|
|
Post by Dizzy D on Mar 4, 2021 2:54:33 GMT -5
I am really wondering if the people who feel that the artists (including both writers and pencillers/painters/inkers etc. in this term for convenience sake) are obligated to deliver , also feel that those transactions are a two-way street?
The artists create a work that they sell to say 4000 readers. They continue their series with the idea that each issue will sell ~4000 copies, because hey people, have bought an issue, now we can expect them to keep following the series.
At which point probably anybody in this thread will say "No, that's insane. I'm not morally obligated to support any artist just because I bought an issue." And I'd agree.
I also don't believe in interactions between two parties where all obligations are on one party, so if we don't have any responsibility towards the artists for further interactions, why should they have any responsibility towards us?
|
|
|
|
Post by Randle-El on Mar 4, 2021 11:10:49 GMT -5
People keep using the word "obligation" in this thread, but I don't think anyone is arguing that creators are *obligated* to continue producing anything. That is too strong of a word, and not what I'm suggesting. The basis of my post/semi-rant was that the creators of creator-owned books often ask that readers purchase their books monthly as the best way to support the book. And I think creators realize that this is asking readers to step up their commitment, because in most cases buying monthly is more expensive and requires readers to commit to a long haul compared to trade waiting. My argument is that if creators are asking readers to step up their commitment by purchasing monthly, I think its not unreasonable for readers to be disappointed if creators do not likewise deliver on at least a semi-regular basis (e.g., not taking years off of the book). I also think it is not unreasonable if, based on that disappointment, readers choose not purchase the book monthly anymore. In fact, I think most people in this thread arguing "creators are not obligated to do anything because you already paid for your book" would agree that it would be reasonable to do so.
Nobody is saying readers should boycott the creators, start doxxing campaigns, or do anything else ridiculous beyond what normal recourse consumers always have if they are not happy with a product or service -- no longer purchasing the product or service. I don't think that not buying the product anymore is necessarily borne of a sense of entitlement or fanboy outrage. Is it entitlement or outrage if Coca-Cola changes their recipe and I don't like it anymore so I stop buying it?
To be clear, for those books that I chose to stop buying monthly because of irregular releases -- in most cases, I still intend to buy them eventually, either in collections, digitally, or perhaps a big stack of back issues. So with the exception of the last option, I'm still purchasing the product and still patronizing the creators.
I guess what I'm getting at is that if creators are going to ask us to buy monthly to "support" their work, they should recognize that we have options and that monthly buying is sometimes a bigger ask than trade waiting. I think that a gesture of good will is that if you're going to make the "buy monthly" pitch, there should be some reciprocity. Maybe it doesn't *have* to be a release every month. It could be extra content that you're not getting in trades. Greg Rucka was doing this for Lazarus by including a letters column and extra content in the back of the single issues that weren't published in the trades. He didn't have to do that. But I think it was a solid move on his part and motivates us to buy monthly.
|
|
|
|
Post by wildfire2099 on Mar 4, 2021 11:20:33 GMT -5
Actually, most people DO commit to buying at least a few issue... anyone with a pull list is generally committing to at least 3 (if not 4) issues before they read the first one.
I feel like by releasing a story in bits instead of all at once, the writer/publishers is OFFERING you to try a bit to entice you to buy the rest...that the basis of the business model. Otherwise, every book/comic would be self contained. So it doesn't really go both ways. Every product or service one buys has some sort of implied longevity... if I buy a car, I expect it to run x number of years. It has some sort of warranty for some of that, but not all, and usually not 100%. That doesn't mean I won't be disappointed and unlikely to buy again if it doesn't mean expectations. Same thing with this, IMO. Personally, I won't be buying anything else from GRRM or Rothfuss again. IF the story comes out (a thing I very much doubt) I'll wait for the library to have it and read it there... they don't get any more of my money.
These days I very rarely read anything new as part of a series unless the whole series is out, or it's from a franchise/property I know isn't going away. (mostly just if it's for a book club or something) I've learned my lesson.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 4, 2021 11:24:13 GMT -5
People keep using the word "obligation" in this thread, but I don't think anyone is arguing that creators are *obligated* to continue producing anything. That is too strong of a word, and not what I'm suggesting. The basis of my post/semi-rant was that the creators of creator-owned books often ask that readers purchase their books monthly as the best way to support the book. And I think creators realize that this is asking readers to step up their commitment, because in most cases buying monthly is more expensive and requires readers to commit to a long haul compared to trade waiting. My argument is that if creators are asking readers to step up their commitment by purchasing monthly, I think its not unreasonable for readers to be disappointed if creators do not likewise deliver on at least a semi-regular basis (e.g., not taking years off of the book). I also think it is not unreasonable if, based on that disappointment, readers choose not purchase the book monthly anymore. In fact, I think most people in this thread arguing "creators are not obligated to do anything because you already paid for your book" would agree that it would be reasonable to do so.
