widen their line a little. The author is right that I wouldn't apply "radical" to DC's line up, but as I noted, they've tried several war comics, westerns, numerous fantasy books, books about magic, space adventures, martial arts, humour, horror, angry young revolutionaries, technospies and metatextual surreality. Marvel also has a house style (even if it's a more popular Whedon-esque mix of humour and drama) and also has outlier books by name-recognised creators that stand out in terms of narrative or artistic approach.
Their line has become more homogenous as they failed to find audiences for these books and have replaced them with the weeklies instead of more of the same (though they're launching a spy book, a zombie war comic and a pulpy scifi adventure in the next few months). Perhaps we should indeed hold them to account for this failure. Perhaps this was a bad way to go about trying to publish a broader variety of stuff. But describing their attempts over the last two and a half years as "homogenous" seems disingenuous.
That’s not to say that DC takes no chances. Within this latest raft of cancellations are a few books that DC tried to find an audience for long after the point where they might have understandably pulled the plug. Female-led team book Birds of Prey, separated from its most famous author Gail Simone (and from its founding character, the wheelchair-using hero Oracle), struggled for a long time to find an audience. Batwing, DC’s last solo title led by a character of color, was a first wave New 52 title that never performed well yet still made it to 34 issues. (In the process it swapped its African lead character for an African-American lead character more closely tied to the established Batman mythos.)
DC couldn’t find an audience for these books. That may be because that audience couldn’t find these books, rather than because the audience isn’t there. DC’s monolithic house style and devotion to event-driven storytelling do not create an inviting environment for new or diverse readers. That would be fine if DC’s old familiar readers could support a 52-title line (or something close to 52 titles), but the rate of cancellations suggests this isn’t the case. DC’s core audience can’t support such a sprawling line, but DC’s editorial approach can’t reach a wider audience.
I'll note that Batwing isn't the last lead character of colour; John Stewart is now the sole lead in Green Lantern Corps because Guy ran off to join the Reds, but his name isn't in the title, and that makes a difference, and dear god, I'm not going to try and act like having one makes it all right. Especially since one of the professional fuckups I alluded to above was apparently someone walking off GLC because editorial suggested killing the character. Which fortunately now isn't happening, but...look my point isn't that this is okay, I just don't want to erase John Stewart. Hooray John Stewart! Boo like...everything else related to this topic.
I don't have much of an actual bone to pick with any of this other than the suggestion that DC is somehow more event-driven than Marvel. That seems like an odd suggestion. DC tends to have more small crossovers, where related books will share stories for a few issues, or reference something that happened in another title, but Marvel definitely have more giant World-Altering-Events-That-Change-Everything.
It may also be worth noting that Birds of Prey's last issue pre-reboot was 15 and sold ~26K while post reboot issue 15 sold ~24k, so it was lower, but it was stable in the same range. BoP was the highest selling book cancelled in this wave and I think the best candidate for a quick relaunch, as much as I have mixed feelings about those. I guess I'm just saying, DC kind of didn't fail to find its audience for this one. They just made a disappointing decision when sales attrition hit a certain level.
And as a final note - hey look, the weeklies again! Wouldn't this have been a good place to mention them as an enormous, deliberate change in publishing tactics when talking about DC's (possibly doomed) attempts to capitalise on and/or grow its audience? No? Just me? Okay. Moving on.
Marvel once again provides the natural point of comparison as the only other publisher doing what DC does on the same scale. While DC says farewell to its last solo POC hero title in August, Marvel will have seven such titles on the stands that month - Ghost Rider, Iron Patriot, Miles Morales: Ultimate Spider-Man, Ms. Marvel, Nova, Spider-Man 2099, and Storm - as well as the minority-dominated team books Mighty Avengers and All-New Ultimates. Marvel will also have six solo titles with female leads in August - Black Widow, Captain Marvel, Elektra, Ms. Marvel, Storm, and She-Hulk, plus the female team book X-Men. DC only just retains its established lead for female heroes thanks to the addition of a digital-first Wonder Woman anthology, Sensation Comics, joining World’s Finest, Batgirl, Batwoman, Catwoman, Harley Quinn, Supergirl, and Wonder Woman.
Okay so, point above about DC still having one PoC lead aside, because that's fucking abysmal, I have one overriding comment: we're talking about DC at a time when it's running at 34 of its regular 52 titles and a time when Marvel is actively launching books as part of a brand new initiative.
As far as the issue of women is concerned, to be honest with you, I think Marvel should be ashamed that even with an 18 title handicap DC have them beat. Particularly considering not a single one of those books was being published in January 2014 (and Storm is still upcoming), because, for the second time in three years Marvel cancelled every single one of their female solo books.
Look, Ms Marvel is a damn revelation. I love it. It's fucking brilliant, and wonderfully, miraculously, it's selling really well. Like well enough I feel like it'll be around for a few years, and I look forward to spending money on it every month. It is amazing and important that it exists and it deserves all the praise.
I hope Marvel looks at it, works out what magic G Willow Wilson is working, and PUT HER IN CHARGE OF EVERYTHING.
I laud Marvel for seeming to have said, "Jesus guys, our female line-up sucks! Let's make a concerted effort to publish more women in their own titles!"
But given their history, I think it's reasonable to want to wait more than three months before deciding they've Solved Women In Comics Praise Baby Jesus.
Regarding characters of colour, that's tough because in general, I think Marvel do better than DC here. But I do think it's worth pointing out that, again, we get a list of seven solo titles and two majority PoC teams, as a snapshot based on the July solicitations, approximately six months after All-New Marvel NOW started its staggered rollout (and since the publication of the ComicsAlliance article, one of those ongoings has ALREADY been downgraded to a mini series and July is its final issue). If we look at DC six months after its reboot, it had six solo titles with PoC leads (Mister Terrific, Batwing, OMAC, Voodoo, Static Shock, Blue Beetle) and two co-leads (Fury of Firestorm, Green Lantern Corps). Still numerically inferior to Marvel, but much, much closer.
And it's probably relevant to note that in 2012, Marvel also cancelled all but one of their poc leads. And this was at a time when the above were all still being published by DC. The pendulum was in almost the exact opposite position.
This isn't a defence. Like I'll actually defend DC on their ability to reliably publish female-lead comics up to a point. I have no desire to do so when talking about poc leads. But I am trying to illustrate why I don't trust Marvel either. Not until they maintain this for a good while longer.
