nenena | You know what I find sexy? Good marketing.

Entry tags:

You know what I find sexy? Good marketing.

In follow-up to this:

But, Ms. Whiny Entitled Fangirl, you may ask, don't you know that sex sells? Don't you think it's unfair to ask Marvel and DC to stop making comics that appeal to the Scaly Basement-Dwelling Stereotyped Fanboy just because you want to buy a couple of their products?

The obvious answer to that is: Good comics appeal to everybody, including the Scaly Basement-Dwelling Stereotyped Fanboy. So doesn't it make more sense to make comics that more people are going to want to buy? And good comics can be sexy. They just shouldn't be sexist.

First, an observation: I'm not sure why so many guys are defending Marvel and DC's insistent push to cater only to the typical bottom-feeding Scaly Basement-Dwelling Stereotyped Fanboy in the first place. (For the sake of brevity, the Scaly Basement-Dwelling Stereotyped Fanboy shall hereby be referred to as Ghost, in honor of his comments here.) I mean, isn't that a huge insult against your gender and your hobby, you guys reading this? For the executives at Marvel and DC to treat you as if you are a desperate lonely slob who could never make it with a real woman and thus have to content yourselves with comics about scantily-clad superheroines being raped instead? To assume that you are all the Ghosts of the world? To assume that this (NSFW) is the only way to appeal to you? To assume that you would actually rather have that than this or this?

Isn't the fact that Marvel and DC target a mythical stereotype of a skeezy comics fanboy an insult to everyone across the board, whether you're male or female?

And therein lies the problem. Oh ye Ghosts of the world, let me make an assumption of my own: I think that you would enjoy this, or this, or this, or this, or this, or this. Maybe you would enjoy this (NSFW) or this (NSFS) more than all of the previous. But the point is, I bet you wouldn't NOT buy a comic because it had this on the cover. If you really wanted a Wonder Woman statue, you wouldn't NOT buy this statue just because she's not topless. You might not buy it for other reasons, but that's neither here nor there. We're talking about sex appeal in this post. Sex appeal!

But the same doesn't work in reverse. A whole lotta people are not going to buy Heroes for Hire because of that disgusting sexist cover. For example, see here. And a whole lot of people aren't going to buy that Mary-Jane statue or anything Marvel-related for a looong time, because of the fact that said statue is disgusting. Sexist and ugly. Double-threat!

So here's the issue. Sexy stuff appeals to everyone, including the Ghosts of the world. Sexist stuff may get the Ghosts of the world to fork over their hard-earned money without a blinking moment of hesitation, but it alienates a huge chunk of the potential audience that could otherwise be reached. So why not just be sexy, not sexist? Why not appeal to everyone, instead of just the scaly basement-dwelling few?

Oh, and by the way: the above-mentioned marketing model works. Runaways, a good old-fashioned teen superhero story with lots of sexiness and little sexism, is Marvel's best-selling digest in April. And for more proof that sexy money talks louder than sexist money, scroll to the bottom of this post.

I've said this before in a previous wank: Marketing towards men =/= alienating women. You can make, and market, comics that appeal to stereotypical male interests, such as manly he-men punching semitrucks and beautiful women kicking righteous ass. You can do these things without insulting or degrading anyone. Just make that beautiful woman a person and not a sex object. It's not hard to do. Give her realistic anatomy and a functional costume, give her a personality, and draw her in a pose that reflects that personality. Note that "realistic anatomy" can be hubba-hubba hot, a "functional costume" can still be sexy as hell, and a powerful action pose, such as kicking or punching, can show off a woman's anatomy without forcing her to pose like a limp blow-up doll in the process. So now, voila, you can appeal to your target demographic and not alienate anyone else who might be interested in buying your comics.

Standard disclaimer, because I really shouldn't have to explain this, but recently certain Eisner-nominated comics journalists have proven otherwise: Real, actual pornography is different. The market rules are different, and you can alienate whoever the hell you want with your sexual fantasies. But mainstream superhero comics are NOT pornography, they are NOT YOUR sexual fantasies, and any attempts to answer an argument about marketing mainstream superhero comics with examples from pornography are just really, really missing the point.

Further linkage: A marketing guy who actually knows what he's talking about makes some good points about money, and how, like, it's smart to not discourage us wimmins from spending such. ;) And Websnark weighs in with an insightful post about brand management here. And a nifty post here from Stars and Garters, which may be a new blog with only two posts, but both of them rock so far.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

I'm not a big fan of Western comics, but all the stuffs you say would work with manga too. And I totally agree with your point of view.

By the way, links to the pictures on megami-sama.net don't work. It says "No direct linking".

Oh crap, that's a problem with my direct-linking allowance. I only allow direct-linking from nenena.livejournal.com, in order to prevent other LJ users from direct-linking images (which used to be a big problem).

