Pages

Showing posts with label digital vs. paper. Show all posts
Showing posts with label digital vs. paper. Show all posts

Wednesday, September 30, 2009

Tyrese Invented The Digital Comic Book

From CNN:

"There was an experience that I felt was pretty limiting as far as the comic book experience itself on paper," says Gibson, who stresses that he did not grow up reading comic books and is not a comic book veteran. "[So] I set up this technology with my team and this is the first-ever digital comic book [on iTunes] in the history of comic books."


Should we expect more people outside of comics with no/little familiarity with comics to pass over the paper format mostly/completely in favor for digital? Possibly.

Tuesday, February 24, 2009

Hulu Beats YouTube: "Old Media Strikes Back"


"Old Media Strikes Back" -- not my headline, but that of Newsweek's, in a post dated 2/21/09.

Newsweek's sub-heading:
"Hulu, founded by NBC and Fox, has become a better moneymaker than Web darling YouTube. The moral: better content wins."


My blog, a week ago:
"Authoritative vs. "Amateur" is the general crux of the mainstream media companies's...bid for pay-based content."

"The media companies are going to push "Authoritative" vs. "Amateur" within two years."


Again: my point is not that the YouTubes and Wikipedias of the world are amateur. My point is: big media will start to portray them as such though news reports and advertising.

From the Newsweek piece:

"Unlike YouTube, Hulu had legal access to great content—shows from NBC, Fox and others. And it had great technology—a clean, simple user interface and a smart search engine. Today, just one year after its launch, Hulu has gained the upper hand. "The empire is striking back," says Arash Amel, analyst for researcher Screen Digest. " (emphasis mine)


Now, the point can be made from reading the article that Hulu.com is making great money from their online advertising -- they are making money from *free content*.

But when we look closer at the advertising on Hulu -- it's resembling more and more traditional TV advertising!

"Hulu's team is trying new approaches to advertising that they hope will be more palatable to viewers, and more effective as well. One idea: a viewer can choose to see ads interspersed throughout a show, or can watch a single long advertisement up front. (But either way you can't skip through the ads.) Another example: a carmaker lets the viewer choose to see an ad for a pickup truck, a crossover SUV or a sports car—so the viewer gains some control, and the advertiser doesn't waste a pickup-truck ad on someone who wouldn't be caught dead in one."


Yes, it's placed differently. Yes, it's more "targeted" (which the media companies LOVE). But it's there, and you can't watch your Hulu show without watching it. Just like network TV. We've come full circle "This show brought to you by Lexus."

But then, can't the producers of independent videos -- like the ones on YouTube, for instance -- get these sweet ad deals too?

Big Media news outlet Newsweek pooh-poohs this idea:

"YouTube has lots of content, but from the perspective of advertisers much of it is utterly worthless. Nobody wants to tout their brand amid user-generated videos that could turn out to be almost anything..."


Yeah, nobody wants to see *amateur* stuff, the article is saying. They want to see "The Office." Right?

Newsweek:

"Fun as it may be to watch someone's kitten playing with a piece of string, last night's episode of "The Office" makes for a more compelling experience."


Sure, because...all the clips on YouTube are just kittens playing with string, right? Sure.

One more interesting tid-bit. Again, from the Newsweek piece:

"Hulu insists it's not really competing with YouTube. In fact, its real victim might be cable companies. Why pay $100 per month for a cable subscription when you can get so much great stuff online at no cost?"


And again, from my blog:

"I always told the BF that once another Hulu-type streaming video service comes out, we were going to have to cancel the cable."

"We have media media media (inexpensive media) coming out off our butts. Which is awesome. Sucks to be the cable companies, though."

Next up? Look for sites like Hulu creating separate "premium" channels that you have to subscribe to. Just like the traditional cable model. Full circle.

Saturday, February 21, 2009

Comics Recession "Doomsday" Scenarios

Get it?

We brought this up over brunch:

What if we had a "doomsday" scenario in the industry and Diamond suddenly folded (or massively scaled back)?

Would this interrupt the shipping of comics until it was all sorted out? Or are there backup plans?

Would the major players go through other, separate distributors to get their comics distributed & shipped? Like DC would turn to Random House for example?

When I was working at a comic shop in the early 1990s, I think we had several comic book distributors sending us books (though Diamond was the main one). Would things go back to this arrangement?

And would such an event rapidly accelerate the mainstream comic book industry's turn to digital? And if that is the case, what happens to the retailers?