Most of these Marvel titles are very new - Storm and Spider-Man 2099 haven’t even launched yet - so we’re in unproven territory. It’s possible that all of these titles will be gone within a year, and it’s unlikely that any of them will sell Avengers numbers.
Yet Marvel’s approach to publishing seems to give these books a better shot at success than they’d have at DC. Post-NOW, Marvel has shown a willingness to give new books the spotlight and the time they need, and a commitment to creative teams that encourages confidence and distinctiveness. Marvel also shows a greater sensitivity to creating minority-led books that might actually appeal to a minority audience - for example, presenting most of its solo female heroes in a way that isn’t designed to pander primarily to straight male readers.
Holy inexplicable assumptions, Batman! How have they shown that willingness? This article keeps claiming it, but I don't see how it makes it true.
Let's break this down. Marvel have given us something of a gift with their relaunch of their own relaunch, because we had Marvel NOW from October 2012 - February 2013 and then All New Marvel NOW from January - July 2014. So let's take a look at the female-led, poc-led, majority-non-white-cishet-male books that were part of Marvel NOW and see how they did!
(I'm doing my best with the team books - I sincerely apologise if I've missed one I should have included):
FF - majority female team, 16 issues, cancelled.
Fearless Defenders - all female-team, 12 issues, cancelled.
Morbius: the Living Vampire - included because it's a rare example of Marvel going for a shift in genre? 9 issues, cancelled.
Nova - lead is mixed race white/hispanic dude, still ongoing.
Uncanny X-Force - majority female team - 17 issues, cancelled.
X-Men - all-female team, still ongoing
Young Avengers - majority non-straight-white-het-dudes, 15 issues, cancelled.
Captain Marvel - female lead, 17 issues, cancelled (although relaunched four months later)
Journey Into Mystery - with Sif as the lead - 10 issues, cancelled.
Red She-Hulk - female lead, 10 issues, cancelled.
So, you know, based on that I think that in a year? No, probably they won't be cancelled. In 18 months? Pretty damn likely. 2 of those 10 titles survived; 3 if you count a tactical cancellation/relaunch, though I outline above why I think that's a dangerous sales practice. When you consider that X-Men not only has a prestigious title that can command sales (which like, that's not a criticism - it's a great idea to use that kind of clout to highlight a book like this; see also DC's decision to launch Batwoman as a solo character in Detective) and was also written by a very big name writer, it's only Nova that's been an underdog success story demonstrating the benefits of Marvel's apparently new and patient outlook.
Which leaves me not entirely sure what the author thinks Marvel is specifically doing to give these titles the time and space they need to find audiences. It's not tolerating low sales, that's for sure. Every single one of these titles was cancelled at a sales level DC has been known to tolerate.
The final line suggests that there's a content component to their success. That's a really difficult thing to judge, and is validly gonna rest on personal opinion in some situations.
But since it specifies the presentation of women, let's talk about that. We all remember how DC tried to put pants on Wonder Woman and their fanbase threw a fit so they got rid of them. Okay, whatever, maybe they shouldn't have caved maybe they should have, but say what you like about the book itself, she's consistently drawn by Chiang and his fill-in artists in an impressively unsexualised way. She's about power in her own book, and there are no broke-back poses to be found. I'm not sure how that's different to Pulido's take on She-Hulk, who also wears not-very-much in her superheroine persona? Batgirl, Batwoman, Pandora, Strix in BoP, all wear full-covered clothing and aren't generally drawn in a sexualised way. If we want to talk about them specifically changing Captain Marvel's costume to something less revealing, we can equally point to Huntress who's finally out of her godawful weird bikini and back into a functional full-body suit. Supergirl's outfit has always been a little revealing, but then again so is Elektra's and a lot of it is in how it's drawn. Supergirl's stuck with a lot of random fill-in artists right now, but Mahmoud Asrar's long initial run was full of beautiful, understated, watery felt-tip that focused far more on her face than her body.
Let's be honest, the dude's probably referring to that OMFG CATWOMAN/BATMAN SEX! thing from the relaunch and Harley Quinn's stupid new outfit.
Catwoman's a sexual character, and that just...doesn't bother me. I didn't agree with most of the criticisms of the comic at the time (she spends about 90% of it talking to you about her own life, goals, desires, hanging out with another woman talking about things that aren't dudes, then at the end, decides she'd like to bang Batman and proceeds to very deliberately seduce him; her control of the situation is not ambiguous). I'm kind of more upset that the backlash led to DC panicking and making Judd Winnick change his storyline, and as a result we never got a Catwoman who totally worked out Batman's secret identity. Even if you disagree with me (which is fine), it's been 20 issues since that run, and the current run (which is written by a woman; not that that rubberstamps it against misogyny of course) has been characterised FAR more by quixotic surreality than femme fatal sex appeal.
I fucking hate Harley Quinn's stupid skimpy outfit, I hate it I hate it I hate it it's dumb.
I also hate that it's probably part of the reason no one's talking about the fact her comic - cowritten by a woman, and entirely in the wacky hijincks tradition of the DC Animated Universe where she hangs out with Poison Ivy and joins the roller derby - spent three months in the top ten and outsells every non-event comic DC puts out except Batman and Justice League.
Like, just think about that for a second. The third-best selling comic DC has right now - and her sales have stabilised at this level - is Harley Quinn.
Okay wait, I'm drifting.
Right, the point. Yeah, Harley Quinn's new outfit sucks balls, but that's not representative of the comic. And I still think it's an unfair generalisation to overlook the vast majority of DC's heroines who are either sensibly dressed or very deliberately drawn in a way that is not sexualised (i.e. Wonder Woman as drawn by Chiang). The author's opinion feels more like a regurgitation of the semi-regular anger that hits when there's a particularly gross comic cover, or costume change, than a reflection of what's really there.
And yes, what's portrayed in the media matters to new readers. And if potential readers see a stream of terrible DC covers, that will affect their willingness to buy the books.
But also, Marvel can publish uncomfortable shit like this (that's less than a year old) with no outraged coverage at all, but show Wonder Woman wrapped in Superman's cape and it's a story big enought to warrant a statement from the artist. To what degree is new readers' perception determined by what the fandom chooses to talk about?
