Yesterday, YouGov released the results of a survey they did on the level and types of interest in Comic-Con. Not necessarily about people who actually go, but about Americans in general. You can read the full results at the link, but I wanted to make some interesting call-outs.

First, almost exactly half of respondants had no interest at all in the convention with another 15% "not very interested." I have to admit that I am genuinely surprised those numbers are that low. We're looking at a full third of the US population who says they have at least some interest in the convention. Not surprisingly, that third tends to skew towards men, age 18-34 but that's still a much heftier group than I woulld've guessed. If this same survey had been done twenty years ago, I can almost guarantee those numbers would've been small enough to almost seen as rounding errors.

What's not surprising because it tracks pretty closely with anecdotal information I expect most of us have seen/heard over the last several years, movies are the biggest draw of the con among those who responded they were interested. Followed closely by TV, video games, and celebrity appearances. Only about 45% of respondants expressed and interest in comics. Although muddying that number slightly is that YouGov offered "anime and manga" as a seperate category, but since people could select multiple interests and it was all self-selected, we don't know how many manga fans also selected "comics" because "manga are comics" or how many were interested in anime but not manga. So it's possible that 45% could potentially be higher, depending on how people defined things. But even if you want to inlude some kind of manga 'bump' to show that yes, over half people are interested in some aspect of comics from Comic-Con, that's almost certainly still less than the number interested in movies.

(As an aside, I don't see any information about the level of confidence they offer with any of these numbers and/or what kind of margin of error they're considering. They do claim to have gotten results back from a group that reflects a reprsentation of US adults, broken down by age, race, gender, education, and region but they don't offer any details beyond that as far as I can tell.)

Also not surprising, about two-thirds of people get news and updates about the convention through social media primarily and half of those through friends and family specifically. Given how few outlets cover the convention at all (beyond an obligatory passing mention that it's happening) and the outlets that do show up can only send a handful of people at most, there's inherently going to be a LOT more people on the convention floor talking about what they're doing via social media. You can read about ALL the coverage by following a few hashtags, whereas if you just look at a news site, you're going to only get few highlights from the one or two or three people they have reporting.

Anyway, no huge surprises, I don't think. Most of it just puts some data to anecdotal observations with the possible exception of the overall reach. Always good to confirm what you think is going on, though, so I absolutely welcome seeing this, even if it's perhaps not as in-depth or detailed as I'd like.

I've noted my not-entirely-great experiences with Roy Crane in the past. I came across his work first in Buz Sawyer and only later found his earlier Wash Tubbs. You can read more of my problems with him there, but the upshot was that Crane depicted some terribly gross characterizations that I found quite objectionable.

That said, however, I do recognize his talent as a draftsman, and I know his work has been praised highly in that regard in the past. It's in that context that I watched this short documentary on Crane posted by the Kimbrough Library at Ringling College of Art + Design. It covers his entire career and, while it glosses over some of his decidedly un-PC depictions, it does elaborate on Crane's innovations and contributions in storytelling. (h/t Ben Towle for pointing me to the video)

It's well worth the sixteen minutes to sit through all five parts. I'm no expert on Crane, nor do I ever intend to be one given how much I dislike his actual stories, but it never hurts to have a better understanding of different aspects of comics history even if they're from creators who you dislike.

A few hundred years ago, many of the scientific fields we're familiar with today didn't exist. There was no such thing as electronics. Or robotics. Or particle physics. Science hadn't evolved enough for people to have discovered those avenues of thought. Even fields of study that were around were largely combined in broader categories. Biology and chemistry were the same pursuit as far as most people were concerned.

Despite general advances and specialization, the public writ large still held "science" as a single field well into the twentieth century. How many comics of the Golden Age feature scientists that are comfortable switching from mechanical engineering to biophysics? How does Hank Pym make any sense? He developed a shrinking gas, has a complete biological understanding of insects, and can build sentient robots!

