IDW becoming the next big comic company?

[Thespeckledkiwi]

Has anyone notice how strong IDW has become in the last few years? They began with Transformers as one of their big flag ship comics but recently acquired GI Joe and Ghostbusters. They also acquired Star Trek a couple years back. They also published Angel, and recently a one-shot at the presidential candidates. I mean they have a few big name franchises in their lists, I was amazed. It looks like they are coming up in the comic book industry.

 

[MNM]

Has anyone notice how strong IDW has become in the last few years? They began with Transformers as one of their big flag ship comics but recently acquired GI Joe and Ghostbusters. They also acquired Star Trek a couple years back. They also published Angel, and recently a one-shot at the presidential candidates. I mean they have a few big name franchises in their lists, I was amazed. It looks like they are coming up in the comic book industry.

They charge too much and dont offer enough of their own original characters, they rely nearly solely on licensed properties. They'll never be anything more than another indie.

 

[C.E. Evans]

Dynamite Entertainment is pretty much even with IDW, IMO. They too have acquired a lot of licensed properties and generally compete for shelf space with the IDW titles...

 

[zenophite]

It's too late. we've already passed the cultural impact point where there can be another DC or Marvel, their characters are already imprinted in the public consciousness.

 

[Allyn Gibson]

They'll never be anything more than another indie.

In terms of market share, they're now hanging with Image and Dark Horse.

They charge too much...

I sort of agree with this. They're priced at $3.99 an issue, while the industry is still hanging at $2.99. Partly, I think their ad philosophy is to blame; they only run in-house ads. If IDW sold ad space to other companies (like game companies, soft drink companies, the like), that could bring their price down. Or, when the industry moves to the $3.99 price point, they can stand there and still get the ad revenue.

They dont offer enough of their own original characters...

That's not exactly true. They have Steve Niles' 30 Days of Night. There's Joe Hill's Locke & Key.

They rely nearly solely on licensed properties.

Not true. They have a pretty eclectic line-up, from books for kids to classic Dick Tracy reprints. I can't think of a publisher that mixes indie and mainstream as well as IDW.

All that said, there are 2 things that IDW does, other than their price point, that hurts them.

First, they've collapsed the window between the initial periodical publication and the trade. In the Trek Literature forum, whenever a new Trek series is mentioned, it's invariable that several people will pipe up with, "I'm going to wait for the trade!" The trade publication is inevitable, it's roughly the same price as buying the issues individually (or you can get the trade cheaper than the issues form a vendor like Amazon), and it's out not long after the final issue hits stores. That rapid turnover from serial to trade is ultimately going to undercut their serial sales to an extent that some series may go away because they're not making enough money on the serial to justify the costs, even though they're going to be reaped on the trade.

(As a corrolary to this, that Amazon thing? Comic shops have got to be worried if they're losing business to Amazon. And if readers are dropping the floppies for a trade from Amazon, shops will cut orders on the floppies if they're not going to sell.)

Second, IDW incentivizes everything they publish. There are variant covers out the wazoo for nearly every book. This forces retailers wanting the variants to artificially inflate their orders, which can leave them with unsellable product if they can't move it by the time the trade comes out. It's a mid-90's publishing strategy that nearly destroyed the industry then.

My worry that their model may negatively affect the comic retailers they need to sell their product could be unfounded because, obviously, IDW's business model works for them, and they're now playing in the same leagues as Image and Dark Horse.

 

[Thespeckledkiwi]

The second problem is a problem plaguing the entire comic book industry actually.

 

[Allyn Gibson]

I wouldn't say it's plaguing the entire industry. Dark Horse generally only does variant covers on the Buffy season 8 comics. DC does variant covers, but they're not orderable covers; they're more often 50/50 covers in fulfillment. Marvel, however, does do a lot of orderable variants now.

