 |
Copyright MARVEL COMICS
|
The End Of An Age!
This isn't my final entry or post on
Crivens, but it's the last of this series. This is my personal perspective. I previously wrote about the events that happened which made me give up collecting and reading comics in 1977 or so
here, but I didn't write about
why this happened. I'll address that now.
Simply, the Silver Age and the Marvel Age ended in the mid-1970s. Why? The corporations took over. Creativity comes from individuals. As corporations took over, the individuality of the creative process was greatly diminished. It was Stan Lee, Jack Kirby and Steve Ditko who created the Marvel age. Now they were gone. They had answered to Martin Goodman who had a good sense of what would sell. Taken over by Perfect Film and Chemical, editors now answered to bookkeepers and other personnel who knew nothing about comics, publishing, or fans. They knew and cared only about profits.
I wasn't the only who saw the absence of originality, Jack Kirby saw it too:
"We need new, fresh views. The wrong men have been in charge of innovation in this business. We need to go beyond barbarian fantasies. And I'm hopeful of a comic renaissance. No longer is one man the entire product. There are writers, illustrators, printers, editors, managers and more managers. And the dollar sign that drives them to put out too much too fast, so the quality suffers." (Oakland Tribune, 1976.)
Marvel's new 1970s publishers slowly reduced the page count from 20-22 to 17 pages. To pay the artists less, often there were double page centerfolds, where the artist got paid just for one page. Marvel adopted the DC Comics publication model which included half pages that hurt the stories' continuity. At DC that was mandatory, and almost all superheroes appeared in two or more comics, written and drawn by different people. Stan Lee, when removing Iron Man and Thor from The Avengers in issue #16, explained that he didn't want to have two different continuities for each character. In the early 1970s Marvel adopted the DC plan with Team-Up, Two-In-One, Defenders, Avengers and Champions. It also seemed that storylines had to be stretched over many issues. Merchandizing, with toys such as the Spider-Mobile (issue #127), had to be worked into the stories even though they didn't fit.
Goodman knew and cared something about fans, his readers. When the line expanded in 1969 he made sure that his comics continued their continuity, so we got the one-shot Iron Man and Sub-Mariner issue to finish up their storylines. A decade later, Jim Shooter had to fight with the bookkeepers to have the conclusion of Tomb of Dracula finished. Three already-penciled issues had to be condensed into one giant-size one. So it goes.
The bookkeepers at Perfect Film and Chemical let Jack Kirby leave because they didn't view him as an asset, just another artist who could easily be replaced. Martin Goodman had known better (though he got it wrong by not giving Kirby a better contract before selling the company). The same thing was happening at DC when they were bought by Time/Warner. It's only profits that drive these companies, not creativity.
"The main man who writes Spider-Man (Marv Wolfman) has quit. He will soon join the competition, to do Superman. The editor in charge of The Hulk has been discharged. Some other key staff members are thinking of leaving. There is talk around the office that the editor in chief is power-thirsty and that the top people are more interested in coining money from licensing deals than they are in the superheroes."
"Although Marvel maintains that its comics are profitable, the industry, which is dominated by Marvel and DC, has for years been tumbling downhill. DC comics drastically shrank its line last year and Marvel has cut its list of titles to 32 from some 45. Licensing monies have ballooned ... They prompt one Marvel writer to grouse, 'Marvel seems to be becoming a toy company'." (NY Times, October 13 1979.)
"When I quit in 1976, in the same three week period, when Conway was the editor, Gerber quit, Starlin quit, Gulacy quit. It wasn't just me - a lot of people went out during that time. It had gotten to the point where a lot of people just didn't feel that it was what they'd signed on for." (Steve Englehart, Comic Journal, 1981.)
Look at the big budget superhero blockbuster movies of the last few years. Almost all the characters are over 50 years old, very little new. Sal Buscema recently stated that comics sell only 20% of what they used to sell. Gerry Conway has issued similar comments.
Perhaps comics always seem better when you're young, and the era in which you came aboard will always be the best. The corporate structure ended the Silver Age. My Marvel Age ended in 1977. The foundation that Lee, Kirby, Ditko (along with Dick Ayers and Don Heck) laid in the early 1960s is still strong enough to support and build interest in new generations of readers (as well as moviegoers) - all that's required are the right creative people, with vision, for the job.
54 comments:
Thank you for so eloquently explaining what I too went through.
I didn't at the time realize why the Silver Age was over or indeed that it was one until it was gone.
As Kid points out, as long as that material gets reissued in different forms future readers will still get to enjoy it.
Too true, T47. I buy more single issue reprints and collected editions than I buy new comics. Maybe comics publishers should think about that as they see sales declining on contemporary mags with new stories.
BP, you say that Martin Goodman knew what he was doing, but I always had the impression that it was Stan Lee who knew what he was doing and that Martin was happy to let him do it. And his '70s Atlas debacle seems to suggest that he didn't have much of a clue. I'd be interested in reading why you think he was so competent if you feel up to it.
Interesting stuff again Barry I had forgotten how Marvel (in particular) had changed so much from around 1977 onwards. I do remember being annoyed by the number of adverts in each comic around this time and with the reduction in the story page count. Added to this for me at least was the fact that so many of the old guard were looking a bit tired especially Kirby and Ditko with (the great) Sal Buscema becoming a bit of a hack churning out page after page of pretty dull stuff. The magic just seems to go around this time and your article seems to point as to why that was. I also missed the “Stan Lees present” banner heading on the splash page and the Marvel bullpen page with the checklist more than I thought I did. Today’s comics have some brilliant artists, glossy paper, wonderful printing, some strong storyline ideas (sadly not always executed that well) but they don’t seem to be able to recapture that sense of wonder, joy, and magic that Stan, Jack, Steve, Marie, Don etc gave us back in the day.
The 'Stan Lee Presents' banner lasted a good many years past 1977, McS, but I agree with you in that I also missed it when it finally disappeared. Part of the reason (I think) for the decline in entertainment value of comics is that at some point the contributors seemed to be embarrassed by working in comics and tried to make them more 'sophisticated' and 'mature' and 'arty'. That's when the magic started to disappear, as well as for the reasons that BP states.
Goodman was a very successful business man and was a multi-millionaire. He ran a BIG publishing company and comics were only ONE part of it. He made one big business mistake: He let his accountant convince him to close the Atlas Distributors that he had in the 1950s. They felt that he would make more money abandoning that, and using American Distributers instead. American went out of business six month later, leaving Goodman and the mercy of Independent Distributers. (Independent was owned by National Periodicals which also owned Marvel’s competitor, DC comics.)
When people talk about this, they often just talk about the limits DC put on Marvel’s titles, but Goodman published dozens of other magazines with no problem.
Stan, in many interviews that I have, basically said that Goodman knew what titles would sell and what to put on the coves. Goodman also knew how to circulate comics. (I feel he did NOT license Marvel’s material well.)
It was certainly Goodman that let Stan grow in the job, but Goodman was the guy who hired Ditko and Kirby and many others. Goodman handled the business end, which Stan even admits he was terrible at. That meant dealing with the printers, advertisers, shipping and distributing. You never hear of Stan dealing with those necessary issues, Stan just dealt with the creative side. But it was with Goodman, often through Sol Brodsky, that people such a Kirby negotiated their payment.