Which URL are you viewing my journal with? If it's users.livejournal.com/nenena, or from your friends page, then the pics won't work. If you're looking at nenena.livejournal.com, though, it should work.

I really need to fix that. But it's bedtime for me now. I'll try to fix it in the morning. Thanks for pointing that out, though.

I can see the links properly from your journal, though not from my friends page.

Also, your posts on this subject continue to be interesting and engaging.

I read it from my friends page. Will check it from your journal now.

Why can't they do both titles like Runaways and some overtly sexual stuff that clearly some straight guys like? There are several titles out there that aren't overtly sexual like Daredevil, Captain America, Birds of Prey, Manhunter, The Titans, etc. etc. So why not also create some overtly sexual stuff for the straight guys you've maligned? Is there something wrong with sexual fantasy? Shouldn't guys get to decide for themselves what they want to buy and what they think is sexy?

What do you mean by "overtly sexual"? Can you give an example?

And when did I malign straight guys? The point of my post is that there's nothing wrong with appealing to stereotypical male fantasies, it's just that this can be done without sexist icing.

When did you malign them? Well, you didn't mean "Scaly Basement-Dwelling" as a compliment did you?

As for "overtly sexual," how about the MJ statuette or the Supergirl statuette or the Powergirl cover? Personally, I think straight guys should be allowed to decide for themselves what they think is sexy and if they like what they see they should buy it. Unless there is some sort of damage done to the society or individuals, those little sex objects are fine with me. There has been an enormous amount of reseach on the effects of erotica and no one has found that it increases rape or sexism. In fact, it is quite clear that the nations with the most overtly sexual material are the nations where women have the most power and it is where sexual materials are repressed that men have the most anger directed at women. Take a look at the US. We've has an enormous boom in sexual material in the last 30 years and while that happened the gender wage gap shrunk, women overtook men in graduation from every form of school from high school to med and law school, and women have taken over more companies, begun more businesses, been voted more into high office, had the first self-made billionaires. In short by nearly every standard, women are better off while the images that are held responsible for keeping women down have exploded to 1000 times what they were.

Why can't there be all sorts of comics for straight women and some for gay men and some for straight men and some for a broader audiences. Most superhero comics aren't T&A comics. So there are comics that are fine for women. Why not T&A comics for straight guys?

When did you malign them? Well, you didn't mean "Scaly Basement-Dwelling" as a compliment did you?

Wow did you miss the point of the post. "Scaly Basement-Dwelling" is an offensive stereotype. My argument is that comic book fans aren't Scaley Basement-Dwelling Living Breathing Stereotypes, and it's an insult for Marvel and DC to keep treating them like they are.

As for "overtly sexual," how about the MJ statuette or the Supergirl statuette or the Powergirl cover?

But those are sexist. I'm not going to go into reasons why here, but I would point you to here (http://blog.newsarama.com/2007/05/04/just-past-the-horizon-obligatory-power-girl-boob-post/) for an explanation of the Powergirl cover, here (http://devildoll.livejournal.com/750924.html) for the MJ statue, and just about frickin' everywhere for the Supergirl statue.

My argument is that sexy women in comic books don't have to look like that. My argument is that you can get rid of the sexism without getting rid of the sexiness. I've got nothing against cheesecake, but I am fucking sick and tired of seeing every woman in my comic books reduced to an anatomically grotesque caricature with no purpose other than to display a set of breasts and ass.

[the rest of that paragraph]

Wow, it takes mad skillz to argue that much bullshit without a single credible source to back you up. Why not hop over here (http://finallyfeminism101.blogspot.com/) and do some reading, then come back when you've got a better grasp of how the real world works?

Most superhero comics aren't T&A comics. So there are comics that are fine for women. Why not T&A comics for straight guys?

And again with the point-missing. T&A is fine. Sexist T&A is not fine. Nobody is trying to take away your cheesecake, it's just that there's no excuse for that cheesecake to also be sexist.

I believe that sexism is inherently evil. And it is harmful (see above). Let me try to draw a parallel analogy. There has been a lot (http://www.finalcall.com/artman/publish/article_2919.shtml) of research (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereotype_threat) detailing how (http://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/custom/portlets/recordDetails/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=EJ587395&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=eric_accno&accno=EJ587395) racist stereotypes in media directly harm society. Therefore, racism in media is inherently bad. There's no excuse for, say, a Marvel comic book to include a character that is a blatant Sambo or Mammy caricature (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African-American_stereotypes). If such a book were published, the outcry would be immediate and intense. (I hope.) And would you seriously try to defend that by saying, "But it's for white guys, so it's okay. Black people just don't have to buy it or look at it"? Good god, I would hope not. Because it doesn't work that way. Racist cariacatures are especially harmful when targeted toward a group like white males. (Again, see proceeding links for why.) And the same has shown to be true for sexism in media. For a recent study, see here (http://feministlawprofs.law.sc.edu/?p=1792), and for a classic, see here (http://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/custom/portlets/recordDetails/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=ED295262&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=eric_accno&accno=ED295262). Plus there's always this link (http://finallyfeminism101.blogspot.com/) again.