On paper, Marvel’s rate of cancellation isn’t wildly different to DC’s, but in practice Marvel’s measured approach to scheduling and promotion creates the appearance of greater stability. When Marvel cancels a book, it’s usually a sign that a gamble didn’t pay off. DC’s 47 cancellations in the past three years aren’t evidence of a willingness to gamble. They’re evidence of a market that simply doesn’t have room to accommodate 52 titles predominantly built around the same conservative audience and aesthetic models.
A new line of 52 titles was an ambitious idea for a relaunch, and many industry insiders and commentators credit that initiative with injecting a much needed if short term commercial boost to the American business. But that fast-approaching 52nd cancellation shows that DC didn’t have what it takes to follow through on its ambitions.
Or perhaps you can just write an article that makes it look that way?
I honestly have absolutely no idea how to even refute the notion that Marvel's failures constitute unlucky gambles, while DC's don't. Like fucking for real, that argument only makes sense if DC's line really is homogenous, but I've already detailed that they have more diversity of gender, have utterly fucked up maintaining but have launched an equal number of titles dealing poc leads, and lead drastically in attempts to widen the genres that can be included in a superhero universe. Most of those titles failed, so maybe the problem is that they can't find people outside of their conservative audience? But it's sure as hell not a failure because all they're doing is pandering to them and then they're like "sorry, not enough cash this month!". Or like, I guess it might be. But then it's mighty weird that it's all the books that aren't white dudes in capes that are failing, you know?
Without attempting to absolve them of a duty to do Better Advertising and get their PR in order, we spend an awful lot of time talking about how DC aren't sure how to widen their audience, when we, as the audience, do nothing but tear them down.
When they publish the books we purport to want, no one fucking reads them. They published an epic fantasy adventure story about a teenage girl, written by the woman who wrote Jem and the Holograms. No one bought it. No one even talked about it. They published a teen team book that was majority queer, majority female, majority poc, led by a character who was all three, written by a fan-favourite author. No one bought it. They told a deconstructionist superhero story written by China Mieville, starring a male person of size and a female senior citizen. No one bought it. They published a historical fantasy with a romance between a trans man and an Amazon that actively dealt with her reflexive assumption that he was "really" a woman. No one bought it.
None of those books were books with scandals or PR disasters attached. Most of them were critically acclaimed. They just...never got any serious press coverage or social traction.
And DC bears some of that responsibility, for real. But I think the absolute stillbirth of The Movement illustrates the way we, as fandom, at least for right now, have decided what the DC narrative is, and we're done giving them a chance. It doesn't actually matter what they're doing.
Or in the case of this article, done even writing accurately about what they're doing, it seems.
Because as I've said numerous times, this article seems to be completely ignoring DC's latest shift towards weekly titles.
I legitimately have no idea if it will work, if it will be sustainable, if it will produce good stories or if it will help characters that need a boost get a boost, but it is a huge shift in DC's publication strategy and for an article that's purporting to explain how DC has no idea how to adapt to a changing market, it seems SUPER WEIRD to me that it would ignore this huge and current shift. Especially since it seems to specifically address his main complaint: that 52 different titles is too many.
Now maybe replacing a ton with fewer, but weekly ones, is just gonna have the same problems as double or triple shipping. Or maybe the inherent limited nature of them will maintain interest, at least if this is something they do for a year or so, not as their new publication model forever. But...we don't know, and it's a very clear indication that DC have seen their slipping sales, and rather than reboot or relaunch, they're going to shift gears and try something different.
As a closing point I'd also note that, while I am firmly in the camp that there's something specifically important about having ones name on the marquee, and have therefore always resisted trying to quantify how well team books do at representation unless it's something physically notable like who it's led by or who the majority of characters are, it probably is worth mentioning that these weeklies genuinely seem like efforts to give supporting characters a spotlight.
Batman: Eternal is bringing back Stephanie Brown, elevating Harper Row to a fully-fledged Batfamily hero and apparently telling an enormous paradigmatic shift for Catwoman. Future's End's main characters seem to be almost entirely made up of characters from cancelled books of the characters from those cancelled books including Amethyst, Mister Terrific and Firestorm. Information on World's End is extremely sparse, but it's set on Earth 2, which in addition to having Huntress and Power Girl, is a world where Superman is a young black man, Green Lantern is gay, Aquaman is a woman of colour and so is Hawkgirl, Lois Lane is a superhero robot, Doctor Fate is middle eastern and the World Army is run by a Sikh man and a Japanese woman. And that's not even everyone.
So uh, yeah. I don't think the weeklies are a fair straight-up replacement for vehicles where marginalised characters get a chance to shine. But I also think it's important to note that even when they are being billed as WORLD SHATTERING EVENTS, DC is mostly choosing to let less well-known characters star in them. Like...I think that is worth something.
But okay, let's unpack that statement for a minute, because there's a lot of stuff, in comics in general, and at DC in particular, I feel no need to defend, and quite often an overpowering need to scream about. Or just hide under a rock and ignore because it's too depressing. That said, my perception of a weird media bias against DC and in favour of Marvel bugs me to an increasing degree. Basically because I feel like it doesn't hold people accountable in the way they should be held to account, and I think it ends up ignoring success stories and examples of positive attempts at change. It's just...since I think this narrative is broken, I worry all we're doing is holding a biased conversation that won't get us any actual improvement.
So...I kind of didn't talk a lot about this for a long time because it's not a popular opinion, and because it's hard to defend a thing without it seeming like you're excusing everything it does, which isn't my intention.
But I was reading a recent article from ComicsAlliance on DC comics' New 52 and how many had been cancelled, and comparisons to Marvel's Marvel NOW initiative (which isn't a reboot but is a sort of...relaunch/rebranding initiative) all about how Marvel are doing it so much better. Based on...basically nothing I could understand and it mostly seemed to harp on about how DC can't possibly sustain publishing 52 titles a month and how it needs a new tactic to reach new readers, all the while ignoring the fact that DC no longer publishes 52 titles a month and they're trialing a new tactic of weekly comics. Which may be the world's stupidest idea. Who knows! But it is super weird this article didn't even talk about it!
And it struck me: here is a place where I think I can demonstrate my point and achieve some kind of catharsis. What the fuck is this article:
http://comicsalliance.com/dc-comics-new-52-47-cancelation/
I'm going to break it down point by point and hopefully illustrate why I think it's biased.
