The Golden Globe nominations have come out and The Walking Dead is among the shows being considered for Best Television Series – Drama. It's yet another feather in the cap of one of this year's entertainment phenomenons. By now you are acutely aware that the show was a success by any measure, ranking not only as AMC's top rated show of all-time, but also as top rated drama in basic cable history among adults 18-49. This level of success, combined with Robert Kirkman's ongoing success in both the direct market and traditional book stores, has set him up for considerable notoriety and, yes, financial success.
Now I'm not privy to Kirkman's financial terms, but I can certainly say with confidence that he's well on his way to attaining a kind of financial independence that few have enjoyed in the comic book industry. Not coincidentally, Robert's partners at Image Comics were some of the last creators to obtain true WEALTH (meaning millions of dollars) when they created Image in the 90s.
As Kirkman rises to the top of the comics pantheon, it may be time to revisit the now infamous "Kirkman Manifesto". For those who don't recall, Kirkman created a video blog of sorts fresh off his return from the 2008 San Diego Comic-Con. He was frustrated with the state of the comic book industry and felt compelled to share his frustrations, as well as ways he felt the industry could be changed for the better. There were a lot of disparate thoughts in his speech, including a call to arms for creators to hone their craft at the Big 2, gain some notoriety, and then leave to create their own ideas. You can view his speech in its entirety here:
As you might imagine, his honest and pointed statements became the talk of the industry, with everyone seemingly taking sides. Brian Bendis took up the mantle to argue the other side of some of Kirkman's points; which led to both uber creators sitting down and facing off for a debate of sorts at the 2008 Baltimore Comic-Con.
Fast forwarding to the present, have many creators followed his advice? Can you think of many creators that have obtained a modicum of success writing for Marvel and DC who have since turned their focus almost entirely to creator-owned work? I'm sure there are a few, but I can't think of any. And yet, there ARE quite a few creators making big marks at the Big 2 who recently came from the creator-owned world. Presumably those would be the guys (and ladies) who Kirkman was most directly speaking to.
So with Kirkman's fortune and influence reaching new heights, will his Manifesto take on more significance? To his credit, he's helping things along with the launch of Skybound — his new imprint that will seek to foster creator-owned projects under his watchful eye. But will others see his success and feel emboldened to take the leap? Or does this still fall into the "exception that proves the rule" category for most creators? I can't blame anyone for wanting the comfort and security that working for a publisher gives. But I have seen in other business cycles that even one MAJOR success (and I would now classify The Walking Dead that way, if it wasn't already prior to the TV show), can greatly alter the risk-taking paradigm.
I wouldn't be at all surprised to see a handful of reasonably well-known creators, primarily working for Marvel and DC, taking a chance on more (if not exclusive) creator-owned work. I would love to hear what you all think about this. Do you think more creators will take the leap? Do you think they should?
Find us on Facebook
Follow us on Twitter
Subscribe to our RSS Feed
Some rights reserved.
I was just wondering the same thing. How many creators have actually made the move to creator owned from Big 2 (before or after the Manifesto)? I have no idea. I’d really like to see some numbers.
Do I think more will take the leap? I don’t really expect to see much of an increase in moves of this type when the industry is shrinking as rapidly as it is. Seems like a bad time to try to introduce a new character/line. I would think that once the decline stops (assuming it will) we will be more likely to see moves of the type Mr. Kirkman is suggesting.
Do I think they should? Not necessarily right now, but definitely in the future. A strong base of creator owned work provides considerable leverage which should significantly increase the bargaining power of creators when interacting with the big 2 and with distributors. Solid, popular creator owned work can only make the industry stronger (in my opinion).
Good subject for discussion jason . I think it’s too early to start looking arouind for immediate examples of people following Kirkman’s sucsess though.
It took Robert almost 10 years from doing Battle Pope to start getting the momentum going for Invincible and now Walking dead as far as reaping the other medium benefits from his original ideas.
I guess his contempraries would include Brian K Vaughn, whio seems to have left the big 2 to pursue his ideas.
Let’s see what Jeff Lemire, Rick Remender Nick Spenser are able to get going.