I bring it up because I'm thinking about how the study of comics history has a similar specialization that most people aren't aware of. How many people even within comics still see it as a single field if study? I used to think I knew my comics history pretty well... until I read a history of comic strips that introduced a slew of comics and creators I'd never heard of. And then I read a history of manga that was filled with names I'd never seen before. And there was a video that included comments on European creators. And a book on Indian comics. And a book on Mexican creators. And...

I still know next to nothing about comics from South America. A whole continent of comics about which I'm scarcely even aware exists!

One of my goals from many years ago was to become a comics expert. I wanted to be THE answer man for comics. That's about the same as trying to become THE expert on science. It's just too broad a topic for one person to become an expert in. I saw someone recently looking for an expert on Charlton creators that might be the equivalent of what Doc Vassillo is to early Marvel creators. I know someone who got her advanced degree on Richard Outcault and another who wrote his doctoral thesis on Batman. The level of specialization is astounding!

It's not impossible to know a great deal about comics in general. But there's an increasing world of difference between being a comics generalist and being an expert laser-focused in a specific field of comics studies. And I haven't even been talking about comics business or production processes!

Ibrahim Moustafa's latest graphic novel is simply titled Cyn after the main character. In 2021, he produced Count, which was "a sci-fi re-imagining" of The Count of Monte Cristo and Cyn was one of the enforcer characters. While Cyn picks up her story after Count, I don't know that I'd call this a sequel per se. It's more akin to how the Black Panther movie followed up on the events of Captain America: Civil War.

Cyn has left her role as government enforcer and is trying to start a new life on mostly-ignored planet at the edge of civilization. Her cybneretics are malfunctioning, though, and it's through the kindness of another former government worker, Ness -- who used to be an engineer -- that she's able to "recover." Cyn chooses a new name, Meris, and adapts to rural life well, helping Ness take care of stray dogs and his two adopted daughters. Things get ugly, though, when some thugs of the local warlord pass through and recognize Ness. While Meris is able to help enough to ensure that they won't be bothered again, it's not without a cost.

There's a very strong theme in the story of choosing to be who you want to be, and not being restricted to any role you may have been thrust into previously. This is, in fact, expressly stated multiple times. Slightly more subtle, and as more of a corollary, is the notion that in choosing a new life for yourself, you can't simply run and/or hide from your past and that you must deal with it directly before you're able to move on. In Cyn's case in particular, her past life was quite violent, and so it takes additional violence to put an end to it. This is something she has to wrestle with throughout the story, as it's now a part of her past that she'd rather forget.

I haven't read Count -- and didn't even realize it was part of the same universe until I finished Cyn. Despite that, I had no problem whatsoever following along. In fact, I was initially surprised at how much time Moustafa spent setting the tone and mood of the piece. There's certainly plenty of action once Ness and Cyn are discovered, but I was impressed by how much Moustafa let the story breath before he got to that point.

There's some impressive art throughout the book as well. No big splashy full-page illustrations, but lots of pages crammed with powerful panels. Well, technically, there are two splash pages but wth so many other pages packed with storytelling, you almost forget about them by the time you finish the book! What stands out are, yes, the illustrations themselves are good, but the facial expressions and body language and scene blocking are all set expertly that even a "simple" panel conveys a ton of information.

The story wasn't especially complex, but it was entertaining and told really well. After finishing it, and realizing that it is a follow=up to Count, I immediately went ahead and ordered a copy of that. Cyn came out last month from Humanoids and retails for $19.99 US.

Here are this week's links to what I've had published recently...

Kleefeld on Comics: Marx Review
https://ift.tt/Icgefbp

Kleefeld on Comics: Fumetti Manga?
https://ift.tt/XUAtecC

Kleefeld on Comics: Top Five Books I Own But Haven't Read
https://ift.tt/4ld3Yma

Kleefeld on Comics: Business Risk
https://ift.tt/5ZlyXcv

Kleefeld on Comics: Comics Schooling
https://ift.tt/pf7J5HE

First, it is absolutely incredible that there are not just courses for comic study at accredited universities, but there are schools -- schools, plural! -- that are focused exclusively on teaching comics. The Center for Cartoon Studies and The Kubert School are certainly the most prominent, but there are others. (!) The programs are somewhat different, not surprisingly, but they have the types of specialized courses you would expect: figure drawing, storytelling, lettering, coloring, etc. Basically, everything you need to be an artist in the comic industry, whether you apply that to making comic books, comic strips, webcomics, whatever. Some even have "professional practices" classes where they teach about building a portfolio, marketing yourself, creator rights, etc.

