Can you help me locate comics, Magna, etc. that contain consumer products embedded in their story lines?

Thanks.

Peter A. Maresco, Ph.D.
The John F. (Jack) Welch College of Business
Sacred Heart University
Fairfield, CT 06825-1000

That is all.

Now many people were in these groups? 2? 20? 200?

What were their genders? Male? Female? Both? If both, what was the percentage of the gender spread?

How old were these people?

Answers to these questions might go a long way to explaining some of what seems so inexplicable. And considering how heavily DC seems to be relying on the results from these focus groups, I think it’s not an unreasonable set of questions to ask.

It also amazes me that people jump to conclusions, without any specific evidence either way, that certain creators were or weren’t approached and that maybe some of these creators didn’t want to submit a pitch to DC this go around for this line of books.

I’ve yet to see substantiative list (and doubt I or we ever will offically) from DC of who was or was not solictied to put in pitches and who was either denied from DC’s side or who passed from the creator’s side.

I find it hard to believe that a line that his being headed by two of the more prominent females in the major comic publishing industry are purposely leaving out female creators as some sort of continuation of industry misogyny.

Couldn’t it just be that they’re printing the best pitches they got in accordance with whatever mission statement they have for this new imprint, regardless of gender?

Or is everything suddenly atuomatically a conspiracy against some group of people?

http://hopelarson.livejournal.com/113972.html

It’s a shame they couldn’t get more women involved. I mean, they’ve got some talented people lined-up, but if you’re planning to target girls…?

Scholastic didn’t seem to have trouble finding 2 female creators for their line of Teen graphic novels. Which launches in January 2007. Next month folks. Just thought I’d add that….

Thanks, Nat. I’m nevertheless still curious about what if any take Andrea Grant has on the matter, since there would seem to me to be even more of a potential for confusion now than before. As far as I know she’s not made any noise about changing the name of her book (though she HAS mentioned changing her hair color, which, as primary model for the eponymous, white-haired character, would make it seem as though she’s no longer going that route).

This is the best I’ve read in the discussion after the article. The gender topic should be dropped, it is not relevant for the MINX book itself.
Girls will like to read it,

In comics, I feel is more important the story. Bring me an AUTHOR regardless the gender. If they have talent, it will show . They will show passion to tell their stories, gender is not the issue.
I could bet the editors Shelly and Karen felt the same way.

About titles, Aaron hit the spot, girls were offered ten or more options for a title, and they choose Minx- not for the sexual connotation, but surely becuse they found the word fun. I feel the same is when you mention “Bratz” - girls love them, despite many adults cringe and shudder and try to call the dolls insulting names.

Maybe the current generation has less problems admiting they are feeling good for whom they are than our generations did. They take words we would not have liked in our times and make them theirs- with a fun twist- such is Minx.

I like DC is trying this, hopefully more and more authors will join.
As for female authors, the times have changed, TokyoPop has proved this - the issue of gender is being pushed aside in favor of talent - not labeled by your sex.
Female or male, times now require you to go and pitch your works, over and over and stop using the gender banner as your war cry.

Btw, Great report as always, Heidi ~ =^..^= ~ Tavi

I just wanted to say that it’s rare to see a perspective like Thomas Gerhardt’s… his article was very well written and very enlightening. Someone taking a realistic, purely-commercial approach to marketing comics to the “ordinary folks”, who from my experience tend to be people who don’t give a rat’s ass about comics lore/history. I guess it sounds awful to be talking about the “market potential” of an author rather than his/her work, but then the book industry has been doing this since forever. Having a good-looking, interesting author DOES seem to have a tendency to sell books. I guess what Thomas has said is just touching on the same marketing principles. Once upon a time, you sold books. These days, you sell the author, who if they have a great personality, sells their own books. *shrugs* To discount that factor just because you’re doing comics and not books is… odd. The image of the author is definately important in this Age of Personality we’re living in.

I wish DC good luck. Regardless of the controversy surrounding the “Minx” line, I want to see it succeed. If it does, it will open alot of doors, and that can only mean positive things for the industry.

It should also be noted that Scott Westerfeld’s books are scifi rather than simply books about the everyday life of teen girls.

If there are readers who won’t buy ShutterBox because I am a man then I don’t want them reading my work anyway.

You, however, are not a teen girl looking to read something about being a teen girl. Saying that teen girls are less likely to pick up books about being a teen girl if they are not written by someone who has ever been a teen girl is not the same as saying that some people won’t read mysteries written by women. It’s more like someone saying they prefer mysteries written by people who have actual experience in law enforcement. I wouldn’t necessarily do the same, but then I don’t read mysteries anyway.

I am, however, more cautious about scifi books written by male authors, having bought a lot of stuff that reeks of “boys club” over the years (and regretted it). It’s not that I think the guys aren’t as good or can’t write stuff I’ll relate to (have I mentioned how awesome Scott Westerfeld’s stuff is?) but that there’s a greater chance I won’t relate to it, so I’m more cautious and more likely to wait for reviews before I buy scifi written by men.

You just gave it all away for free on the Internet.

I understand the concept of commercial pursuits making the money one can then use to pay for their own more personal works, the time I spent in animation (with Aaron) reminds me of that fact. But the Oprah thing sounds like building another Wal Mart in the desert (the kind that picks up stakes and moves on to another town after a slight profit is made). It may get the line a big initial boost, but it wouldn’t have long term staying power if the stories don’t generate a sincere word-of-mouth culture among readers. So it sounds like Shelly chose what would have the greatest potential for sincere word-of-mouth among girls and then, as Heidi said, added Cecil as the Oprah sitter. Making decisions that last a lifetime instead promoting a single fireworks show is not only more reasonable but more responsible to society as a whole (basically 15 minutes of fame vs. a lifetime).

But anyway, I don’t think I said artists should be writing for editors. I think artists should be writing things for, well, themselves (an even smaller demographic!). In other words, they should focus on characters and ideas they find personally interesting. If those ideas connect with a big audience, they get big success. If they connect with a small audience, they get small success. If it’s too insular to connect with anyone, well, at least they got to make some art, I guess. The point is, audiences can tell when they’re being pandered to.

(That’s why I think Shelly and Karen’s approach was smart, by the way. They reached out to artists that had already been successful with female audiences and told them to do whatever they like (with editorial control, of course; it wasn’t chaos).

But that’s a pretty typical artists’ “in a perfect world, I could do what I want” perspective, of course. Feel free to destroy me.

for advice to DC: my daily rate on consulting is € 1,500. Yep, I am not cheap.

As or personal taste being paramount, I will say another thing to piss off editors everywhere. (and there goes another chance LOL) If you are writing to please your editor, you are writing to a market of ONE. That’s not really a big market now, is it?

When it comes to commercialism vs. integrity or lofty goals, the one allows for the other. Look at Conde Naste. Vanity Fair has never gotten and will never get them a decent profit. The mag is way too expensive to produce to get a profit. You know where they make their money that pays for Annie Leibowitz and cover shoots that cost in the range of 100k? Glamour. Yep. One of the most… mundane shopping/make-up tips/whatever magazines out there. They keep throwing money at Vanity Fair for one reason alone: corporate positioning. WITHOUT Vanity Fair, it would be difficult for them to get some of the celebs they want.