The Atlas/Seaboard thing is a bit complicated and not fully discussed why it failed. First, Martin Goodman did not run it, he gave that responsibility to his son Chip. (Goodman thought that Marvel would keep Chip as their publisher after he left, but Perfect Film quickly fired him.)
People think that Stan was then made publisher. Well, Stan was given that title, but he was not the “publisher” in the sense that Goodman was. He was NOT involved in most of the business issues, he was used to negotiate licensing and movie deals. It was just a title.
Chip Goodman failed. First, even working with Martin Goodman they could not get distribution, DC and Marvel locked them out. Second they hired the wrong editors and did not produce a consistent product. But it was the lack of a nationwide distributor that killed them. And then there is the biggest “secret.” Which I don’t know why is not discussed more.
Goodman, selling Marvel and his other publishing concerns (known as Magazine Management), for 15 million dollars, about 150 million in today’s money, also signed a NON-COMPETITIVE agreement, meaning he would not start a company to compete with Marvel. So, technically, I guess, he had Chip do it. When faced with a lawsuit, it just wasn’t worth continuing.
PS: The Stan Lee Banner was a creation of ROY THOMAS! It was his idea.
So he made a few mistakes then. Selling his distribution arm, signing a non-competitive agreement, putting his son in charge of the new Atlas, selling Marvel merchandising rights for next to nothing, and probably a few other things we don't know about. Stan said a few times that Martin mainly left the comics side up to him, while he (Goodman) busied himself with the other publications for adults (and I don't necessarily mean x-rated). Goodman had been in charge of Magazine Management for years before Stan, Jack, Steve, etc., created the Marvel Age. True, Martin did apparently tell Stan to do a Justice League knock-off, but that hardly entitles him to credit given that all the creativity in the FF came from Stan & Jack.
However, lots of food for thought in your comment, BP, so thanks for taking the time and trouble to write it.
Signing the non competitive agreement was not a mistake. It is a common condition when selling a business. There was no choice. Goodman also did not jake a mistake putting his son in charge. The entire purpose of starting it was to give his son An opportunity. If Goodman wanted to remain a publisher he would have kept marvel. He wanted to give his son an opening for a business. But Goodman had a good business sense to go back into the superhero comics at just the right time. You could look at his failures but his successor is very much outweigh them. What I am saying is that Stan Lee certainly was in charge of the creative end of the comics but not the business end. You need both to succeed.
I'd say that putting Chip in charge was a mistake going by fact that he wasn't really up to the job from what I've read others from that time say about him, BP. Didn't he put Jeff Rovin in charge of the colour mags and Larry Lieber in charge of the black and whites, when their experience was the other way around? The other thing we should remember is that Timely/Atlas/Marvel was never a leader in the '30s/'40s/'50s, it was a follower, jumping on the bandwagon of whatever seemed to be selling for other companies at the time. I suppose that's good business sense 'of a kind', but he didn't have the business sense to be an innovator, only a follower of trends (hence the name Timely).
It wasn't until Stan, Jack, & Steve were 'allowed' to 'do their thing' that Marvel became a success, so I suppose Goodman deserves some credit for not inadvertently sabotaging the 'Marvel Age' by sticking his finger in the pie at a crucial moment. However, his biggest talent seems to me to be that he knew when to keep out of the way. Jack Kirby considered Goodman a bit of a klutz for selling merchandising rights to Marvel characters for a song. I know why Goodman did it - he thought it would help sell the mags, but he was at odds with current thinking. Nowadays, the Marvel characters are kept around only to serve the potential for exploitation in films, TV shows, toys, models, games, t-shirts, etc.
Goodman was just never that savvy. Great rappin' with ya, BP.
The failing of Atlas was Chip's failure, perhaps, not Martins. I don't see setting your son up in a business as a mistake. Goodman was NOT trying to reenter publishing, he sole mission was to set his son up.
Goodman made millions off comics in the 1940s and 1950s. Maybe he was not number one, DC and Dell were, but he still made millions. And he made money off of his other successful magazines. I understand that his crossword puzzle books made a fortune. If Marvel was a small company that sold only comics it would be considered successful. As the small comic book part of Billion dollar Disney it is not considered a great company. The same is true for DC.
Perhaps, but as Martin put Chip in charge, and as he was clearly the wrong man for the job, Martin has to accept a measure of responsibility. Also, WHY did he set Chip up in the comics business? He was miffed because he believed (it may even been part of the agreement) that Perfect Film would put Chip in charge when Martin finally left, but they didn't, instead preferring Stan Lee. So Goodman clearly wanted revenge for the perceived slight against his son and he wanted to strike Perfect Film/Marvel where it hurt - hence the new Atlas.
If Martin wasn't running things behind the scenes with Chip merely serving as a figurehead, then Perfect didn't really have a case against him for breaching their agreement, because Atlas was Chip's company, not Martin's (even if he financed it). Okay, it's arguable, but he could have claimed that in court. He didn't want to spend money on defending himself in court because it was clear that Atlas was a failure and there was no point in fighting for it.
My point being that there were other ways that Martin could have chosen for putting his son up in business - the reason he chose comics was a personal one, revenge against Marvel's new owners. I don't dispute that Martin's other publication ventures were successful, but when it came to comics, he wasn't exactly the smartest tool in the box and that the '60s success of Marvel rested on the imagination and creativity of others. He sort of 'lucked out' with Marvel once Stan, Jack, and Steve found their feet. As I said, his greatest contribution there was (mostly) not to get in their way.
However, others may have a different opinion (as you do), so feel free to jump in, Crivs. The more the merrier.
Some really interesting points all round... in fact over the past few weeks comments on Barry's posts ( mostly by Barry) has produced a goldmine of great information.
Re the end of creativity: by the mid 70s Marvel had become very unprofessional as an outfit, with missed shipping dates, and hordes of reprints interrupting storylines. Professional artists such as the Buscema brothers where spread thin to cover the cracks, with layouts finished by less talented hands leaving a sub-standard artistic product. Although I loved the work during this period of Messrs Englehart, McGregor et al, they were (reportedly) constantly late or missed deadlines. Marvel no longer had a Kirby who could over a weekend come up with 20 pages of great storytelling when called upon by Stan. Wolfman come up with the tactic of inventory stories, but the fill-ins were invariably worse fare than any reprint.
Shooter improved matters with a new efficiency, but at the cost of creativity. My comic childhood came to an end when Shooter took over from Goodwin.
Re Goodman: I may be mistaken ( as I often am) but was it not Goodman who decided to follow then undercut DC in their drive to the 25 cent bigger format in '71. I thought it was that business decision that took Marvel to number 1 in the comics world.
Kid, I've loved Barry's guest blogs. I am in no doubt that you will use your great charm to entice Barry in providing many many more.
Spirit of '64
I believe that Barry has an idea for another series of posts, S64, which he is kindly going to allow Crivens to publish. Glad to see his other posts have gone down so well.
Regarding the story about Goodwin undercutting DC, the usual version is that Marvel went to 25 cents for more pages, DC followed suit, then Marvel lowered their price (and page count) to 20 cents, thereby enabling Marvel to overtake DC in sales. However, Alan McKenzie on his Marvel In The Silver Age site (in my blog-list) goes into great and interesting detail on this matter, and you may be surprised by the facts. The post to look for is 'Exposed: Myths of Marvel's Silver Age - Part 3' - I'm sure you'll find it interesting.