My goal is not to point out that therefore DC is all roses and happy shiny editors who never pointlessly intefere in otherwise successful books. My point is not to say that there are no problems with audience outreach. My point is that the underpinning logic of this article is broken. In some really weird ways. That seem predicated on a lot of generous assumptions about Marvel's business tactics based on three months of solicitations and wilfully ignoring everything earlier than December 2013. In ways that seem indicative of fandom and the comics press' general tendency to award Marvel for effort and punish DC for failure.
This is long. This is really fucking long. I tried to cut it down, I did. I couldn't. I was too filled with the need to destroy it.
The short version is: the article's assertion that Marvel is more patient when it comes to allowing its new titles to find a footing and flourish is divorced from any reality involving sales data, and while I'm very pleased they're making an effort to change their behaviour and actually publish titles featuring women and poc in the title roles, these books are younger than some of the food in my cupboards and not a numerical improvement on what DC tried to do with its reboot, so forgive me for wanting to see how many are still standing next year and whether they're replaced by similar titles, before I believe Marvel have cracked the secret code to making the comics industry less shitty. Plus, you know, that whole thing where the dude keeps commenting on DC's current sales tactics while never actually mentioning DC's newest sales tactic.
That really is the meat of it. But if you want to read that in vastly more detail (I don't really recommend it), then follow the cut.
This article. This fucking article.
Okay so it starts out with some preamble about the number 52, how it doesn't really mean much right now with weekly comics, event comics, mini series, etc. (the article's sole mention of weekly comics! There is no context except as part of a list of things that don't "count" as part of the 52!) but that it is as useful a number as any other to gauge DC's publishing strategy. Fine, I can agree with that. Let's move on.
We then get to the main part of the article and I'm going to quote it in its entirety along with my responses, because that's how I roll:
With convention season upon us and a host of announcements doubtlessly coming down the pipeline, it seems certain that DC will hit its 52nd New 52 cancellation sooner rather than later. As it stands, the publisher averages one final issue almost every three weeks.
Generously, such high turnover may indicate a willingness to try new ideas on DC’s part. Less generously, it may indicate a poor understanding of a changing market.
Okay, we have a useful statistic - a cancellation every three weeks. We also have two possible reasons. Both may well be true. However, I think it's important to note, since the article doesn't, that a large number of the books that were cancelled early have been books that strayed from the usual genres you'd find in a comic book. War stories, westerns, fantasy, actual space-adventure scifi, horror, surrealism, spies, anthologies and comics with actual rotating backup stories, as well as a lot with female and/or poc leads or majority female and/or poc teams. We'll come back to this a little later.
Marvel has averaged about one final issue a month since its Marvel NOW relaunch began in October 2012. DC, of course, has had more time to see its books fail, but most of its discontinued books have been real cancellations - as opposed to strategic conclusions. Justice League of America, Nightwing, and Teen Titans were among the only books discontinued specifically so they could be relaunched. (It remains to be seen if any of the six latest discontinuations will also lead to relaunches.) Batman Incorporated is one of the only titles ended at an author’s insistence. Animal Man is one of the only titles afforded extra time to tell a real ending. Most of DC’s cancelled titles ended swiftly and unceremoniously, and in some cases acrimoniously.
Marvel’s discontinuations have had a different flavor. Books like Young Avengers and Superior Spider-Man ended because the authors were finished telling those stories, and cancellations that pave the way for relaunches are much more common at Marvel; see Captain Marvel, Daredevil (both pre-NOW titles), Indestructible Hulk, Wolverine & The X-Men, Secret Avengers, the two X-Force books (recently replaced by one), the two Fantastic Four books (also replaced by one) and Avengers Arena, which told a complete story but led in to a new book, Avengers Undercover. Even titles like X-Men: Legacy, Avengers A.I., and Fearless Defenders, all of which felt like true cancellations, were allowed time to resolve their stories.
Let's break this down to three points. 1) Comparing data. 2) Characterisation of DC's cancellations. 3) "Strategic conclusions."
1) Comparing data.
So yes, numerically, Marvel are cancelling less, at least since Marvel NOW, which means we're comparing a two-year period for Marvel with a three-year period for DC. That might actually make a difference because the first year of the reboot for DC saw an eight month period with no cancellations. But even if it does, I'm not going to contend that right now DC are cancelling at a higher rate than Marvel. Partly because - as noted - they've had longer to see their books fail, and partly because they've been cancelling down so they have space to launch the weeklies. (Look, there's that glaring omission again).
The point is, I basically agree with the article here. Marvel is cancelling slightly slower, but at a close enough rate and with enough circumstantial reasons for that discrepancy that they're basically comparable. The real story is in the whys and the hows. (Which begs the question of the article's DC CANCELS HUGE NUMBERS OF COMICS! title, but there you go.)
2) Characterisation of DC's cancellations
We need to start with correcting something: Animal Man actually ended because the writer was done telling his story also, so does that make it a "legitmate" cancellation like Batman: Incorporated? Superman Unchained was retroactively declared a limited series (which will be ending soon) because the creative team were done with it, even though it was originally announced as an ongoing. DC elected to end it on creative terms rather than get a new team to continue it even though it was wildly commercially successful.
Meanwhile The Movement actually was afforded extra time to finish its story despite horrible sales. It's hard to know how many others are in this position because a lot of writers don't talk about it publicly or if they do, may be attempting to maintain professionalism. Certainly Static Shock stands as an example where the original writer left in very acrimonious circumstances and the new one didn't know it was about to be cancelled. On the other hand they kept Dial H around far longer than its numbers indicated, presumably to allow China Mieville a chance to wrap up his story since its final arc didn't seem rushed.
But broadly, I do wonder what the author's metric is for "swiftly and unceremoniously"? Talking about other series that have ended recently, Talon allowed Tynion IV to finish his story and then wound down the run with a few one-shots from guest writers. Katana's series basically played out like an 11 issue maxi-series and absolutely had narrative closure. The Dark Knight was cancelled because, thank the fucking lord, DC seemed to realise that Batman didn't need three solo ongoing series, and so is, I guess, gone for creative reasons, I guess - it certainly wasn't due to sales. There was nothing swift or unceremonious about the cancellation of Batwing or All-Star Western, both of which have lasted 34 issues with sales that "should" have seen them cancelled before they hit 20. There's no explanation for their longevity other than DC's commitment to them as part of their publication line. Superboy underwent a weird, awkward event crossover with the other Superbooks that ended up changing its main character about half a dozen issues ago and honestly I don't think that boosted sales like they were hoping, so now it's gone, but that indicates to me that the first thing they did was try to find a way to stabilise the sales, which doesn't sound like a swift, or unceremonious cancellation, even if it's not one that has a satisfying narrative resolution; the final writer was well-aware he was only hired for a single arc. Vibe feels a little like the writer was left to cobble together an ending in two dozen pages, for sure, so maybe we can point to his title? Stormwatch is another one where an "internal reboot" and cast shift didn't boost sales, but again it lounged at well below cancellation figures for a really long time before DC actually pulled the plug, and again, it wrapped up its storyline.