I think that's done for two reasons. One, it's a legacy of the Jemas-era "no overprint" policy, so it encourages retailers to frontload their orders. And two, to get the variants retailers have to reach certain ordering plateaus, so it forces them to artificially inflate their orders.

I worry about that second point more with a publisher like IDW than I do with Marvel, because with the quick turnaround to trade on IDW's part, an artifically inflated order on an IDW title can leave a retailer with stock they can't move profitably once the trade hits. Marvel isn't as quick to trade. It still happens, but there's a longer window.

 

[MNM]

In terms of market share, they're now hanging with Image and Dark Horse.

Who are just other indies imo, neither of them are challenging to be the next Marvel or DC.

That's not exactly true. They have Steve Niles' 30 Days of Night. There's Joe Hill's Locke & Key.

They arent original properties that belong to IDW though are they? Like Spider-Man does to Marvel or Batman does to DC? If they dont then they can be taken away at some point, and just like the licensed properties I mentioned, it's a dangerous thing to rely on.

They have a pretty eclectic line-up, from books for kids to classic Dick Tracy reprints. I can't think of a publisher that mixes indie and mainstream as well as IDW.

In their december solicitations, out of 37 titles, around 19 are comics which are related to licensed properties, including Transformers, Star Trek, Ghost Whisperer, GI Joe, Angel, Speed Racer and Galaxy Quest. In my opinion having over half of your output be licensed properties is way too many to be relying on.

I personally think the price point is their main problem though, reduce that, by using the same quality paper that other companies use rather than the what they have now, and they would sell more.

 

[Christopher]

In terms of market share, they're now hanging with Image and Dark Horse.

Who are just other indies imo, neither of them are challenging to be the next Marvel or DC.

Who says that they, or IDW, need to? It's not like there are only two levels, "Marvel/DC" and "insignificant." Dark Horse and Image are major players, not as big as the big two but still quite successful. If IDW is matching their sales, that's very impressive.

That's not exactly true. They have Steve Niles' 30 Days of Night. There's Joe Hill's Locke & Key.

They arent original properties that belong to IDW though are they? Like Spider-Man does to Marvel or Batman does to DC? If they dont then they can be taken away at some point, and just like the licensed properties I mentioned, it's a dangerous thing to rely on.

IDW surely isn't the only company to publish creator-owned comics. Again, I don't see why Marvel and DC have to be the standard of comparison.

In their december solicitations, out of 37 titles, around 19 are comics which are related to licensed properties, including Transformers, Star Trek, Ghost Whisperer, GI Joe, Angel, Speed Racer and Galaxy Quest. In my opinion having over half of your output be licensed properties is way too many to be relying on.

I don't see that. If a company has proven it can specialize in quality tie-in comics, why is that not a valid and viable strategy? Heck, Pocket Books has been specializing in media tie-ins for decades, and it is still quite successful and tends to pick up a lot of tie-in licenses because it's proven itself capable in that specialized field. There are plenty of companies out there that specialize in original superhero comics or whatever. Why not have a company that specializes in something different?

 

[MNM]

Who says that they, or IDW, need to? It's not like there are only two levels, "Marvel/DC" and "insignificant." Dark Horse and Image are major players, not as big as the big two but still quite successful. If IDW is matching their sales, that's very impressive.

They dont have to be a Marvel or DC, but at the same time, comparing them to two other relatively small companies doesnt show them to be "the next big comic company".

If a company has proven it can specialize in quality tie-in comics, why is that not a valid and viable strategy? Heck, Pocket Books has been specializing in media tie-ins for decades, and it is still quite successful and tends to pick up a lot of tie-in licenses because it's proven itself capable in that specialized field. There are plenty of companies out there that specialize in original superhero comics or whatever. Why not have a company that specializes in something different?

There's nothing "wrong" with printing licensed properties or creator-owned properties. If IDW recieve enough sales and money from that method then good for them.