Nobody is saying readers should boycott the creators, start doxxing campaigns, or do anything else ridiculous beyond what normal recourse consumers always have if they are not happy with a product or service -- no longer purchasing the product or service. I don't think that not buying the product anymore is necessarily borne of a sense of entitlement or fanboy outrage. Is it entitlement or outrage if Coca-Cola changes their recipe and I don't like it anymore so I stop buying it?
To be clear, for those books that I chose to stop buying monthly because of irregular releases -- in most cases, I still intend to buy them eventually, either in collections, digitally, or perhaps a big stack of back issues. So with the exception of the last option, I'm still purchasing the product and still patronizing the creators.
But they're not asking you to buy monthly, they are asking you to buy the single issues whenever they come out. Monthly is the consumer's assumption but monthly in today's market environment is only a realistic expectation if you are reading assembly line comics put together by whomever happens to be available to meet the publishing schedule not by a consistent creative team bringing their "A" game every installment. In fact, many of the creator-owned series that have become iconic were not produced on anything like a monthly schedule. It took Jack Katz 12 to produce 24 issues of First Kingdom, the Pinis 7 years to produce 21 issues of Elfquest, etc. They came out when they came out, an issue or two a year. They both asked consumers to buy single issues to help support the book, but monthly was never part of the equation (or if it was it was simply a false assumption on the consumer's part). Monthly in the creator-owned realm is the exception, not the rule, yest consumers take it as a given it will be monthly and become upset when it is not. Again, the core of the issue is unrealistic expectations and consumers not managing their expectations creating their own source of frustration. But people don't seem to want to take responsibility for their own expectations and reactions, it's easier to point fingers and place blame elsewhere. -M |
|
|
|
Post by impulse on Mar 4, 2021 11:33:21 GMT -5
I don't even understand what tiny nuanced detail we are debating anymore. It seems everyone agrees there is no kind of "obligation" in any kind of binding sense, and also that consumers voting with their wallets remains the best recourse. The consequences and penalty for not getting it done remain diminished reputation and potential loss of future sales. Of course no one is saying fans are entitled to stand over a writer and whip them until they finish a story. I think we have thoroughly covered why fans would have valid feelings of frustration, disappointment, and being let down in a number of scenarios. It seems there is generally agreement on most of the ideas.
This is about where I am. Once bitten, twice shy. Though of the rest of the ASOIAF books actually come out, I won't be opposed to getting them, but I won't start anything else he writes until it is in the can.
|
|
|
|
Post by impulse on Mar 4, 2021 11:40:35 GMT -5
But they're not asking you to buy monthly, they are asking you to buy the single issues whenever they come out. Monthly is the consumer's assumption but monthly in today's market environment is only a realistic expectation if you are reading assembly line comics put together by whomever happens to be available to meet the publishing schedule not by a consistent creative team bringing their "A" game every installment. In fact, many of the creator-owned series that have become iconic were not produced on anything like a monthly schedule. It took Jack Katz 12 to produce 24 issues of First Kingdom, the Pinis 7 years to produce 21 issues of Elfquest, etc. They came out when they came out, an issue or two a year. They both asked consumers to buy single issues to help support the book, but monthly was never part of the equation (or if it was it was simply a false assumption on the consumer's part). Monthly in the creator-owned realm is the exception, not the rule, yest consumers take it as a given it will be monthly and become upset when it is not. Again, the core of the issue is unrealistic expectations and consumers not managing their expectations creating their own source of frustration. But people don't seem to want to take responsibility for their own expectations and reactions, it's easier to point fingers and place blame elsewhere. -M You can blame the reader if you want, I guess, and I am sure that type of delayed production schedule still works for some people. I'm just saying, if Disney only released the Mandalorian in 5 minute chunks once a week and it took them two years to get through season 1, I would probably lose interest pretty quickly and spend my time and money on something else. 🤷♂️ I don't find that to be a satisfying format for consuming content anymore. |
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Mar 4, 2021 11:44:40 GMT -5
Though of the rest of the ASOIAF books actually come out, I won't be opposed to getting them, but I won't start anything else he writes until it is in the can. Really what are the chances he's going to do anything else? Dude is pretty much retired it seems. He's also 72 years old and does not appear to be fit. |
