The iPad and Comic Books
By Hervé St-LouisJan 29, 2010 - 22:52
I wrote a few months ago that Apple’s iPad would not save the comic book industry and that if publishers relied on this device in order to prop up their sales an insure their survival that they deserved to fail. The iPad is not the second coming of the comic book industry. If comic book publishers can’t figure out how to sell comic books without relying on a proprietary device, then they do not deserve to be in business and should let the way for others to innovate in the area of sales and distribution. It’s a mistake to ignore the biggest asset of the comic book industry after its readers, the vast network of comic book specialty shops manned with experts who know the product and can easily sell large amount of merchandise and comic books if allowed. The revival and continuing health of the comic book industry cannot be built on the introduction of one magic device by a man wearing a turtleneck and who acts like he is Jesus Christ.
 |
As I wrote months ago, there are already many other e-book readers on the market, including the Kindle from Amazon and the Nook from Barnes and Noble. Each retailer move large amount of comic books and graphic novels from their online stores every day. Just like the traditional comic book retailer, ignoring their contribution is a serious mistake. Part of the appeal of comic book reading and collecting is based on the artefact. If the artefact did not matter as much, Web comics would be more popular today. Web comics’ readers are not your typical comic book readers. There are some overlaps, but overall they are from different market and socio cultural groups. However, the arguments in favour of the iPad are not usually aimed at Web comics readers who are probably closer to being the right target groups for a semi-e-book reader like the iPad.
Users who like to consume vast amount of Web entertainment and don’t mind reading text and graphic intensive contents online are more suited to the iPad than the comic book reader who likes to bring his book to the washroom or on the bus. Yes, the iPad is a mobile device, but mobile users have short attention spans and use mobile entertainment in short burst. Reading a comic book requires a greater investment of time – several hours at least per week. The iPad was not designed for extended reading as it lacks proper e-ink technology, unlike the Kindle, the Nook or even the Skiff from the Hearst Corporation.
Comic book reading is like magazine reading, it requires a time investment and the electronic additions flaunted by the New York Times during Apple’s introductory presentation of the iPad show a lack of understanding of their clientele. Video inserts in the middle of a magazine are akin to the half-based idea running wild in the comic book world about motion comics. Comics that mix animation and comics’ graphics. The last thing a magazine or a comic book reader wants is electronic interruption while reading a pamphlet. At most, music will be playing in the background, but whenever the concept of an interface requiring interaction with a device while the reader is in deep reading mode just destroys the whole point of reading. To make it clearer, compare reading to deep sleep where dreaming is possible. To achieve that state the person must have come through a few lighter sleeping stages before the deep sleep experience can be achieved and dreaming be possible. Similarly, reading a book or a comic book requires some amount of concentration and quiet. Having interactive widgets off a backlighted screen is not inductive for proper reading prompting you to click links and videos on a page do not enhance the concentration necessary to read a comic book. If a reader wants to read material off a backlighted screen with interactive contents, why not stick to a Web site format?
However, in the case of casual Web browsing, where it has been demonstrated that readers do not read articles, but scan them quickly, a product like the iPad is interesting. Reading comic books require a little more concentration because of the closure effect between panels. Users must fill gaps between drawings in their minds when reading comic books. Can closure happen properly in a comic book with an extensive and complicated page layout, like the typical Marvel comic book published as iPhone-ready comic books and now available for the iPad?
Already there are arguments made that the iPad may not be the best e-book reader, but that because of its size and format that is naturally suited for comic book publishing. This ignores, as just mentioned that comic book readers create closure between panels and that unless the format of Web comics changes to minimize the amount of closure required, comic book reading on the iPad will not be smooth. Of course, vendors having invested already in iPhone apps will ignore this warning and enthusiasts waiting eagerly will brush off claims that their brains may have to work harder when they read a comic book on an iPad. The fact that colours can look so bright on an iPad and the full page format minimizing panel navigation like on a smaller iPhone is good news for any supporter and believer in the iPad. They will attempt to ignore warnings deep inside their reptile brains telling them that the reading activity they are doing could be much better with a printed media or on an e-book designed for real electronic reading. There’s no stopping progress.
Last Updated: Jan 7, 2012 - 7:41
Join the discussion:
Comments
What if the comic book distributors gain a much broader audience with the digital variations of comic books and make much more money? Then they are making the right choices for their business. If there is a significant market for printed versions, then there will always be printed versions.
It seems there is too much 'stop tearing down the walls of our printed comics castle'. But I suspect it creates an emotional response in people from the 'controversy'. I think the biggest gripe must be the comic shop owners. Raging against the machine will not save them. A compelling product and service will. iPad, digital and Motion comics will not change that.
However, I must point out that your arguments see a benefit for publishers, but nowhere do you mention the benefits for the reader.
So it will cheaper for Marvel and DC, as you write to publish books. Is that a benefit to readers? Will the savings be passed to them?
Will Marvel and DC offer their readers free iPads with free Internet wireless subscriptions, or will the reader have to borne another extra expense just to have access to the comic book. I fail to see why adding fees and barriers and procedures is a benefit to a reader who can just hop on to a store and pick up a book.
And what happens with Apple's closed and proprietary environment? Will I be able to move any comics bought from a DC/Marvel app to my computer and open them whenever I want to, back them up to any system, like I can currently store my printed comics as I wish? I fail to see the benefit.
