And it's interesting to ask why, when kids elsewhere do, and when US kids used to.
> I'm willing to bet the comic book companies have done a little market research before going in this direction rather than intentionally alienating younger readers.
Why would assume this, given how badly they've repeatedly misread their markets, and how badly they've been managed (e.g. Marvels bankruptcy)? They've over and over done stupid, short-sighted things to alienate both readers and collectors (e.g. their attempts to drive up sales from collectors with tons of variant covers) that publishers elsewhere have not. Not least their failure to get their titles more eyeballs by getting them into other sales venues (growing up Norway, I'd been reading comics for something like 10 years before I ever set foot in a dedicated comics store, as comics were everywhere so there was no need to).
And they're the ones that are small bit players of questionable success.
> If those genres sold well, there'd be more of them.
If those genres existed in reasonable numbers in English language translations, being sold in more places like the small number of comics stores, maybe the people who would have enjoyed them would realise that comics are for them too.
Sometimes developing your market means taking risks. The European publishers understands this. They are not just chasing the big successes and milking them dry. You won't see 5 Spiderman titles. Instead you regularly see variety magazines headlined by major, well-selling characters with guest series they hope to develop filling up a substantial portion of the magazines (the French language Pilote and Spirou perhaps being the most well known internationally), or short runs on entirely new series they are taking a gamble on.
Many, many of these titles are never profitable. Many of them are outright gambles that there's little expectation will be profitable. Many of them are only able to stay profitable because of the main title is a massive draw. But some of those guest series become breakout successes of their own, carrying magazines filled with new guest series continuing to develop new markets and new fan bases.
Both of the biggest Norwegian series at the moment started life as strips and then had bit-parts with a few pages here and there in bigger magazines, until they'd developed enough popularity. When they got their own magazines, they were initially propped up by "tried and true but not quite big enough for their own magazine" series.
Several current Norwegian comic artists started their careers submitting fan-art to magazines in the 80's, then got invited to publish a page or two, eventually got their own little series with a few pages in a bigger magazine each month, and ended up with their own magazines.
And if you think "that's fine, but it's not breaking new ground", consider that many of these series are very different from each other. You'd find cutting political satire alongside Beetle Bailey (Billy). There was comedic parodies in The Phantom (Fantomet). And so on. A lot of material that'd never have a market in the 80's, got a market because the publishers found it worthwhile to publish a few pages in not-very-related magazines to test the market and get reader feedback. Other material got a market because they "rounded out" magazines and draw fan bases that'd buy a magazine they'd not otherwise consider, even if a specific series will not stand on its own.
This is where you should look to figure out how to develop a culture for comics, as these are the methods that have been successful - even with potential markets a tiny fraction of the US -, while Marvel and DC and the smaller US publishers have struggled.
> Well, we're talking about comics in the US here aren't we?
Are we? I'm not, exactly because contrasting the US market to the European and Japanese markets reveal so many interesting differences that helps see the article in context.
> Kids don't read comic books and don't care to.
> And it's interesting to ask why, when kids elsewhere do, and when US kids used to.
Yeah, interesting question. I believe the reason is many more easily accessible alternatives for entertainment. Computer games are a major factor, but also a larger amount of animation and childrens tv.
And it's interesting to ask why, when kids elsewhere do, and when US kids used to.
> I'm willing to bet the comic book companies have done a little market research before going in this direction rather than intentionally alienating younger readers.
Why would assume this, given how badly they've repeatedly misread their markets, and how badly they've been managed (e.g. Marvels bankruptcy)? They've over and over done stupid, short-sighted things to alienate both readers and collectors (e.g. their attempts to drive up sales from collectors with tons of variant covers) that publishers elsewhere have not. Not least their failure to get their titles more eyeballs by getting them into other sales venues (growing up Norway, I'd been reading comics for something like 10 years before I ever set foot in a dedicated comics store, as comics were everywhere so there was no need to).
And they're the ones that are small bit players of questionable success.
> If those genres sold well, there'd be more of them.
If those genres existed in reasonable numbers in English language translations, being sold in more places like the small number of comics stores, maybe the people who would have enjoyed them would realise that comics are for them too.
Sometimes developing your market means taking risks. The European publishers understands this. They are not just chasing the big successes and milking them dry. You won't see 5 Spiderman titles. Instead you regularly see variety magazines headlined by major, well-selling characters with guest series they hope to develop filling up a substantial portion of the magazines (the French language Pilote and Spirou perhaps being the most well known internationally), or short runs on entirely new series they are taking a gamble on.
Many, many of these titles are never profitable. Many of them are outright gambles that there's little expectation will be profitable. Many of them are only able to stay profitable because of the main title is a massive draw. But some of those guest series become breakout successes of their own, carrying magazines filled with new guest series continuing to develop new markets and new fan bases.
Both of the biggest Norwegian series at the moment started life as strips and then had bit-parts with a few pages here and there in bigger magazines, until they'd developed enough popularity. When they got their own magazines, they were initially propped up by "tried and true but not quite big enough for their own magazine" series.
Several current Norwegian comic artists started their careers submitting fan-art to magazines in the 80's, then got invited to publish a page or two, eventually got their own little series with a few pages in a bigger magazine each month, and ended up with their own magazines.
And if you think "that's fine, but it's not breaking new ground", consider that many of these series are very different from each other. You'd find cutting political satire alongside Beetle Bailey (Billy). There was comedic parodies in The Phantom (Fantomet). And so on. A lot of material that'd never have a market in the 80's, got a market because the publishers found it worthwhile to publish a few pages in not-very-related magazines to test the market and get reader feedback. Other material got a market because they "rounded out" magazines and draw fan bases that'd buy a magazine they'd not otherwise consider, even if a specific series will not stand on its own.
This is where you should look to figure out how to develop a culture for comics, as these are the methods that have been successful - even with potential markets a tiny fraction of the US -, while Marvel and DC and the smaller US publishers have struggled.
> Well, we're talking about comics in the US here aren't we?
Are we? I'm not, exactly because contrasting the US market to the European and Japanese markets reveal so many interesting differences that helps see the article in context.