One of the conclusions we made was that paper comics will always exist, but there will be a greater "prestige" factor to them. You own a "hard copy" of a comic book or collected edition/graphic novel because you really really like the content. Comics (the pamphlets, at any rate) become less "temporary." The product themselves become more elaborate with higher production values. Card stock covers. Higher-quality of design. And the prices rise on individual issues.

I see this approach extending out to all "hard copy" media. Like DVDs. The casual movie fan will probably choose to stream/download their movies in several years, not purchase them (unless the price point was really low). But the film buff will still want to buy collector's editions of DVDs. These will be more elaborate DVDs -- think Criterion Collection. And you wouldn't just get a DVD -- you'd get a book, film cels, collectible posters, etc. -- all in one package.

In the same way, paper comics would need these bells and whistles too. "Why should I buy this comic for $4-5 when I can download it for $1?" Well, because you get all this other stuff. Plus, you *love* this title, the creative team, the characters, and this is a way of tangibly keeping a piece of them.

Of course, when bells and whistles are packed in, you could in theory rise the price quite a bit.

Now, if the comic book industry can continue to build new readership through outreach and movie/TV/video-game adaptations, this would increase the amount of fans, which would send more of them to the direct market to spend $9.99 on "World of Superman" #1, a slim but trade-paperback formatted monthly/bimonthly book of all-new content that has a supplemental DVD packed in with a new episode of some cool Superman-related thing you can't get anywhere else. (I totally made up that comic, btw, just so there is no confusion)

So to save the Direct Market, then, you need more Fans and less casual readers (because the casual reader is more likely to opt to download). Does this defeat the "placing comics in Wal-Mart & supermarkets" theory of increasing readership? The idea that you make the comics super-accessible so they become something casual that everybody reads -- like newspapers?

I think you need to increase the readership by using these markets, but only with cheap digest-sized collections of the best and most new-reader friendly material. In terms of a $3-4 22-page comics in Wal-Mart enticing new readers? No way. That's too much money for a non-fan/reader-new-to-comics to spend on an unknown quantity. That boat has sailed.

I mean, I buy the paper edition of The New York Times every once in a while. It's kinda pricy, all things considered (considering I can most of this stuff free online). I don't buy it because I need to. I buy it as a luxury for a long train ride. I buy it for the brand. I buy it because I'm a "fan." Similarly, if I buy a copy of Fangoria -- which I think is up to around $8 an issue now -- I do so because I'm a fan. There is no way in hell I would drop anything more than $5 for any magazine unless I *loved* it.

Anyway, though the title of my post included the word "Doomsday," I do not see an apocalyptic end of the comic book, or paper comics, or comic book retailers. But I do see a change of focus. And I do think that you will see a drop-off in overall customers due to the digital downloads. The lost revenue from these customers might be made up by the higher-priced "collector" comics, and by increasing the # of fans through outreach and adaptations in other media. And, of course, there is the Ancillary Merchandise. Toys. Posters. T-shirts. Statues. Magnets. Etc. You can't digitize that stuff.

Wednesday, August 06, 2008

Is The Print Format In Trouble, #171 Of A Series


Okay, here's my observation:

On the subway, I see more and more people reading books off of Kindle and other electronic reading devices.

The difference -- these do not seem to be "techy" early-adopters. These are people in nurse's scrubs, middle-aged people in suits on the way to their corporate jobs, people who casually handle the device as they would an iPod or a $7 paperback. Why are they using these devices? 'Cause it's easy and convenient.

Now, the Kindle is the high-rent version of this type of device, but I'm seeing more and more no-name knockoffs. Which means it's getting even easier to buy these things, and that there is more of a demand for them.

That said, I think a crucial element is that these devices seem to be taking the place of the $7 paperback. I think, in terms of mass consumption, these devices will eventually take the place of -- or be a popular alternative to -- the mass-market paperback.

Where does that leave comics?

I think at some point, the most popular comics will have the digital option readily available as well as the print. What is really needed is a convenient digital reader and format. But I think once you hit upon that reader & format...

But I still think there will be a demand for more "niche" print comics. I can see reading my weekly Amazing Spider-Man on an e-reader. But not a collection of Kirby reprints, especially if I love Kirby. And not the latest Ganges book by Fantagraphics Press. Ganges -- that has to be in print, I need to hold that oversized tome in my hands -- that's part of the experience of it. And when you get into mini-comics, DIY, etc...the paper and ink is part of the experience.

As for me, I've been researching options to self-publish my memoirs. As easy as the ebook option is, I still want to go print. Even if that means a pain-in-the-ass to format (which it is), even if it means more of a cost on my end (which it is).