In 15 year, any printed comic book I buy today from one of those "complaining" retailer will probably still be intact and readable. But will I be able to access any comic book I buy today from an iPad. What if a publisher - say IDW Publishing is not in business in 15 years? Will all those comic books I bought as apps through the an iPad be available for me to read or will I have wasted my money?
That there are audience for digital comics is a certainty. That these form the majority of readers right now, is a wrongful statement. If they were, their presence in the industry would be felt better.
I'm not sure that the arguments against the iPad that have enumerated above are the typical reactionary defense of the comic book store model. It's a simple realization that what is being offered does not fulfill the needs of readers. I did mention the Kindle, the Nook and the Skiff without severely criticizing them, although they offer digital access to comic books. Why is that? Perhaps I perceive a better value for readers than what the closed iPad environment offers...
Will as many people read the digital version? Is there more profit to be had from animated versions? These are questions not easily answered, yet. But I have my understandings, and none of them involve the "word" "duh". No real understandings or answers do involve the word "duh". That word is used by people to lazy to research and discuss, usually. ;)
About the motion comics debate, that's another article for another time I've promised my editors for several months. I'll be glad to take up that debate with you as I am perfectly suited to debate it with you, being an animator - and the owner of a Flash animation studio - to be specific ;)
As an animator, one would think that I would be the first in line to cheer motion comics, as it potentially could generate more income for me. But from an animation standpoint, I have opinions about motion comics being an half baked and temporary solution. We already had motion comics in 1998-99 and they failed then. Suddenly, they are all the vogue again.
What was true about the problems of motion comics a decade ago is still true today. If you want to do animation, do real animation. If you want to do comics, do real comics. Any half attempt in between is basically like being half pregnant - it's a weird place to be at.
I find I am always limiting my purchases because of costs rather than whether I think I will enjoy a story.
Comics on a phone are just so small that they aren't even "real" comics since there is no page layout design. The ipad removes this hinderance.
1) Electronic distribution means a much lower barrier to entry for independents to the mass market. Lower barrier to entry means more titles, more characters, more fresh talent, and is generally a boon for getting small-press creator-owned content to readers.
2) As for the big boys, two words: Back Catalog. You can say that if you want to read a comic you can just hop down to the shop and get a copy ... but that only works with current titles. Buying back issues can get expensive quickly and finding the issues you want can become an obsession. If that's your hobby then great. But for those of us who just want to read us some funny books without having our wallets hijacked by the collector's market electronic copies are a good option.
It should also be pointed out that Disney owns Marvel now. And since Steve Jobs has a hearty stake in Disney since the Pixar deal he's got a lot of room to pull strings and get Marvel to play ball.
The author is right- there is no magic device that's going to change everything overnight.
I'm also a comics reader, and I'm more likely to use my iPhone to locate a comics store or order something from online than to actually read comics with it. I imagine the screen bigger and I still can't see myself doing it.
People sometimes try to make an analogy of the how personal technology and digital consumption has completely changed the music business.
First of all, I'm not so sure the music business has "completely" changed. The distribution and consumption of the music itself certainly has. But besides that, music is a fundamentally different kind of media product that is enjoyed in a very different way.
The problem with digital media distribution becoming the norm for something like comics is the whole "Where is the thing I just paid for?" effect. It's psychological. It has to do with the consumer experience of ownership.
But in the case of comics, it's also physical, what the author calls the "artefact."
Otherwise, comic books would have disappeared as soon as someone figured out how to put them up on a laptop screen.
One thing I do see the mobile content doing is hooking a customer on the first few issues and reeling him in to buy the rest of the series in print. I've been reeled in like this myself. And if the customer is turned into a fan- he'll go ahead and buy the printed issues he's already read on his device- just to have them.
So, speaking as a publisher, as frustrated with the lack of distribution outlets and retailer terms that are unfavorable to the little guy- not to mention printing and shipping costs- I'm skeptical that the iPad is going to prove to be the breakthrough we all need.
Only time will tell.
You mentioned the store locator which we do have in our app, along with articles and a convention listings. That kind of thing only adds to an existing comic book collector's experience. It takes away nothing.
I own an iPad and use it daily, for email, news articles, but most relevant to this site - to read eBooks and magazines. I've stopped buying large paperbacks and use the iPad for all ficiton and non-fiction books.
I read avidly and for hours.
In a typical week I'll get through 3 o4r 4 fiction books.
I also use it for technical books (I've worked in IT for over 20 years).
I live in London and often have to go into the city on the underground. I use a kindle for those journies because its smaller than the iPad, but the iPad remains my device of choice.
Oh, and I don't own any apple MACs etc. so not an Apple fanboy - used MS DOS and windows since v1.0
Readers are not flocking and sales are lacklustre. I would say that you're in a minority, reading 3 or 4 books a week and not representative of the typical iPad owner or comic book reader owning an iPad.
Part of the Condé Nast problem has to do with what they offer readers. As I was arguing last year to one of the commentator above, if there is no saving passed to the reader with the digital version of the publication, what's in it for the reader? Condeé Nast did not understand that and made the digital version of their product, the premium version and charged almost as much for it as they would the printed version. Again, my artefact argument came in play full circle. The typical user felt they had bought nothing and so either stopped getting Conde Nast contents through the iPad apps, flocked to alternate Websites or just stuck with printed editions.
Publishers who think digital publishing is all about saving costs and not passing off the savings to their customers are shooting themselves n the foot in the long term, as the Conde Nast example proved.