Great charm? Me? Okay, I'll buy that - even if nobody else will.
When someone gives you 15 million I don’t know if you ever want to get revenge. By gthe way, Chip was labelled “publisher” for a very brief time.
Kid, this is pure speculation. So don’t take it seriously.
I really think Martin Goodman became a publisher at a perfect time. Candy stores were opening, newsstands thrived, and the post office delivered subscriptions at a very low price. So while he may not have had any skills as a writer or editor he did very well. And thought he could easily do it again.
But gosh, the market had changed in 1975.
DC and Marvel dominated and both put out a huge amount of titles so that publishers, such as Atlas, would have no room on the shelves. But Dell comics, one the digest had folded. So did Harvey, western, Gold Key, Classics Illustrated and the black and white Skywald. Also dozens of magazines began to suffer and they fell. When this happens the distributors, with no products to distribute, also go out of business.
And the local candy stores, stationary stores, newsstands were beginning to fade. Goodman though, in my opinion, that he could jump right in, with comics that looked like Marvel (he always copied a trend) and had Marvel talent behind it. But he couldn’t get the comics on the stands and the fans basically rejected them. (He should have learned that the Marvel fans mostly did not follow Kirby over to DC.)
Notice Atlas didn’t stay long they gave up quickly. He would have put up a fight if he thought he would win. Win here means big sales.
A year or two ago, Goodman’s grandson had a lot of publicity selling the Atlas characters to Paramount to be made into movies. I think Paramount expected great fan interest. There has been none.
You'd think not, but if you felt you'd been stiffed on the deal when your son wasn't made publisher after you were told he would be, then that might sour your opinion of those who gave you that 15 million, eh?
Yeah, I'd agree that Goodman became a publisher at a perfect time. Sometimes, when the stars are aligned (I'm talking figuratively), then it's hard to go wrong with some business ventures unless you're a complete idiot. Goodman certainly wasn't that, but he was in the right place at the right time when he started, though as you point out, times change.
It doesn't really surprise me that there was little or no fan interest in the Atlas characters when Paramount bought them. The same thing happened when they were revived in a new comics line a few years back. I don't think they survived any longer than the original '70s mags, perhaps not even.
It's a funny old world.
Kid, I saw Roger's post some months back, and had some issues with it, especially the circulation figures, in spite of the lengthy research done. The story of Goodman back-tracking on the '71 price increase goes back some time before the Les Daniels book...at least when I read it there it was not news to me (I may have read about it when Roy Thomas did a big interview with the Comics Journal when he left Marvel in 1980, or thereabouts).
Goodman was a sharp operator who survived through some difficult times. Look at all the brands that ceased publishing comics or ended up being bought by National. Sure some of his business decisions did not go well ( changing distributors, the licensing deals), but the fact that Marvel was still there publishing in the '70s was down in no small part to him. Whether he came up with some of the strategies himself, he was the final decision maker, who said yes to publishing the FF, to launch the new super-hero titles in '63 etc etc.
Maybe we should laud Goodman for keeping a lot of the business side away from Stan ( if that's what he did...I have seen it for the first time here), which allowed Stan more time for concentrating on content.
Finally I had forgotten that the last Tomb of Dracula was a cannibalised version of 3 issues. I loved the work of Wolfman, Colan & Palmer on ToD. t would be great if Marvel got round to publishing those 3 full issues at some point.
Spirit of '64
I think Roger is a different McKenzie, it was Alan I was talking about, but his post was meticulously researched and he backed up his conclusions with factual and verifiable details, especially in regard to the circulation figures. Neither Al nor myself deny that Goodman changed his mind about the 25c line of mags, but it seems that Marvel had already overtaken DC before then anyway.
Yes, the story predates Les Daniel's book, but it was made 'official' due to the book being an authorised history of Marvel, so Daniel's recounting of the legend gave it more credence in readers' eyes.
At some stage it was entirely probable that Goodman's line of comics was losing money (didn't he close down or reduce the comics side of his operations at least twice?), but it was likely subsidised at various points by the success of his other publications. That all changed of course once the Marvel Age of comics began.
Right, I'm off for an afternoon kip.
Annon:
Marvel DID sort of reprint the entire 3 issue final for Dracula. It appeared in the Tomb Of Dracula Omnibus. The pages were penciled, but not inked. I gave a couple to Kid and he put them up.
Les Daniels book is full of errors, which Nick Caputo, Mike Vassallo corrected in Taschen's "75 Years of Marvel." Actually they were using his book for a reference, at the very beginning, until they got our material and saw how incorrect he could be!
Poor old Les, as he was only actually working from the info he was supplied with from the usual sources. I've got my copy autographed by Stan when I met him in November 1991. (Along with a half dozen other books.) Some nice pictures in it though, eh, Barry?
Les does not often quote his sources and he used several bad ones. Yes, good pictures.
BUT, when you do a book with Marvel permission and use tehir resources you are also limited to what you can say. The only limitations we had with Taschen was that we could NOT use images from licensed material that Marvel no longer had control of. So that also meant that we generally did not write comments for material we could not get. (Thongor is an example.) I think we were able to use Conan because they got special permission for it. Conan was not at Marvel until recently, although that is where the comic started.
Funnily enough, when it comes to Conan in comics, I tend to think they're not the 'real' Conan unless they're published by Marvel, so I'm glad he's back with them. Tonight I just ordered the Epic Collection, even though I've got the Omnibus (with Smith's cover), Conan Classic, Conan Saga, the Dark Horse softcover reprints, and probably others I've forgotten. I've also got several True Believers reprints, plus the original Conan #1 from the '70s. And I don't even consider myself a particularly big Conan fan, but I do like him in Marvel comics.
Barry
thanks. I will have to hunt out the Omnibus. Thing is, given lack of space, I might have to get rid of the original TODS that I have to bring in the Omnibus. Otherwise given Palmer is still around, it would have been nice to have him ink the pages, and show both inked and un-inked versions.
Kid,
hope you had a good kip, and yes, you caught me napping in writing Roger instead of Alan. The start of the onset of early dementia unfortunately. What I find missing from Alan's erudite analysis are average circulation numbers. Given that National published far more titles than Marvel did during the period, then if what Alan had in his blog is accurate, it means that Marvel overtook National in terms of copies sold per title probably as early as 1965. It really goes against what was the perception in the U.S. marketplace at the time.
Spirit of '64
I was really disappointed in Les' Marvel book, especially as his Comix history (with the Mad Peck studios) from the early 70s was really excellent and gave a fantastic choice of reprint features inside.
Spirit of '64
Admittedly, it's a complicated thing to work out, but I have faith in Alan's conclusions as he referred to the official figures of the Audit Bureau of Circulations, not the publishers' statements, as it's reputed that publishers often just made them up. I'd recommend reading Al's post again because he covers your reservations in some detail. I fear that, given my failing memory these days, I may also have what you're suffering from. I'll eventually have to see about it, but I'd prefer not to face it yet.
As for Les's book, I never really read it in any great detail, just skimmed through the text as it was really the pictures I was interested in.
Kid,
I like to kid about certain things in comics and call them “secrets” when they are not. Many self-proclaimed comic Historians actually just study the comics, not the business of producing comics. Many of these people will tell you that the circulation figures in the comics are not accurate. Or they will tell you that it took a month to a year to get the figures on comic book sales.