But, from what I can tell, none of them cover what is possibly the single, most important part about becoming a professional comic creator. Which is simultaneously the least understood/appreciated aspect of becoming a professional comic creator (from the perspective of the stereotypically right-brained creatives who want to make comics for a living). And that part that doesn't seem to be mentioned? Actually making a living.

There is nothing (again, from what I can see) about the different ways you can actually earn money being in comics. There's no discussion of how a company like Marvel or DC might hire you versus how a creator-owned book at Image might work versus how a syndicated newspaper strip pays you versus how you're able to make a living doing webcomics. Those are all wildly different models, and require different types of skills above and beyond your ability to draw comics. Furthermore, they're all various forms of freelancing and therefore don't provide anything in the way of health benefits, which would have to be sought out independently.

It is absolutely not the sexy part of being a comic creator. And I can almost guarantee that every student taking the class will rank it as their least favorite. "I just wanna draw comics -- what the hell do I care about 'business models'?"

But if we're at a point where we do have a good amount of choice for students who want to study sequential art, doesn't it make sense to provide an education that a full picture of what being a comic creator is like? Yeah, if you want to be the next Robert Khoo, you're going to go to a business school and maybe take a course or two on storytelling or comic appreciation or something. But if you're going to be drawing comics every day, then you'll want to go to a school that provides a deeper level of work on those drawing related skills. And while that focus should indeed be on the comics creation process, I wonder if aspiring creators should be made more aware of the "earning a living" part of this.

A pretty standard rule of thumb in business is that you WILL lose money for at least the first two years. To get beyond breaking even, you're generally looking in the three to four year range. And that's after you've spent however much time ramping things up to begin with; those timeframes are after you open the (sometimes metaphorical) front door.

That means that, if you're starting a new business, you need to have enough cash on hand when you start to keep things running for several years, assuming you have zero income. Or maybe not on hand directly, but at least have access to that level of cash. Because your business will not generate enough to be self-sustaining for the first couple years. Almost one fifth of all business startups fail in the first year, and half within the first five years. And while having enough cash isn't necessarily the only reason for this, it is a significant factor. Estimates put a lack of cash flow as the primary cause of business failures in about 80% of cases in that initial five year period.

Keep in mind that all of these numbers are averages. Which means that, yes, some businesses will hit a break even point inside a couple months and will be making money hand over first before their first year. But also many businesses could go well more than five years without turning a profit. Amazon famously did not see a profitable quarter until 2001, a little over six years after their site first launched. (Admittedly, there's no doubt some accounting nonsense that could've gone on, so they might've been considered "profitable" by different metrics earlier, but I don't think they could've moved numbers around enough that they could've been considered profitable by anyone's defintion after only two years.)

I say all this in response to the news of Omnibus announcing that it's shuttering its doors after about a year and a half. Not to say that founders Kenny Meyers and Travis Schmeisser were reckless in launching it without enough money to keep them going longer. As is rightfully pointed out in this piece about the news from The Beat, they were trying to take advantage of something of a vaccuum left by Comixology, who had largely had a stranglehold on the digital comics market up until then. But if they wanted to take advantage of that opening, they had to move quickly... which means less time to secure longer term funding and/or build up cash reserves. Had they spent more time making sure they had more than 18 months of cash, there might have been another one or five or ten competitors that tried to step into the market. After all, much of Comixology's early success came from them being in a market with effectively no competition.

But that, ultimately, is what business in general boils down to: weighing the pros and cons of the conditions in front of you, and judging whether the potential rewards are worth the risk. Would Omnibus beat the averages and start making a profit earlier than most places? Or would making sure they had enough funds to out-perform an 'average' business survival rate take so much time that their window of opportunity closed? It's literally impossible to predict with any accuracy, but that's precisely why any and every new business venture is a risky one.