I simply say that they shouldnt rely on them as they are by definition not a long term resource that they have to use. The creators may take them somewhere else, they may loose the license for any of a million reasons, and when the licensed stuff and ceator owned stuff goes, if they dont have their own properties to fall back on and utilise, and they cant get new licensed stuff or creator owned titles, then they will decrease in output and sales.

And since the original question was "are IDW the next big comic company?", I consider licensed and creator owned stuff to be unrealiable as a means of output to become that.

 

[Allyn Gibson]

In terms of market share, they're now hanging with Image and Dark Horse.

Who are just other indies imo, neither of them are challenging to be the next Marvel or DC.

Eh, I wouldn't call Image and Dark Horse "indies." Yes, Image has fallen significantly since its mid-90s peak where it rivaled DC as the number 2 publisher in terms of market share, and Dark Horse has always had respectible numbers. For a long while now I've been buying more Dark Horse than Marvel.

Both Image and Dark Horse have evolved a good bit in the past fifteen years. Image has taken a chance on some really oddball projects -- I'm really curious to see how Shadowline's childrens book line fares. (I'm anxious to read Dear Dracula, if you must know.) They have the superhero fare still, but they also have a nice mix of horror, historical, and fantasy comics.

Dark Horse, which at one time was a powerhouse on the creator-owned front, has four major things going for them -- Hellboy, Buffy, Star Wars, and manga. Yeah, they're still Frank Miller's publisher of choice, but the days when they had a large line-up of creator-owned projects seems to have passed. Then they have things like the Robert E. Howard adaptations, and I wish they would do something with the Universal Monsters license and the Lankhmar license.

Maybe these projects don't scream "cultural icons" the way Batman and Spider-Man do, but Image and Dark Horse are significant players in the industry today, and they are likely to remain significant players for years to come.

That's not exactly true. They have Steve Niles' 30 Days of Night. There's Joe Hill's Locke & Key.

They arent original properties that belong to IDW though are they? Like Spider-Man does to Marvel or Batman does to DC? If they dont then they can be taken away at some point, and just like the licensed properties I mentioned, it's a dangerous thing to rely on.

Is that your definition of "indie" -- that the publisher doesn't own the properties they publish?

Yes, 30 Days and Locke & Key are creator-owned properties. They also happen to be properties that have garnered IDW a lot of favorable press. 30 Days is a freakin' franchise at IDW, it has spin-off novels, and a film. Locke & Key is the fastest selling IDW comic ever. Yes, Niles can probably take 30 Days elsewhere. Hill can probably take Locke elsewhere. But chances are they would want to move up with those properties -- to Marvel's Icon or DC's Vertigo -- rather than going to a smaller publisher with them. And there's no guarantee that they would get a better deal -- or better visibility -- with Icon or Vertigo. It's possible -- Bendis took Powers from Image to Icon, where it has since foundered and apparently died -- so I won't rule it out, but that's why creators want to own their properties. It's so that they can make the decisions.

In their december solicitations, out of 37 titles, around 19 are comics which are related to licensed properties, including Transformers, Star Trek, Ghost Whisperer, GI Joe, Angel, Speed Racer and Galaxy Quest. In my opinion having over half of your output be licensed properties is way too many to be relying on.

Obviously, Transformers is doing very well for IDW. I have the impression that Doctor Who, despite the distribution territories snafu, is doing well for them. GI Joe looks like it's going to be big. I have the impression that Star Trek's sales have been soft for them, and I'm curious to see how the Countdown prequel comic sells. And Angel has been a massive seller for them.

If it's selling, and if they're making money on it, there's no reason not to do it. If their licensing deals are working for them, if they're making money, and if those deals are working for the companies they're working with, that can give them the breathing room to try out other things. Something like The Dreamer, a comic that I'm really intrigued by, for instance. It's a Revolutionary War comic, and I have that on my pull-list.

I personally think the price point is their main problem though, reduce that, by using the same quality paper that other companies use rather than the what they have now, and they would sell more.