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Mar 4, 2021 11:46:42 GMT -5
But they're not asking you to buy monthly, they are asking you to buy the single issues whenever they come out. Monthly is the consumer's assumption but monthly in today's market environment is only a realistic expectation if you are reading assembly line comics put together by whomever happens to be available to meet the publishing schedule not by a consistent creative team bringing their "A" game every installment. In fact, many of the creator-owned series that have become iconic were not produced on anything like a monthly schedule. It took Jack Katz 12 to produce 24 issues of First Kingdom, the Pinis 7 years to produce 21 issues of Elfquest, etc. They came out when they came out, an issue or two a year. They both asked consumers to buy single issues to help support the book, but monthly was never part of the equation (or if it was it was simply a false assumption on the consumer's part). Monthly in the creator-owned realm is the exception, not the rule, yest consumers take it as a given it will be monthly and become upset when it is not. Again, the core of the issue is unrealistic expectations and consumers not managing their expectations creating their own source of frustration. But people don't seem to want to take responsibility for their own expectations and reactions, it's easier to point fingers and place blame elsewhere. -M You can blame the reader if you want, I guess, and I am sure that type of delayed production schedule still works for some people. I'm just saying, if Disney only released the Mandalorian in 5 minute chunks once a week and it took them two years to get through season, I would probably lose interest pretty quickly and spend my time and money on something else. 🤷♂️ Are you really comparing one of the world's largest multi-national corporations with self-publishing single creatives? |
|
|
|
Post by impulse on Mar 4, 2021 11:56:24 GMT -5
Though of the rest of the ASOIAF books actually come out, I won't be opposed to getting them, but I won't start anything else he writes until it is in the can. Really what are the chances he's going to do anything else? Dude is pretty much retired it seems. He's also 72 years old and does not appear to be fit. I am not holding my breath for it. I think Winds of Winter will come out eventually. I have little to no expectations beyond that. You can blame the reader if you want, I guess, and I am sure that type of delayed production schedule still works for some people. I'm just saying, if Disney only released the Mandalorian in 5 minute chunks once a week and it took them two years to get through season, I would probably lose interest pretty quickly and spend my time and money on something else. 🤷♂️ Are you really comparing one of the world's largest multi-national corporations with self-publishing single creatives? Comparing them in terms of resources or production schedule capabilities? Of course not. I am using the example to point out that I no longer find that a satisfying format for consuming content anymore. |
|
|
|
Post by Randle-El on Mar 4, 2021 12:14:14 GMT -5
People keep using the word "obligation" in this thread, but I don't think anyone is arguing that creators are *obligated* to continue producing anything. That is too strong of a word, and not what I'm suggesting. The basis of my post/semi-rant was that the creators of creator-owned books often ask that readers purchase their books monthly as the best way to support the book. And I think creators realize that this is asking readers to step up their commitment, because in most cases buying monthly is more expensive and requires readers to commit to a long haul compared to trade waiting. My argument is that if creators are asking readers to step up their commitment by purchasing monthly, I think its not unreasonable for readers to be disappointed if creators do not likewise deliver on at least a semi-regular basis (e.g., not taking years off of the book). I also think it is not unreasonable if, based on that disappointment, readers choose not purchase the book monthly anymore. In fact, I think most people in this thread arguing "creators are not obligated to do anything because you already paid for your book" would agree that it would be reasonable to do so.
Nobody is saying readers should boycott the creators, start doxxing campaigns, or do anything else ridiculous beyond what normal recourse consumers always have if they are not happy with a product or service -- no longer purchasing the product or service. I don't think that not buying the product anymore is necessarily borne of a sense of entitlement or fanboy outrage. Is it entitlement or outrage if Coca-Cola changes their recipe and I don't like it anymore so I stop buying it?
To be clear, for those books that I chose to stop buying monthly because of irregular releases -- in most cases, I still intend to buy them eventually, either in collections, digitally, or perhaps a big stack of back issues. So with the exception of the last option, I'm still purchasing the product and still patronizing the creators.
