Bullet Time
DC's new logo strikes me much like Malibu Stacy's new hat, and it may remind others of certain objects which cannot be polished.
However, to me this highlights one of DC's main problems:
It wants to own Superman.
"That's a stupid thing to say," you mutter. "DC does own Superman." Well, yes, but bear with me.
I'm no sociologist, but I suspect that the average person on the street doesn't know that Superman is a corporate-owned property. The very notion that Superman is owned seems like anathema -- he's Superman! He's not a corporate shill! The only office to which Supes reports is the Daily Planet, and that's just because it's his choice. He could live at the Fortress of Solitude 24/7. He doesn't have to work -- he doesn't even have to eat.
Spider-Man, the Hulk, and the X-Men are clearly identified with Marvel Comics, whose corporate identity is personified by Stan Lee, frontman supreme. Never mind personalities like Jim Shooter or Joe Quesada -- Stan is the ceremonial monarch of Marvel. Throughout its history, DC has had no one comparable to Stan -- at least, no one marketable to the public. I remember a 1970s DC "publishorial" introducing Jenette Khan in an attempt to ingratiate her with readers, but who outside of them knew about her or any of the other DC heads, including longtime spiritual leader Julius Schwartz?
It goes back to the organic nature of Marvel's early evolution, where Stan was the common denominator. Yes, Jack Kirby and Steve Ditko were there too, but they left and Stan stayed. Therefore, Stan got to put himself first. By contrast, DC's heroes came from several different creators, making its history one of acquisition and assimilation.
Accordingly, Marvel can brand itself as the publisher which owns Spider-Man, because it has always made sure that the characters are unified with the company. DC has a bigger problem because Superman is bigger than the company. Although DC's namesake Detective Comics existed before Superman, DC wouldn't exist today without him.
Beginning in 1941, the bullet recognized this. At first it added "A Superman Publication" to the DC initials, and from 1949 to 1970 surrounded the "DC" with "Superman/National Comics." In other words, everything flowed out of Superman's success. I believe that for DC to be successful it must ultimately return to a Superman-centered strategy. It need look no further than its corporate cousin over at Warner Brothers Animation, whose products -- including the various DC-inspired animated series -- are all identified using its most famous icon, Bugs Bunny.
To be fair, DC does have a more diverse portfolio than Marvel, and I am not necessarily suggesting that DC use Supes for the Vertigo or CMX books. I think the problem lies in subordinating Superman to DC in all things.
Throughout its struggles for market-share dominance, DC has had to fight an image as a soulless corporate clearinghouse, quantum leaps behind its ostensibly hipper crosstown rival. If this were animation, DC might well be the Disney to Marvel's Warner Brothers. Focusing its brand identification on its initials, rather than the worldwide icon which inspired the superhero genre, doesn't seem to be moving DC forward much at all. DC wants to emphasize its ownership of Superman, not realizing that it should let Superman own it.
However, to me this highlights one of DC's main problems:
It wants to own Superman.
"That's a stupid thing to say," you mutter. "DC does own Superman." Well, yes, but bear with me.
I'm no sociologist, but I suspect that the average person on the street doesn't know that Superman is a corporate-owned property. The very notion that Superman is owned seems like anathema -- he's Superman! He's not a corporate shill! The only office to which Supes reports is the Daily Planet, and that's just because it's his choice. He could live at the Fortress of Solitude 24/7. He doesn't have to work -- he doesn't even have to eat.
Spider-Man, the Hulk, and the X-Men are clearly identified with Marvel Comics, whose corporate identity is personified by Stan Lee, frontman supreme. Never mind personalities like Jim Shooter or Joe Quesada -- Stan is the ceremonial monarch of Marvel. Throughout its history, DC has had no one comparable to Stan -- at least, no one marketable to the public. I remember a 1970s DC "publishorial" introducing Jenette Khan in an attempt to ingratiate her with readers, but who outside of them knew about her or any of the other DC heads, including longtime spiritual leader Julius Schwartz?
It goes back to the organic nature of Marvel's early evolution, where Stan was the common denominator. Yes, Jack Kirby and Steve Ditko were there too, but they left and Stan stayed. Therefore, Stan got to put himself first. By contrast, DC's heroes came from several different creators, making its history one of acquisition and assimilation.
Accordingly, Marvel can brand itself as the publisher which owns Spider-Man, because it has always made sure that the characters are unified with the company. DC has a bigger problem because Superman is bigger than the company. Although DC's namesake Detective Comics existed before Superman, DC wouldn't exist today without him.
Beginning in 1941, the bullet recognized this. At first it added "A Superman Publication" to the DC initials, and from 1949 to 1970 surrounded the "DC" with "Superman/National Comics." In other words, everything flowed out of Superman's success. I believe that for DC to be successful it must ultimately return to a Superman-centered strategy. It need look no further than its corporate cousin over at Warner Brothers Animation, whose products -- including the various DC-inspired animated series -- are all identified using its most famous icon, Bugs Bunny.
To be fair, DC does have a more diverse portfolio than Marvel, and I am not necessarily suggesting that DC use Supes for the Vertigo or CMX books. I think the problem lies in subordinating Superman to DC in all things.
Throughout its struggles for market-share dominance, DC has had to fight an image as a soulless corporate clearinghouse, quantum leaps behind its ostensibly hipper crosstown rival. If this were animation, DC might well be the Disney to Marvel's Warner Brothers. Focusing its brand identification on its initials, rather than the worldwide icon which inspired the superhero genre, doesn't seem to be moving DC forward much at all. DC wants to emphasize its ownership of Superman, not realizing that it should let Superman own it.
posted by Tom Bondurant @ 1:14 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home