IDW prints in South Korea, which explains the different "texture" their comics have as they're using different papers and different inks. It's heavier paper, the inks are heavier (and they're noticably more odiforous).

 

[Christopher]

They dont have to be a Marvel or DC, but at the same time, comparing them to two other relatively small companies doesnt show them to be "the next big comic company".

I'd hardly call Dark Horse "small." Like I said, it's not like there are only two sizes. Uranus and Neptune aren't nearly as big as Jupiter or Saturn, but they still qualify as giant planets. Shaquille O'Neal isn't as big as Robert Wadlow, but he's definitely a big person. You don't have to be the biggest to be big.

There's nothing "wrong" with printing licensed properties or creator-owned properties. If IDW recieve enough sales and money from that method then good for them.

I simply say that they shouldnt rely on them as they are by definition not a long term resource that they have to use. The creators may take them somewhere else, they may loose the license for any of a million reasons, and when the licensed stuff and ceator owned stuff goes, if they dont have their own properties to fall back on and utilise, and they cant get new licensed stuff or creator owned titles, then they will decrease in output and sales.

As I said, Pocket's been thriving for decades with a property that they don't own, Star Trek. Paramount/CBS could take the ST license to some other publisher, sure. But it's been with Pocket for 27 years now, with no sign of any future change. So just because it's possible for a property to be taken away from a publisher, that doesn't mean it's impossible to have long-term success publishing such properties.

And since the original question was "are IDW the next big comic company?", I consider licensed and creator owned stuff to be unrealiable as a means of output to become that.

Surely the only thing that determines that would be their sales.

 

[Thespeckledkiwi]

You also have to think that in recent years IDW has been snatching up some big titles from Transformers to GI Joe to Ghostbusters...I mean those three 80s cartoons are actually pretty big in the comic book industry.

 

[Christopher]

You also have to think that in recent years IDW has been snatching up some big titles from Transformers to GI Joe to Ghostbusters...I mean those three 80s cartoons are actually pretty big in the comic book industry.

And the first two were originally published by Marvel, right? And Star Trek, another current IDW property, has been licensed to both DC and Marvel in the past. So even the big two can lose licensed titles.

 

[MNM]

Eh, I wouldn't call Image and Dark Horse "indies." Yes, Image has fallen significantly since its mid-90s peak where it rivaled DC as the number 2 publisher in terms of market share, and Dark Horse has always had respectible numbers. For a long while now I've been buying more Dark Horse than Marvel.

Is that your definition of "indie" -- that the publisher doesn't own the properties they publish?

No, my definition of indie in terms of a comic company is a small company in terms of the market leaders. Which IDW, Dark Horse, Image etc are. They sell no where near as much as Marvel or DC.

If it's selling, and if they're making money on it, there's no reason not to do it. If their licensing deals are working for them, if they're making money, and if those deals are working for the companies they're working with, that can give them the breathing room to try out other things. Something like The Dreamer, a comic that I'm really intrigued by, for instance. It's a Revolutionary War comic, and I have that on my pull-list.

Just so we are clear, I only say their reliance on licensed properties and creator owned is not a good business model to become "the next big comic company". Clearly it works enough for them to continue to be able to opertae amd make money. But that isnt the same thing.

I'd hardly call Dark Horse "small."

But at the same time they are not "big" compared to the market leaders.

As I said, Pocket's been thriving for decades with a property that they don't own, Star Trek. Paramount/CBS could take the ST license to some other publisher, sure. But it's been with Pocket for 27 years now, with no sign of any future change. So just because it's possible for a property to be taken away from a publisher, that doesn't mean it's impossible to have long-term success publishing such properties.

Again, I am not saying they cant have success or be a viable company with this method, they just wont become "the next big comic company" this way. Which was the question posed at the start of the thread.

Surely the only thing that determines that would be their sales.

Obviously. And the only IDW comic that sells anywhere near decent numbers is the Angel one. The rest sell no where near enough to make them a "big" company.

