Re: Just how stupid is Quesada?

On 8 May 2006 17:44:49 -0700, "Tue Sorensen" <sorensonian@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

Tarquin Biscuitbarrel, Esq. wrote:
"Eminence" <grey.eminence@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:uk6v52187onp84ura2ag4o9vlgjurkn04m@xxxxxxxxxx
On Sat, 6 May 2006 14:26:28 GMT, yusaku-jon-3@xxxxxxx wrote:

Sadly, Marvel has been and always will be in the business for
profits, no matter what they've said in the past. They're just
another big business venture now, no longer the little company
challenging the "Distinguished Competition" for shelf space.
They've effectively become no different than old DC.

I will read the rest of your post (and this thread) in a bit, but I
just have to jump in here, because this notion seems to arise more and
more often, for not entirely the correct reason:

OF COURSE Marvel is in the business for profits. So is DC. So is every
business, in every field... because if you can't turn a profit, you
can't stay in business.

<snip!>

Thus endeth my knee-jerk rant (which was in no way meant to be a
personal attack on yusaku-jon-3@xxxxxxx).

If there was a way to applaud in a usenet posting, I'd do it right here.

OK, I just want to try and put in the clearest possible terms why the
above perspective is silly and simplistic.

Because:

When you say that a creator is doing some stories that consumers want
to read, then you're including all the most important aspects of the
situation. You can always go into the substance of it, and say "I think
She-Hulk is cool, and I wanna read cool stories about her being the
Living Tribunal's temp!" You can go into every aspect of the writer's
work, the artist's work and the reader's enjoyment. You can include the
vast back-history and enthuse about the vast future potential. You're
hip-deep in the *substance* of things. They money is nothing but a
facilitating middle-man between what both the creator and the reader
like.

BUT, when you take some brainwashed economist's view and say that the
publisher is simply in it for the money, you're reducing the whole
thing to that. Reducing it to near nothingness, except for the money.
Dismissing all the substance. You're basically just saying that some
non-descript, faceless people called readers, for some non-descript
reason, are throwing money at the publisher for some non-descript
product, enabling the publisher to make a profit. Money and profit
become the most important things involved. All the rest doesn't matter.

Which way of looking at it is the most useful to us? What perspective
says the most? Which of these two focuses is more relevant to comic
fans? More interesting?

Get it?

Tue,

I think it is possible for the company to care about its customers and
about its bottom line. I think it is possible for the company to care
about its bottom line but not care so much about its customers. But I
find it more suspect when someone suggests -- either explicitly or in
some vague, roundabout way -- that the company cares about its
customers but not about its bottom line. That's Point the First.

The right combination of editor A, writer B, artist C, and character D
will make money; the wrong combination will not. Sure, it's a given
that some of us will buy a book featuring character D no matter how
badly it's drawn or written, because of the Completist Mentality.
Others of us -- as we also seem to need to periodically remind each
other -- will vote with our wallets, because that's how we influence
the publisher to produce less crap.

Point the Second -- which may have become lost in the knee-jerkiness
of my rant -- is that I am always amused when someone feels the need
to point out that a company is *gasp* in business for the profits, as
if that were a bad thing. Personally, I don't automatically equate
such profit-mindedness with THE EEEEEVILS OF CAPITALISM. Others may
feel differently. Note, however, that Free Comic Day only comes once a
year.

My contention is not that Marvel (or any other entertainment venture,
or even businesses in general) is *only* in it for the money, but that
the money aspect is a given (because that revenue stream allows them
to survive and prosper), and should not count as a Shocking
Revelation. In fact, it should be understood on such a primal level
that we hardly need refer to it at all, much less use it to shore up
an argument. Time and time again, however, I see posters attempting to
school each other as if this were some big secret:

Fan #1: "Waaahh! Quesada doesn't care about us! He just wants our
money!"

Fan #2: "I've got news for you. Marvel is a business."

.... and so on. Well, D'UH. Granted, I can't speak for anyone else --
maybe some posters are actually in the dark about how this whole
comics publishing thing works -- but yeah, Marvel wants your money. So
does 20th Century Fox. So does World Wrestling Entertainment. And
Atlantic Records. And Sega. And so on. How much of your money these
guys get is entirely up to you, and should be based on the quality of
the product they provide. Back to the original post:

Sadly, Marvel has been and always will be in the business for
profits, no matter what they've said in the past. They're just
another big business venture now, no longer the little company
challenging the "Distinguished Competition" for shelf space.
They've effectively become no different than old DC.

"In the business for profits" <=> "in business for the profits." Yet
no matter how badly Stan and Jack wanted to tell great stories, it
seems obvious to me that the publisher at the time (was it Goodman?)
was looking for a way to get a larger slice of Silver Age pie. Just my
two cents.

Eminence
_______________
Usenet: Global Village of the Damned
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Storing cash?
    ... When the money supply expands too quickly, ... prices are cut in an attempt to maintian the highest total ... profits, via increased sales. ... So the business owners rise the prices again so that they can still ...
    (misc.survivalism)
  • Re: Storing cash?
    ... When the money supply expands too quickly, ... prices are cut in an attempt to maintian the highest total ... profits, via increased sales. ... So the business owners rise the prices again so that they can still ...
    (misc.survivalism)
  • Re: Just how stupid is Quesada?
    ... no matter what they've said in the past. ... OF COURSE Marvel is in the business for profits. ... pay money to acquire the company's product. ...
    (rec.arts.comics.marvel.universe)
  • Re: Top 1% OWNS MORE THAN bottom 90%
    ... The CEO's work is worth as much as they think ... That happen ONLY because they NEVER worked for that money. ... This is a good recipe for the corporation going out of business and no ... the profits belong to THEM (they don't have to ...
    (sci.econ)
  • Re: Top 1% OWNS MORE THAN bottom 90%
    ... The CEO's work is worth as much as they think ... That happen ONLY because they NEVER worked for that money. ... This is a good recipe for the corporation going out of business and no ... the profits belong to THEM (they don't have to ...
    (sci.econ)
Loading