So like...I'm genuinely not sure what he actually means by this. No examples are given as to which titles he thinks were thrown to the wolves. And while it's skewed towards sales, the actual circumstances seem somewhat mixed and basically in keeping with the Marvel examples. To suggest Marvel never finishes stuff after a random story arc has ended is absurd, and Journey Into Mystery would like to say hello.
On the other hand, if you want to talk about unceremonious cancellations, Marvel have a habit of stealth cancelling titles by simply not telling you in the solicits that it's the final issue and leaving you to wonder where they are when next month's come out. They did it to Fearless Defenders and to Venom (and technically to Captain Marvel, though that book was at least scheduled for a relaunch a few months later) just recently, and probably a bunch of others. They do it fairly regularly. Iron Patriot was recently stealth-downgraded to a mini series from an ongoing.
Also because I'm not sure where else I'd file this, the two Fantastic Four and two X-Force books that were recently relaunched into one? In both cases, the majority female team was the one that got axed.
3) "Strategic conclusions."
I believe the author means cancelling just to relaunch when using this phrase. As in, this book's not really cancelled because in a month or three it will be coming back like it was before, just with a new #1 issue.
I actually don't have a problem with doing this in certain circumstances. When there's a legitimate change to the status quo, and when you don't abuse it, a new #1 can provide a more appealing jumping on point for new reader than simply a new story arc or creative team. Nightwing ending and getting relaunched as a spy thriller called Grayson is a good example. Like, regardless of what the quality ends up being, there's a legitimate change in the style and tone and purpose of the book. Cancelling Teen Titans and launching it again two months later as New Teen Titans with essentially the same core cast, is not. I wasn't pleased when I read about it because my first thought was that it was a tactic taken straight out of Marvel's playbook because they do this all the damn time. A flaship title like Fantastic Four recently made it a whopping 16 issues before getting sent out for, well, its second reboot in 18 months.
I guess we could make some sort of argument about whether we could treat comic runs like seasons of television with brief hiatuses in between, but the problem is it doesn't work. Wolverine is the other comic that got caught in both a Marvel Now and an All-New Marvel Now relaunch and both show a very clear pattern.
The relaunch provides a temporary boost to sales before quickly slipping, usually down to lower than pre-relaunch numbers. The effect is heightened the second time its relaunched.
Of course, this isn't always the case - as the linked article notes - it did seem to benefit Spider-man. We don't have much sales data on the Captain Marvel relaunch yet, but based on the first two issues, the 2014 #1 sold about 2,500 more copies than the 2012 #1, but the 2014 #2 sold about 500 less than the 2012 #2.
There's a real question about how it helps the industry to boost sales with short-term fixes like repeated #1s, increased shipping, lower page counts for higher prices - all practices which Marvel engage in with higher frequency than DC. It's not sustainable and it doesn't bring in new readers. It's certainly not evidence of knowing how to reach out to a wider audience (which seems to be this article's implication?) I mean you are literally repeatedly relaunching things in an attempt to sell the same stuff over and over again. It's the definition of not trying anything new.
Marvel has proved an indulgent caretaker of its books since its major line-wide makeover, and benefited from taking a different approach to DC. Marvel didn’t flood the market with a whole new line of books in a single month; it released them slowly to give smaller titles more of a chance. The publisher never bound itself to the idea that every cancellation had to be matched with a launch. It pitched books to different audiences, relied on creators to make the titles distinctive, and gave creators room to tell whole stories - and, at least in some cases, end them if they so chose.
I don't feel I'm in a position to judge whether the Marvel method or the DC method of rebooting a few per month rather than all at once is better.
I will say that the DC reboot boosted the entire comics industry for several years at a time when it was in crisis. Which of course doesn't necessarily mean it was positive if your goal was getting attention for lesser known titles or specific characters. It almost certainly led to an unacceptable level of editorial micromanagement responsible for several professional fuckups, and on a broad level I think it's fair to criticise DC for not giving their writers the latitude Marvel often extends.
I think the main issue with a slower release cycle in the context of this article, though, is simply that this process is both newer than DC's relaunch and ongoing. The author is comparing something that happened almost three years ago to something that in some cases happened a month ago or has yet to happen.
The article's statement that Marvel is an "indulgent caretaker" is never really explained. The assertion is there, but I have no idea how it fits with the facts. The one example he gives of a book allowed time to finish its storylines despite low sales - Fearless Defenders - had a final issue that sold higher than nearly every cancelled DC book and sold nearly twice what Katana's last issue sold (a DC solo starring a woman of colour cancelled around the same time).
Allowing a low-selling title to continue so that the story can resolve may seem like an unsound business decision, but the good faith it establishes with audiences and creators may benefit the publisher’s relationship with both, encouraging writers to commit to a publisher they know will give them room to reach, and encouraging readers to try new titles that they would otherwise expect to fail. Allowing for an ending may also net rewards in sales of book collections - the comics equivalent of a TV show reaching enough episodes to be sold into syndication. Completed stories are a more appealing book sales prospect than stories with no ending.
Yes I agree, and I would point out that DC will reliably allow a book to fall further in the sales charts before cancelling it than Marvel does. I'd also point out that DC seems to care much more about its trades than Marvel. It outperforms them in the bookstore market, keeps then in print longer, and regularly publishes original graphic novels specifically for that market.
I also agree that this sort of behaviour establishes trust in the readership, and that's exactly why I do not trust Marvel at all.
Call me when they've published a Western for 34 issues, a historical fanstasy adventure with a trans character for 23, a gothic horror about vampires for 20, when it can't just launch five books about women, but can provide me with the reasonable expectation that in a few years they'll still be there. Call me then.