I still think guys like Bendis and others have the right idea to sell ideas through one of the big 2, and also turn out the creator owned stuff as well.
Its OUR FAULT that creators can’t make money off of creator owned work. They can’t live off of what we don’t buy. We are the ones who buy the 10 Avengers/Batman/Spiderman books that come out every month but say we don’t have the budget to try out new unknown things.
Companies like Image don’t help either. Unless your doing one of their top few titles, its very hard to make any real money with them as you are fronting all the production and marketing costs. The idea of a publisher making its artists/writers subsidize their operating costs is bizarre.
Sorry… but its a bell curve. There are a few miserable failures, a lot of fair-to-middling and a few terribly successful people in all industries.
If there was a guarantee everyone would be successful because everyone’s following the same formula that one or three top guys have used.
The Kirkman manifesto is a great ideal. But on the part of an individual, it requires an insane career plan. You have to have some previous work for Marvel and DC to even look at you. Then, under Kirkman’s philosophy, at the HEIGHT of your big 2 success, that’s when you drop out. So, struggle for years, hit it big for a while, then go back to struggling for many more years. I can understand hesitation to follow that path.
But, economically, his plan is logical. You become a small business. You don’t have to sell big numbers because your book doesn’t contribute to a corporation. Not that that is always a bad thing.
@ABirdseysView –well it sounds like A LOT of career paths. Every time you want to move up the ladder with your job title, you sometimes have to take 2 steps down on the “prestigious company” ladder.
@Grandturk –thats a good point. Sometimes creator owned work is just pure crap just like some of the Big 2 stuff can be as well. There is no magic formula to innovation.
I think Kirkman was more right than wrong in his manifesto. Marvel and DC should be fostering the entire industry by creating comics for kids, because they’re the ones who have the resources to do so. Creators should be doing more indie work as well. Bendis’ best stuff is his early indie stuff as is Fraction’s. I love Jason Aaron’s Wolverine but his best books have been The Other Side and Scalped. I love Uncanny X-Force, but it’s no Fear Agent.
I remember a great philosopher one time saying “Is it too much to ask for both?”
I think Remender is doing a good job of balancing both. I think it’ll be interesting to see whether or not skybound becomes a vehicle for the creators Kirkman was talking about to publish their creator owned work.
Bendis’ perspective is from “what is” whereas Kirkman’s is from an idea of “what should be.” I agree with Kirkman; it’s an ideal worth striving towards.
First off: I find it amusing that with Skybound, Kirkman is becoming more like Marvel or DC in a way (without owning the property outright).
I don’t think anyone can argue that Kirkman is an exception to what normally goes on in the indie comics world. I’m personally not a big fan of his works, but he did build an audience for an extremely long time before he became really successful. Ultimately, I don’t really care. If a creator does some mid list Marvel or DC book and not their own creator owned work, I simply have enough great comics that I could ever read in a lifetime.
I’d love to see more of it. If Layman just kept working for the big 2, we never would’ve seen Chew.
It’s not getting talked up at all for some reason, but Guggenheim may be doing this quietly with Image. The first issue of his book, Halcyon, was actually really good. I don’t think he did much in the way of talking the book up beforehand which is probably why it’s under the radar. I believe he is also producing another Image book as well.
@wallythegreenmonster – No one “fronts” money for production and marketing costs at Image. Maybe this isn’t what you mean, but “fronting” that money makes it sound like you’re cutting Image a check for that stuff ahead of time. In fact, it’s the reverse. Image fronts YOU the money for production and marketing. Image pays the printer, freight, etc., and then recoups production and distribution costs (as well as their small fee) from the profits. I can’t think of a single company that focuses on creator-owned material that operates differently. That’s the trade-off for doing creator-owned work. You own all the media rights and have complete creative control, but there’s little (or no) upfront money. With work-for-hire, you get a page rate, but you have to give up some media rights and some creative control.
