Did PW Inaccurately Describe DC Hires?

Got an interesting letter from reader Tommy Raiko about yesterday's piece on the hiring of Cunningham and Kurtzman in the marketing department of DC Comics:

One comment/observation on your piece "DC Makes Major Marketing Hires"

You quote the Publishers Weekly article that first appeared in their 7 September 2005 e-newsletter PW Daily where they say these hires are moving toward their goal to "elevate the company's bookstore sales and marketing efforts and integrate them with that of the direct market (or comics shops), DC Comics' traditional retail channel."

What's interesting to me, is that the very next day, on 8 September 2005, the PW e-newsletter ran a brief follow-up "clariciation" stating:

"Although yesterday's Daily story about the hiring of two book publishing veterans by DC Comics characterized the move as an effort to 'reorient' DC's marketing efforts to the book trade, the new hires are more accurately described as an effort to grow DC Comic's business in both the direct market (comics shops) and the book trade."

Of course, if DC was mischaracterized in the initial article, it's certainly understandable that they'd ask for a correction. On the other hand, a lot of times, a company might let slide this kind of mistake in an article. If I were a conspiracy theorist, I might envision a scenario where comics-direct-market advocates among DC staffers objected to the article's implications of favoring the book trade and demanded the clarification.

If I were a conspiracy theorist, that is...

I don't think you have to be a conpiracy theorist to see this as odd but telling behavior. Supposing this were asked for by DC (or hinted after strongly) rather than the writer making up in the middle of the nights in apologetic cold sweats, I don't know how DC can expect a correction on PW's analysis of a hire, let alone receive one! I also don't think Cunningham and Kurtzman add one thing of any significance when it comes to working with the comic book direct market, so PW's original point is logical and likely.

Like I hope I pointed out yesterday, I do think DC wants to maintain and improve upon its strong DM performance and there's no reason to think that a more formal marketing program or fifty won't have benefits for the DM side of their business as well. But unless they add staff that are DM-focused, and stop talking about persuing new markets, everyone and their mom is going to rightfully see this as an effort focused in some way on non-DM markets, if only in contrast to the previous marketing and sales department set-up.

To use a dreaded sports metaphor, this is like a football team signing a middle linebacker and a nickelback to improve its defense but insisting that people say the new players improve the team, so as not to piss off fans of their quarterback. DC has to walk a pretty fine line when it comes to what message it sends out, especially with comics retailers who feel as if they're not goinig to be supported as fully as they used to be. (If Marvel were doing this, they'd probably openly insult the DM in making the hires and the DM would respond by ordering more books.)

That's my take on it, anyway. And thanks!
 
posted 10:44 am PST | Permalink
 

---

 
Daily Blog Archives
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
 
Full Archives