Or like...show me ANY Marvel book that this description apparently applies to, because I'll be honest, giving Fearless Defenders 12 issues instead of 8 doesn't feel like a magical balm for my soul, because, whoop-de-doo, they didn't actively cancel it in the middle of a story arc.
DC quietly dropped its strict commitment to a 52-title line and freed itself from that churn, but the publisher still seems more committed to volume and turnover than to soliciting the affection of readers or creators. There is potentially some virtue to a high turnover approach; it allows a publisher to be radical in its exploration of concepts.
But “radical” is not a word many would use to describe DC’s current output. Indeed, the New 52 line has been marked across its three years by such stark homogeneity that even writers and artists known for bringing personality to their work have been largely subsumed into a house style that renders them flavorless. The creators who still stand out are either those with the most power and/or acclaim, like Geoff Johns, Greg Capullo, Scott Snyder, Francis Manapul and Cliff Chiang, or those who don’t seem to last long at the company.
Wait, I thought a minute ago we were talking about how DC were fucking themselves over because they DID have a slavish devotion to a 52-title line...
But okay, snark aside, I really think it's worth exploring that comment about volume and turnover. It seems slightly spurious when DC have been cancelling far more than they've been launching for the last year. As of August they'll be down to (I think) 34 of their regular 52 titles because they're making space for the weekly comics. These add to the volume, sure, but not to the turnover; if anything they're the sort of commitment to a narrative conclusion that you'd think the author would approve of, given DC's guaranteeing a series comprising a many comics as you'd normally get in several years.
The more immediately pressing point, though, is that since this article is only talking DC's monthly titles, it's talking about a far, far smaller number of titles than DC usually has to offer in comprison to Marvel's full stable.
I do agree that DC would benefit from allowing its creators more freedom. But while I think that they could stand to loosen their vicelike editorial grip, I also think that Marvel could stand to deliberately widen their line a little. The author is right that I wouldn't apply "radical" to DC's line up, but as I noted, they've tried several war comics, westerns, numerous fantasy books, books about magic, space adventures, martial arts, humour, horror, angry young revolutionaries, technospies and metatextual surreality. Marvel also has a house style (even if it's a more popular Whedon-esque mix of humour and drama) and also has outlier books by name-recognised creators that stand out in terms of narrative or artistic approach.
Their line has become more homogenous as they failed to find audiences for these books and have replaced them with the weeklies instead of more of the same (though they're launching a spy book, a zombie war comic and a pulpy scifi adventure in the next few months). Perhaps we should indeed hold them to account for this failure. Perhaps this was a bad way to go about trying to publish a broader variety of stuff. But describing their attempts over the last two and a half years as "homogenous" seems disingenuous.
That’s not to say that DC takes no chances. Within this latest raft of cancellations are a few books that DC tried to find an audience for long after the point where they might have understandably pulled the plug. Female-led team book Birds of Prey, separated from its most famous author Gail Simone (and from its founding character, the wheelchair-using hero Oracle), struggled for a long time to find an audience. Batwing, DC’s last solo title led by a character of color, was a first wave New 52 title that never performed well yet still made it to 34 issues. (In the process it swapped its African lead character for an African-American lead character more closely tied to the established Batman mythos.)
DC couldn’t find an audience for these books. That may be because that audience couldn’t find these books, rather than because the audience isn’t there. DC’s monolithic house style and devotion to event-driven storytelling do not create an inviting environment for new or diverse readers. That would be fine if DC’s old familiar readers could support a 52-title line (or something close to 52 titles), but the rate of cancellations suggests this isn’t the case. DC’s core audience can’t support such a sprawling line, but DC’s editorial approach can’t reach a wider audience.
I'll note that Batwing isn't the last lead character of colour; John Stewart is now the sole lead in Green Lantern Corps because Guy ran off to join the Reds, but his name isn't in the title, and that makes a difference, and dear god, I'm not going to try and act like having one makes it all right. Especially since one of the professional fuckups I alluded to above was apparently someone walking off GLC because editorial suggested killing the character. Which fortunately now isn't happening, but...look my point isn't that this is okay, I just don't want to erase John Stewart. Hooray John Stewart! Boo like...everything else related to this topic.
I don't have much of an actual bone to pick with any of this other than the suggestion that DC is somehow more event-driven than Marvel. That seems like an odd suggestion. DC tends to have more small crossovers, where related books will share stories for a few issues, or reference something that happened in another title, but Marvel definitely have more giant World-Altering-Events-That-Change-Everything.
It may also be worth noting that Birds of Prey's last issue pre-reboot was 15 and sold ~26K while post reboot issue 15 sold ~24k, so it was lower, but it was stable in the same range. BoP was the highest selling book cancelled in this wave and I think the best candidate for a quick relaunch, as much as I have mixed feelings about those. I guess I'm just saying, DC kind of didn't fail to find its audience for this one. They just made a disappointing decision when sales attrition hit a certain level.
And as a final note - hey look, the weeklies again! Wouldn't this have been a good place to mention them as an enormous, deliberate change in publishing tactics when talking about DC's (possibly doomed) attempts to capitalise on and/or grow its audience? No? Just me? Okay. Moving on.
Marvel once again provides the natural point of comparison as the only other publisher doing what DC does on the same scale. While DC says farewell to its last solo POC hero title in August, Marvel will have seven such titles on the stands that month - Ghost Rider, Iron Patriot, Miles Morales: Ultimate Spider-Man, Ms. Marvel, Nova, Spider-Man 2099, and Storm - as well as the minority-dominated team books Mighty Avengers and All-New Ultimates. Marvel will also have six solo titles with female leads in August - Black Widow, Captain Marvel, Elektra, Ms. Marvel, Storm, and She-Hulk, plus the female team book X-Men. DC only just retains its established lead for female heroes thanks to the addition of a digital-first Wonder Woman anthology, Sensation Comics, joining World’s Finest, Batgirl, Batwoman, Catwoman, Harley Quinn, Supergirl, and Wonder Woman.
Okay so, point above about DC still having one PoC lead aside, because that's fucking abysmal, I have one overriding comment: we're talking about DC at a time when it's running at 34 of its regular 52 titles and a time when Marvel is actively launching books as part of a brand new initiative.
As far as the issue of women is concerned, to be honest with you, I think Marvel should be ashamed that even with an 18 title handicap DC have them beat. Particularly considering not a single one of those books was being published in January 2014 (and Storm is still upcoming), because, for the second time in three years Marvel cancelled every single one of their female solo books.