But they're not asking you to buy monthly, they are asking you to buy the single issues whenever they come out. Monthly is the consumer's assumption but monthly in today's market environment is only a realistic expectation if you are reading assembly line comics put together by whomever happens to be available to meet the publishing schedule not by a consistent creative team bringing their "A" game every installment. In fact, many of the creator-owned series that have become iconic were not produced on anything like a monthly schedule. It took Jack Katz 12 to produce 24 issues of First Kingdom, the Pinis 7 years to produce 21 issues of Elfquest, etc. They came out when they came out, an issue or two a year. They both asked consumers to buy single issues to help support the book, but monthly was never part of the equation (or if it was it was simply a false assumption on the consumer's part). Monthly in the creator-owned realm is the exception, not the rule, yest consumers take it as a given it will be monthly and become upset when it is not. Again, the core of the issue is unrealistic expectations and consumers not managing their expectations creating their own source of frustration. But people don't seem to want to take responsibility for their own expectations and reactions, it's easier to point fingers and place blame elsewhere. -M
By "monthly" I meant "somewhat regularly". Given the nature of how comics have been released historically, I use the term monthly interchangeably with "regularly". Apologies for using unclear language.
|
|
|
|
Post by MDG on Mar 5, 2021 9:07:48 GMT -5
We're entering a new age, I think, where a lot more creators--comics, other art, music--are being funded directly by fan/consumers rather than publishers/galleries/recording companies, etc. The ones that will succeed are the ones who set reasonable expectations and deliver on them. (TBH, I don;t know how a lot of these people put food on the table.)
It means maintaining a personal "brand" for reliability and integrity. There are a few artists who have developed a rep for taking commission money from fans and making them wait years before they deliver.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 6, 2021 9:36:28 GMT -5
You can blame the reader if you want, I guess, and I am sure that type of delayed production schedule still works for some people. I'm just saying, if Disney only released the Mandalorian in 5 minute chunks once a week and it took them two years to get through season 1, I would probably lose interest pretty quickly and spend my time and money on something else. 🤷♂️ I don't find that to be a satisfying format for consuming content anymore. Comparing them in terms of resources or production schedule capabilities? Of course not. I am using the example to point out that I no longer find that a satisfying format for consuming content anymore. I, I, I, I, but that's not on you but on the creators? That's not you failing to manage expectation and taking responsibility for your own reactions? That's the creator's fault that your preference doesn't meet the realities of creating content and may not match the preferences of other consumers? It's not your preference and that's fine. It is what it is. But in no way, shape or form is that on the creators or publishers. If a consumer prefers to wait until a project is completely in the can until buying/reading/watching it, that is certainly an acceptable option. Maybe not the preferred one by the creatives who need income/revenue as the project is created to fund that creation, but it's a valid choice. However expecting a creator to produce on one consumer's preferred schedule is simple entitlement on the part of that consumer, especially since other consumers will each have their own preference and you can't please everyone. Getting upset or frustrated because someone else doesn't cater to your personal preferences and then generalizing and projecting that preference to be the norm for everyone is the epitome of unrealistic expectations. But denial is strong in fandom (and society in general). Again that's how you feel and that's valid. But that's not on the creators that's on you. And it's not their job to cater to you, it's their job to create the best content they can on a schedule that works best for them, no matter how long that takes, unless they are working for another entity that imposes deadlines, then their job is to produce on a schedule no matter the quality of the content. But if they creator-owned they decide the schedule needed to produce the best content they can. My preference is to get the best content for my money and I will buy it when it's available, but if it takes time to produce that quality content, that's fine with me. I'd rather wait and get the best than sacrifice quality to get something to meet my desire for a fix. But if the creator decides content needs to be created quicker to keep the revenue rolling in, well it's not my place to gainsay their decision, and then it's up to me to buy it or not, but expecting them to cater to my preference is not part of that expectation. I simply have to evaluate the content when it's available and make my decision to buy that piece of content or not. What factors go into that decision are my choice and my responsibility, not the creator's not the publisher's, not the distributor's. I'm responsible for my own expectations and reactions, no one else. The world's not going to adapt to me, I have to adapt to it and deal with the reality of what it is, not my wishful thinking or unrealistic expectation of what I think it should be. And if I do not like that reality, I can certainly work to change it, but it's not going to change just because I want it to or because I don't like the way that it is. -M |
|
|
|
Post by impulse on Mar 6, 2021 16:33:23 GMT -5