@JayFaerber –well i didn’t quite mean that about the printing and logistics and all that. I know they cover that stuff. A few weeks back there was a post on here about Image creators trying to raise funds on kickstarter to hire a letterer and colorist so they could get their book made. They have a publisher but they still have to pay for production costs out of pocket…having worked in traditional publishing for some time, i just think thats bizarre. I guess comics is such a small industry there is no way that a publisher can do things differently with characters it doesn’t own.
@wallythegreenmonster – I take your point, but I wouldn’t really call coloring and lettering “production costs.” Those are more like creative costs, since the colorist and letterer are part of the creative team. Production costs would be pre-press formatting, and actual printing. That sort of thing. Which Image handles. Don’t get me wrong — it IS a sad state of affairs that profits are so low on most creator-owned books that publishers can’t normally afford to offer any kind of advance without owning part of the property. It’s very tough out there. But I don’t think writers and artists should pay colorists and letterers out of their own pocket. They should instead look for colorists and letterers that are willing to work for a percentage of the profits (or partial ownership, or both). That way, no one’s paying anything upfront. But hey, different people have different ways of doing things.
@JayFaerber –great points…in my world its like telling a photographer “sure we’ll publish your book…as long as you pay for the writer, editor, designer and project manager…and then reimburse our hard costs down the line…” For what i’m used to, Image sounds A LOT closer to a self-publishing house (popular with indie and amateur novelists) to a regular publisher.
Maybe the image model will help evolve the comic industry in that creators will have to learn more skill sets and get out of the old fashioned commercial art trade style of the past that so many work in today. Guillroy and Layman do a pretty nice job between the two of them of producing Chew, and i think thats a better model that would seem to make it more profitable to do a creator owned book in that kind of publishing world.
@wallythegreenmonster – I realize I’m coming across as defensive on Image’s behalf, but a difference between them and traditional book publishers is that book publishers are in it to make a profit. Image isn’t. Image’s fee is a flat fee for all their books, and it covers their office space and staff, that sort of thing. So they make as much money on THE WALKING DEAD as they do on their worst-selling title.
But yeah — the less creators you have in your creative team, the more profit there is to split between them. I know Alex Grecian does his own lettering on PROOF and Kirkman used to letter all his own books before they got so successful that he could pay someone else to do it.
Image isn’t the place for everyone. Some creators don’t mind giving up some control and some media rights if it means they get a page rate. But if you want maximum creative control with maximum market exposure, Image is where it’s at.
@JayFaerber –thats interesting how Image is structured. I actually know of some high end art book publishers that are set up in a not for profit model, but they do work with museums/foundations/educational institutions etc so they can be officially a non profit.
The Image model does go back to the original problem of low margins. I mean I had no idea how much they publish that i’ve never seen or heard of till much later. Its hard to get creators to abandon the comfy confines of a page rates on established titles or Big 2 exclusives when you have a family and bills to take risks on a creator owned thing. Like i said earlier..a big part of the problem is the comic consumer…we don’t buy enough of the small press books and spend all of our cash on franchised brands that are so obviously cash grabs.
I’d say Mark Millar has followed this path just as successfully as Kirkman, and arguably moreso.
Sure, Millar still keeps very close ties to Marvel, with both his regular Marvel Universe stuff and his Icon stuff, but the ‘Millarworld’ concept takes the Kirkman concepts to the extreme. No matter which publisher he partners with, it has ‘Millarworld’ plastered all over the cover, and you have the rights. Marvel are having to manage him VERY carefully to keep him sweet, I’d imagine (much like Bendis). Even his Icon stuff pushes the Millar brand down your throat. Clint and Kapow! do the same thing. No-one ever accused him of subtlety, but by God, it seems to be working for him!
Whereas Kirkman’s success ultimately hinges on The Walking Dead. Invincible does well enough but it’s not making a ton of money for him I bet, and I haven’t heard of any film interest. Millar has a lot more eggs in a lot more baskets – very smart businessman, no matter what you think of his work.
