The Web 2.0/Image Comics Connection

September 23, 2007

Team Youngblood #17

A Liefeld cover I rather like...

Rampant industry hype? Exploitation of that hype to the detriment of the industry? It happened in the early-90s with sports cards, in the mid-90s with comic books, in the late-90s with web 1.0, and it will happen again.

In case you haven't heard, they number the internet now. It's up to version 2.0. Understand I die a little on the inside every time I hear the word "Web 2.0". But that's just what they call it.

What is the relationship between the Image Comics of old and today's Web 2.0? Let's just say both generated a lot of excitement within their respected industries, each receiving huge windfalls, one from comic sales, the other from venture capital. While the former had "senses-shattering" first issues, the latter has "BETA" launches. While the former had gritted teeth and shoulder pads, the latter has glossy buttons and gradients. While the former had Wizard Magazine to pimp their wares, the latter has TechCrunch.

During a movement of great hype, the very association with the movement brings greater attention to itself. It's the bandwagon effect. How many supposedly Web 2.0 sites get launched today with none of the ear-marks of next generation thinking: contribution, collaboration, and interaction? But throw some shiny buttons on it and it's suddenly "Web 2.0". It's the same thing that happened in the comics industry in the 90s. Add some cross-hatched up-lighting, straps and buckles, and overly-sexualized figures and it's just like Image Comics. Marvel did it, DC did it, and every indy-publisher-of-the-week did it. You can take those similarities to the bank.

Last decade's comic book industry bubble-burst has been blamed on the fans. If the fans hadn't artificially inflated the market, assuming that copy of Wild C.A.T.s #1 would pay their kids way through college, the market wouldn't have been set up to fail. I'd argue, amongst all the various factors involved, it's the bandwagon effect that has been grossly under analyzed.

As an aside... In the 90s, I never understood why Liefeld or Lee would release a new series when they couldn't even get their flagship titles under control (schedule-wise). The Image Comics founders, as it turned out, were incredible businessmen. If the #2 issues always sell 25% less than the #1 issues, it's just good business to release as many #1s as you can. Then Marvel comes along and restarts the Amazing Spider-man numbering with a shiny, new, collector's-item, first issue.

I won't pretend to understand the intricacies of economic bubbles. But, in my estimation, the crash of the comics industry, sport cards, or even the demise of Beanie Babies, stands as a dangerous portent for Web 2.0. Beware MBAs peddling folksonomies, and mashups, and social-networking. They are the holofoil covers of the digital age.

ComicScout and my other site, Astromance, could have jumped on the bandwagon. I could've added "BETA" to the logo (even though most web users have no friggin' clue what that means). Free marketing value was left on the table because I believe the product needs to stand on its own two feet. Web 2.0 is meaningless but, I hope, ComicScout is not.

Comments

No comments yet.

Add a Comment

Login or Sign Up to add a comment.