#Comicsgate - The Culture Wars Hit The Funny Books!

  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
Some do, they just don't pay for them. Great demographic to pander to amirite? :smug:
I’ll just leave this here

Why Targeting Millennial Consumers Might Not Be Such a Hot Idea After All
A growing body of evidence shows why Gen Y consumers aren't ideal: because many of them are broke
By Robert Klara
|
1 day ago
Brands-Mistake-Targeting-Millennials-01-CONTENT-2019.png

How brands feel about millennial consumers these days might surprise you.
Source: Getty Images

As a generational expert with over 25 years in the field, Alexis Abramson has heard about all there is to hear from brands trying to appeal to various age groups. From baby boomers to Generations X, Y and Z—pick your group, and she’s researched them, written about them and (probably) lectured brands on how to attract them, too. In recent years, a good many of those brands have had their sights set on the generation born between 1981 and 1996: millennials, aged 23-38 today. That’s because at 83.1 million, a full quarter of the U.S. population, millennials are now the largest single consumer group out there. Simply put, few companies can afford not to court them.
But ask Abramson how brands feel about millennial consumers these days, and the answer might surprise you.
“There was a great deal of interest [in millennials],” she said, “but there wasn’t as much due diligence around that group. We’ve generalized them as a certain type of person, [but] the reality is the rubber is meeting the road. Companies are starting to understand, ‘Wow, we’re not getting the ROI we thought we might.’”
Abramson isn’t a voice in the wilderness. Her analysis joins a growing body of evidence that suggests that millennial consumers, for all their size and savvy, haven’t exactly been the boon that many brands expected them to be. That’s not to say that millennials aren’t all those compelling things that innumerable articles and reports have brimmed about: digitally native, mobile oriented, media savvy, politically progressive, ethnically diverse, well-educated and culturally savvy. Millennials are, indeed, all of these things.

net-worth-chart-updated-450x551.png

Source: Deloitte
But a troublesome detail has been persistently overlooked over the last decade of wooing this crowd: Millennials—many of them, anyway—are strapped for cash.
That’s one of the takeaways of a brand new study from Deloitte’s Center for Consumer Insight, which surveyed over 4,000 American consumers to determine their current consuming habits. And when it came to millennials, one statistic stuck out: Since 1996, the average net worth of consumers under 35 has dropped by 35%.
Surprised? So was Kasey Lobaugh, Deloitte’s chief innovation officer for retail and distribution. He highlighted that while companies have been busy focusing on millennial spending habits as they relate to personal identity or cultural factors, what they really need to pay attention to is the millennial wallet.
“[If] you think about the narrative in the marketplace around the changing consumer and the millennial, there’s very little focus on the behaviors that are driven by economics,” he said. “There’s a narrative driven by some kind of cultural change. One of the things that really shocked me is that the economics of the consumer are really the most singular driver of behavior.”
In other words, he said, “people behave more like their income than their age.”
Was marketers’ faith in millennials misplaced?
In the years since brands began buzzing about millennials in the early 2000s, a number of rosy generalizations about them have taken root. Take this appraisal from the Obama White House published in 2014: “Millennials are a technologically connected, diverse and tolerant generation. The priority that millennials place on creativity and innovation augurs well for future economic growth, while their unprecedented enthusiasm for technology has the potential to bring change to traditional economic institutions as well as the labor market.”
But now that millennials are in that labor market as fully vested consumers, a slightly soberer picture is emerging about their buying power. The problem is not their size, as millennials represent a larger consumer group than the baby boomers. And it’s not the block of money they control, as millennials spend about $600 billion a year and are on track to spend $1.4 trillion by 2020, according to Accenture data.

The problem, rather, is that millennials are saddled with very large and unavoidable expenses that reduce their spending power when it comes to the discretionary purchasing that gets marketers so excited.

Expenses … like what? Data from Deloitte and other sources points to at least two major factors that are impeding millennial spending power right now: housing and student debt.

We’ll take on housing first. In 1997, according to Deloitte’s study, Americans aged 25-34 spent an average of 8% of their income on rent, but by 2017, that figure had risen to 10%. (If those figures seem low, it’s because they are average household, not individual, figures—and not all millennials are paying rent. That said, it’s a significant bump nevertheless.) One reason for the increase is the millennial penchant for living in cities. According to a Pew survey released last year, a staggering 88% of millennials today live in metropolitan areas. And city rents tend to be high.

student-debt-chart-updated.png

Source: Deloitte
Historically, one way to beat the greedy landlord at his game—and build up personal equity at the same time—is to buy a home. But millennials aren’t buying homes, at least not in the numbers that previous generations did. According to the Urban Institute, in 2015, the home ownership rate for Americans aged 25-34 was 37%—8 percentage points below the rates for Gen Xers and baby boomers.

“Of the 13.5% of millennials that are heads of households, only around 50% of them own their own homes,” said Ron Cohen, vp of product strategy for consumer analysis firm Claritas, citing his own data. “The other half are renters—many likely with roommates to share rent and other expenses.”

“We have seen a drop in home ownership,” Deloitte’s Lobaugh added. “It’s not that the millennial somehow doesn’t want to own assets. But what we lose sight of [is] the bifurcating economy. After the downturn [of 2008], it became harder to get a loan. The population that couldn’t get access? They’re renting now.”

The recession that never really ended
In fact, while the 2008 recession was an economic broadside to most Americans, the millennials took an especially hard hit—and have yet to fully recover from it.

Timing is everything in life, and if you were born in 1989, that meant you were getting out of college and entering the job market just as the global economy was tipping over a cliff. Assuming you found a job at all, the job you did find wasn’t going to pay as well.

“After the downturn [of 2008], it became harder to get a loan. The population that couldn’t get access? They’re renting now.”
-Kasey Lobaugh, chief innovation officer, Deloitte, on millennials renting instead of buying homes
Mike Shedlock, an investment advisor with SitkaPacific Capital Management, points out that Americans in the workforce during 1970s and 1980s “got huge wage increases. [But] look at the millennials now. If they begged, they’re going to get a 3% raise. It’s impossible for them to catch up.”

Among the economic watchdogs to note consequences of this late start is the Federal Reserve. Its Demographics of Wealth Study released last year found that the wealth of families headed by someone born in the 1980s—essentially half the current millennial generation—is 34% below the track established by earlier generations. This group, the bank stated, is “at the greatest risk of becoming a ‘lost generation’ for wealth accumulation.”

“One big issue in our world right now is income inequality, and I think you’re seeing that way more in the younger generation,” adds author and consultant Dan Schwabel. Largely because of the 2008 recession, millennials “had a delayed adulthood,” and as a result, “they’re making adult decisions later in life.”

Millennial consumers, Schwabel added, “want the same things as the older generation, except they have to make short-term financial decisions to have a chance of having that kind of life. And it will take them longer. Not only are they getting paid less, but the big elephant in the room is they have $1.53 trillion in student-loan debt.”


Almost all of these Image creators see any loss incurred by poor sales to be part of the cost of possibly getting their stories optioned by Hollywood. These people don't CARE about comic books. They're just using the medium to enhance their chances at getting their screenplays read.

It seems Hollywood is starting to learn that optioning these weird Indy comic IP’s isn’t really a path to success. Look at how many of this years worst movies so far are odd Indy comic IP’s. Polar anyone? The streaming services are quietly starting to back peddle and trim sails. Indications are Netflix and Amazon suffered a number of licensed bombs. And heck the DC streaming service has already cancelled Titans, Doom Patrol and cancelled Swamp Thing just as the first episode aired. Eventually this shit has got to turn a profit for somebody, and outside of Marvel, nobodies really doing that. Comic IP does not automatically equal profit in Hollywood anymore.

I still can’t believe Comcast/NBC optioned that horrid Mags Visagio book for SyFy? It had sales of 700. They never published the last issue. Nobody is going to watch it.
 
I’ll just leave this here

Why Targeting Millennial Consumers Might Not Be Such a Hot Idea After All
A growing body of evidence shows why Gen Y consumers aren't ideal: because many of them are broke
By Robert Klara
|
1 day ago
Brands-Mistake-Targeting-Millennials-01-CONTENT-2019.png

How brands feel about millennial consumers these days might surprise you.
Source: Getty Images

As a generational expert with over 25 years in the field, Alexis Abramson has heard about all there is to hear from brands trying to appeal to various age groups. From baby boomers to Generations X, Y and Z—pick your group, and she’s researched them, written about them and (probably) lectured brands on how to attract them, too. In recent years, a good many of those brands have had their sights set on the generation born between 1981 and 1996: millennials, aged 23-38 today. That’s because at 83.1 million, a full quarter of the U.S. population, millennials are now the largest single consumer group out there. Simply put, few companies can afford not to court them.
But ask Abramson how brands feel about millennial consumers these days, and the answer might surprise you.
“There was a great deal of interest [in millennials],” she said, “but there wasn’t as much due diligence around that group. We’ve generalized them as a certain type of person, [but] the reality is the rubber is meeting the road. Companies are starting to understand, ‘Wow, we’re not getting the ROI we thought we might.’”
Abramson isn’t a voice in the wilderness. Her analysis joins a growing body of evidence that suggests that millennial consumers, for all their size and savvy, haven’t exactly been the boon that many brands expected them to be. That’s not to say that millennials aren’t all those compelling things that innumerable articles and reports have brimmed about: digitally native, mobile oriented, media savvy, politically progressive, ethnically diverse, well-educated and culturally savvy. Millennials are, indeed, all of these things.

net-worth-chart-updated-450x551.png

Source: Deloitte
But a troublesome detail has been persistently overlooked over the last decade of wooing this crowd: Millennials—many of them, anyway—are strapped for cash.
That’s one of the takeaways of a brand new study from Deloitte’s Center for Consumer Insight, which surveyed over 4,000 American consumers to determine their current consuming habits. And when it came to millennials, one statistic stuck out: Since 1996, the average net worth of consumers under 35 has dropped by 35%.
Surprised? So was Kasey Lobaugh, Deloitte’s chief innovation officer for retail and distribution. He highlighted that while companies have been busy focusing on millennial spending habits as they relate to personal identity or cultural factors, what they really need to pay attention to is the millennial wallet.
“[If] you think about the narrative in the marketplace around the changing consumer and the millennial, there’s very little focus on the behaviors that are driven by economics,” he said. “There’s a narrative driven by some kind of cultural change. One of the things that really shocked me is that the economics of the consumer are really the most singular driver of behavior.”
In other words, he said, “people behave more like their income than their age.”
Was marketers’ faith in millennials misplaced?
In the years since brands began buzzing about millennials in the early 2000s, a number of rosy generalizations about them have taken root. Take this appraisal from the Obama White House published in 2014: “Millennials are a technologically connected, diverse and tolerant generation. The priority that millennials place on creativity and innovation augurs well for future economic growth, while their unprecedented enthusiasm for technology has the potential to bring change to traditional economic institutions as well as the labor market.”
But now that millennials are in that labor market as fully vested consumers, a slightly soberer picture is emerging about their buying power. The problem is not their size, as millennials represent a larger consumer group than the baby boomers. And it’s not the block of money they control, as millennials spend about $600 billion a year and are on track to spend $1.4 trillion by 2020, according to Accenture data.

The problem, rather, is that millennials are saddled with very large and unavoidable expenses that reduce their spending power when it comes to the discretionary purchasing that gets marketers so excited.

Expenses … like what? Data from Deloitte and other sources points to at least two major factors that are impeding millennial spending power right now: housing and student debt.

We’ll take on housing first. In 1997, according to Deloitte’s study, Americans aged 25-34 spent an average of 8% of their income on rent, but by 2017, that figure had risen to 10%. (If those figures seem low, it’s because they are average household, not individual, figures—and not all millennials are paying rent. That said, it’s a significant bump nevertheless.) One reason for the increase is the millennial penchant for living in cities. According to a Pew survey released last year, a staggering 88% of millennials today live in metropolitan areas. And city rents tend to be high.

student-debt-chart-updated.png

Source: Deloitte
Historically, one way to beat the greedy landlord at his game—and build up personal equity at the same time—is to buy a home. But millennials aren’t buying homes, at least not in the numbers that previous generations did. According to the Urban Institute, in 2015, the home ownership rate for Americans aged 25-34 was 37%—8 percentage points below the rates for Gen Xers and baby boomers.

“Of the 13.5% of millennials that are heads of households, only around 50% of them own their own homes,” said Ron Cohen, vp of product strategy for consumer analysis firm Claritas, citing his own data. “The other half are renters—many likely with roommates to share rent and other expenses.”

“We have seen a drop in home ownership,” Deloitte’s Lobaugh added. “It’s not that the millennial somehow doesn’t want to own assets. But what we lose sight of [is] the bifurcating economy. After the downturn [of 2008], it became harder to get a loan. The population that couldn’t get access? They’re renting now.”

The recession that never really ended
In fact, while the 2008 recession was an economic broadside to most Americans, the millennials took an especially hard hit—and have yet to fully recover from it.

Timing is everything in life, and if you were born in 1989, that meant you were getting out of college and entering the job market just as the global economy was tipping over a cliff. Assuming you found a job at all, the job you did find wasn’t going to pay as well.

“After the downturn [of 2008], it became harder to get a loan. The population that couldn’t get access? They’re renting now.”
-Kasey Lobaugh, chief innovation officer, Deloitte, on millennials renting instead of buying homes
Mike Shedlock, an investment advisor with SitkaPacific Capital Management, points out that Americans in the workforce during 1970s and 1980s “got huge wage increases. [But] look at the millennials now. If they begged, they’re going to get a 3% raise. It’s impossible for them to catch up.”

Among the economic watchdogs to note consequences of this late start is the Federal Reserve. Its Demographics of Wealth Study released last year found that the wealth of families headed by someone born in the 1980s—essentially half the current millennial generation—is 34% below the track established by earlier generations. This group, the bank stated, is “at the greatest risk of becoming a ‘lost generation’ for wealth accumulation.”

“One big issue in our world right now is income inequality, and I think you’re seeing that way more in the younger generation,” adds author and consultant Dan Schwabel. Largely because of the 2008 recession, millennials “had a delayed adulthood,” and as a result, “they’re making adult decisions later in life.”

Millennial consumers, Schwabel added, “want the same things as the older generation, except they have to make short-term financial decisions to have a chance of having that kind of life. And it will take them longer. Not only are they getting paid less, but the big elephant in the room is they have $1.53 trillion in student-loan debt.”
Well that certainly gives new meaning to "Get Woke Go Broke".
 
Well that certainly gives new meaning to "Get Woke Go Broke".

I know it might sound a bit carebeary but, if an entire generation has trouble making money, doesn't this mean the next is poorer, less educated, will encounter more troubles / problem evolving in society and struggling in every aspect, because from financial issues stems a ladder of degradation of quality of life, quality of education / parenting / etc etc ? Isn't that some kind of vicious circle, and even if it sounds a bit social justicky* talking like this : instead of mocking it for short term laughs, provide these people with jobs that pays more ?Because if we talk about a big portion of the population / a generation like this, you need to talk about many industries profiting from the desperation of that generation and paying them the minimum wage to barely scrap by (look at how the comics industry already does it with their millenials and sjw type artists and writers that also are in that situation and scrap by / cling to any job opportunity to meet month's end )

I mean to take a more serious / or balanced take about this, because i truely feel that even if numbers of employment looks great, at what kind of salary, cost, exploitation degree ? We also saw how poorly some Blizzard fanboi's employee were pretty badly paid profiting on their "dream" of being a Blizzard employee, using the same kind of scheme comics brands are using to lure low cost artists / devs / workers. ( not every corner of all of the industry is like this but it's more common than anyone think, look at telltale game studios that tried to put everyone out the door without any severance deal ) It's great to work in the place you allways dreamt to work to, it surely works as a sweet anesthesia for everything you are sacrificing, I would argue if there are probably more jobs created they might not all be well paid anyway and it can lead long term to a ladder / downgraded quality of life spread on more than one single generation.
 
Just watched the most recent of @FROG's livestreams and he had this article (loved the segway 'Umbrellaguy must be losing his mind') https://www.bleedingcool.com/2019/0...n-from-publishing-no-mention-of-wynonna-earp/ http://archive.is/WDnBe

So IIRC the recent returns are -$700k, -$7mil and -$3.7mil. Company was valued at ~$49mil, has ~$35mil in loans due soon (~20 this year, 15 next), 10% owner has called for sale, JP morgan bank? auditing for sale, recently had to raise $23mil via more stocks...

Licensing marvel products aren't going to save this sinking ship.
 
Well that certainly gives new meaning to "Get Woke Go Broke".
Yeah, it's exactly the opposite (because I realised I have noidea if you're agreeing or disagreeing with it)- they were already broke at no fault of their own (market collapse paired with ridic studdent debt) and turned to socialism. Companies trying to cater to them, to sell to people who became radicalised left - but have no money to spend on follies- are the epitomes of that phrase, not the Millenials who were fucked economically the moment they entered work force.

With massive student debts, no sensible healthcare plans and all that agressive capitalism, it shouldn't be surprising they turn to comunism as good idea. Heck, living in post-communist country, that in general is way poorer, America seems like a 3rd world shithole embelished with shiny new iPhones.

Millenials are the definition of "Be broke - get woke (and often entitled)".
 
Well that certainly gives new meaning to "Get Woke Go Broke".

ALl of that's true, and then the companies compound the error by assuming the "wokest" .01% of the "woke" speak for the rest of the demo, hence why Gillette still thinks it was a good idea to say "lol, silly men, you think we we're making razors for you? You misogynists? It's really for the troons"! despite the immense push back and noticeable sales drop.

Millennials have less discretionary income, what they do have can't be used as often, and the companies, under the guidance of millennial marketing consultants plucked right out of Dangerhair Studies 101 continually miss the mark in appealing to them and outright insult them with the SJW-flavored ads, (and more importantly, longtime customers who are established and HAVE pre-recession money in the bank they might have spent) And even THAT .01% is broke and surfing on couches so they can't even buy stuff anyway, assuming they were going to, much of their life revolves around putting companies on a never-ending shitlist of unwoke institutions to NEVER buy from no matter how hard they try to get off it.

We are dealing with a market that still is in love with the dream-version of who their customer would be by now that was pitched to them in the 90's, and who they geared up to sell to, not the reality of who they got.

In appropriate symmetry to the strife affecting this generation, corporate America is that average woman using a dating site and excluding 90% of all the men as below-average creeps who are too poor for a catch like her, and then wondering why they're still single at 38, in debt, towing a child from a side fling that went wrong and living with Mom...... yet ignorant how it could have turned out so wrong. "I was PROMISED a rich male model to assume all my student debt and watch my kids while I ran my vanity artisan bread shop in the middle of Manhattan, so where IS he? How can they keep holding back a strong independent woman?!"

That final wake up call is going to hit hard pretty soon.

Like if Trump wins in 2020 this rosy 25-year Odinsleep a LOT of millennials are still in, waiting for that early 00's utopia Black Jeebus promised, are going to be left behind, along with their bankrupt ideology that the "right" feelings would cancel out all the "wrong" actions everyone took, from declaring chomosomes a social construct to believing six figures in undischarged debt was no big deal since everyone who had happy-correct-thoughts would be rich in the surely-around-the-corner future where racism and transphobia no longer exist....... it was for YOU and not those old-fashioned people who still believed in the lies of the racist patriarcy, like thier silly "equality under the law" (OMG, check your privilege) and that " hard work pays off" bullshit, like being a slave to the corporations get you anywhere in the evil WHITE EMPIRE(tm) that was, thankfully, collapsing.
 
Last edited:
Just watched the most recent of @FROG's livestreams and he had this article (loved the segway 'Umbrellaguy must be losing his mind') https://www.bleedingcool.com/2019/0...n-from-publishing-no-mention-of-wynonna-earp/ http://archive.li/WDnBe

So IIRC the recent returns are -$700k, -$7mil and -$3.7mil. Company was valued at ~$49mil, has ~$35mil in loans due soon (~20 this year, 15 next), 10% owner has called for sale, JP morgan bank? auditing for sale, recently had to raise $23mil via more stocks...

Licensing marvel products aren't going to save this sinking ship.
I hope TUG does a video on that soon, I like him better when he's talking hard numbers and not covering the weeb wars shit. Wish I could remember what got him so focused on IDW in particular though.
 
Wish I could remember what got him so focused on IDW in particular though.

The focus came, I think, when Hasbro told IDW to fire a writer who was trashing 9/11 on Twitter, so the president of IDW concocted a scheme to have the writer continue to write GI Joe under his secretary's name. When the deception was discovered, this resulted in both the writer and the president getting shown the door.
 
Imagine being so invested in a twitter fight that you take the time to make a jacket about something you hate. Get a life Ren.
She is not a backer of any CG projects. She has never supported any indy creators or unknown comics. She doesn't care about comics.
She already knows comics don't pay and unless you want to hard sell 24/7 like CG creators it's going to take years to pay off making a comic.

Comicsgate has always been about putting money in creators pockets in exchange for quality entertainment not stupid Twitter slapfights.
Imagine wanting to troll so bad you fight to restore your troll account multiple times to screw with other internet trolls, over comic books you don't read from people you've never supported.
 
Hence why this isn't a traditional argument so much as it is a religious one. Socjus is a religion; it just doesn't have properly codified scripture yet, still reliant on oral doctrines and traditions.

Personally, I have more trust in people who make it clear they're doing it less for the art and more to buy a new car/house/roof/kid's clothes for the year. Heinlein said it best: the most beautiful prose in the English language is, 'Pay to the order of...'. Profit motive is easy to understand, easy to reward (or punish).
 
I hope TUG does a video on that soon, I like him better when he's talking hard numbers and not covering the weeb wars shit. Wish I could remember what got him so focused on IDW in particular though.
He's said he started with IDW as ya boi completely butchered his video looking at the stock report and giving his take on the state of the company. I think he harps on it because it's the biggest company with easy information to break down and shows the state of the industry. Marvel and DC are able to hide their incompetence by grouping their comics under bigger divisions like merchandising for the massive conglomerates of Disney and WB.
Edit:
Rated 🧩 as it looks like it was made for and by a downy.
 
Last edited:
He's said he started with IDW as ya boi completely butchered his video looking at the stock report and giving his take on the state of the company.
our boi doesnt understand stawk...
 
Listening to @FROG's latest live stream. He and Ya Boi are talking about the very predictable pattern of stalkers. Zack put it great, he said the life cycle is:

I like you
I'm obsessed with you
You disappoint me or spurn me in some way
I just discovered you've been evil the entire time and you were tricking me. Now it's time for me to punish and destroy you.

This blew Ethan's mind and he TOTALLY agreed and recognized the pattern in his past stalkers. So....Frogman, you don't see that coming with WC? Right now they are at step 2.
 
Back
Top Bottom