Look, Ms Marvel is a damn revelation. I love it. It's fucking brilliant, and wonderfully, miraculously, it's selling really well. Like well enough I feel like it'll be around for a few years, and I look forward to spending money on it every month. It is amazing and important that it exists and it deserves all the praise.
I hope Marvel looks at it, works out what magic G Willow Wilson is working, and PUT HER IN CHARGE OF EVERYTHING.
I laud Marvel for seeming to have said, "Jesus guys, our female line-up sucks! Let's make a concerted effort to publish more women in their own titles!"
But given their history, I think it's reasonable to want to wait more than three months before deciding they've Solved Women In Comics Praise Baby Jesus.
Regarding characters of colour, that's tough because in general, I think Marvel do better than DC here. But I do think it's worth pointing out that, again, we get a list of seven solo titles and two majority PoC teams, as a snapshot based on the July solicitations, approximately six months after All-New Marvel NOW started its staggered rollout (and since the publication of the ComicsAlliance article, one of those ongoings has ALREADY been downgraded to a mini series and July is its final issue). If we look at DC six months after its reboot, it had six solo titles with PoC leads (Mister Terrific, Batwing, OMAC, Voodoo, Static Shock, Blue Beetle) and two co-leads (Fury of Firestorm, Green Lantern Corps). Still numerically inferior to Marvel, but much, much closer.
And it's probably relevant to note that in 2012, Marvel also cancelled all but one of their poc leads. And this was at a time when the above were all still being published by DC. The pendulum was in almost the exact opposite position.
This isn't a defence. Like I'll actually defend DC on their ability to reliably publish female-lead comics up to a point. I have no desire to do so when talking about poc leads. But I am trying to illustrate why I don't trust Marvel either. Not until they maintain this for a good while longer.
Most of these Marvel titles are very new - Storm and Spider-Man 2099 haven’t even launched yet - so we’re in unproven territory. It’s possible that all of these titles will be gone within a year, and it’s unlikely that any of them will sell Avengers numbers.
Yet Marvel’s approach to publishing seems to give these books a better shot at success than they’d have at DC. Post-NOW, Marvel has shown a willingness to give new books the spotlight and the time they need, and a commitment to creative teams that encourages confidence and distinctiveness. Marvel also shows a greater sensitivity to creating minority-led books that might actually appeal to a minority audience - for example, presenting most of its solo female heroes in a way that isn’t designed to pander primarily to straight male readers.
Holy inexplicable assumptions, Batman! How have they shown that willingness? This article keeps claiming it, but I don't see how it makes it true.
Let's break this down. Marvel have given us something of a gift with their relaunch of their own relaunch, because we had Marvel NOW from October 2012 - February 2013 and then All New Marvel NOW from January - July 2014. So let's take a look at the female-led, poc-led, majority-non-white-cishet-male books that were part of Marvel NOW and see how they did!
(I'm doing my best with the team books - I sincerely apologise if I've missed one I should have included):
FF - majority female team, 16 issues, cancelled.
Fearless Defenders - all female-team, 12 issues, cancelled.
Morbius: the Living Vampire - included because it's a rare example of Marvel going for a shift in genre? 9 issues, cancelled.
Nova - lead is mixed race white/hispanic dude, still ongoing.
Uncanny X-Force - majority female team - 17 issues, cancelled.
X-Men - all-female team, still ongoing
Young Avengers - majority non-straight-white-het-dudes, 15 issues, cancelled.
Captain Marvel - female lead, 17 issues, cancelled (although relaunched four months later)
Journey Into Mystery - with Sif as the lead - 10 issues, cancelled.
Red She-Hulk - female lead, 10 issues, cancelled.
So, you know, based on that I think that in a year? No, probably they won't be cancelled. In 18 months? Pretty damn likely. 2 of those 10 titles survived; 3 if you count a tactical cancellation/relaunch, though I outline above why I think that's a dangerous sales practice. When you consider that X-Men not only has a prestigious title that can command sales (which like, that's not a criticism - it's a great idea to use that kind of clout to highlight a book like this; see also DC's decision to launch Batwoman as a solo character in Detective) and was also written by a very big name writer, it's only Nova that's been an underdog success story demonstrating the benefits of Marvel's apparently new and patient outlook.
Which leaves me not entirely sure what the author thinks Marvel is specifically doing to give these titles the time and space they need to find audiences. It's not tolerating low sales, that's for sure. Every single one of these titles was cancelled at a sales level DC has been known to tolerate.
The final line suggests that there's a content component to their success. That's a really difficult thing to judge, and is validly gonna rest on personal opinion in some situations.
But since it specifies the presentation of women, let's talk about that. We all remember how DC tried to put pants on Wonder Woman and their fanbase threw a fit so they got rid of them. Okay, whatever, maybe they shouldn't have caved maybe they should have, but say what you like about the book itself, she's consistently drawn by Chiang and his fill-in artists in an impressively unsexualised way. She's about power in her own book, and there are no broke-back poses to be found. I'm not sure how that's different to Pulido's take on She-Hulk, who also wears not-very-much in her superheroine persona? Batgirl, Batwoman, Pandora, Strix in BoP, all wear full-covered clothing and aren't generally drawn in a sexualised way. If we want to talk about them specifically changing Captain Marvel's costume to something less revealing, we can equally point to Huntress who's finally out of her godawful weird bikini and back into a functional full-body suit. Supergirl's outfit has always been a little revealing, but then again so is Elektra's and a lot of it is in how it's drawn. Supergirl's stuck with a lot of random fill-in artists right now, but Mahmoud Asrar's long initial run was full of beautiful, understated, watery felt-tip that focused far more on her face than her body.
Let's be honest, the dude's probably referring to that OMFG CATWOMAN/BATMAN SEX! thing from the relaunch and Harley Quinn's stupid new outfit.
Catwoman's a sexual character, and that just...doesn't bother me. I didn't agree with most of the criticisms of the comic at the time (she spends about 90% of it talking to you about her own life, goals, desires, hanging out with another woman talking about things that aren't dudes, then at the end, decides she'd like to bang Batman and proceeds to very deliberately seduce him; her control of the situation is not ambiguous). I'm kind of more upset that the backlash led to DC panicking and making Judd Winnick change his storyline, and as a result we never got a Catwoman who totally worked out Batman's secret identity. Even if you disagree with me (which is fine), it's been 20 issues since that run, and the current run (which is written by a woman; not that that rubberstamps it against misogyny of course) has been characterised FAR more by quixotic surreality than femme fatal sex appeal.