Actually not true. And her is an example of how Stan Lee did ZNOT handle the business end, but Goodman did.
If a publisher had to wait six moths to find out that a month or weekly magazine did nto sell, he would be out of business in no time. Publishers \needed to know that information with in weeks.
Do you know what Goodman’s first job in publishing was?
He would take train rides around the county (in the 1920s) going into different stores in different markets to check on the sales of magazines. He would report back to the publisher and tell him what magazines were selling, which were not and in what regions they were selling.
Goodman had “scouts” (now that everyone had a telephone) in the 1960s that checked on the sales of his magazines and comics and they reported directly to him. I actually saw them when they came into my aunt’s candy store to see what sold. They looked at ALL the titles, not just the ones from their company and told the publishers which titles were selling and which were not.
In many interviews Stan Lee said that he did not know whyt he Hulk was cancelled because the sales figures were not in. Well, the exact figures, which is how the distributor paid the publisher did take some time and Stan, who was not in the business end, did not have those figures. But Goodman knew it was not selling as well as he wanted. The Hulk may not have been losing money, but since Goodman could only print 16 comics a month, he probably wanted to try for a better seller.
Kid, seriously think about it. Could a TV producer last if he had to wait 6 months for ratings? Could a movie last if they had to wait months for a return. The comic book publishers had to know asap.
(PS I do NOT know if the scouts were hired by just Goodman, or the distributor, or also by DC. But they were an essential part of the business.) And think about it, doesn't it make sense. They were not going to print more issues of a comic that wasn't selling.
That's interesting, Barry, but I see a couple of problems with it right off the bat. First, did every candy store in America get the same amount of every title published? If one gets 8 copies of a particular title and only sells three, he may think it's not selling very well. If another vendor gets only four copies and sells three, he'd report it as a strong seller. Variations in the numbers of issues that vendors (candy stores, etc.,) would reduce any reports of sales gathered in this way to 'not very reliable' status.
Also, consider Amazing Fantasy #15. Goodman cancelled it after it had been published (or was too late to prevent it from being published) and it sold out. Stan says that when his boss saw the figures for how well that issue sold, he ordered Stan to give Spidey his own title. However ASM #1 didn't appear until at least seven months later, so why didn't Goodman, if he was relying on scouts, order Spidey #1 to be published sooner? The two stories had already been produced it seems (one of them definitely had) so they were practically all ready to go - but didn't - until the sales figures on AF #15 came in. Had Goodman's scouts reported that AF #15 was a hot seller, Spidey would've had his own mag within a couple of months.
And if Amazing Fantasy wasn't selling up until Spidey appeared, wouldn't Goodman have cancelled it sooner? Using scouts to report back how well a comic might be selling might give a rough approximation of sales, but it was hardly reliable.
Your analogy between movies, TV shows and comics is interesting, but measuring the popularity or success of a movie or a TV show is done differently from comics. After all, when was there ever a queue around the block back in the '60s waiting to buy a comic? You knew if you had a hit with a movie almost right away from the opening night, but comics didn't quite work that way.
Remember that Al is using the official Audit Bureau of Circulations sales figures to back up what he's saying, not 'making it up (like publishers' statements sometimes did) or relying on the general impression of what 'scouts' may have reported at the time. Therefore, I don't think his conclusions can be dismissed so easily.
Another thing: On the day that TV Century 21 was released in the UK back in 1965, the editors went around various newsagents to see the response to it, and were downhearted to hear that it seemed not to be selling. When they later got an update, demand had outstripped supply and for a few years, TV21 was probably the best selling comic in Britain after The Beano (which was a cheaper and completely different kind of periodical). Just goes to show, eh?
I am not writing the great American novel explaining every detail, but here goes. You are giving reasons why you think the scouts did not work, but they did.
1. Unlike today, and I actually write about this in my book, the candy stores and newsstands got deliveries of comics from the distributor. And it was the distributor who decided on the amounts, not the candy store. The candy store owners didn’t know anything about comics, that came later with the comic book shops. The amount was occasional altered due to returns and such, especially on new comics, but generally after a brief time the amount was set and not changed. but the store owner could NOT adjust amounts. So the scouts knew what to look for. There is a possibility, however, and I don’t know this, that the amounts we regional where every store in a certain area got the same amount. But I do not know this to be fact.
2. Remember that Independent Distributors limited Marvel’s titles. Goodman could NOT start a title in 1961-2 without cancelling another title so that may have been a concern. We don’t know when he told Lee about Spidey, not from what source. Or when. Stan never said where Goodman’s information came from. And it could have been from the distributer. But it took at least four months to create and start a new comic. It has to be drawn, lettered, written, colored, scheduled with the printer, delivered etc. (It actually took at least three months, start to finish, to publish a comic. I spoke to Roy Thomas about that. I thought the lead time was much less). Nothing was den in tow months.) So it is likely Goodman knew within one to two months. And then Goodman has to wait unit there was a spot available. In Spidey’s case, Linda Carter Student Nurse had to be cancelled. Of course, Goodman would only cancel a comic when he thought a new one would do better.
3. Your opinion in reliability has no bases in facts. Goodman’s structure worked for him and we do not know the details. You are presuming things. Apparently the system, perhaps not flawless, worked well for him.
4. I am not dismissing the circulation figures. I just saying that Publishers needed and had other tools. If you are looking for perfection, I am sure we won’t find it. But if you are satisfied with strong indictors this worked. And it was the system they used.
From my book a slightly edited and shorten version:
There was only one truck that brought the comics and magazines on any given day, so everything was coming from one distributor. All comics, super-hero or Disney, came at the same time, often in the same bundle. The bundles would have dozens of titles. The comics came in stacks wrapped in metal wires that had to be cut open. When they unwrapped the comics, you could actually smell the ink on the Marvels and the Charltons. I originally thought Marvel and Charlton were from the same company. These bundles were literally thrown off the truck in front of the store and then brought inside. I would ask the store owner to open the Marvels first, because I knew which ones they were. The dealers did not deal with the publishers, just the distributors. While they would certainly recognize certain names like Superman, it was all the same to most of them, whether it was Casper or Ghost Rider. For all they cared, it could have been Casper the Friendly Ghost Rider.
There was an invoice packed on the top of each bundle, identifying the comic (or magazine) and how many of each was delivered. This was about money so the invoice was always checked carefully. It was usually printed on a large sheet of paper that looked like a dot matrix printout. At every store and newsstand this was checked thoroughly and notes on incorrect numbers were made by the owner. Often, they would write dates or numbers on the actual comic covers to keep track of things. This is where the serious “care and feeding” ended because the comics were handed off to someone, anyone, to put in the racks. Stores could not set the amounts; they were set by the distributor. The dealer had no idea if there were new titles or if old titles had failed. It did not matter because comics were returnable for full credit.
We think too hard about how the comics were placed and replaced on the stands. These people were not rocket scientists and did not care as much as we would like to think. In addition, as time went on and comics became less profitable by keeping their 10 or 12 cent price when other magazines raised theirs. They were then taken from stands and put onto revolving, circular racks, often in the rear of the store. There might be a hundred titles a month coming in and only thirty vacant spots. The dealers took out whatever comic looked older, sold less or had an earlier date and replaced them with the new comics. This means that a title that was there for a week had as much chance of being pulled as a comic there a month or more. Often the person refreshing the rack was not the same person as last time so there was no memory of what came in when. Marvels were dated two to three months ahead so dealers would think they were new and keep them on the rack longer. DC was not the sole competitor to Marvel. Dell, Western and Harvey, who sold to a very different audience, but competed for space in the stores
What I'm saying, BP, is not that the 'scouts system' didn't work per se, but that it wasn't (by its very nature) the most stringent way of ascertaining sales - or at least not what COULD have sold. In your second comment you actually explain why it couldn't be, but I'll get to that in a moment.
