2000 AD Online Forum

General Chat => Books & Comics => Topic started by: TordelBack on 08 May, 2019, 08:46:53 AM

Title: Pat Mills and 2000 AD royalties
Post by: TordelBack on 08 May, 2019, 08:46:53 AM
This topic split from https://forums.2000ad.com/index.php?topic=44203.3120 — IP

—————

Probably inappropriate to bring this up here, but  Uncle Pat  (https://t.co/CrTmQ4BwJr?amp=1)has some pretty shocking Ultimate Collection numbers to report: £129 royalties to him and Bisley for the Horned God volume. Ouch.

There's always an element of "you signed that contract 30 years ago" in my reaction to these Mills Bombs, but it does seem crazy that their work being used as the flagship volume for the whole series would deliver less than the price of a night in a Comfort Inn.

Mind you, Pat's own calculations of Rebellion's profits  (around  £2500 an issue, and presumably declining as the series goes on) seem pretty borderline. £60K a year for splurging a huge chunk of your back catalogue? For the half-and-half split Pat proposes, would it be worth doing at all?
Title: Re: Pat Mills and 2000 AD royalties
Post by: moogie101 on 08 May, 2019, 09:49:32 AM
Quote from: TordelBack on 08 May, 2019, 08:46:53 AM
Probably inappropriate to bring this up here, but  Uncle Pat  (https://t.co/CrTmQ4BwJr?amp=1)has some pretty shocking Ultimate Collection numbers to report: £129 royalties to him and Bisley for the Horned God volume. Ouch.

There's always an element of "you signed that contract 30 years ago" in my reaction to these Mills Bombs, but it does seem crazy that their work being used as the flagship volume for the whole series would deliver less than the price of a night in a Comfort Inn.

Mind you, Pat's own calculations of Rebellion's profits  (around  £2500 an issue, and presumably declining as the series goes on) seem pretty borderline. £60K a year for splurging a huge chunk of your back catalogue? For the half-and-half split Pat proposes, would it be worth doing at all?

Thanks for posting as makes for an interesting read.

I think most of us know that the creators aren't getting huge money but just £129 each seems insulting.
Title: Re: Pat Mills and 2000 AD royalties
Post by: IndigoPrime on 08 May, 2019, 11:05:13 AM
As someone in this business (albeit a different area – tech writing), I see royalties as a bonus on the for-hire contract I signed. I get that Mills wants better, but airing dirty laundry like this and his 'interesting' approach to IP rights anyway (that colouring book, for example) makes me wonder if at some point Rebellion will say: enough.
Title: Re: Pat Mills and 2000 AD royalties
Post by: sheridan on 08 May, 2019, 12:48:38 PM
Quote from: IndigoPrime on 08 May, 2019, 11:05:13 AM
As for Mills, as someone in this business (albeit a different area – tech writing), I see royalties as a bonus on the for-hire contract I signed. I get that Mills wants better, but airing dirty laundry like this and his 'interesting' approach to IP rights anyway (that colouring book, for example) makes me wonder if at some point Rebellion will say: enough.

Pretty similar to how I see things.  If I left my current employer tomorrow some of the work I do will have effects long after I've left (and some of the templates, etc were originally created by people from over a decade ago) but I (and they) won't get any royalties.  That's part of the job.  If the contract I signed said I would get royalties or have partial or complete ownership of what I've created that would be difficult, but it didn't, so I don't.
Title: Re: Pat Mills and 2000 AD royalties
Post by: sheridan on 08 May, 2019, 12:49:52 PM
Quote from: sheridan on 08 May, 2019, 12:48:38 PM
Quote from: IndigoPrime on 08 May, 2019, 11:05:13 AM
As for Mills, as someone in this business (albeit a different area – tech writing), I see royalties as a bonus on the for-hire contract I signed. I get that Mills wants better, but airing dirty laundry like this and his 'interesting' approach to IP rights anyway (that colouring book, for example) makes me wonder if at some point Rebellion will say: enough.

Pretty similar to how I see things.  If I left my current employer tomorrow some of the work I do will have effects long after I've left (and some of the templates, etc were originally created by people from over a decade ago) but I (and they) won't get any royalties.  That's part of the job.  If the contract I signed said I would get royalties or have partial or complete ownership of what I've created that would be difficult, but it didn't, so I don't.

p.s. I'm not saying that contracts (particularly those that end up in creative work that may be republished for decades to come) shouldn't respect the creators, just that once those contracts have been signed there's not much point complaining about not getting more than was on the paper.
Title: Re: Pat Mills and 2000 AD royalties
Post by: IndigoPrime on 08 May, 2019, 01:28:01 PM
Quote from: Tomwe on 08 May, 2019, 01:16:18 PM43 & 44 finally here
Likewise. Horned God replacement, too, for some reason.

Quote from: sheridan on 08 May, 2019, 12:49:52 PMp.s. I'm not saying that contracts (particularly those that end up in creative work that may be republished for decades to come) shouldn't respect the creators, just that once those contracts have been signed there's not much point complaining about not getting more than was on the paper.
His argument appears to be that Rebellion is reneging on a commitment to be better. But Rebellion clearly is better than what came before, purely by the virtue of issuing royalties at all. Whether it beats the going rates, who knows? But comparisons with French publishers are problematic, since that's a different market. And the nature of a specific strip is meaningless unless you also consider the 'container' it's in. So a super-deluxe hardback of a much-loved mainstream volume is going to make a shed-load of cash. Part X of a partwork volume aimed at a smallish sector of an already niche publication probably isn't.

It also boggles the mind what Mills thinks he's going to achieve by airing this all in public. Does he think he'll guilt Rebellion into upping its rates? Does he want the Kingsleys and others from Rebellion on the phone, offering humble apologies – despite, let's remember, them being responsible for 1) 2000 AD still existing at all; 2) 2000 AD having a reprint line in the first place; 3) continuing the reprint line after DC almost kicked its face off; 4) buying up much of British comics history, so it doesn't disappear into the ether; 5) still having Mills write a load of strips on a regular basis, despite the fact he keeps doing this kind of thing?

Gah. I have great respect for Mills's achievements. But although I have some sympathy for his position as outlined in the blog, I have none whatsoever for the way he's going about this.
Title: Re: Pat Mills and 2000 AD royalties
Post by: TordelBack on 08 May, 2019, 02:27:54 PM
That's always the thing with Pat. The guy is a genuine god-level creator in this squaxx's eyes, all-time Top 5 at least, and damnit he's good value as an unrepentently belligerent  contrarian shitstirrer. And there's obviously some genuine  merit in his case. You can't look at the historic and ongoing treatment of comics creators without wishing it was otherwise.

But sometimes, how he goes about saying these things...!

And if his numbercrunching is accurate, this kind of reprint strategy is bordering on marginal as it is.  If I pitched a cross-company resource-hungry project on that scale and told a Board it would only yield £200K tops over a 3 or 4 year timescale... well, I wouldn't.
Title: Re: Pat Mills and 2000 AD royalties
Post by: Frank on 08 May, 2019, 08:18:58 PM
Quote from: TordelBack on 08 May, 2019, 02:27:54 PM
If I pitched a cross-company resource-hungry project on that scale and told a Board it would only yield £200K tops over a 3 or 4 year timescale... well, I wouldn't.

Letting Hachette reprint the material that's already in print* is free money. Allowing Hachette to subsidize any costs associated with making neglected archive material ready to reprint as Megazine floppies seems like a canny move.

Expecting any creator to subsidize Hachette's business model by foregoing royalties to which they're contractually entitled** is no-one's idea of fair.  Those wondering why there are so may Slaine volumes in the collection can understand this as compensation for the loss of royalties on The Horned God.

Like many readers, I'm 100% behind Pat Mills 50% of the time.

As to why he's speaking out and whether it's effective - in his memoir, Be Pure (https://www.amazon.co.uk/Be-Pure-Vigilant-Behave-History-ebook/dp/B072JYY2NF), Mills described how he and other creators were asked to take a pay cut twenty years ago and hadn't received an increase since (https://i.imgur.com/nf9PVNn.png). Shortly after publication, Tharg got in touch to offer Mills his first rate hike since Britney was in pigtails. Metaphor (https://youtu.be/5wrp-DvphFw).


* Which includes all of Slaine

** The idea that Rebellion introduced royalty payments is an odd one. In his memoir, Mighty One (https://www.amazon.co.uk/Mighty-One-Inside-Nerve-Centre/dp/1781084750), Steve MacManus describes creating the Crisis creator contract, including royalties (https://i.imgur.com/QdVIdcG.png?1), which would serve as the basis for all subsequent Fleetway (and Egmont) contracts. If Rebellion changed that existing contract, I've never read mention of it. In a post on his Vicious Imagery blog, David Bishop describes Egmont's royalty terms and page rates at the moment Rebellion bought 2000ad at the turn of the century - a flat page rate for reprint and royalty payments at 'standard book rates (http://viciousimagery.blogspot.com/2007/02/28-days-of-2000-ad-1-loving-alien.html)' (8-12%, apparently) for trade collections.
Title: Re: Pat Mills and 2000 AD royalties
Post by: athorist on 08 May, 2019, 09:20:24 PM
I think it is unfair to only give the royalties based on the £1.99 price, when the creators didn't have any say in the price. But then would I have cared about reading another 12 books of Slaine if I hadn't read it? I didn't even subscribe for The Horned God, so probably not.

On the other hand, Mills still agreed to the deal, he must have known that it might not sell as well as they were telling him. And getting £9.99 royalties off 24 books will probably get him more money than 25 books selling less copies at full price. Hachette have enough partworks series that I'm prepared to believe them about the loss leader - did the Mega Collection do that?

It's Henry Flint and Robbie Morrison I feel sorry for, I hope they actually got paid for my free copy of Shakara: The Avenger.
Title: Re: Pat Mills and 2000 AD royalties
Post by: Jim_Campbell on 08 May, 2019, 09:28:18 PM
Quote from: athorist on 08 May, 2019, 09:20:24 PM
I think it is unfair to only give the royalties based on the £1.99 price, when the creators didn't have any say in the price.

This isn't how work-for-hire contracts function.

QuoteOn the other hand, Mills still agreed to the deal

This also isn't how work-for-hire contracts function.
Title: Re: Pat Mills and 2000 AD royalties
Post by: TordelBack on 09 May, 2019, 07:12:24 AM
Quote from: Frank on 08 May, 2019, 08:18:58 PM
Letting Hachette reprint the material that's already in print* is free money.

I don't think it is 'free money'. How much have Matt and Molcher written?  How much time has gone into sorting and sifting, choosing and chopping? How much revenue has been foregone in future sales of Slaine, Stront and (say) Kingdom and Shakara collections? (Probably not a lot). And, er, royalties.

Obviously it does make business sense for the reasons you outline  (visibility and easy entry point to the comic would be the big ones), the Kingsleys are no fools, but if we are talking Pats 50/50 split, and if his figures are correct, you're down to about 500 quid a week profit. I dunno man, that won't butter many parsnips, and it's a LOT of effort that could be put elsewhere.

I suppose my point is, if proper levels royalties can't be paid, should these things even happen?
Title: Re: Pat Mills and 2000 AD royalties
Post by: IndigoPrime on 09 May, 2019, 07:49:13 AM
Again, we have no idea about context here. Figures have been cherry picked. (Had Mills compared against US averages, especially for reprint, I suspect things wouldn't have looked quite so rosy for his argument.) Notably, some publishers – many publishers – don't offer royalties at all for reprint/rework.

I'm not saying Mills should be grateful for what he got here, but again I wonder about his tactics. I'm already seeing people arguing for boycotts. Some are rabble rousers, but we've no idea about the margins on which Rebellion operates. And as a company that does so much for British comics, and where certain creators are keen to work despite so many opportunities elsewhere, this kind of rant always strikes me as a bit off. (That said, reprinting chunks of personal emails and spotlighting specific individuals is something I'm very much not OK with in that blog post.)
Title: Re: Pat Mills and 2000 AD royalties
Post by: James Stacey on 09 May, 2019, 10:32:44 AM
Is this the first money Pat has ever received from his work on the Horned God then, or is he just unhappy with the latest paycheck. Lets face it, its a book most people have a couple of copies already since the last 30 years its been in print.
Title: Re: Pat Mills and 2000 AD royalties
Post by: Jim_Campbell on 09 May, 2019, 11:21:48 AM
Quote from: James Stacey on 09 May, 2019, 10:32:44 AM
Is this the first money Pat has ever received from his work on the Horned God then, or is he just unhappy with the latest paycheck. Lets face it, its a book most people have a couple of copies already since the last 30 years its been in print.

This is just one crucial piece of context missing from Pat's rant — what his six-monthly royalties were in the run-up to the Ultimate Collection. As you say, Horned God has been in print for thirty years, so I would imagine pretty much every regular 2000AD reader has a copy or two.

The Hachette collection, I'm assuming, was looking to target lapsed readers and maybe the odd impulse buyer when it was on the shelves in Smiths — essentially, new readers and the Horned God volume  was a loss-leader for that strategy.

It seems to me that it's this, the low price point reducing royalties, Pat is primarily complaining about, and he simply doesn't get to dictate how Rebellion chooses to deploy content he sold to them decades ago under a WFH contract.
Title: Re: Pat Mills and 2000 AD royalties
Post by: James Stacey on 09 May, 2019, 12:41:55 PM
also surely he'll be creaming off a healthy slice from those tempted in to subbing as a _lot_ of the collection contains his work
Title: Re: Pat Mills and 2000 AD royalties
Post by: Frank on 09 May, 2019, 01:03:24 PM
Quote from: James Stacey on 09 May, 2019, 10:32:44 AM
Is this the first money Pat has ever received from his work on the Horned God then, or is he just unhappy with the latest paycheck

It's money the creators are contractually entitled to. If Hachette reckon they shift more units by publishing the first book as a loss leader, let them put their money where their mouth is, rather than expecting Rebellion or the creators to take a hit on their behalf.

I was happy to pick up Hachette editions of America and The Apocalypse War for a couple of quid when I thought they were a freebie from one of the largest publishers on Earth. If I'd known I was actually picking the pockets of Carlos Ezquerra, Colin MacNeil, Alan Grant & John Wagner, I'd have told them to stuff their books* up their collective arse.


* Squarebound hardbacks, with nasty pointy edges.
Title: Re: Pat Mills and 2000 AD royalties
Post by: Jim_Campbell on 09 May, 2019, 01:06:04 PM
Quote from: Frank on 09 May, 2019, 01:03:24 PM
It's money the creators are contractually entitled to. If Hachette reckon they shift more units by publishing the first book as a loss leader, let them put their money where their mouth is, rather than expecting Rebellion or the creators to take a hit on their behalf.

Remarkably, I agree with this.
Title: Re: Pat Mills and 2000 AD royalties
Post by: athorist on 09 May, 2019, 02:00:59 PM
I don't think this would have much of an impact on sales of the back catalogue (from what I've heard here, the back half of Slaine will probably be getting a lot more sales from the ultimate collection than it ever would've on its own).

If you're really interested in a series, you're not going to wait nearly 3 years for the complete set. Even Nemesis took a year and a half, so did Shakara for just two books, and Kingdom isn't going to be complete unless there's an extension (and probably enough time to run the next book, if there is one).

And all the issues are still in print, at full price
Title: Re: Pat Mills and 2000 AD royalties
Post by: IndigoPrime on 09 May, 2019, 02:16:48 PM
I trust everyone getting angry at Rebellion here regarding issues relating to royalties:

• Never buys books from Amazon
• Also doesn't buy from The Book Depository
Also doesn't buy from Wordery
• Doesn't use streaming media, and only buys albums when consuming music
• Pays full newsstand price for all magazines, rather than getting cheaper subscriptions
• Never buys books/media second-hand

Etc etc

As for Hachette, I just had a very curt response via DM, stating that my subscription is NOT running behind, because dispatches are every 28 days. Gnh. (This'd be like Rebellion continuing to issue 2000 AD two days after the shops get it, due to the Easter delay, rather than, you know, getting the schedule back to normal immediately.)
Title: Re: Pat Mills and 2000 AD royalties
Post by: TordelBack on 09 May, 2019, 03:23:20 PM
Quote from: IndigoPrime on 09 May, 2019, 02:16:48 PM
I trust everyone getting angry at Rebellion here regarding issues relating to royalties:

• Never buys books from Amazon
• Also doesn't buy from The Book Depository
Also doesn't buy from Wordery
• Doesn't use streaming media, and only buys albums when consuming music
• Pays full newsstand price for all magazines, rather than getting cheaper subscriptions
• Never buys books/media second-hand

Dammit,  I remained almost without blemish to the last line, whereupon I imploded into a superdense singularity of hypocrisy...  :D

Quote from: James Stacey on 09 May, 2019, 12:41:55 PM
also surely he'll be creaming off a healthy slice from those tempted in to subbing as a _lot_ of the collection contains his work

Indeed it does.  Further,  I'd argue it wouldn't exist at all without him.  Or any of Rebellion's comics IP.

Most of us put up with this kind of ballache in our jobs - I couldn't guess how many million words I've written and technical drawings I've done, many subsequently published or reused by others and at least 50% now available on a government website,  for which didn't get  paid one cent more than my wage that week (if at all).  There's a competitor's print advert that I get to see every quarter for the past 25 years which is exclusively made up of my photos, taken with my camera on my film, from a job I never got fully paid for.

Such is life. I understood this was a likely outcome going in, and I imagine so did a wily editorial goat like Pat. And I do acknowledge, no,  depend upon, Rebellion's good works. And as I was arguing, Pat's admittedly uncheckable figures look decidedly marginal for them too.

But when you look at what comics creators have done, and had to put up with,  it's hard to feel that's fair. With tragic cases like Bill Mantlo,  creator of one of the draws of two of the highest grossing films of all time unable to pay his medical bills,  you think there has to be a better way. £129 for The Horned God as a newsstand hardback?  Ugh.

Title: Re: Pat Mills and 2000 AD royalties
Post by: IndigoPrime on 09 May, 2019, 03:48:59 PM
Quote from: TordelBack on 09 May, 2019, 03:23:20 PMMost of us put up with this kind of ballache in our jobs
Yep. I'll admit it pisses me off a bit when I nip into WHSmith and see a massive bookazine largely comprising work I created, and I don't even get sent a copy. But tough shit on my part, because I signed a contract, and I knew what that meant. Mills did the same. Should things be fairer? Sure. Does that mean you should go online, cut in correspondence from third parties, and cherry pick context? For me, no. (Obviously, for others: yes.)

QuoteWith tragic cases like Bill Mantlo,  creator of one of the draws of two of the highest grossing films of all time unable to pay his medical bills,  you think there has to be a better way.
Mantlo's case is horrible, although his brother did note that Marvel at least continues to compensate Mantlo for whatever he's entitled to: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10152335520344623&set=gm.10152059877936245&type=1&theater

My reading is that creators get screwed when it comes to movie rights, and also that Mantlo as much as anything is a victim of the US healthcare system.

Quote£129 for The Horned God as a newsstand hardback?  Ugh.
Again: context. How does this compare with the industry as a whole? What would a typical creator expect from a niche partwork? Also, from what I've heard elsewhere, creators get nothing from equivalent Marvel newsstand items.

This is the problem with these kinds of figures: they are basically meaningless. We feel that X deserves Y, but we don't have any actual data to back that up.
Title: Re: Pat Mills and 2000 AD royalties
Post by: TordelBack on 09 May, 2019, 04:17:51 PM
Quote from: IndigoPrime on 09 May, 2019, 03:48:59 PM
Quote£129 for The Horned God as a newsstand hardback?  Ugh.

Again: context. How does this compare with the industry as a whole? What would a typical creator expect from a niche partwork? Also, from what I've heard elsewhere, creators get nothing from equivalent Marvel newsstand items.
serves Y, but we don't have any actual data to back that up.

I'm not for a second denying the importance of context,  of course the relevant comparative figures elude us, and of course that's the wider world that defines the specifics of all this. 

However the cherry-picked figure we do have, £129, in your gut, does this seem right on any level?  What's that work out as, 50p a page for Bisley for a hardback reprint of his redefining the boundaries of British comics art? 

If the numbers had been different and Pat had come out and said "just one measly grand for a reprint of me bleedin' single-handed revival and reinvention of Celtic myth" would we be having this discussion?  I doubt it.

We all sign contracts,  we all happily cash the cheques and thank Danu we have money for the rent that month: but for the breakout successes like Rocket Raccoon and The Horned God,  shouldn't creators expect more?  As Dredd replies to a judge commiserating with him ("can't win 'em all") on the nuking of an entire citiblock: "maybe,  but I like to win the big ones".
Title: Re: Pat Mills and 2000 AD royalties
Post by: Jim_Campbell on 09 May, 2019, 04:31:47 PM
Quote from: TordelBack on 09 May, 2019, 04:17:51 PM
However the cherry-picked figure we do have, £129, in your gut, does this seem right on any level?  What's that work out as, 50p a page for Bisley for a hardback reprint of his redefining the boundaries of British comics art?

In isolation, ie: without context, it does sound like a miserly number. But it comes in the later stages of a three decade series of royalty payments, the details of which we have no knowledge.

Perhaps royalties have been pretty miserly for years and Pat was expecting a jump upwards income from a new, hardcover edition targeting a different market and it's this failure that has him riled. We simply have no way of knowing.
Title: Re: Pat Mills and 2000 AD royalties
Post by: IndigoPrime on 09 May, 2019, 04:37:15 PM
Quite. My most recent royalty cheques for a book I wrote a decade ago are entertainingly tiny – about enough for a (solo) Nando's. Back in the day, they were in three or, sometimes, four figures. Context is everything. I also suspect the sales numbers for a lot of stuff on the newsstands would surprise people used to seeing figures in the hundreds of thousands, too. (A lot of magazines at least work on incredibly small numbers. One I used to write for only got canned when sales dipped below 3,000 – and that was a decade back. I suspect some you see on the newsstand aren't even doing those numbers. I don't know about comics/partworks, but I suspect even the more prominent stuff from 2000 AD doesn't shift in the quantities of say, Big Marvel Thing®™. And even said BMT likely won't do the numbers people would think.)
Title: Re: Pat Mills and 2000 AD royalties
Post by: Dark Jimbo on 09 May, 2019, 05:35:20 PM
Can the replies about creator's rights be hived off into a separate thread by a mod, maybe?

Highly entertaining and informative stuff, of course, but this thread has been properly derailed now.
Title: Re: Pat Mills and 2000 AD royalties
Post by: Jimmy Baker's Assistant on 09 May, 2019, 08:19:41 PM
I'm going to come out fully behind Pat on this one. The royalty payment was an insult and he's entitled to bite back. Not that it will do him any good, but I bet it made him feel better.

Long ago I came to agree with Alan Moore on the subject of creator rights. All comics should be creator-owned.
Title: Re: Pat Mills and 2000 AD royalties
Post by: IndigoPrime on 09 May, 2019, 08:33:42 PM
Quote from: Jimmy Baker's Assistant on 09 May, 2019, 08:19:41 PMAll comics should be creator-owned.
At which point, why will publishers be willing to take a risk on, well, basically anything?
Title: Re: Pat Mills and 2000 AD royalties
Post by: Jim_Campbell on 09 May, 2019, 08:41:19 PM
Quote from: Jimmy Baker's Assistant on 09 May, 2019, 08:19:41 PM
Long ago I came to agree with Alan Moore on the subject of creator rights. All comics should be creator-owned.

I'm going to mention again the number of creator-owned books I know of that were well-reviewed, mid-sellers, and lost the creators money. There is a substantial outlay, infrastructure and risk attached to publishing anything, including comic books. Whilst I have also said that it shouldn't be beyond the wit of Man to devise a more equitable WFH contract, I don't think it's a sustainable business model for publishers to shoulder the financial risk of failure whilst the creators get the rewards of success.

2000AD has for decades been a solid platform for creators to launch wider careers, but the success of subsequent creator-owned books often depend on the name recognition derived from WFH gigs earlier in their careers. Would the 2000AD brand have the weight it does if it had been entirely creator-owned from day one? That was the dream behind Toxic and that crashed and burned in short order.

WFH, as I've said before, is a guaranteed pay cheque and the price of that guarantee is surrendering your rights to the material. I absolutely think WFH contracts should include a decent royalty, and a percentage of merchandise, film, TV and game revenue. I think they should be better but I don't agree that they're wrong.
Title: Re: Pat Mills and 2000 AD royalties
Post by: Jimmy Baker's Assistant on 09 May, 2019, 08:54:25 PM
Quote from: IndigoPrime on 09 May, 2019, 08:33:42 PM
At which point, why will publishers be willing to take a risk on, well, basically anything?

Because they would make loads of money if it was popular, same as ever.

Obviously I understand that comics is a bastion of publisher rights, and nothing's likely to change anytime soon, but it doesn't have to be this way.
Title: Re: Pat Mills and 2000 AD royalties
Post by: Jim_Campbell on 09 May, 2019, 09:01:06 PM
Quote from: Jimmy Baker's Assistant on 09 May, 2019, 08:54:25 PM
Because they would make loads of money if it was popular, same as ever.

The idea that there is "loads of money" anywhere in the comic industry is somewhat dubious. I'm not sure what model you're proposing — Image's business model makes no more money from a book that sells 5,000 copies a month than it does from one that sells 50K or 100K.
Title: Re: Pat Mills and 2000 AD royalties
Post by: Frank on 09 May, 2019, 09:34:43 PM
Quote from: Jim_Campbell on 09 May, 2019, 08:41:19 PM
Would the 2000AD brand have the weight it does if it had been entirely creator-owned from day one?

Creator ownership was baked into the DNA of 2000ad from day one. The promise of owning all rights to their work was how IPC scammed John Wagner and Carlos Ezquerra* into creating the company's most profitable character.

The only reason any 2000ad creator is paid royalties is because, one day in 1987, John Wagner marched into John Davidge's office, dumped a ton of reprints on the desk, and pointed out that he'd made 'not one fucking penny' from them.

A creator made a fuss, then a system that was common across the industry, and had endured for decades, changed forever.


* ... and Pat Mills into creating the comic itself.
Title: Re: Pat Mills and 2000 AD royalties
Post by: Steve Green on 09 May, 2019, 09:47:00 PM
Also some rights on Terrameks (or at least IPC only had first publishing rights) - there was another thing somewhere which seemed to imply that Strontium Dog was initially going to be creator owned, or appeared as such in Starlord before management got wind of it.
Title: Re: Pat Mills and 2000 AD royalties
Post by: Frank on 09 May, 2019, 09:59:32 PM
Quote from: Frank on 09 May, 2019, 09:34:43 PM
... one day in 1987

1989, idiot.


Title: Re: Pat Mills and 2000 AD royalties
Post by: athorist on 13 May, 2019, 03:21:10 PM
I'm going to an event this month and Simon Bisley's going to be there. Would it be a bad idea

a) to get him to sign my UC copy of The Horned God
b) to give him the copy with the spine misprint, at least he could get some money out of it

(In the section he's in, autographs are free, but it says you might be charged if you bring something to sign)

I'm thinking I'm not going to do b), mainly because it means bringing two copies of a book I've already read, and possibly giving away the wrong one
Title: Re: Pat Mills and 2000 AD royalties
Post by: Robes on 29 May, 2019, 10:22:55 AM
Is it £129 for the Horned God only?  This takes into account the 80% discount on that issue?  Because then I'm assuming they are going to earn 3000 - 4000 for the entire slain run, which doesn't seem bad to me considering the age of the comic.  Are my sums correct?
Title: Re: Pat Mills and 2000 AD royalties
Post by: Frank on 29 May, 2019, 10:33:39 AM
Quote from: Robes on 29 May, 2019, 10:22:55 AM
Is it £129 for the Horned God only?  This takes into account the 80% discount on that issue?  Because then I'm assuming they are going to earn 3000 - 4000 for the entire Slain run

Simon Bisley won't. 

Hachette's thesis is that the discount on the first issue means it sells much more than the regularly priced volumes, so it's impossible to extrapolate earnings on other books from reported royalties on this one.


Title: Re: Pat Mills and 2000 AD royalties
Post by: The Amstor Computer on 29 May, 2019, 01:44:36 PM
Quote from: Frank on 29 May, 2019, 10:33:39 AM
Simon Bisley won't. 

Hachette's thesis is that the discount on the first issue means it sells much more than the regularly priced volumes, so it's impossible to extrapolate earnings on other books from reported royalties on this one.

...though it is worth pointing out that Pat himself noted on the blog post that sparked all of this that the royalty payment he received for the Hachette release of Nemesis the Warlock was pretty much identical to the one he received for the Ultimate Collection reprint of The Horned God. I'm guessing here that that was for Volume 1 or 2, as the third volume was released later in 2018. It may be that the figures have declined as the Ultimate Collection has rolled on since, but I'd imagine that there is a core of subscribers who will commit early and stay committed to the end of the series so I wouldn't be surprised if sales were kinda flat after a certain point (and royalties for sole writer/artist staying similarly flat). 

Not enough to extrapolate accurately from, but with approx. 20 volumes in the series with Pat as sole writer it might give some indication of potential royalties over the whole Collection.

The question of whether the royalty rate Pat describes is fair aside for a moment, to an outsider it seems like the Hachette series start with a high-profile tale to "kickstart" things in the hope that high initial sales will lead to high (or at least sustainable) retention of subscribers which should ultimately benefit subsequent releases, the other authors and artists involved and Hachette/Rebellion. With around 20 releases to his name over the whole series, Pat seems to be the writer in a position to benefit the most from higher initial sales and a good retention rate - just as I would expect John Wagner would have stood to see the benefit of good initial sales on the Mega Collection, even if America led the series with a far lower rate.
Title: Re: Pat Mills and 2000 AD royalties
Post by: Frank on 29 May, 2019, 01:56:47 PM
Quote from: The Amstor Computer on 29 May, 2019, 01:44:36 PM
... it seems like the Hachette series start with a high-profile tale to "kickstart" things in the hope that high initial sales will lead to high (or at least sustainable) retention of subscribers ...

So let Hachette bear the cost of their own strategy, rather than expecting creators to subsidise their hunch.


Title: Re: Pat Mills and 2000 AD royalties
Post by: Karl Stephan on 06 August, 2019, 11:07:30 PM
Quote from: IndigoPrime on 09 May, 2019, 08:33:42 PM
Quote from: Jimmy Baker's Assistant on 09 May, 2019, 08:19:41 PMAll comics should be creator-owned.
At which point, why will publishers be willing to take a risk on, well, basically anything?

Do you need a publisher in this day and age? If you're talented and willing to do the promotional legwork yourself (this is half the job!) you can make much more than you would have through a publisher, you keep all your rights and you get to develop your own IP. Granted, proper distribution networks still need to be established, but once that happens I think soon most if not all small to medium comic IP's will be self-published.

Title: Re: Pat Mills and 2000 AD royalties
Post by: Jim_Campbell on 06 August, 2019, 11:18:46 PM
Quote from: Karl Stephan on 06 August, 2019, 11:07:30 PM
Do you need a publisher in this day and age? If you're talented and willing to do the promotional legwork yourself (this is half the job!) you can make much more than you would have through a publisher, you keep all your rights and you get to develop your own IP. Granted, proper distribution networks still need to be established, but once that happens I think soon most if not all small to medium comic IP's will be self-published.

The sheer quantity of wrongness contained in one short post actually makes my head hurt.
Title: Re: Pat Mills and 2000 AD royalties
Post by: Karl Stephan on 06 August, 2019, 11:21:58 PM
Quote from: Jim_Campbell on 06 August, 2019, 11:18:46 PM
The sheer quantity of wrongness contained in one short post actually makes my head hurt.

What's wrong Jim?
Title: Re: Pat Mills and 2000 AD royalties
Post by: Dandontdare on 06 August, 2019, 11:41:11 PM
That post had a Jim-targetted missile attached as soon as it was posted - 11 minutes is not unsurprising.  :lol:

Stand by for a learning in the economics of comics publishing (if he can be arsed)
Title: Re: Pat Mills and 2000 AD royalties
Post by: IndigoPrime on 07 August, 2019, 10:48:57 AM
It is feasible to self-publish, if you're basically a hobbyist not really looking to make money (and with a goal of possibly breaking even), have an existing following that enables you to take that route, or are tremendously fortunate. But be mindful in comics that even The Phoenix still has really shitty distribution, despite being much-loved and heading towards its 400th issue. Blocks magazine (the Lego one) is finally creeping into WHSmith nationwide. It's been running for about five years now, and has staff.

Every creative medium is the same. With my writing, I sign away my rights, because otherwise I'd get paid fuck-all. With music, I've not done that (not ever had the opportunity) and have literally sold several albums in my time. I probably generated enough income from those to pay for a family meal out at Nandos. Although if you factor in the money I spent on Soundcloud Pro alone, I imagine I'm more in the red than the black.

Interestingly, this argument is circulation again in the games industry. The general consensus is that the indie market has gone to complete shit, and there's just too much content out there for anyone to have a hope of breaking through. The result is that the savvier indies are again dealing with publishers, although that doesn't necessarily mean giving up all creative control and rights, of course.
Title: Re: Pat Mills and 2000 AD royalties
Post by: Karl Stephan on 07 August, 2019, 11:27:39 AM
When I say, self publish, I mean crowd funding to a select number of backers and then distributing via amazon and comicsology. You definitely need a strong following and there are a number of established (and not so established) professionals who have done this to great success.
Title: Re: Pat Mills and 2000 AD royalties
Post by: IndigoPrime on 07 August, 2019, 03:03:08 PM
Well, quite, but that means putting in a ton of legwork, and probably having an existing following you can leverage, along with being fortunate, and knowing how to successfully run a crowdfunding campaign. And when you're done, you can do it all again, possibly to greater success, but more likely to diminishing returns. If you've a day job, good luck getting that going. It's insanely tough.

(As for distribution platforms, that's another can of worms, given how much of a percentage they're going to want. Physical media's even more hairy – I worked with one publisher who went under specifically due to Amazon.)
Title: Re: Pat Mills and 2000 AD royalties
Post by: CalHab on 07 August, 2019, 03:10:31 PM
There has already been a self-publishing boom in comics. Even those who made a success of it (Dave Sim springs to mind) didn't make much money and many incurred significant debts (Stephen Bissette for example).

Comics seems to be a field in which there are many different and creatively fulfilling ways to lose money.
Title: Re: Pat Mills and 2000 AD royalties
Post by: TordelBack on 07 August, 2019, 03:45:35 PM
Mmmm, so many other great witer-artists tried self-publishing in the Cerebus years: e.g. Eddie Campbell, Paul Pope, Terry Moore, Jeff Smith. While of all these geniuses ended up working with publishers (usually Dark Horse, Top Shelf or Image) at some point, despite self-publishing ambitions and stints of various lengths it's worth noting that some of them did okay in the short term.
Title: Re: Pat Mills and 2000 AD royalties
Post by: JOE SOAP on 07 August, 2019, 04:04:24 PM
John Wagner recently said in an interview (timecode: 17:18) that he's still in debt after the first volume of Rok of the Reds.

https://www.facebook.com/anenglishmaninsandiego/videos/2358600121095033/?t=1037

A kickstarter for volume 2 is due to go up soon.
Title: Re: Pat Mills and 2000 AD royalties
Post by: sheridan on 07 August, 2019, 08:38:07 PM
Quote from: CalHab on 07 August, 2019, 03:10:31 PM
There has already been a self-publishing boom in comics. Even those who made a success of it (Dave Sim springs to mind) didn't make much money and many incurred significant debts (Stephen Bissette for example).

Comics seems to be a field in which there are many different and creatively fulfilling ways to lose money.


Sim's a special case - from what I recall he was doing very well, until #186 came out...

Title: Re: Pat Mills and 2000 AD royalties
Post by: CalHab on 08 August, 2019, 11:41:27 AM
Sim is indeed a special case. I can't imagine any publisher being keen on using a black and white funny-animal Conan parody to give book length critiques on politics, religion, comics, art, the death of Oscar Wilde etc over the span of nearly twenty years. Self-publishing worked for him.

Unfortunately, in the end Sim demonstrated why other publishers wouldn't be keen. But he still gave us some incredible comics before he lost it.