 

[Allyn Gibson]

No, my definition of indie in terms of a comic company is a small company in terms of the market leaders. Which IDW, Dark Horse, Image etc are. They sell no where near as much as Marvel or DC.

Nor are they going to. Nor will anyone else, really.

Marvel's current market share hovers around 50%. DC's market share hovers around 30%. That leaves 20% for the rest of the market. Dark Horse, Image, and IDW are all right around 5% each.

Now, I should qualify that. That's in the Direct Market. Newsstand distribution alters the numbers significantly. Archie, for instance, isn't a force in the Direct Market, but they're massive in the newsstand market. DC has some books -- the Johnny DC line -- that aren't big in the comic shops, because they're aimed at kids in the newsstand market.

The days of Image having a 20% market share are long past. Marvel's back in its dominant position, and there are people who think that Marvel can and should go higher in terms of market share.

Maybe 5% doesn't look big to you. But when you stop and think that every other publisher is splitting that remaining 5% piece of the pie, 5 percent is huge.

It's also worth noting that, for that 5 percent, IDW has to publish a hell of a lot fewer titles than Marvel publishes to get their 50 percent. Same for Dark Horse and Image. They publish fewer titles, they have a smaller market share, and they don't have to dominate the walls of the local comic shop to get their five percent of the pie.

 

[StarTrek1701]

Nor are they going to. Nor will anyone else, really.

Marvel's current market share hovers around 50%. DC's market share hovers around 30%.

Wait, what? How did Marvel get up there again after the fall from early 90's grace in the early 2000's? Their titles are now mostly fluff, and their big yearly stories can't seem to be paying any of the readers off. House of M was shit, so was Civil War. Only this year with Secret Invasion is it truly coming back to form slightly. DC has far better stories now with engaging storylines.

 

[OmahaStar]

As I said, Pocket's been thriving for decades with a property that they don't own, Star Trek. Paramount/CBS could take the ST license to some other publisher, sure. But it's been with Pocket for 27 years now, with no sign of any future change. So just because it's possible for a property to be taken away from a publisher, that doesn't mean it's impossible to have long-term success publishing such properties.

What are you talking about? Viacom owns Paramount. Viacom owns Simon & Schuster, which owns Pocket. Certainly they could take it to another company, but why would they? The way you describe it is, at best, disingenuous.

 

[Baerbel Haddrell]

I worry about that second point more with a publisher like IDW than I do with Marvel, because with the quick turnaround to trade on IDW's part, an artifically inflated order on an IDW title can leave a retailer with stock they can't move profitably once the trade hits. Marvel isn't as quick to trade. It still happens, but there's a longer window.

In the past I often heard the complaint that too many people don`t buy the single issues and wait for the trades instead. In a comic company that first of all looks at the sales of singles in order to find out if a comic is popular enough to continue it, that means cancellations even if the trades prove to be very popular later.

Therefore, to me as a layman, IDW`s approach makes much more sense. I can imagine that they keep the print run of the singles low and instead concentrate on the trades. Another advantage is that these trades are not just found in comic shops but also in book shops.

I noticed that Amazon is offering more comics, too and I started to pre-order some of the trades from Amazon myself. Not everyone has a comic shop nearby where you can browse and, for example, when I saw the IDW McCain/Obama comic I ordered it out of curiosity. Otherwise there is a good chance that I would never have bought it.

 

[Trent Roman]

Therefore, to me as a layman, IDW`s approach makes much more sense. I can imagine that they keep the print run of the singles low and instead concentrate on the trades. Another advantage is that these trades are not just found in comic shops but also in book shops.

I think the entire industry is eventually going to re-orient itself towards an emphasis on trades--leaning more towards the second part of 'graphic novel' in becoming less regular, but also meatier and more coherent a story, so more like novels--so I think IDW is actually ahead of the curve in this respect.

Creditorly yours, the Rent Woman