I, I, I, I, but that's not on you but on the creators? That's not you failing to manage expectation and taking responsibility for your own reactions? That's the creator's fault that your preference doesn't meet the realities of creating content and may not match the preferences of other consumers? It's not your preference and that's fine. It is what it is. But in no way, shape or form is that on the creators or publishers. If a consumer prefers to wait until a project is completely in the can until buying/reading/watching it, that is certainly an acceptable option. Maybe not the preferred one by the creatives who need income/revenue as the project is created to fund that creation, but it's a valid choice. However expecting a creator to produce on one consumer's preferred schedule is simple entitlement on the part of that consumer, especially since other consumers will each have their own preference and you can't please everyone. Getting upset or frustrated because someone else doesn't cater to your personal preferences and then generalizing and projecting that preference to be the norm for everyone is the epitome of unrealistic expectations. But denial is strong in fandom (and society in general). Again that's how you feel and that's valid. But that's not on the creators that's on you. And it's not their job to cater to you, it's their job to create the best content they can on a schedule that works best for them, no matter how long that takes, unless they are working for another entity that imposes deadlines, then their job is to produce on a schedule no matter the quality of the content. But if they creator-owned they decide the schedule needed to produce the best content they can. My preference is to get the best content for my money and I will buy it when it's available, but if it takes time to produce that quality content, that's fine with me. I'd rather wait and get the best than sacrifice quality to get something to meet my desire for a fix. But if the creator decides content needs to be created quicker to keep the revenue rolling in, well it's not my place to gainsay their decision, and then it's up to me to buy it or not, but expecting them to cater to my preference is not part of that expectation. I simply have to evaluate the content when it's available and make my decision to buy that piece of content or not. What factors go into that decision are my choice and my responsibility, not the creator's not the publisher's, not the distributor's. I'm responsible for my own expectations and reactions, no one else. I mean, yeah, it kind of is to a point. The deal with the monthly/periodical format is "here is a piece, come back for more." I am pretty sure both the creator and reader go into this expecting the "more" to happen eventually on a somewhat reasonable timescale, and when it doesn't or takes a super long time, people get frustrated. And no, it's not about a "failure to manage expectations and reactions." It's about not spending time and money on something I don't enjoy. I doubt I'm the only person who finds waiting months or years between pieces of a story really unsatisfying, so I am going to use the only vote I get in a capitalist transaction and not buy incomplete stories. You may think I am a selfish entitled jerk because I don't want to spend my increasingly rare free time and money on what is, to me, an incomplete and unsatisfying experience, but so be it (and apparently because I use proper pronouns). What else can anyone do but not spend money on something they don't enjoy anymore? People in this thread keep saying "You can feel how you want and don't have to buy it, but more than that..." but what is the "more than that"? There is no more than that. That seems like an imaginary argument to somehow further criticize the people frustrated with long delays or stuff never being completed. To flip it around, a business who refuses to adapt to the reality of what their customers want is quick to be without any. No one is demanding anything. People are saying they wish creators could either produce in more complete chunks or at least in a more consistent timeframe particularly when they ask people to buy in installment format. When that doesn't happen for any reason, people get frustrated. It may not be outright stated, but there definitely seems to be a subtext here thinking that consumers who are upset about all the delays and interruptions are selfish entitled jerks who should be grateful to accept whatever the creators bestow upon them when and how they choose to. The reality sucks, and I don't know the solution, but it is not "demanding the world cater to me" if I don't buy a book or comic from a creator with a history of not finishing what they start. I am also not a selfish, entitled jerk for not spending entertainment money on something I don't like. As MDG said below, setting and meeting reasonable expectations is going to be key to success. Maybe the Patreon or Gofundme model is the sweet spot in the future, and there can be some reasonable middle ground between "precisely monthly" and "maybe sometime, ever, some day if I get around to it this decade". |
|
|
|
Post by thwhtguardian on Mar 6, 2021 17:37:47 GMT -5
The "more than that" is all the talk about being owed, social contracts, obligations and so forth, when you go down that path you're just being entitled.
|
|
|
|
Post by impulse on Mar 6, 2021 17:54:49 GMT -5
If someone is selling a story broken into 6 pieces, and they put out parts 1, 2 and 3 of 6 for sale, most reasonable people would expect them to also sell parts 4 - 6 within a somewhat reasonable timeframe. This is not entitlement. It is common sense.
If any business enters an existing market with preexisting expectations or standards and fails to either meet them or to provide a compelling explanation for why they did not, they are not going to do well. That is not entitlement. That is business.
Expecting businesses to deliver on what they promise, either explicitly or implicitly based on mutual understanding and common knowledge, is not entitlement. Being upset and taking your business elsewhere when a company does not meet promises or standard expectations is not entitlement. It is no more entitled for a reader to want an author to finish a story they’re intentionally selling in pieces as it is for a creator to want readers to buy their partial story in an incomplete format because it’s more convenient for the creator.
|
|