I fucking hate Harley Quinn's stupid skimpy outfit, I hate it I hate it I hate it it's dumb.
I also hate that it's probably part of the reason no one's talking about the fact her comic - cowritten by a woman, and entirely in the wacky hijincks tradition of the DC Animated Universe where she hangs out with Poison Ivy and joins the roller derby - spent three months in the top ten and outsells every non-event comic DC puts out except Batman and Justice League.
Like, just think about that for a second. The third-best selling comic DC has right now - and her sales have stabilised at this level - is Harley Quinn.
Okay wait, I'm drifting.
Right, the point. Yeah, Harley Quinn's new outfit sucks balls, but that's not representative of the comic. And I still think it's an unfair generalisation to overlook the vast majority of DC's heroines who are either sensibly dressed or very deliberately drawn in a way that is not sexualised (i.e. Wonder Woman as drawn by Chiang). The author's opinion feels more like a regurgitation of the semi-regular anger that hits when there's a particularly gross comic cover, or costume change, than a reflection of what's really there.
And yes, what's portrayed in the media matters to new readers. And if potential readers see a stream of terrible DC covers, that will affect their willingness to buy the books.
But also, Marvel can publish uncomfortable shit like this (that's less than a year old) with no outraged coverage at all, but show Wonder Woman wrapped in Superman's cape and it's a story big enought to warrant a statement from the artist. To what degree is new readers' perception determined by what the fandom chooses to talk about?
On paper, Marvel’s rate of cancellation isn’t wildly different to DC’s, but in practice Marvel’s measured approach to scheduling and promotion creates the appearance of greater stability. When Marvel cancels a book, it’s usually a sign that a gamble didn’t pay off. DC’s 47 cancellations in the past three years aren’t evidence of a willingness to gamble. They’re evidence of a market that simply doesn’t have room to accommodate 52 titles predominantly built around the same conservative audience and aesthetic models.
A new line of 52 titles was an ambitious idea for a relaunch, and many industry insiders and commentators credit that initiative with injecting a much needed if short term commercial boost to the American business. But that fast-approaching 52nd cancellation shows that DC didn’t have what it takes to follow through on its ambitions.
Or perhaps you can just write an article that makes it look that way?
I honestly have absolutely no idea how to even refute the notion that Marvel's failures constitute unlucky gambles, while DC's don't. Like fucking for real, that argument only makes sense if DC's line really is homogenous, but I've already detailed that they have more diversity of gender, have utterly fucked up maintaining but have launched an equal number of titles dealing poc leads, and lead drastically in attempts to widen the genres that can be included in a superhero universe. Most of those titles failed, so maybe the problem is that they can't find people outside of their conservative audience? But it's sure as hell not a failure because all they're doing is pandering to them and then they're like "sorry, not enough cash this month!". Or like, I guess it might be. But then it's mighty weird that it's all the books that aren't white dudes in capes that are failing, you know?
Without attempting to absolve them of a duty to do Better Advertising and get their PR in order, we spend an awful lot of time talking about how DC aren't sure how to widen their audience, when we, as the audience, do nothing but tear them down.
When they publish the books we purport to want, no one fucking reads them. They published an epic fantasy adventure story about a teenage girl, written by the woman who wrote Jem and the Holograms. No one bought it. No one even talked about it. They published a teen team book that was majority queer, majority female, majority poc, led by a character who was all three, written by a fan-favourite author. No one bought it. They told a deconstructionist superhero story written by China Mieville, starring a male person of size and a female senior citizen. No one bought it. They published a historical fantasy with a romance between a trans man and an Amazon that actively dealt with her reflexive assumption that he was "really" a woman. No one bought it.
None of those books were books with scandals or PR disasters attached. Most of them were critically acclaimed. They just...never got any serious press coverage or social traction.
And DC bears some of that responsibility, for real. But I think the absolute stillbirth of The Movement illustrates the way we, as fandom, at least for right now, have decided what the DC narrative is, and we're done giving them a chance. It doesn't actually matter what they're doing.
Or in the case of this article, done even writing accurately about what they're doing, it seems.
Because as I've said numerous times, this article seems to be completely ignoring DC's latest shift towards weekly titles.
I legitimately have no idea if it will work, if it will be sustainable, if it will produce good stories or if it will help characters that need a boost get a boost, but it is a huge shift in DC's publication strategy and for an article that's purporting to explain how DC has no idea how to adapt to a changing market, it seems SUPER WEIRD to me that it would ignore this huge and current shift. Especially since it seems to specifically address his main complaint: that 52 different titles is too many.
Now maybe replacing a ton with fewer, but weekly ones, is just gonna have the same problems as double or triple shipping. Or maybe the inherent limited nature of them will maintain interest, at least if this is something they do for a year or so, not as their new publication model forever. But...we don't know, and it's a very clear indication that DC have seen their slipping sales, and rather than reboot or relaunch, they're going to shift gears and try something different.
As a closing point I'd also note that, while I am firmly in the camp that there's something specifically important about having ones name on the marquee, and have therefore always resisted trying to quantify how well team books do at representation unless it's something physically notable like who it's led by or who the majority of characters are, it probably is worth mentioning that these weeklies genuinely seem like efforts to give supporting characters a spotlight.
Batman: Eternal is bringing back Stephanie Brown, elevating Harper Row to a fully-fledged Batfamily hero and apparently telling an enormous paradigmatic shift for Catwoman. Future's End's main characters seem to be almost entirely made up of characters from cancelled books of the characters from those cancelled books including Amethyst, Mister Terrific and Firestorm. Information on World's End is extremely sparse, but it's set on Earth 2, which in addition to having Huntress and Power Girl, is a world where Superman is a young black man, Green Lantern is gay, Aquaman is a woman of colour and so is Hawkgirl, Lois Lane is a superhero robot, Doctor Fate is middle eastern and the World Army is run by a Sikh man and a Japanese woman. And that's not even everyone.
So uh, yeah. I don't think the weeklies are a fair straight-up replacement for vehicles where marginalised characters get a chance to shine. But I also think it's important to note that even when they are being billed as WORLD SHATTERING EVENTS, DC is mostly choosing to let less well-known characters star in them. Like...I think that is worth something.