In the end, it comes down to this: Sexism is inherently wrong. It should not be in comic books, or anywhere, period. You are free to argue whether a particular example, like the MJ statue, is "sexist" or not. However, do NOT try to convince me that sexism is somehow "okay" just because it's in comics targeted toward a male demographic. I'm not going to change my viewpoint on that, because I'm right.

Responded to the wrong comic and screwed up the html. Sorry!

To see my "mad skillz" you can hit my blog at the URL below, where I think you'll see I'm not really flinging bullshit.

http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-NYapGagiRKXkibx6bHvcaBbV36Q-?cq=1

For het males, there's the Max (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MAX_%28comics%29) line, which is necessarily T&A but can be, and the series Tarot: Witch of the Black Rose (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarot:_Witch_of_the_Black_Rose) from Broadsword comics. For gay men, there's Patrick Fillion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Fillion). Can't think of anything for straight woman, and dude, you forgot the lesbians! D:

And a lot of superhero comics do contain T&A, even if they aren't supposed to. Hence, the fuss.

What do you mean by "aren't supposed to"? If it was put in, I'm guessing it was supposed to be there.

Comics are a pulp fantasy material. Since when as it been that sex fantasies were supposed to be removed from pulp fantasy material? Sex fantasy have been in comics since before Superman. Hell, Lois was a sex fantasy. Have you seen some of the early glamour shots of her? She was based on the girl the fellows had been lusting after in their high school.

Romance novels are pulp fantasy too. They come out once a month like superhero comics (used to.) They frequently have people in extraordinary situations like comics. They have people who are very much out of the ordinary like vampires, kings, and cowboys like superhero comics. There people are often physically perfect like superhero comics. And they are often full of explicit sexuality … like superhero comics; although, comics tend to be less sexual. While it is true that romances rely more on verbal sexuality and comics on visual imagery, I don’t see why one is supposed to contain sexual fantasy and the other isn’t.

You're still missing the point. Sex and sexiness can be in comics. "Sex fantasies" can be in comics too, as long as they're not sexist.

I keep repeating this over and over, and I don't know how much more clearly I can express myself. There's sexy, and then there's sexist. There's sexual fantasies, and then there's sexist sexual fantasies. THERE'S A DIFFERENCE. One is fine, the other is not. Did you read the things that I linked in my previous comment? Those posts do a bang-up job of explaining the difference.

So now let's compare:
A) Glamor shots of Lois Lane, versus
B) Felicia Hardy bound in chains and about to be raped by slimy phallic tentacles.

One of these things is not like the other, one of these things just doesn't belong. Are you trying to tell me that you are unable to see the difference between the two?

And finally, you can have your Felicia Hardy bound in chains and about to be raped by slimy phallic tentacles, but for fuck's sake, don't put it on the cover of a comic book marketed toward nine-year-old girls!

Romance novels aren't marketed to kids. Comic characters are. Superhero comics were not originally designed to titilate men, otherwise you would never have had children collecting them.

Thank you. I've been trying to figure out how to say this forever.

It's all about the benjamins, but the image currently projected will alienate mare consumers than it will generate.

I entirely prefer non-objectifying art, and beautiful characters who are persons as well as - more than - images. But I don't think the counter examples shown here are good examples of those. I like the New Mutants cover, save Dani's oddly rendered face, and the Catwoman artwork is passable. But most of the images are aesthetically displeasing, and they are so to a greater degree than are the two images posted as negative examples.

Michael Turner's females are often strange looking, but his artwork is always interesting (even his Black Panther 'Civil War' covers were good). The Heroes for Hire cover is dissatisfying in a number of ways, not the least of which is the odd body language of the shown characters. But it's a more compelling overall design than the other Heroes for Hire images shown, and has both better linework and better color.

I object to both of those images, but I still prefer them to the ones offered. Better examples, I think, would be X-23 in her recent miniseries (for those of us close enough to her age), Psylocke in X-Men #1 (notwithstanding possible problems with other Lee issues, in this one she's presented as competent above all), or some of Chris Bachalo's excellent renderings of Omega Sentinel, Rogue, and Mystique (in his clearer moments). There's also something to be said for Joe Mad's run on the X-Men, strange as he made each character look at turns.