First, it may have been the distributor who decided on the amounts, but it was the candy store owners who decided which comics went into the spinner-racks and which ones languished in the back store until there was space for them - if ever.
Remember that two or three Spidey stories had been prepared in advance. The Spidey tales for AF #16 & 17 had been completed (or just about), so had Goodman's scouts told him that #15 was flying off the shelves, he could have reversed his decision to cancel Amazing Fantasy and continued it the next month. It had already been announced in the mag that Spidey was going to be a regular character, so the readers wouldn't have been surprised to see #16. The fact that Goodman seemingly didn't know that AF #15 was popular 'til the sales figures came in suggests that the scouts didn't exactly have their fingers on the pulse.
You say that my reservations about the reliability of the scouts system have no basis in fact, then you say we do not know the details and that I am presuming. If WE don't know the details, BP, then YOU are likewise presuming, though you are presuming that just BECAUSE Goodman used scouts then it must've worked. Not necessarily, it may just have been his only perceived option to get an idea, a sense, of what was selling between receiving the sales figures. He cancelled Hulk with issue #6, but you say it was without knowing the sales figures and only based on what the scouts were telling him. However, when Hulk was given his own spot in Tales To Astonish, he became an extremely popular character, so it would appear that Goodman jumped the gun when it came to cancelling the Hulk's own mag. And that's my point - scouts may have given him a general idea, but it was a general idea based on what candy store owners were putting in the spinner-racks, and one candy store owner may have put all his Hulks out for sale while another one put none out, so some comics weren't even getting the chance to be sold.
Of course, that also applies to the Bureau of Audit Circulations figures, because they wouldn't know what mags were or weren't being put in the racks either, but their figures were what actually sold, not just a general impression given to them by scouts.
You see, you're assuming that because Goodman used scouts that they worked, but that's just an assumption the same as my view is, because it relies on the honesty, integrity, and diligence of those scouts, and how do we know they just didn't play pool in a bar all day when they should have been out pounding the pavement? Maybe they based their info on sales on just a few candy stores, instead of all the ones they were supposed to visit? But I'm being playfully facetious, all I'm really saying is that it doesn't strike me as being the most scientific way of gathering information on sales, and it's clear that Goodman got it wrong on occasion by relying on this method.
You still doubt me? Well read your own words in the second half of your previous comment. You said: "We think too hard about how the comics were placed and replaced on the stands. These people were not rocket scientists and did not care as much as we would like to think. In addition, as time went on and comics became less profitable by keeping their 10 or 12 cent price when other magazines raised theirs. They were then taken from stands and put onto revolving, circular racks, often in the rear of the store. There might be a hundred titles a month coming in and only thirty vacant spots. The dealers took out whatever comic looked older, sold less or had an earlier date and replaced them with the new comics. This means that a title that was there for a week had as much chance of being pulled as a comic there a month or more. Often the person refreshing the rack was not the same person as last time so there was no memory of what came in when."
So that means the scouts were basing their evaluation on a flawed, imperfect system to begin with. Sure, they could give Goodman a general impression of how many copies of a particular mag sold that month, but they couldn't say how many WOULD'VE sold had they been put out on sale in every candy store, instead of many of them never making it out of the back shop.
So I think my point still stands (and remember, it's just an opinion, as is yours) that Goodman, while successful, probably wasn't as successful as he might have been. I'd certainly say he wasn't the insightful businessman that some people think he was. He had a degree of rudimentary business acumen, which was helped by being in the right place at the right time and with the right people around him.
No, it's not an opinion. This was the system in place. I even talked to Julie Schwartz (DC comics) about it regarding Kirby's Fourth World. You can make up any scenario you want, but it was the system that Goodman used. You are sitting back, 60 years after the fact, in another country, making up rules that did not exist.
Ditko discussed how the Hulk was coming back. Lee and Ditko were looking for a character to add to TTA and they worked on several and decided that they could bring the Hulk back, but the altered the character and the story.
" how do we know they just didn't play pool in a bar all day when they should have been out pounding the pavement? Maybe they based their info on sales on just a few candy stores, instead of all the ones they were supposed to visit?" That is just silly, of course they gave reliable data to Goodman. And, it had to align with the official counts months later. It wasn't just candy stores, there were general stores, drug stores, Woolworth and so on. You keep making up stories why this would not work, but in reality it did.
"they could give Goodman a general impression of how many copies of a particular mag sold that month" Tht ius what they wanted.
Back to Schwartz. He told me that they monitored the New Gods etc sales from the month they came out. And every month, he said there were less and less sales. They monitored sales monthly. He said that there were certain places (I assumed across the country) that were indicators to them on what comics were selling. In other words they had a list of places they checked into to see what was selling. And they checked on them all the time. They did not wait for the official figures because that would way to late, they would have lost a fortune. They cut down on the print run very early. (He did not tell me which issue because, in my opinion, he didn't remember. Carmine Infantino also said very early on.)
I think part of the problem here, BP, is that you don't quite seem to comprehend precisely what I'm saying. I'm not disputing the fact that this was the system in place, but your view of how effective it was is an opinion - one that I don't necessarily agree with. And I've explained reasonably and logically why I don't think it was as effective a system as it could have been. I'm not 'making up stories' as to why it wouldn't work (merely indulging in humour), I'm applying common sense as to why a 'general impression' of what was or wasn't selling might not always mirror the official sales figures. And reason and logic don't go out of date - even after 60 years.
For example, Goodman cancelled some mags because (and you admit that you don't always know precisely why, you're just assuming - even though it may be a reasonable assumption) because he had the impression they weren't selling, based on what scouts told him. Yet whatever he replaced a mag with may not have sold what the cancelled mag might''ve sold had he let it run for a few more issues. (Then again, the reverse is also possible.)
So what I'm saying is that, to me, the system itself was a flawed system, in that it had too many variables and wasn't an exact science. It wasn't the best, it was merely the best they had at the time. I'm not disputing that it was the system they used, just that it doesn't strike me as a terribly reliable one. One thing they perhaps should have considered doing was trying to find out why certain comics didn't seem to be selling. Were they actually being put on sale in the spinner-racks, or were they languishing in the back shop because of lack of space? Goodman cancelled Hulk, but ol' Hulkie went on to become of their most popular comics. He cancelled Amazing Fantasy, but its newest hero went on to become the face of Marvel. So it's a fact that he didn't always make the most sensible decisions.
You talk about the money he'd have lost if he hadn't cancelled some titles, but how much money did he lose between AF #15 and ASM #1 by not having Spidey appear in that seven month gap? Swings and roundabouts? Who knows - all I'm saying is that I don't get the impression that Goodman was as savvy a businessman as you seem to think he was. (Not that I'm saying he was an idiot.)
Here's a true story. I once worked in a local shop, which was one of several around the country. It was owned by two guys in Newcastle, and it was the kind of business that could have run itself and made money. So from that point of view it was a success, but it wasn't making as much money as it was capable of. When the woman I worked with was off on maternity leave for six months, I ran the place myself, seven days a week, without a day off, and made £10,000 more in that six months than the same period the previous year. How? I wasn't satisfied with just going through the motions and running the business the way it had always been run - following the 'system' so to speak. I applied imagination, creativity, diligence, and effort.
Now, if I hadn't done that, and waited 60 years to say how I would've run things, people would undoubtedly say "It's all right you creating another scenario or system 60 years after the fact, but you're talking out of your @rse!" Sure, we're not talking about a multi-million pound (or dollar) business, but I have Mensa-level IQ and I can make well-considered deductions about how things are done and how they can or could have been improved in various situations - even ones I have no previous experience in. Incidentally, when the woman returned and I left, although she had someone else in my place, the profits quickly dropped by a significant few thousand quid. I know that because I was in discussions with the owners about the possibility of buying the place, though I later changed my mind.
As for Kirby's Fourth World mags, even today there's dispute as to just how well they did or didn't sell. Many people, looking at the figures 50 years after the fact, say that they were very respectable and that other mags selling less weren't cancelled. One thing's for sure, they weren't selling as much as DC hoped they would, but that's another story. My point being that it's not entirely comparable with the way Goodwin handled things over at Marvel. And what strikes me when you say that Schwartz monitored sales in a list of places that were indicators of how well some titles were selling, is that unless you know how these titles were selling (or not) in the places they DIDN'T check, then it's a bit of a leap of faith to assume that the figures were unanimous.
Anyway, BP, I DO love a frank and honest discussion.
Wow what an amazing debate!
Barry, I now understand the US comics distribution system thanks to your first-hand experience and knowledge.
The system was flawed.... by today's digital, real-time reporting standards. But it may have been the best system possible for those days. Whatever the scouts came back with would never be 100% accurate. I look at it akin to polling before a general election, where, even with very intelligent statisticians running them, polls are invariably wrong. But how else can you make a judgement call before the official figures are in?
Re cancelling a comic: there may be factors involved in cancelling titles other than sales. I am of the opinion that the Fourth World was cancelled because DC did not see a future in super-heroes other than the Superman and Batman franchise.
Re AF#15. Are there any actual reported sales for this comic? They may not have been that good, otherwise I don't understand why else there would have been such a lag to Amazing Spidey#1. The story about great sales may have been made at a later date. Goodman hated having old inventory material around (ie for AF 16 and 17) and he and Stan may have taken a punt on a new title given stories of how well DC super-heroes were selling.
Re the Hulk: given that the character was used, not extensively, but several times with cover exposure after Hulk 6, including of course in the Avengers, means, I believe, that the Hulk comic could not have been such a dud. It's cancellation may go back to my previous point, that a reasonably selling comic may be cancelled not necessarily because of poor sales, but for other reasons such as the opportunity of a new title/ idea that might do a whole lot better. And with Sgt Rock doing well at National, why not a Sgt Fury?
Kid, great story about you running the shop. Well done. Any chance you doing the same for the economy?
Spirit of '64
I don't regard it as a debate, S64, merely an interesting (and friendly) discussion. Yes, I previously said that it may have been the 'best' system for the time, but it was a superficial system based on expediency that really didn't address what I would've viewed as the main problem had I been Martin Goodman. I'd have wanted to know why some comics, especially those by Lee, Kirby, and Ditko (his top men) didn't appear to be selling. I'd have had those scouts checking to see that the new titles in particular, as well as some of the older, ailing ones, were actually being put out for sale in the spinner-racks and not being left in the back of the shop.
Remember also that shop owners could rip the cover (or merely the logo) off a comic and return it for full credit, so some of the lazier ones may have done just that without ever putting them on the stands, which obviously would affect sales. And if the publishers were prepared to just make up their sales figures for the statements included in the comics every so often, can we be sure that some of those scouts didn't do the same on occasion?
That's an interesting point you make about the reasons for some comics being cancelled. Apparently, DC cancelled Kirby's In The Days Of The Mob before it had even been distributed, and when it was, it was barely and poorly. It's said that many bundles of them were later discovered in a warehouse, never having been distributed to stores. That's why it was later advertised for sale in the pages of comics themselves, in an attempt to shift them.
I can only assume that AF #15's sales figures took a while to come in, as was common, and Martin Goodman didn't sanction ASM until he could see that it was a hot seller. It surely must've been, otherwise we probably wouldn't have seen Spidey again, except for the already completed stories being used as filler material in another mag. That's why I'm dubious about the effectiveness of the scouts system, because if they were on the ball, Goodman would've known about AF's success far earlier.
Barry's point about Goodman losing money if he didn't cancel a comic doesn't totally convince me of his assessment - for the following reason. Most comics didn't set the world on fire and publishers were used to losing money, as the whole process was a bit of a gamble. In Goodman's case, he might cancel one comic and replace it with another that also didn't sell, then have to cancel that one - and the one after, etc. Publishers were used to that, it was part of the process. They churned out as many as they could to see which ones would stick, because one successful comic probably covered a few less-successful ones. However, there were probably instances where, had a comic been given just a bit longer, and had they ensured that it was actually being seen by the public, it may well have picked up in sales quicker than publishing another half-dozen or so failures in quick succession.
My main point being that publishing a successful comic seems to me to have been more speculative in many instances than it perhaps needed to be, and more down to chance than was necessary. I'd have tried to stack the deck more in my favour, rather than just churn them out in the hope that some would stick. Easy to say perhaps, all these years after the fact, but not necessarily impossible to do. Remember though, that Goodwin wouldn't have had to take those chances if not for the restrictive distribution deal he had to operate under, which meant he had to cancel one comic to take a chance on another. If he hadn't created that situation for himself by selling or closing down his own distribution set-up, he could've had the best of both worlds by producing new comics without cancelling others.
In short, he f*cked up.
As for the economy - I can do the impossible, but miracles take a little longer.
Anon:
You may be wrong about Kirby’s Fourth World. I spoke to the editors and publishers, Julie Schwartz and Carmine Infantino. There was no politics or anything here. These were businessmen, pure and simple. They only cared about money. The comics were NOT selling. There is a dispute over what happened to the comics that were supposedly returned for credit, but not with these greedy guys. If the comics sold they would continue with it. People like to read into this mofre and more but it just about the money.
How, at Marvel comics were cancelled and started is a bit confusing. Goodman had to cancel a comic before starting a new one. He also had to make the printing dates or the printer would “fine” him. As we discussed Stan lere was NOT handling the business end. He did NOT know that Amazing Fantasy was going to be cancelled, he did not have the circulation figures. So issue #15 has a big coming attraction for issues 16 and 17. And Stan had created stories for the next couple of issues. Probably, if things were different, Goodman would have burned off those stories in Tales of Suspense or Strange Tales.
Even at DC a “cancelled” series got second changes. Green lantern would appear in the Flash, and previously Aquaman, Geen Arrow, Congo Bill, Tommy Tomorrow etc would shoe up somewhere. Lee and Goodwin obviously felt that having the Hulk in Tales to Astonish would only increase sales. Ironically, The Backups to Tales to Astonish (Hulk); Tales of Suspense (Captain America) and Strange Tales (Dr. Strange) proved more popular than the main feature.
You know they cancelled Dr. Strange bug quickly brought him back about a year later. So they must have known something about his circulation that we don’t.
Anon, when you mention Sgt. Fury you point to the success of Sgt. Rock. But when you look at Goodman’s history he ALWAYS had war books. And westerns and teen books. He always had one foot, so to speak in different genres so that when one picked up he put out a ton of titles. But Atlas had a ton of war comics. In fact, Mike Vassallo just put out a great book of Marvel’s war stories.
Kid, I disagree totally with your “made-up” premise. Goodman knew how to make money and he generally made the right decisions. He made things less of a gamble usually by coping the success of others. His job as publisher was to make the best judgement and make thing less of a gamble.
You are making up what publishers were used to. Successful publishers were used to success. Goodman knew how to judge and predict success. (Now I don’t, so I cannot explain his judgement.) Those who don’t go bankrupt.
Yes, Goodman made one big mistake, closing Atlas distributors. However he made many more good decisions. Comic book people often don’t see the entire business picture. Goodman’s comics were, originally, a small part of his much bigger Magazine Management, which was selling magazines and doing very well and made him a multi-millionaire. And the he created the Marvel Age of comics, where his sales went from 15,000,000 to 70,000,000 in less than a decade. He then sold the company for $15,000,000 which would be $150,000,000 today. Hard to say he messed up. (Oh, Disney bought Marvel for 4 billion.)
By having fewer titles, Goodman, for the first time, had to concentrate on quality to get big sales. Before he flooded the market. It is anyone's guess that if he had kept his distributorship and put out dozens more titles if he would have been equally successful. Look have Marvel declined in the 1970 when they put out there times as many titles.
It's not a 'made up premise', BP, it's a fact that there is a speculative aspect to publishing and all I'm doing is pointing it out. However, you're not obliged to agree with how I see things any more than I'm obliged to see things your way. True, I'm looking at things with a certain amount of hindsight, but hey, you know what they say - "Hindsight is a wonderful thing!"
You say that successful publishers were used to success. Overall, yes, but that doesn't mean that they were all as successful as they potentially could have been. One could therefore argue that not to succeed as much as one is potentially able to, is, to a degree, to fail. If you only earn 30 million a year (just to pluck a figure from the air) when you could have earned double that, haven't you failed to a certain extent? Yeah, I know, 30 million a year is the kind of failure we could all stand to suffer, but you know what I'm saying.
Remember also, that some of Goodman's success was down to him being what some people (Jack Kirby and Joe Simon being two of them) would call a crook. He stiffed them on their share of the profits on Captain America by deducting all Timely/Atlas's expenses from the profits of Cap's mag alone, did he not? Hey, when you're robbing people, it's easy to make money. Remember also that I'm not criticising him for the way he ran the rest of his publishing empire - all I'm saying is that he could have handled the comics side of it better. The proof? You even admit it yourself - he made a huge mistake by getting rid of Atlas Distributors, which was the sole reason he found himself in the situation of having to cancel one comic before he could launch another. It was mainly because of what Lee and Kirby (and others) did that led to an increase in sales over a decade, Goodman just rode on their coattails on account of being publisher
You're also overstating the case by saying that Goodman 'created the Marvel Age Of Comics'. No, he didn't - he financed it, certainly, but, as I said, it was Lee, Kirby & Co. who created it. You say that comicbook people often don't see the entire business picture. Well, in my book, that's like going into battle seriously under-equipped. Not exactly the smartest strategy in the world, even if you do end up somehow surviving the skirmish.
Think about it BP. As you say (and as I was aware), Disney bought Marvel for four billion. Do the maths. (And yes, it's maths, not math.) Four billion (and that was quite a few years back, it'll be worth even more now) against the $150,000,000 that Goodman would have got for the company today kind of suggests that my assessment of his abilities as a businessman being not quite what they could have been is more accurate than you allow for. Four billion against $150,000,000? I still kind of think that, relatively speaking, Goodman lost out there.
And I wasn't suggesting that Goodman, had he not lost his distribution arm, should have 'flooded the market', only that he wouldn't always have had to cancel one comic before launching another. That way, Hulk could've been allowed a few more issues to find its feet, instead of being cancelled to make way for another title.
This will probably be my last comment on this. First, because I am writing another blog for you. Second, Roy Thomas just gave me a big assignment to write about Lee and Kirby for Alter Ego #170.
You and I have a different view, You ONLY look for failure from Goodman (see your second paragraph) not success. Making 30 mil is a success for a lot of individual. How d you know that another risk will bring in more money?
Do you know the full story about Captain America? Do you know what was in their contract? And do you know that the person who told them that Goodman was allegedly “stiffing” them was a competitor who wanted them to work for his company. Neither Simon or Kirby in their autobios ever refer to this. Possibly because it is not true. Where is your source?
What is true is the pair was supposed to work exclusively for Marvel but started doing work for DC (and needed an excuse to do it).
Okay, Goodman financed and therefor started the Marvel Age. We know he didn’t draw or write comics.
Marvel was a different company and the world was different in 1968. Disney saw merchandizing, licensing, TV and movies which were not a big deal in 1968. No the company grew with the times. That was not a failure it was a great success. Goodman however, could have probably done more with licensing. Even DC, until the Batman TV show and the Superman movie (1976?) did not have the value it has today.
It was NOT a “mistake” to go to American Distribution because he saved money. He could not have predicted it’s going out of business. It was a successful company. (The Government made them close down the distributing part of their business.) Goodman made the right decision. And again, forced to go to Independent Goodman’s magazines did not suffer. And he rebuilt a company that overtook DC comics in circulation.
Well, it depends on your point of view, BP. I believe I just take a wider one than you do. It's not that I'm looking for failure, I just recognise there was an opportunity for even greater success. Or, at least, quicker success. As for your question about how I know that another risk would bring in more money, well how do you know it wouldn't? Every new mag they put out was a risk that they'd lose money, as well as a chance that they'd make some. By it's very nature, the publishing industry, particularly when it came to comics, was a risky business. I'm stating the obvious, I'm not saying anything controversial.
The story about Simon & Kirby being stiffed by Goodman is a well-known one and has been repeated many times over the years, even by industry professionals. Neither Kirby or Simon ever denied it as far as I'm aware, and they most certainly must've been aware of it. And while it's certainly within the realms of possibility that they started the story themselves to excuse their moonlighting for DC, on what grounds do suggest such a thing beyond mere speculation? Essentially, they were fired by Goodman for moonlighting, so why would they need an excuse after the fact for doing so? What was done was done. However, to answer your question more specifically, here's what publisher John Morrow said in Kirby 100, in a chronology of Jack's career.
"Before completing their work on Captain America #10 (cover dated Jan. 1942), Timely's accountant reveals to Kirby and Simon that they are being cheated out of promised profits from the title as originally negotiated with Goodman. By then, the men are recognized throughout the industry as a top creative team in the field. Clandestinely, the partners contact Jack Liebowitz, co-owner of DC Comics, the industry's top publisher, and negotiate a deal: $500 every month for the partners in return for 25 pages (extra for additional work). Secretly preparing their DC stories, Simon & Kirby's secret deal is uncovered by Goodman and the two, after finishing their last issue of Cap, are fired. Upon their departure, Stan Lee takes over as editor of the comics line."
So there's my source, BP. Perhaps you should be asking John Morrow who his sources are, but I'm sure he wouldn't print such a story based merely on gossamer rumour. And, according to Morrow, it was Timely's accountant who informed the pair and they only started working on DC stories after they had been informed of Goodman's alleged deceit. That seems to be at odds with what you're suggesting, a suggestion, I might add, for which you neglect to name your source for such speculation. What was that you said earlier, BP, about making things up?
I still maintain there's a huge difference between financing and creating, and in that sense, Goodman didn't 'create' the Marvel age. He facilitated it though, by bankrolling it, but he would probably have published anything by Lee & Kirby, even if it were sh*t. (Of course, if it had been, he'd have cancelled it.)
Goodman could certainly have done more with licensing, and he was being shortsighted (or badly advised) by selling the rights for a song. As for American Distribution, no, it was the wrong decision but for the right reason, but had Goodman been as savvy as you think he was, he'd have done better 'homework' before making what appears to be a knee-jerk decision in that regard. Like I said, though, hindsight is a wonderful thing.
One thing's almost for sure. Having a restrictive distribution deal with his rivals prevented Marvel Comics from succeeding earlier. That's usually what restrictive deals do - hamper (and sometimes crush) success. The fact that things worked out okay for Goodman at the end of the day (relatively speaking) doesn't mean he couldn't have done even better, faster, if he hadn't made a few boneheaded decisions.
Looking forward to your next guest post, BP, as I'm sure are all other Crivvies.
John Morrow was not there and he is repeating the same old story that has been told. The accountant who spoke to Simon and Kirby worked for Marvel's competitor, Fox. And he wanted the pair to come over to Fox.
And how do you know this, BP? Who's your source? You can't ask others to supply their source of info without being prepared to do the same yourself.
Another thought strikes me. Even if the 'accountant' worked for Fox (and ignoring for the moment what he may or may not have told them), Simon & Kirby would've had to resign from Marvel once their DC deal was in place (or just shortly after), or they would've been fired anyway. Their style would've been too recognisable and DC would've insisted on their names being on the work anyway, the better to promote and sell it. If that were the case, S&K wouldn't need to invent a story for why they switched to DC.
Also, BP, if the version you suggest were true, then it could only have been S&K who started the 'rumour', as they'd have been the only ones who'd have benefited from such an excuse. No one else is likely to invent a cover story for their defection on their behalf. You said that neither S&K ever mentioned it in their 'autobios', so why wouldn't they have just told it like it was in that case?
Didn't Disney pay 4 billion (yikes) for Marvel based on the potential of the characters as TV and film properties with the comics being an aside. In the 60s and 70s I doubt that was even a thought.
Barry, Kid
I believe the original source of the story was Joe Simon himself, in his Comic Book Makers book co-written with Jim Simon.
Re Sgt Fury, looking at the timelines as per the Grand Comics Database, Goodman had no war comic on the stands from the cancellation of Battle ( last issue #70, June 1960) until Sgt Fury #1 , May 1963.
Of interest Amazing Fantasy was replaced in the schedules by Two-Gun Kid 60, which featured a relaunch of the TGKid by Lee and Kirby. The Hulk (last issue #6, March 1962) was replaced in the schedules by Sgt Fury ( see date above).The TGKid publication appears to have been a last minute decision, with 2 US versions, one without a cover date, one with. The one without also has the number 60 hand lettered.
Barry, I am really looking forward to your article on Lee & Kirby for Alter-Ego. Tell Roy he should also have an article on Lee & Ditko, and Lee & Romita for that matter. And Roy should also do some of his own partnerships: eg with Buscema, Adams, Kane and Smith.
Spirit of '64
Regarding your 21:34 post. I actually agree with you. They thought that no one would know if they switch companies what everyone would know. That includes the people working at DC. What they mention in their autobiographies is that someone snitched on them. Kirby blamed Stan Lee, Simon did not.
Anon
Those articles would be terrific but I don’t want to tell Roy. That’s because he’s going to make me write them!
Another couple of comments were waiting to be published while I was typing out my reply to McS, so I've re-juggled my response to keep everything in sequence. And Barry's just sneaked another one in, so sixth (or is it seventh?) time lucky.
******
Well, you're right, McS, it's unlikely to have been on anyone's mind. However, Mark Evanier says that Jack Kirby talked about big budget movies based on superheroes, hardback deluxe reprints, etc., decades before they happened - and he wasn't a businessman. Perhaps Goodman should've thought more like Kirby, eh? One thing's for sure though, Goodman sold the licensing rights to the characters for next-to-nothing, so the fact remains that he missed an opportunity there by not being a man of vision. I don't think it's an entirely useless exercise in retroactively analysing and assessing Goodman's business strategy in the light of things we know now.
For example, his use of scouts may have given him a rough indication of what comics were selling, but only those comics which were being put in the racks were taken into account. It makes perfect sense to me that he should also have taken steps to ensure (especially in light of BP's description of how comics were placed at random in the racks by shop staff) that all the new, potentially big seller titles were getting a fair crack of the whip. If some of them weren't even making it onto the spinners, readers were perhaps being deprived of mags that could've been huge. The scouts didn't address that problem (if they were even aware of it), so that's why, though it may've been the 'best' option (and by 'best', I mean most expedient, least expensive, easiest way of estimating sales) that occurred to them, it only partially considered one of the various factors that resulted in low sales for some titles.
Like I said, makes perfect sense to me.
******
S64, I thought that might be the case, but my copy of Simon's book is buried somewhere in a cupboard, so I was unable to check and see. Thanks for verifying my hunch. I'm sure BP will consider your suggestions. And thanks for the other info.
******
BP, I wasn't aware that Kirby had written an autobiography. Can you give me more details? And ask Roy Thomas to send me a free copy of that ish of Alter-Ego as a thank you for making you a star on Crivens and building anticipation for your article! (Well, it was worth a try.)
In my research today I found this
Comic book marketplace 1998
BOB: Do you recall why the Hulk’s original title was canceled after only six issues?
STAN: Yes. It didn;t sell all that well, at least after the first couple of issues. I’ll tell you a secret... anytime a book is canceled... no matter what reason people give you... it is because it didn’t sell that well. I can’t remember exactly why it didn’t sell because the first few issues were great. It may have been, because in those days Jack Kirby was doing so many of the books with me.. . that Jack may not have had time to do the Hulk as well as the Fantastic Four and X-Men and whatever else he was doing at the time. I may have felt that the Hulk was maybe the weakest title so I let it go to allow Jack to concentrate on the other titles.
Ta for that, BP. And of course, IF the Hulk wasn't selling that well, it MAY have been because it wasn't getting put in the spinner-racks due to the indiscriminate way they were filled by those 'couldn't-care-less' shop staff. That was something that should've been dealt with, in my opinion. Still curious about who your source was on the well-known story for Simon & Kirby's switch to DC not being true.
Thanks for this series. I've enjoyed reading them. I just finished Marvel: The Untold Story a couple of nights ago, so I was reading Mr. Pearl's posts along with the book. Learned a LOT about Marvel that I really didn't know during the seven or so years I was really reading. When I was reading, I have to admit that I rarely thought about continuity between the characters in different series. The stories weren't real, so I guess it wasn't that important to me in my reading.
I'm sure that BP will be happy you enjoyed his posts, G. I've got the book you mention, plus one or two other similar ones, but I hear all these books have factual errors in them. Perhaps the definitive one is yet to be written? Thanks for commenting.
Post a Comment