I think that it is obvious to anyone with basic business training that creator owned, operated and controlled properties have a much higher potential. However, it requires a much larger commitment or time, money, promotion and effort. It is the oldest principle in business: risk and reward. Greater risk yields higher potential reward and is, obviously, risky. The safer route, if you can get there, is writing traditional books. There is a mu wider audience and market for Batman than there is for Walking Dead. However, since the writer doesn’t have any actual ownership of Batman he gets a regular old paycheck. If Batman soars he doesn’t reap a single additional (monetary) benefit from that particular project. If Batman sinks, he doesn’t lose that paycheck he had gotten however. He risked much less than the actual owner did and shares much less. So… it is what it is. If every creator tried this the vast number of them would fail but those that succeed would reap excellent rewards.
Would you want to bet that Frank Miller has made more money off any comic other than Dark Knight Returns? Or Grant Morrison off Arkham Asylum? And, while not his most successful, but only because he’s had a lot of success, surely Alan Moore made a lot off Killing Joke?
@johnwordballoon Thanks for chiming in John. Yes, I agree that it’s still probably too early to notice any kind of trend, was just thinking out loud about what this all might mean though. I vividly remember when you had both Kirkman and Bendis on to make their points — and for me (and I expect many) it was one of those things where I agreed with parts of both viewpoints, and disagreed with others. I don’t think there’s any one path to follow, but I do wonder if Kirkman going from “big comic success” to “big media success” will somehow give him more momentum to push this mantra.
Agreed that guys like Lemire and Kindt and Spencer and Remender and Parker and Snyder and many others are probably the ones just now embarking on that phase of their careers. My selfish want is for these guys to find success doing both. As a long-time capes fan, I’m all for great writers helming Marvel and DC stuff for as long as possible. But I also don’t want that to come at the expense of wondrous things like Fear Agent or The Underwater Welder or Morning Glories, etc…so hopefully the industry will stay healthy enough that these guys and others can have their cake and eat it too.
@JayFaerber — Nice to see you chiming in on the thread Jay. Much appreciated.
@Cormac – While THE WALKING DEAD is Kirkman’s biggest success, I know he makes a nice profit on INVINCIBLE, too. And it was optioned for film at one point, a few years ago. Kirkman was even able to negotiate the deal where he wrote the screenplay — which is pretty impressive.
@Cormac - Do you know that Frank Miller gets a cut of sales from DKR? Or Morrisson gets cuts from sales of Arkham and etc? I don’t think Alan Moore gets anything for current sales of Killing Joke or Watchmen. I may be entirely wrong, but I’d think they were probably paid for their initial work on the books and any current sales go to DC. I’d bet that Miller made more from 300 for sure and probably Sin City as well.
@400yrs You are wrong. Most modern creator deals include royalties, even with the big companies. Moore got royalties from all those Watchmen sales unless he gave them up. And no, from what I’ve heard, Miller made a lot more from DKR, and even Dark Knight Strikes again, than you’d suspect. They sold a lot of copies of those books.
@josh – Thanks! I didn’t know that. I guess that explains why the best creators work on all those current DC books that I have little interest in. I’d rather read creator owned stuff, but that’s just me.
it’s funny that in the years since they had this discussion that it is actually Bendis who is releasing new creator owned books (one being an all ages book) and Kirkman hasn’t even released the all ages book that he promised he would deliver and that he felt was so vital to keeping the medium alive .
@JayFaerber Good to know that about Invincible – It’s a great book and I’d like it to stick around!
But you get my point, right? Kirkman got it optioned, Millar has gotten two pretty big films MADE. And they made BANK (factoring in DVD/BR sales etc). Ask the average guy in the street about Kick-Ass and Wanted, then ask them about Invincible. Plus he has sold options on the flimsiest crap imaginable – War Heroes, Nemesis etc. Probably Superior by now! He’s in a completely different league in terms of self-marketing and mining his (relatively meagre) creativity.
And Grant Morrison can’t get We3 made. It is to weep.
@Cormac –getting a movie made in hollywood has NOTHING to do with the content or the creatives involved. Its shmoozing, positioning and having your project be in the right place at the right time, with the right executives sitting in the musical chair. There is a reason why its called “development hell”
@Cormac – Yeah, I get what you’re saying. And I’m glad Millar is putting so much emphasis on his creator-owned work. I wish all creators would do that!