The problem is that many of the best artists (Lee, Churchill, Turner, Mad, etc.) are also those who produce objectified images of characters. The images left to choose from after the most skilled and dynamic artists have rendered theirs are, of course, likely to be technically inferior.

But natural as that may be, they're still inferior.

So... "I completely agree with you, but there are prettier examples to use to support your claim"?

I don't doubt that. ;) But it was tricky pulling together "good" examples of this post, especially Heroes for Hire covers. I agree that Sana Takeda's technical skills are vastly superior to every cover artist that has tackled the series before her. But I still find most of the previous HfH covers *vastly* more appealing than Takeda's cover, for reasons that I've discussed in the post and in comments. The technical merits of a cover are pretty low on my priority scale when I'm comparing an image of a terrified, bound, bloodied, and about-to-be-raped Misty versus a kick-ass, confident, and rocksome Misty. And like I said in the bit about the Wonder Woman statue - in this post I'm focusing solely on sex appeal, and deliberately ignoring other factors like cover layout, coloring, etc.

Now, would you be willing to offer up a link or two (or a scan or two) to some of those better examples that you're talking about? ^__^

I've not had the greatest success in trying to find some of the images (I'll scan panels from X-Men #1 and #188, Astonishing X-Men Vol. 1 #4 and Uncanny X-Men #317 later) but here are some images by artists I mentioned:

Jim Lee's cover to Infinite Crisis #1 (http://www.newsarama.com/dcnew/InfiniteCrisis/InfiniteCrisisCv1-copy.jpg); as oddly as Superman and Batman are portrayed, Wonder Woman is well-drawn.

Some Michael Turner examples: Fantastic Four #547 (http://www.comics.org/graphics/covers/11218/400/11218_4_0547.jpg), Black Panther #23 (http://www.comics.org/graphics/covers/12471/400/12471_4_023.jpg) (no females, but for dynamism), and Black Panther #25 (http://www.comics.org/graphics/covers/12471/400/12471_4_025.jpg).

Chris Bachalo's cover to X-Men #190 (http://www.comixfan.com/xfan/images/covers/marvel/xmenv2-190.jpg).

And a recent Jim Lee Psylocke (http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0TQBsG0MYgtIdmP9oFLjkX6Z!dwaSCi8xI4pEZ6oi5xq2Tw1dKMMw!G6wiF1A0ni3JlSWiRo3Xm1J3WBJcRo48JpMU64lbCtJ15PdmmVc2xEeXs!jWv5UiQ/P?dc=4675496573790481652).

For some reason my links worked in the preview, but not the final post.

I think LJ prevents anonymous posters from hyperlinking. But it's no problem, I am fully capable of copying and pasting URLs into my browser. And THANK YOU for bringing me so much pretty! (*gives you internet cookies*) You're seriously the best anonymous ever.

Thanks; I'm glad you liked the images. :)

I apparently no longer have copies of two issues from which I intended to scan. The ones I did find and upload tonight are somewhat representative, but again leave out Joe Mad.

Jim Lee's Rogue (http://photobucket.com) (design sketch); again, in action from X-Men #1 (http://photobucket.com).

Two Psylocke-heavy pages from the same issue. (http://photobucket.com) (http://photobucket.com)

And part of Chris Bachalo's cover to a recent Uncanny X-Men (http://photobucket.com), along with interior artwork of Serafina and Northstar (http://photobucket.com).

Oh, and I would be remiss to not mention Mike Choi and Sonia Oback, who recently drew and colored X-23 for Marvel (http://www.marvel.com/comics/onsale/covers/1206/X23001_cov.jpg) (http://dallas.caramelcomics.com/catalog/images/x-23-target-x-00311.jpg), and Pat Oliffe, the original Spider-Girl artist: http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/6/6b/Spidergirl53.png.

It's very possible to draw attractive, dynamic artwork of superheroes without objectifying them - even for some of comics' most criticized artists. It would be nice if they drew this way more often.

Do you have the URLs for the images that are showing up as photobucket.com?

Oh, and thanks again for going to all of this trouble. You are one amazing anonymous.

I'm sorry I didn't respond sooner; I've been offline for the last week or so.

These are the direct URLs for the Photobucket images:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v38/cicero/x-men-20060713011625026.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v38/cicero/?action=view¤t=UNCX473.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v38/cicero/4.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v38/cicero/3.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v38/cicero/2.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v38/cicero/1.jpg

:)

Whoo-hoo! Thank you!

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

You know what I find sexy? Good marketing.

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

It's not either or

Re: It's not either or

Re: It's not either or

Re: It's not either or

Re: It's not either or

Re: It's not either or

Re: It's not either or

Re: It's not either or

Re: It's not either or

Re: It's not either or

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject